diff options
| -rw-r--r-- | .gitattributes | 4 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | LICENSE.txt | 11 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | README.md | 2 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-0.txt | 18101 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-0.zip | bin | 363800 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-h.zip | bin | 627546 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-h/67727-h.htm | 23115 | ||||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-h/images/cover.jpg | bin | 217341 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-h/images/i003.jpg | bin | 9024 -> 0 bytes | |||
| -rw-r--r-- | old/67727-h/images/i004.jpg | bin | 5454 -> 0 bytes |
10 files changed, 17 insertions, 41216 deletions
diff --git a/.gitattributes b/.gitattributes new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d7b82bc --- /dev/null +++ b/.gitattributes @@ -0,0 +1,4 @@ +*.txt text eol=lf +*.htm text eol=lf +*.html text eol=lf +*.md text eol=lf diff --git a/LICENSE.txt b/LICENSE.txt new file mode 100644 index 0000000..6312041 --- /dev/null +++ b/LICENSE.txt @@ -0,0 +1,11 @@ +This eBook, including all associated images, markup, improvements, +metadata, and any other content or labor, has been confirmed to be +in the PUBLIC DOMAIN IN THE UNITED STATES. + +Procedures for determining public domain status are described in +the "Copyright How-To" at https://www.gutenberg.org. + +No investigation has been made concerning possible copyrights in +jurisdictions other than the United States. Anyone seeking to utilize +this eBook outside of the United States should confirm copyright +status under the laws that apply to them. diff --git a/README.md b/README.md new file mode 100644 index 0000000..db61f6b --- /dev/null +++ b/README.md @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ +Project Gutenberg (https://www.gutenberg.org) public repository for +eBook #67727 (https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/67727) diff --git a/old/67727-0.txt b/old/67727-0.txt deleted file mode 100644 index 0ca8d73..0000000 --- a/old/67727-0.txt +++ /dev/null @@ -1,18101 +0,0 @@ -The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ecclesiastical History of England, by -John Stoughton - -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at -www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you -will have to check the laws of the country where you are located before -using this eBook. - -Title: Ecclesiastical History of England - The Church of the Revolution - -Author: John Stoughton - -Release Date: March 28, 2022 [eBook #67727] - -Language: English - -Produced by: Emmanuel Ackerman, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed - Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was - produced from images generously made available by The - Internet Archive) - -*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF -ENGLAND *** - - - - - - ECCLESIASTICAL - - HISTORY OF ENGLAND. - - - - - ECCLESIASTICAL - - HISTORY OF ENGLAND. - - - =The Church of the Revolution.= - - - BY - - JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D. - - [Illustration] - - =London:= - HODDER AND STOUGHTON, - 27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C. - - MDCCCLXXIV. - - [Illustration] - - - UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS. - - - - - ADVERTISEMENT. - - -It will be found that in this Volume I have assigned a large space to -the attempt at Comprehension in the year 1689--as it is a subject of -present interest, and because the proceedings connected with it have -been but inadequately described. An examination of the Bill introduced -for the purpose to the House of Lords--a comparison of the Journals -of both Houses, whence it appears that another Bill of the same kind -was contemporaneously proposed in the House of Commons--the report of -the proceedings of the Commissioners in 1689, published by order of -the House of Commons in 1854--and a curious Diary preserved in Dr. -Williams’ Library--together with other original sources of information, -have enabled me to present a fuller, and, I hope, more accurate, -account of that important but ineffective transaction than has hitherto -appeared. As I believe the Lords’ Bill has never been printed, I have -arranged for its insertion in the Appendix. - -A large collection of Tracts in Dr. Williams’ Library, besides -those in the British Museum and University Libraries--the Tanner -MSS. at Oxford--the Strype and other collections belonging to the -Sister University--and the Gibson Papers at Lambeth, have also -afforded a number of new, if not important, illustrations touching -the Nonjurors--the proceedings of Convocation--the Trinitarian -controversies--the social life of the Clergy--and the character of the -Nonconformist ministers. - -I may add that in tracing the origin and progress of Religious -Societies during the reign of William III., I have received most -valuable assistance from the respected Secretaries of the Society for -Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation of -the Gospel, who have favoured me with interesting extracts from their -earliest records. - -My best thanks are also due to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Chester -for a copy of the writ summoning Spiritual peers to Parliament. -Sir John G. S. Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, to whose usual -courtesy I am indebted for a copy of the Comprehension Bill--Mr. -Thoms, the Librarian of the House of Lords--the Librarians at Oxford, -Cambridge, and Lambeth--the Rev. T. Hunter, librarian of Dr. Williams’ -Library--and the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, have also laid me under -obligations which I gratefully acknowledge. - -I venture to add, that in this, as in my former volumes, I have -endeavoured to maintain an honest impartiality in the estimate of -characters and incidents, together with a firm attachment to my own -religious and ecclesiastical principles. My aim throughout has been to -promote the cause of truth and charity among Christian Englishmen. - - - - - CONTENTS. - - - CHAPTER I. - - Early Days of William 1 - - Marriage with the Princess Mary 4 - - William and Mary in Holland 5 - - Preparations for Revolution 9 - - Infatuated Conduct of King James 13 - - - CHAPTER II. - - William’s Declaration 27 - - James gives Audience to the Bishops 29 - - William sets Sail 34 - - Landing of the Prince 36 - - James goes to Salisbury 43 - - William’s Popularity 49 - - Flight of James to Sheerness 53 - - Return of James to London 56 - - Arrival of William at St. James’s 57 - - - CHAPTER III. - - Character of the Revolution 61 - - The Holy Jacobite Club 68 - - State of Feeling 69 - - Meeting of Convention 73 - - Declaration of Right 78 - - Arrival of Mary in England 80 - - Accession of William and Mary 81 - - Appointment of Officers of State 82 - - - CHAPTER IV. - - Oath of Allegiance 88 - - Corporation Act 92 - - Test Act 94 - - Coronation Oath 97 - - The Coronation 99 - - Comprehension 101 - - Toleration 114 - - Ecclesiastical Commission 124 - - Convocation 138 - - - CHAPTER V. - - James in Ireland 144 - - Nonjurors: Cartwright--Thomas--Lake 146 - - Sancroft--Lloyd--Ken 147 - - Turner 148 - - Frampton 149 - - Hickes--Dodwell 151 - - Kettlewell 152 - - Whigs and Tories 156 - - Irish Campaign 157 - - - CHAPTER VI. - - Battle of the Boyne 159 - - Sherlock 161 - - Lloyd 164 - - Scheme for Restoration of James 167 - - Ejectment of Nonjurors 169 - - - CHAPTER VII. - - Nonconformists 174 - - Bunyan 175 - - Collinges 176 - - Flavel 177 - - Baxter 178 - - Holcroft 181 - - - CHAPTER VIII. - - Tillotson as Primate 186 - - Sancroft in Retirement 187 - - Tenison succeeds Tillotson in the Primacy 195 - - Death of Queen Mary 196 - - Tenison’s Funeral Sermon 196 - - Licensing of the Press 201 - - - CHAPTER IX. - - Ecclesiastical Regulations 203 - - Lords Justices 206 - - Trinitarian Controversy 210 - - Dr. Wallis 213 - - Sherlock’s Vindication 214 - - South’s Reply 216 - - Howe’s Views 221 - - William’s Injunctions 223 - - - CHAPTER X. - - James II. at St. Germains 228 - - Jacobites 229 - - Conspiracy against William 231 - - Execution of Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns 232 - - Collier 232 - - Sir John Fenwick 236 - - - CHAPTER XI. - - Peace of Ryswick 242 - - New Parliament 243 - - Bill against Papists 245 - - Church Preferments 247 - - Duke of Gloucester 248 - - Succession Act 250 - - Death of James II. 253 - - Abjuration Bill 256 - - State of Parties 257 - - - CHAPTER XII. - - Letter to a Convocation Man 261 - - Dr. Wake’s Reply 264 - - Francis Atterbury 264 - - Convocation Meets 270 - - Lower House resists the Archbishop’s Prorogation 272 - - Censures Toland’s Book 275 - - Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles 277 - - Dissolution of Convocation 282 - - White Kennet 284 - - New Convocation 287 - - Death of the Prolocutor 293 - - Death of William III. 295 - - - CHAPTER XIII. - - Bishops--Burnet 298 - - Stillingfleet 299 - - Patrick 300 - - Moore and Cumberland 303 - - Fowler and Kidder 304 - - Hall--Stratford--Sharpe 306 - - Lloyd 307 - - Compton 309 - - Trelawny 310 - - Burnet and Sprat 311 - - Crew--Watson 312 - - Clergy--Beveridge 314 - - Bull, Norris, Burkett 315 - - Strype--Wharton 316 - - Horneck 317 - - Fanaticism--Mason 317 - - - CHAPTER XIV. - - Ecclesiastical Discipline 321 - - Manner of Worship 323 - - Psalmody of the Church 324 - - Character of the Clergy 325 - - Condition of the Clergy 328 - - Clerical Costume 331 - - State of Society 332 - - Intemperance 334 - - Superstition 335 - - - CHAPTER XV. - - Boyle Lectures 341 - - Bentley 341 - - Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity 344 - - Essay on the Human Understanding 346 - - Leslie--Blount 349 - - Toland and Norris 350 - - Literary Style 352 - - - CHAPTER XVI. - - Rise of Religious Societies 354 - - Young Men’s Associations 356 - - Society for Reformation of Manners 358 - - Societies Advocated from the Pulpit 361 - - Christian Knowledge Society 364 - - Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts 369 - - - CHAPTER XVII. - - Circumstances of the Nonjurors 375 - - Kettlewell 377 - - Dodwell 380 - - Hickes 382 - - Lee 383 - - Nelson 384 - - Nonjurors in London 387 - - Social Gatherings at Shottesbrook Park 387 - - Ken’s Retirement at Longleat 390 - - Deaths of Nonjurors-- - - White 391 - - Turner 392 - - Samuel Pepys 393 - - Political Views of Nonjurors 395 - - Religious Spirit 396 - - Modes of Worship 398 - - - CHAPTER XVIII. - - Nonconformist Places of Worship in London 400 - - Nonconformists in Nottingham and Chester 402 - - In Northamptonshire 403 - - Presbyterians 404 - - Ordinations 405 - - Edmund Calamy 408 - - Seminaries for Dissenters 413 - - - CHAPTER XIX. - - Presbyterians and Independents 420 - - Antinomian Controversy 422 - - Richard Davis 423 - - Crisp 424 - - Daniel Williams 425 - - Stephen Lobb 426 - - - CHAPTER XX. - - Matthew Henry 428 - - Presbyterian Lord Mayors 429 - - Daniel De Foe 431 - - Manner of Worship 433 - - Independents 436 - - Ministerial Support 439 - - - CHAPTER XXI. - - Deaths of Nonconformists-- - - Philip Henry 442 - - Samuel Annesley 443 - - Vincent 444 - - Bates--Howe 445 - - - CHAPTER XXII. - - Baptists 451 - - Kiffin and Keach 453 - - Caffin 455 - - Quakers: Fox and Barclay 456 - - Penn 457 - - Mysticism 458 - - Norris 459 - - - - - CONTENTS OF APPENDIX. - - - I. A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects 461 - - II. The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for exempting - their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting - from the Church of England from the penalties of - certain Laws 465 - - III. Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers 472 - - IV. The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament 473 - - - - - CHAPTER I. - - -William Henry, Prince of Orange, was a member of the House of -Nassau--the antiquity of which is traced by some historians as far -back as the days of Julius Cæsar. Others are content to stop at Count -Otho, in the 12th century, whom they regard as founder of the family, -because, through his wife, he obtained large possessions in the Low -Countries. The immediate ancestors of William Henry are renowned as -fathers of the Dutch Republic, and from them he inherited patriotic -virtues. - -He was born in Holland on the 14th of November, 1650--the posthumous -son of William II., who had in 1641 married Mary, the eldest daughter -of Charles I. of England. He created the fondest hopes, and medals were -struck to commemorate his auspicious birth. “Though the orange-tree -be fallen down,” so ran the Dutch legend in allusion to his father’s -death, “this noble sprig has been preserved, by Divine care, in the -bosom of Mary. Thus the father arises after his death like a phenix -in his son. May he grow, may he flourish, and in virtue excel the -greatest princes, to the glory and safety of his country.” At the age -of ten, the youth lost his mother, who died within her native shores -in 1660, when on a visit to her brother Charles. The affectionate -care of his grandmother could not make up for these bereavements, and -this child of sorrow had the further misfortune to be deprived of the -hereditary Stadtholdership bestowed on his ancestors by the States -General. With the death of his mother came the loss, for a time, of the -Principality of Orange, which was unscrupulously seized by Louis XIV., -who demolished the fortifications of the town. - -William’s education fell into the hands of the Barneveldt party, headed -by the two De Witts, who sought to break down his spirit, and refused -him a range of education befitting his rank. Having been brought up in -the Stadtholder’s Palace at the Hague--which then, as now, uniquely -combined, in streams and woods, the quiet rusticity of a village, with -the bustle and magnificence of a metropolis--he received a notice to -quit his ancestral abode in his seventeenth year, and only retained the -favourite residence, by declaring that nothing but force should tear -him from its hearthstone. - -First made Captain and Admiral-General, and then forced by public -acclamation into the position of Chief Magistrate when he was but -twenty-two--at a time of tremendous peril--he had to bear the yoke in -his youth. Nothing indeed could have saved his dominions just then but -the magnanimity inspired by memories of his country’s heroic struggles -with Spain: that magnanimity he expressed in the well-known words, -“There is one method which will save me from the sight of my country’s -ruin: I will die in the last ditch.” - -[Sidenote: EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM] - -The man whom I have thus described had from infancy suffered from -bad health. Asthma and consumption--likely to be increased by the -damp atmosphere and the unhealthy fogs which float about the Dutch -dykes--rendered it necessary for him to be propped up in bed, when -cruel headaches did not make repose impossible; and soon after -reaching manhood, he had to endure a severe attack of that virulent -disease--small-pox. Such circumstances did not improve a melancholy -temperament. Not naturally unamiable, William, like his countrymen, -was grave and taciturn; and amongst his original endowments we -notice a judgment unaccompanied by imagination, but with a quick -perception and a keen forecast, which made him sensitively alive to -the responsibilities and issues of his own career. He saw himself -entering a thorny road, which might conduct to prosperity or end in -defeat; at any rate, he resolved it should not lead to disgrace. In -such circumstances and with such a character, we are not surprised to -find him pronounced cold, reserved, and phlegmatic. His lofty forehead, -piercing eyes, aquiline nose, and compressed lips, indicated energy of -mind and force of will; but attenuated features, delicate limbs, and -feeble gait, betrayed the frailty of the framework which encased his -soul. - -People of his disposition at times reveal the existence of tender -sensibilities. They form friendships limited in extent, but intense -in degree. Nor do sallies of humour fail to sparkle in their sombre -lives. William’s almost romantic love for Bentinck, who watched him -in illness, is generally known. Less noticed is the Prince’s power of -repartee. One day as he walked in the pleasant gardens of the Hague, -the Grand Pensionary praised one of the parterres. “Yes,” replied His -Highness, “this garden is very fine, but there is too much _white_ -in it.” The lilies were abundant, but the Pensionary--whose name, De -Witt, meant white--perceived at once that William was thinking more -of him and of his influence than of the flowers smiling at his feet. -Averse to fashionable amusements, he dearly loved the chase. He was, -according to Sir William Temple, always in bed and asleep by ten -o’clock; and he preferred a “tumbler of cold ale” to a glass of the -choicest wine.[1] - -The Prince paid a second visit to England in 1678, when he married his -cousin, the Princess Mary--a match which, though suggested by State -policy, turned out one of pure affection. It prepared the way for the -part he was to play in the Revolution, and on account of that event, -which, in its ecclesiastical consequences, forms a prominent subject in -this volume, a glance at his early life has been deemed essential. - -What most concerns us is not his military and political character, not -his career as a soldier or a statesman, but his religious opinions, -sympathies, and policy, and the bearing of these upon the changes -wrought during his reign in the ecclesiastical affairs of our country. - -William was a staunch Calvinist. “He was much possessed with the belief -of absolute decrees,” and said to Burnet he adhered to them “because -he did not see how the belief of Providence could be maintained upon -any other supposition.”[2] Such convictions in such a man became -elements of heroism, but it was thought, not perhaps without reason, -that more care had been taken to impress his mind with the doctrine of -Predestination, than to guard him against abuses incident to such an -opinion. Yet there appears nothing fanatical in William’s religion, -and whatever might be his moral conduct, it did not seem to have -been connected with Antinomian prejudices, or with any doubt of the -obligations of Christian virtue. It is remarkable, that though in -Holland, at the time of the Synod of Dort, Calvinism appeared in union -with intolerance, William had no sympathy in that feeling. Toleration -was a ruling idea in his mind; and he blamed the English Church for -alienating itself from other communions, and for claiming infallibility -in practice, though eschewing it in theory. - -[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.] - -He had been brought up a Presbyterian, but he appears to have regarded -Church government of secondary importance, and, as events proved, he -could conform to Episcopacy. Indeed, it is said by Burnet--who claimed -to know him well--that he, on the whole, preferred the English to the -Dutch type of ecclesiastical rule.[3] The Prince had no reverence -for antiquity, no æsthetic taste, no sensibility under the touch of -elaborate ceremonies, or amidst the flow of harmonious music. He -preferred an unritualistic worship, and distinctly disapproved of the -surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing to the altar; yet, again, we -are assured that he highly esteemed the worship, as well as the polity, -of the Church of England.[4] - -After his marriage with the Princess Mary, he formed an acquaintance -with English Divines. Dr. Hooper became chaplain to the Princess, on -the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft; and he remained in office a -year and a half. The chaplain found Her Royal Highness reading works -favourable to Dissenters; to counteract their tendency, he recommended -works of another description. One day the Prince observed his wife with -the pages of Eusebius and Hooker open on her table, when he exclaimed, -“I suppose Dr. Hooker persuades you to read these books?” She had at -first no chapel of her own for Divine worship; at the Doctor’s request, -a room was fitted up, with a communion-table elevated on steps. The -Prince, as he saw them being made, rudely kicked at them, asking what -they meant. Informed on the point, he answered “with a hum.” After the -chapel had been fitted up, he never attended Divine service there; and -as this chaplain talked about the Popish Plot and the indulgence of -Dissenters in terms less favourable to the latter than His Highness -liked, he bluntly said, “Well, Dr. Hooper, you will never be a Bishop;” -and on another occasion remarked if he had ever “anything to do with -England, Dr. Hooper should be Dr. Hooper still.”[5] - -Ken succeeded Hooper in 1679; we have no particulars of his relations -with William, but those relations do not seem to have been very -cordial. Each of the clergymen now mentioned belonged to the High -Church party, and William could not agree with either, so that the end -of Ken’s connection with the Dutch Court produced satisfaction on both -sides. Yet the conduct of this excellent man “gained him entire credit -and high esteem with the Princess, whom to his death he distinguished -by the title of his Mistress.”[6] - -The sincerity and strength of William’s Protestantism was unmistakable. -Protestantism had the approval of his intellect, and it penetrated -his soul. In him, cold as he was, it existed not merely as an opinion, -but as a passion. It accompanied him into the Cabinet and the field, -tincturing all his views; it pervaded all his purposes, shaped all his -policy. Protestantism for Holland was his first thought, Protestantism -for Europe his second; and he saw dependent upon Protestantism the -political, commercial, and social prosperity of nations, scarcely less -than the spiritual well-being of individuals. Roman Catholicism to his -mind was identical with a violation of the law of God and an invasion -of the rights of man; yet his large views of toleration embraced Roman -Catholics; he would not rob any man of the liberty of conscience, but -the ascendency of the Romanist system, and the tendency of its spirit, -he thoroughly abhorred as one of the worst foes to the welfare of -the race. France at that moment showed herself to be more violently -Roman Catholic than the Pope himself, and was seeking to establish -control over Europe. Therefore towards France William turned a gaze -of defiance, prepared to shed the last drop of his blood in resisting -her ambition. Louis XIV. stood forth as William’s personal enemy, but -William’s history shows how much more he himself was swayed in this -respect by reason than by resentment. At the same time he regarded -Holland as one of the last defences of liberty, and desired to see -England united with that country in the resistance of a common foe. - -[Sidenote: PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.] - -Mary responded to her husband’s sentiments. Although nurtured in a -Roman Catholic atmosphere, she proved herself entirely free from -Roman Catholic predilections, and indicated a preference for Low -Church principles. A woman of reading, she turned her attention to the -controversies of the day, and not only resisted the attempts of her -father to convert her to Popery, but, with all her respect for Ken, -kept herself free from the ecclesiastical views which that devout man -resolutely upheld. - -In 1686, Gilbert Burnet accepted an invitation to the Hague, and -availed himself of opportunities to support the Low Church opinions -of the Prince and his Consort. The historian of his _Own Times_ -has taken posterity into his confidence, and he relates, with -characteristic vanity, how he advised his illustrious friends in -matters of the highest importance. But whatever may be thought of -Burnet’s foibles, he appears to have judiciously counselled both -husband and wife, especially the latter, and to have done much towards -a wise settlement of the Crown at the Revolution. His counsels were -in favour of constitutional government and of toleration; and he -inculcated upon Mary that whenever she might inherit her father’s -throne, she should use her influence to obtain for her husband real and -permanent authority. Such advice laid the Prince, and the country of -his adoption, under lasting obligations to the busy Whig Churchman. - -As the peculiar relation in which this noble couple stood to this -kingdom could not but interest them in English affairs, neither could -it fail to attract towards them the attention of the English people. -English Protestants sympathized with William in his continental -policy. They disliked France almost as much as he did. The Huguenots -driven to our shores were memorials before their eyes of Roman -Catholic intolerance; and besides this, they knew that their own -fellow countrymen naturalized in France had to suffer from the repeal -of the Edict of Nantes, and that the wives and children of those so -naturalized had to suffer in the same way. Moreover, they learned that -dragoons were quartered upon English merchants residing in France, to -prevent their passing the frontiers, and to compel them to change -their religion.[7] These circumstances, backed by the humiliating -fact, that the Stuarts were hirelings of Louis, brought the feelings -of Protestant Englishmen into sympathy with those of the Netherland -Stadtholder. He, in his turn, looked with anxiety towards this country -whilst suffering under the misgovernment of James II. What James was -doing for Dissenters by a stretch of prerogative, William wished -to see done by constitutional law. Mary took a still more lively, -because a patriotic, interest in these subjects, and disapproved of -her father’s despotism and Popery. For the Church of England she had -a strong affection, which she expressed to Archbishop Sancroft, when -congratulating him upon the firmness of the clergy in their religion as -well as their loyalty.[8] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -Matters in England were brought to a crisis in the month of June. Upon -Trinity Sunday, the 10th of the month--two days after the imprisonment -of the seven Bishops--London was thrown into frantic excitement by a -report that James’s Queen had presented him with a son and heir. A -Popish successor would bring upon the country those calamities of which -the prospect for two reigns had filled men with dismay. The bulk of the -people could not believe the fact. They declared that the Queen had not -been confined at all--that she for some time had worn a cushion under -her dress--that her pretended son had been conveyed into her chamber in -a silver warming-pan on a Sunday morning, when Whig lords and ladies, -who otherwise might have detected the cheat, were lying in bed or were -gone to prayers. Stories the most absurd and disgusting were believed. -At that moment anything seemed more credible than the simple event -which had really occurred. The news of this assumed Royal conspiracy -flew over to Holland, and it created the utmost consternation, William -and Mary sincerely believing what they were confidently told. At all -events, the child--of whose supposititious character the idea vanished -afterwards from all but the most fanatical minds--was publicly baptized -in the Church of Rome, the Pope’s Nuncio standing sponsor. This added -to the national exasperation, and the Whig and Protestant party -immediately began to think of seeking succour from Holland, and putting -an end at all hazards to the existing state of things. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -William had before this become the head of the English opposition. -Old Republicans and old Royalists, Anglican Churchmen who hated Rome, -Latitudinarian Churchmen who loved liberty, and Evangelical Churchmen -who believed in Calvinism--Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, -the first anxious for comprehension, the second and third wishing -only for freedom of worship--all had been turning their thoughts for -some time to the Prince of Orange as the star of their hopes. English -soldiers, English sailors, and English Divines, had publicly presented -themselves in the old Gothic _Binnenhof_ of the Hague, or held -private interviews with the Dutch Governor. The Earl of Devonshire, -Lord Shrewsbury, Admiral Herbert, Lord Lumley, and others, had written -to His Highness, more or less explicitly, offering to devote to him -their fortunes and their lives. - - * * * * * - -This went on in the spring of 1688, amidst excitements produced by -the Declaration of Indulgence. Holland at the same period felt deep -sympathy with England. - -Dr. Edmund Calamy, grandson of the well-known Puritan, in the early -part of 1688 lived as a student at Utrecht, and he says there -prevailed in the States a conviction that their own, and the Protestant -interest in general, could be preserved only by a revolution in -England, since nothing else could prevent Europe from being ingulfed -in France; he adds, the Dutch were disposed to assist in making head -against King James, and in relieving the people, who cried to them for -succour, as they, a century before, had appealed for help to Queen -Elizabeth.[9] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -A decided but perilous step was taken in England on the 30th of June, -the day of the Bishops’ acquittal. By a letter written amidst the -excitement of that event, which shook not the English throne but him -who sat on it, seven members of the Whig party invited the Prince of -Orange to come over. They informed him of the prevalent dissatisfaction -of the people with the Government, and of their willingness to rise in -defence of their liberties, if His Highness would land with sufficient -strength to put himself at the head of the Protestant party. They -stated that the soldiers unequivocally manifested an aversion to the -Popish religion; that they certainly would desert the Royal standard in -great numbers; and that not one out of ten in the navy could be trusted -in case of an invasion. They promised to attend on His Highness as soon -as he should land; and they commissioned a confidential messenger to -consult with him about artillery and ammunition. This act of daring -treason, or of triumphant patriotism--whichever the issue might -determine it to be--decidedly turned the scales which quivered between -further delay and immediate action. The “immortal seven,” as they -have been called, who signed in cypher, were Shrewsbury, Devonshire, -Danby, Lumley, Russel, Sydney, and Compton, Bishop of London.[10] The -conspirators--perfect in number like the Bishops, now at the moment -of their acquittal and ovation--thus cast the die which _might_ -bring death, which _did_ bring freedom. The adhesion of Compton -to this scheme is what most concerns us, as it indicates the early -infusion of an ecclesiastical element into this undertaking--an element -which became deeper, wider, stronger, as time rolled on. In less than -a month afterwards the same dignitary replied to a letter from the -Prince concerning the trial of the seven Bishops, and informed him how -sensible he and others were of the advantage of having so powerful a -friend; that they would make no ill use of it; and that they were so -well satisfied of the justness of their cause, that they would lay down -their lives rather than forsake it.[11] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -William must for some time have been expecting overtures. They would -not find a man of so much forecast unprepared; yet not a little -remained to be done that the proposed descent might prove a success. -The remainder of summer and the early part of autumn were spent -in secret military preparations at home, in secret diplomatical -negotiations abroad. He even decoyed the Pope into his toils, by baits -which did more credit to his statesmanship than to his honesty. He -persuaded His Holiness to advance money for an attack, as he thought, -upon France, in reality upon England. Rome, ever trying to over-reach -others, was herself over-reached; and help, supposed to be rendered for -the humiliation of a power then inimical to the Papal Court, came to be -applied to the overthrow of a Popish Sovereign and the strengthening -of the cause of European Protestantism.[12] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -When the military movements in Holland became generally known, they -were given out to be intended for a campaign against France, in which -the Prince was to receive support from the Imperial army on the -Rhine; yet, whatever dust might be thrown in men’s eyes, the real -truth appeared to many. Even as early as the 7th of August, news of -the Prince’s intention to come over with an army reached the quiet -cloisters of Westminster Abbey; and Dr. Patrick, at four o’clock in the -afternoon, received at his prebendal residence tidings of the important -secret through his friend, Dr. Tenison, who came “to have some private -conversation.”[13] But almost up to the last hour James remained in the -dark, partly through his own obtuseness, partly--and much more--through -the selfish designs of France, through the treachery of courtiers, and -through denials made by the Dutch Ambassador. No doubt a clear-headed -man, with a sharp eye, would have caught signs of the true direction of -the brewing storm; but a man like James, narrow-minded and prejudiced, -might easily be duped by diplomatic arts and courtierly deceit. He -persuaded himself into the belief that the rumours of a Dutch invasion -of England were raised by the Court of France to promote his political -interests and to bring him into closer alliance with Louis[14]--a -policy at that moment appearing to him most perilous, because it would -be sure to increase his unpopularity with his subjects. - -His conduct after the acquittal of the Bishops proves that he had -not learnt wisdom from that significant event. His treatment of -the lawyers, in the face of public opinion, seems incredible. He -honoured with a baronetcy Williams, the Solicitor-General, who led the -prosecution, and Holloway and Powell, who gave it as their opinion -that the Bishops’ petition did not amount to a libel, he punished by -dismissal from the Bench. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -To the Judges who went their circuits in the summer, Royal instructions -were communicated to the effect, that they should persuade the people -to assist in supporting the unpopular Declaration for liberty of -conscience, telling them that a Parliament would speedily be called to -make the Sovereign’s favour statute law. Churchmen were to be assured -of the fulfilment of His Majesty’s promises; and persons of all classes -were to be reminded what a gracious Prince they had upon the throne. -Liberty of conscience, they were to be informed, had advanced the -trade, and would prove the means of increasing the population of the -country. The tone was fair--the phraseology specious; but the friends -of freedom were not to be hoodwinked after this fashion. - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -Justice Allybone, a reputed Papist, sought, at the Croydon Assizes, -to give effect to these instructions, by the charge which he then -delivered to the Grand Jury. After dealing in a few commonplaces as to -the desirableness of living in love, and the blessings of religious -liberty, and after maintaining that the King wished every one to be as -free in his conscience as in his thoughts, immediately applied what -he had advanced to the Sacramental Test. “Why,” he asked, “because I -cannot take the Test, must I be hindered of an employment in the world? -This, gentlemen, pincheth sore with them in liberal education. It is -said, ‘Upon this Rock will I build my Church.’ Was this meant of the -Church of England?--it was but of yesterday’s standing. So, gentlemen, -’tis but a flourish. Gentlemen, the end of the Test is not religion, -but preferment; if any one therefore should be hindered upon just -pretences for religion, then religion is not at the bottom of it. This, -gentlemen, is a matter of great importance. It is in the Catechism -that Christ is really in the Lord’s Supper; nor hath it been objected -against the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, that He was not -really, but by way of presentation, and that is a great reproach. -Christ Himself told us He was there; now, be you not more strict than -Christ Himself. I am not arguing what my sense is, but I am only -showing, that as the Church of England would impose, that Christ was by -way of presentation, is it not equally difficult that we shall believe -thus and thus? Is not the like liberty to be had and taken of one side, -as well as the other? Gentlemen, I only argue this for the incoherence -of the thing.” The meaning which the Croydon Grand Jury might gather -from this wretched rabble of words would be, that the Judge put in a -plea for the toleration of Catholics--a plea which, however just, wore -at that crisis a suspicious aspect, and could find no favour with the -Surrey squires. Allybone finished by remarking that he would not have -the world mistaken about the Bishops’ trial--it was not for religion -they were tried, “they were tried for acting against the Government, -for publishing a libel which tended to sedition. The King,” he said, -“commands them with the advice of his Council for to publish his -Declaration; they would not do it. _If the King had been Turk or -Jew, it had been all one--for the subject ought to obey._”[15] The -infatuation of the Judge equalled the infatuation of the King. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -Of course the effect was to identify the Judges with unconstitutional -indulgence. Where it had been successful, they were welcomed--where it -had created alarm, they were rebuffed. - -Down in the West, the Declaration had been published by some--by -others denounced. The wearers of the ermine were treated accordingly. -Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, wrote to Sancroft, at the time of -the Assizes, a letter which gives us some idea of what was going on at -Bristol and Exeter:-- - - “May it please your Grace, - - “Mr. Gilbert, the bearer, going for London, and being desirous - of paying his duty to your Grace, I gave him this opportunity, - as well to receive your blessing as to present you with the - present state of the West. He is the laborious minister of - Plymouth, who, by his courage, life, and doctrine, hath done a - great deal of good in that town. I wish his Lordship the Bishop - of Exeter had as fixt and steady resolutions, but his Lordship, - acting according to a settled maxim of his own, _I will be - safe_, had given order for the publishing the Declaration, - notwithstanding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and my letter - to him; and was at last brought to recall them by the Dean’s - sending him word, that if he would betray the Church, he should - not the Cathedral; for he would rather be hanged at the doors - of it, than that the Declaration should be read there, or in - any part of his jurisdiction, which is large in the county. The - gentry and clergy complained to me very much of the Bishop’s - giving a church to the Mayor[16] for his Conventicle (in which - the Declaration was read), and for his great respects to Mr. - Beare, the last sessions, which gave great offence. Who this - Mr. Beare is, Mr. Gilbert can give your Grace a full account. - I had a long and warm argument with the Bishop, to divert him - from waiting on the Judges and treating them,--setting at large - before him what a malicious, wicked instrument Justice Bolduck - was in our business; but all I said was to no purpose. However, - the Dean and Chapter assured me, they would withdraw their - civility, and not receive them either at the church or at an - entertainment, as hath been customary. I hope I shall do some - good with the gentry of Devonshire and Cornwall. I humbly beg - your blessing, and remain, - - “Yours Grace’s most obedient, humble servant, - “J. BRISTOL.”[17] - - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -The Bishop of Exeter was Dr. Lamplugh, and how he was rewarded for his -devotion to the measures of the Court will presently appear. - -James’s proceedings in reference to the Church at this time were in -keeping with the rest of his conduct. He issued an order, requiring -Chancellors of Dioceses and Archdeacons to report to the High -Commission the names of those who had not published the Declaration. -This went too far even for his friends. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, -immediately resigned his seat, and the rest of the Commissioners -becoming alarmed, as well they might, hesitated to proceed with -the odious investigation. In the same month of July, James sent a -mandate to Oxford for the election of Jeffreys to the Chancellorship; -a disgrace which the authorities of the Universities prevented by -stealing a march on the Monarch, and electing a Chancellor before -the mandate arrived. On the 13th of August the King exercised anew -his dispensing power, by charging the Wardens and Fellows of All -Souls, Oxford, to admit John Cartwright to the Vicarage of Barking, -notwithstanding any custom or constitution to the contrary.[18] Next, -on the 23rd, he nominated to the Bishopric of Oxford, Timothy Hall, who -had gained notoriety by reading the Declaration. Such persistency in -an unpopular course increased national indignation; all classes became -more and more weary of this galling despotism, and were goaded on to -hasten the King’s downfall. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -Whilst such were the proceedings of the temporal head of the Church, -what was the course pursued by the Primate? Sancroft despatched -admonitions to the clergy of his province, exhorting them to the -zealous discharge of their duties, and concluding his appeal by -recommending them to show a friendly spirit towards Nonconformists, -by visiting them and receiving them kindly at their own homes, with -a view to persuade them “to a full compliance with our Church.” They -were to insist upon two points: that the Bishops were irreconcilable -enemies to Rome, and that jealousies to the contrary were altogether -groundless. Finally, clergymen were invited to pray for the union of -all Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, against their common -foe, and that all who confessed the name of our dear Lord, might meet -in one communion and live in godly love.[19] Next--and more surprising, -when we think of the Archbishop’s High Church views--he is said to -have engaged in a scheme of comprehension, the design being, so far as -it can be gathered from a speech made long afterwards by Dr. Wake, to -amend and improve the discipline of the Church; to review and enlarge -the Liturgy, by correcting some things, by adding others; and, it is -stated, that he proposed, if advised by authority, to have the matter -considered first in Convocation, then in Parliament.[20] This would -have been to walk in steps taken by Low Churchmen some years before, -and to anticipate the endeavours of the same class of Churchmen some -months afterwards. When efforts had been made in that direction -by Tillotson and others, the Archbishop had not showed the least -disposition to help them; and on the whole it appears to me that so -cautious and conservative a man as Sancroft could never have intended -to go the length which the reports just noticed might indicate to -ecclesiastical reformers. Indeed, Wake, when he repeated the story, -took care to add that the intended changes related “to things of more -ordinary composition,” whilst the doctrine, government, and worship of -the Church were to remain entire. Probably the alterations contemplated -by Sancroft were very slight indeed, and certainly they were conceded -only in consequence of the excitement of the times. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -Before the end of September, the King, being unable any longer to -resist, altered his policy; he and the Archbishop came together, -the former beginning at last to be frightened; the latter anxious -to do what he could to save his master. On the 21st of September, a -Declaration appeared, to the effect that it was the Royal purpose to -provide a legal security for universal liberty of conscience, yet -to preserve the Church of England in particular, and to secure the -Protestant religion in general; at the same time it was indicated -that Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being members of -Parliament.[21] Upon the 24th, Sancroft received a summons to attend -the Royal presence, and a like command was sent to Compton, Bishop of -London; Mew, of Winchester; Turner, of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken, -of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Trelawny, of Bristol; and -Sprat, of Rochester. They were men of different mark: Compton had gone -beyond any of his brethren in bold resistance of James’s policy; Mew -had been a Royalist in the days of Charles I., and had fought as a -soldier in his master’s service; Trelawny had won popularity by being -one of the imprisoned seven, but, like other men in Church and State, -he had shown a time-serving spirit.[22] Sprat distinguished himself as -an accommodating mortal; the rest were High Churchmen, and supporters -of the divine right of Kings. - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -On the day of dispatching the summons, James told Clarendon that the -Dutch were coming in earnest to invade England. “And now, my Lord,” he -added, “I shall see what the Church of England men will do.”[23] On -the 26th, the King saw Turner, Bishop of Ely, who reported that the -conversation which arose was only of a general kind. Whatever liberal -sentiments might have dawned on the Royal mind, all seemed dark on the -27th, when the Lord Chancellor informed Clarendon that some rogues had -changed the King’s purposes, that he would yield in nothing to the -Bishops, “that the Virgin Mary was to do all.” - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -The first meeting between the King and the Bishops took place on -Friday, September the 28th. All invited were present, except Sancroft, -who excused himself on the ground of being unwell, and Compton and -Trelawny, who did not reach town in time. Their brethren, however, who, -like them, were in the country when the command arrived, managed to be -there. The Prelates came prepared honestly to give advice; but James, -no doubt under the influence mentioned by Clarendon, was very reserved, -on the one hand declaring his goodwill to the Church of England, and on -the other, reminding his spiritual advisers of their duty to be loyal -to the Crown. Ken plainly expressed his disappointment, observing that -“His Majesty’s inclinations towards the Church, and their duty to him, -were sufficiently understood and declared before, and would have been -equally so if they had not stirred one foot out of their dioceses.”[24] -As the Prelates issued from the Royal presence, the courtiers loitering -about the closet door, full of curiosity as to this much-talked-of -interview, inquired, “How things went?” The Bishop of Winchester--“poor -man,” as Clarendon calls, him--answered, “_Omnia bene_.”[25] James -wished to make capital for himself out of what had taken place, and -immediately announced to his subjects, through the _Gazette_, -that several of the Bishops having attended, he was pleased, amongst -other gracious expressions, to let them know that he would signify -his pleasure for taking off the suspension of the Bishop of London, -which was done accordingly. That any such communication was made could -scarcely have been gathered from the account of the audience given by -others. - -The same _Gazette_ contained a Proclamation, dated September the -28th, stating, that undoubted advice had been received of a projected -invasion from Holland, under false pretences relating to liberty, -property, and religion, but really aiming at the conquest of the -kingdom. The King declared his purpose to resist this attempt, to -venture his life for the honour of the nation; and deferring at present -the meeting of Parliament, he called upon his subjects to resist their -enemies, and prohibited any assistance being given them on pain of high -treason.[26] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -The Bishops were dissatisfied with the interview of the 28th, and -requested the Archbishop to procure another audience. One was -appointed for Tuesday, the 2nd of October; then it was postponed until -the following day. The Prelates occupied the interval in careful -deliberation, and drew up a paper, in which they advised, that the -management of affairs in the counties should be entrusted to qualified -persons amongst the nobility and gentry; that the Ecclesiastical -Commission should be annulled, dispensations terminated, the President -and Fellows of Magdalen restored, licenses to Papists recalled, -the Vicars Apostolical inhibited, vacant Bishoprics filled, _Quo -Warrantos_ superseded, charters restored, a Parliament called, in -which, with due regard to the security of the Established Religion, -liberty of conscience should be granted; and, finally, permission -vouchsafed to the Bishops to attempt the re-conversion of His Majesty -to the Protestant faith. - -The paper containing this advice was signed by the Archbishop of -Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Asaph, Ely, -Chichester, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Peterborough.[27] - -Before the Bishops were admitted to the conference, James made -another concession to popular excitement, by declaring in Council -to the Aldermen of London, his intention to restore to the City the -much-prized charter of which it had been deprived. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -On the 3rd of October the second meeting of the Bishops with the King -occurred. They presented their paper, and whatever the immediate -effect of their last request might have been, they now received the -assurance of a gracious consideration being given to their requests. -The King almost immediately afterwards extinguished the Commission, and -signified his purpose of rectifying corporate abuses.[28] - -Within a few days, collects were drawn up by the Bishops, to be used in -all cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches and chapels within -the kingdom during this time of public danger. They received His -Majesty’s approval, and were printed for general use. It is curious to -observe that they are so framed as to lay all the blame of existing -calamities on the shoulders of the people, and to breathe a spirit of -intense loyalty to His Majesty’s person.[29] - -[Sidenote: PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.] - -Upon the 12th of October, the King authorized the Bishop of Winchester -to settle the troubles at Magdalen College; but so suspicious had -the public become in reference to the Royal sincerity, that it was -currently and falsely reported immediately afterwards, that he had -altered his mind, and withdrawn the order.[30] - -Repeated Royal conferences could not be held without attracting -attention. They became the subject of common talk, and the suspicious -temper of people appeared in a rumour, that the right reverend fathers -were being hoodwinked by a Popish Sovereign and his Popish Councillors. -Evelyn wrote to Sancroft on the 10th of October, telling him that -the calling of His Grace and the Bishops to Court, and what had -been required of them, was only calculated to create jealousies and -suspicions amongst well-meaning people--the whole of the plan being -the work of Jesuits. He also complained that in all the Declarations -published in pretended favour of the Church of England, there was not -once any mention made of the Reformed or Protestant religion.[31] - -In another letter, the contents of which were intended to be -communicated to His Grace, serious charges are alluded to as brought -against the Bishops. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -“Knowing your interest in my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury,” says the -writer, “you are desired to let him know that it was my fortune this -week to have the sight of a most malicious libel against the most -eminent Bishops of the Church of England; the extent and substance of -it is to show how the Bishops mind only popularity, and to make a noise -in the world. For that the Bishops themselves do dispense with the laws -and canons of the Church, as well as the King hath done by virtue of -his prerogative. This was lent me to peruse one evening, so that I -could not read it fully, but the chief thing they aim at is to show -that the Bishops do dispense with non-residence, contrary to the canons -of the Church and the Statute of the land, made 21 Henry VIII. 13. -Some things are frivolous, and some very sharp, and I fear too true; -so that I wrote out the heads on the chapter of non-residence, which -is very virulent, and filled with near 300 instances of prebends and -clergymen that are non-resident, contrary to the law in all counties -of England; for they have a perfect account from all counties, except -about eight or ten, which are promised against this term; and had not -this juncture of affairs hindered, it had been fully printed in a few -weeks.” After transcribing the heads, the writer proceeds: ”All these -heads have several scandalous instances (that lack reformation) in -many counties, and it would be happy if my good Lord of Canterbury -did require a speedy reformation, and make all Ecclesiastical Judges -inquire into the truth hereof, and give him a speedy account, and so -prevent these just scandals, which will otherwise fall upon the Bishops -of the Church of England.”[32] - - - - - CHAPTER II. - - -The invitation to the Prince of Orange had been signed by the Bishop -of London on the 30th of June. On the 2nd of November, a Declaration, -bearing date the 10th of October, began to be circulated in England, -the space between June and October having been spent by His Highness in -making preparations for his enterprise. The document, drawn up by the -Grand Pensionary of Holland, had been revised and translated by Burnet, -who sat by the Prince’s elbow, and came to be described as “Champion in -ordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter the lists against all -comers.” - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -The Declaration gave the utmost prominence to the religious question. -An ecclesiastical and unconstitutional Court had been revived, -which had misapplied the Church’s property, invaded her dignity, -and persecuted her members. A plan had been carried out for the -re-establishment of Popery in Protestant England. Monasteries, -convents, Popish churches, and Jesuit colleges had sprung up in all -directions, and at the Council Board one of the hated order had taken -his seat. Political liberties had been violated, charters withdrawn, -Parliamentary government suspended, Judges displaced for their -conscientiousness, and the right of petition denied even to spiritual -Lords; Ireland had been given over to Papists, Scotland had been -shorn of her freedom, and to crown all, the public had been deceived -by the announcement of the birth of a pretended Prince. Hence the -rights of the Princess of Orange had been invaded, and His Highness -had undertaken an expedition “with no other view than to get a free -Parliament assembled which might remedy those grievances, inquire into -that birth, and secure national religion and liberty under a just and -legal government for the future.” He further stated that he had been -earnestly solicited by many Lords, both spiritual and temporal, by many -gentlemen, and by other subjects of all ranks, to interpose.[33] - -After James had made his concessions, a postscript to the Declaration -was received from William. The concessions, he urged, went to prove the -truth of the charges made; they arose from a consciousness of guilt; -no dependence could be placed upon them; and only a Parliament could -re-establish the rights of the English people. - -Other documents of the same kind followed. The Prince boldly appealed -to the military, reminding them how Protestant soldiers had been -cashiered in Ireland, and Popish soldiers forced upon England. It would -be the crime of the army, if the nation lost its liberty; the glory of -the army, if the liberty of the nation was saved. Herbert wrote to the -seamen, telling them their fate would be infamy, if the Prince failed -of success; dismission from the service, if he succeeded.[34] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -William’s Declaration alarmed James; at last he became undeceived. The -webs woven by Dutch diplomacy were blown away. His confusion increased -at finding he had reason to suspect Bishops as being amongst the -Prince’s allies. He sent in haste to Sancroft on the 16th of October, -and told him of the intention to invade England. He added, it would -be a fitting thing for the Bishops to draw up a paper expressing -their abhorrence of the attempt. The Primate plausibly pleaded that -the Bishops had left London, and strangely declared, that he could -not believe the Prince of Orange had any such design as was supposed. -Matters were allowed to rest until the 31st of October, and then the -King sent for Compton, Bishop of London.[35] He came the next day. The -King referred to William’s Declaration, and read the paragraph stating -that spiritual Lords had invited the Prince to come over. Compton, -with a cunning which in a Papist he would have pronounced Jesuitical, -replied, “I am confident the rest of the Bishops would as readily -answer in the negative as myself.”[36] This skilfully-contrived evasion -was a lie to all intents and purposes; but it took effect, for James -admitted that he believed the Bishops were innocent. When he proceeded -to urge a request that they should publicly disown any implication -in this matter, his Lordship answered that the request should be -considered. The King rejoined, that every one must answer for himself, -and that he would send for the Archbishop to bring his brethren -together. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -A third important meeting followed next day, the 2nd of November, -when the Bishop of London, with Crew, of Durham, and Cartwright, of -Chester--both considered half Papists--and Watson, of St. David’s, -a thorough courtier,[37] were brought together at Whitehall, and the -Archbishop following them there, conducted them into the Royal closet. -The Archbishop explicitly denied having signed the invitation. The -Bishop of London artfully said he had given his answer the day before. -The Bishop of Durham declared, “I am sure I am none of them.” “Nor I.” -“Nor I,” cried the other two. James proceeded to insist that they and -their brethren on the Bench should publicly vindicate themselves, and -express abhorrence of William’s design. - -The next day, November the 3rd, the Bishops of London and Rochester -went to Lambeth to dine with His Grace, but finding their brethren of -Chester and St. David’s present, though uninvited, they proceeded to -a friend’s house in the neighbourhood, and returned, between two and -three o’clock, to the Palace, after the other two had left. Then they -conferred with Sancroft as to what should be done.[38] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -The fourth important meeting of this kind took place on November the -6th, when the Archbishop, and the Bishops of London, Rochester, and -Peterborough, made their appearance in the Sovereign’s presence; the -Bishop of St. David’s--throughout an object of suspicion--“waiting for -them in the Guard-chamber, ready to thrust in with them to the King.” -The Primate, taking Lord Preston aside, requested him to procure for -them a private audience; upon which the King, through his Lordship, -ordered the obnoxious and forward Prelate to withdraw. The rest told -James they had done all they could, and that if he were satisfied, -they did not care for other people’s opinions; but when he talked to -them of such a paper as he had required, they fell back on the ground -they had occupied before, that scarcely one in five hundred believed -in the genuineness of the document published in the Prince’s name. The -Archbishop did not touch the question of the paper so much wished for -by James, although one had been drawn up, and signed by himself; most -probably the reason of this omission was, that he could not carry his -brethren with him in the matter, and he felt it would not do for him -to make a solitary disavowal on the subject. Presently the dispute -wandered into a confused maze, and the Archbishop could not help -adverting to the treatment which he and his six brethren had received -at the Royal hands. The King was annoyed, but the Primate persevered; -the rest supported him, and His Majesty stood like a stag at bay. James -retorted that if they complained, he had a right to complain too, and -the quarrel became unseemly in the extreme. Indeed, His Majesty was -now beginning to find that whatsoever a man soweth that shall he also -reap, and as he had by his lawyers bearded the Bishops in his own -Court at Westminster, the Bishops in return were bearding him in his -own Palace of Whitehall. The conversation came round to the old point. -James wanted them to sign a paper. They would not. “I am your King,” he -said; “I am judge what is best for me. I will go my own way; I desire -your assistance in it.” Go his own way he might, but they would not -go with him. Whatever their high notions of Royal prerogatives, and -the obligations of subjects, might have been once, the recent trial -had wonderfully opened the eyes of their understanding. They would not -take on themselves the responsibility of publishing any disclaimer. His -Majesty might publish to the world what they had said, if he liked.[39] -“No,” said he; “if I should publish it, the people would not believe -me.” Not believe him? The confession was most humiliating. “Sir,” said -the right reverend father, “the word of a King is sacred--it ought to -be believed.” “They that could believe me guilty of a false son, what -will they not believe of me?” was the bitter rejoinder. James’ credit -had sunk as low as it could. Further talking was useless. “I will urge -you no further,” said he, in conclusion. “If you will not assist me as -I desire, I must stand upon my own legs, and trust to myself and my own -arms.” So they were dismissed.[40] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -One of the Bishops, writing on the 14th of October, had remarked, -“All people’s mouths are now full of praises for our order, to whom -they say they shall ever owe the preservation of our religion,”--a -statement which should be considered in connection with what I have -said as to letters of a different purport addressed to Sancroft. The -fact seems to have been, that whilst some Churchmen were dissatisfied -with irregularities in the Establishment which they blamed the -Bishops for not correcting, others--a far larger number--looking -chiefly at that moment to the religious and political liberties of -the country, regarded certain of the Bishops as making a noble stand -against the designs of James. The Bishops’ popularity increased the -following month, and although Compton’s Jesuitical answer to the -King must be condemned by everybody, and the doubts expressed by the -Bishops present at the interview on the 6th, as to the genuineness -of William’s Declaration, will appear to most people as reflecting -either upon their judgment or their straightforwardness, still their -determination not to submit to James’ dictation was in harmony with -the spirit which had made the seven so popular. Their firmness in this -respect--in connection with the resistance offered to James by other -Prelates not present on this last occasion, and responsible neither for -Compton’s equivocation or their brethren’s remarks about the Orange -documents--certainly operated in favour of the approaching Revolution, -the full nature of which, however, they did not foresee. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -The day before this 6th of November a momentous event had occurred, of -which at the time they knew nothing. - -William had set sail from Holland on the 16th of October, with a flag -floating over the quaint, high-built frigate, bearing an inscription, -of which the first three words formed the motto of the House of Orange, -“_I will maintain_--the liberties of England and the Protestant -religion.” As it fluttered on the staff, the wind changed, the fleet -had to put back; but the Declaration of the 10th, sent before him, -announced his coming, and people, as they awaited the visitation, -looked out to sea, and prayed for a “Protestant east wind” to waft -over the desired Deliverer. Whilst James was talking to the Bishops on -the 2nd of November, the ship had left Helvoetsluys, and after sailing -northward, had tacked about a second time, and with a fair wind was -making for the British Channel. - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -In the fleet with the Prince was Frederic, Count of Schomberg, -who, though he had been in the service of Louis XIV., remained a -staunch member of the Reformed Church, and entered heartily into the -design of the Protestant Champion, whom he attended in the capacity -of Lieutenant. Another distinguished officer was Isaac Dumont de -Bostaquet--a Huguenot soldier who had suffered for his religion, -and had been driven from his paternal chateau of La Fontelaye, in -France, by the intolerant policy of his infatuated Sovereign. Narrowly -escaping with his life, after a number of romantic adventures, he -found refuge in Holland, and now placed his sword at the command of -the Prince, with all the zeal which could be kindled in the cause of -liberty by memories of tyranny and oppression. In William’s dragoon -regiments of red and blue were fifty French officers, all more or less -inspired by similar feelings. Two companies of French infantry were -commanded by Captains de Chauvernay and Rapin-Thoyras, afterwards the -historian of England. Perhaps the equipment of these soldiers--dusty, -worn, and tattered--appeared to disadvantage when compared with the -brilliant uniforms of the Dutch, the German, the Swedes, the Swiss, -and the English, who crowded within the wooden walls; but they deserve -more notice than they have received, and more gratitude than was ever -paid them.[41] Whilst England afforded a sanctuary to the Huguenots -oppressed by Popery, in their own country,--Huguenots helped England to -keep off the yoke of a like oppression. There were other noteworthy men -amongst William’s followers. - -Gilbert Burnet was there, full of Dutch memories, full of English -hopes, picking up knowledge from the sailors, and musing upon the -issue of his patron’s enterprise, not without side glances at his own -fortunes. Not far off stood Carstairs, a catholic-spirited Scotch -Presbyterian, who had manifested the utmost fortitude under torture, -and who, when his own cause rose to the ascendant, did what is rare, -for he signally manifested the virtue of moderation. Beside him was a -different character, Robert Ferguson, implicated in the Rye-house Plot, -and a ringleader in Monmouth’s rebellion. - -The fleet presented a magnificent spectacle. “Nothing could be more -beautiful,” says Dumont de Bostaquet, “than the evolution of the -immense flotilla which now took place under a glorious sky;”[42] and -Rapin, recording his own impressions of the moment, observes, “What a -glorious show the fleet made! Five or six hundred ships in so narrow a -channel, and both the English and French shores covered with numberless -spectators is no common sight. For my part, who was then on board the -fleet, it struck me extremely.” - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -Such a fleet, known to be conveying an army to the coast, watched on -its way with imperfect information and with mingled fear and hope, -must have been to Englishmen a spectacle full of excitement, to which -history records scarcely a parallel. - -The 4th of November being Sunday, and also the Prince’s birthday, -he spent in devotion. Intending to land at Torbay, he found himself -carried beyond his destination by the violence of the wind, or the -unskilfulness of the pilot; and some measure of agitation,--such as -thrilled the multitudes straining their eyes on the Dover Cliffs, -whilst the quaintly-built vessels passed by,--must have moved the -inhabitants of the towns and villages on both sides the sweep of water -at the mouth of the Ex: as we imagine, on the red sand hills, groups -gathered here and there, peering through windy weather in search of -the ships about to rest under the headland of Devonshire Tor. The next -day, the Dutch reached the desired spot, and “the forces were landed -with such diligence and tranquillity, that the whole army was on shore -before night.”[43] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -The associations of the year and the day were propitious. Just a -century before, God had scattered the Spanish Armada; and on the 5th -of November, 1605, the three Estates of England had been delivered from -the Gunpowder Plot. The Calvinist William took the Arminian Burnet -by the hand, asking, “Will you not believe in predestination?” “I -will never forget,” the chaplain cautiously replied, “that providence -of God which has appeared so signally on this occasion.” Public -worship followed the landing. Carstairs was the first, “Scotsman and -Presbyterian as he was,” to call down the blessings of Heaven on the -expedition; and after his prayer, “the troops all along the beach, at -his instance, joined in the 118th Psalm,” and this act of devotion -produced a sensible effect on the troops.[44] The Prince for awhile -seemed elated, yet soon relapsed into his habitual gravity; but Burnet -only interpreted the general feeling of the moment when he says, “We -saw new and unthought-of characters of a favourable providence of God -watching over us.”[45] - -Tidings of what had happened rapidly spread, and excited all sorts -of people, especially such as had religious sympathies with the new -visitors. Devonshire traditions afford an idea of what was felt and -done by Dissenters. A lady, worshipping in a meeting-house at Totnes, -in commemoration of the discovery of Gunpowder Plot, when she learnt -that the Prince had reached the neighbouring bay, immediately hastened, -in company with another like-spirited matron, to meet His Highness at -Brixham, who “shook hands with them, and gave them a parcel of his -Proclamations to distribute, which they did so industriously that not -one was left in the family as a memorial of their adventure.”[46] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -A story is also told that Roman Catholics were at the time eagerly -expecting assistance from the French, and a priest with his friends, -stationed on a watch-tower, having descried white flags on the men -of war as they hove in sight, prepared an entertainment for the -earnestly-desired guests, and proceeded to chant a _Te Deum_, in -gratitude for their arrival. They were soon undeceived, and the fare -provided for the French was enjoyed by the Dutch.[47] - -The army next day marched on to Exeter, the officers, like the -soldiers, wet to the skin, having neither change of raiment, nor food, -nor horses, nor servants, nor beds--the baggage still remaining in -the ships. But expressions of sympathy, perhaps timorously conveyed, -cheered them somewhat on this dreary day; and stories are still -circulated amongst the Nonconformist families of the neighbourhood, of -ancestors who watched the landing, and spoke of “seeing the country -people rolling apples down the hill-side to the soldiers.”[48] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -The progress was slow, and the stay at the Western capital long. Thomas -Lamplugh, the Bishop who had approved of the Declaration and of the -conduct of His Majesty’s servile Judges, showed his fidelity to James -by rushing up to London, where he was rewarded with the Archiepiscopal -throne of York. York had been left vacant for more than two years and -a half, with the design, it was said, of being ultimately occupied by -a Roman Catholic. A Popish Bishop had been settled there, with a title -_in partibus infidelium_, whose crosier and utensils were seized -after the landing of the Prince of Orange.[49] - -The Dean of Exeter also fled in alarm, and His Highness took up his -abode in the deserted Deanery. The Prebendaries refused to meet him, -or to occupy their stalls, when he marched in military state through -the western portal, well studded with statues of saints and kings; -and proceeding up the nave, with its exquisite minstrels’ gallery, -ascended the steps of the choir, passed under the beautiful screen, -and took his seat on the Episcopal throne,--the ornamentation of which -in ebonlike oak, without a single nail in the curious structure, so -admirably contrasts with the pale arches and the vaulted roof. As soon -as the chanting of the _Te Deum_ had ceased, Burnet read His -Highness’s Declaration, which proved a signal for such of the clergy -and choristers as had ventured on being present, to quit the edifice. -At the end of the reading the Doctor cried, “God save the Prince of -Orange!” to which some of the congregation responded with a hearty Amen. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -De Bostaquet, the French Huguenot, accustomed to the extreme and rigid -simplicity of Protestant worship in his own country, was scandalized -at what he witnessed at Exeter. He regarded the English service as -retaining nearly all the externals of Popery--for such he counted the -altar, and the great candles on each side, and the basin of silver-gilt -between, and the Canons, in surplices and stoles, ranged in stalls on -each side the nave, and the choir of little boys singing with charming -voices. He was touched somewhat with the beauty of the music, but the -sturdy and ultra-Reformer declared it was all opposed to the simplicity -of the French reformed religion, and he confessed he was by no means -edified with it.[50] - -Burnet delivered a sermon on the following Sunday; and on the same day, -Robert Ferguson, being refused by the Presbyterians the keys of the -meeting-house in St. James Street, exclaimed, “I will take the kingdom -of heaven by violence!” and calling for a hammer, broke open the door. -Sword in hand he mounted the pulpit, and preached against the Papists -from the 16th verse of the 94th Psalm: “Who will rise up for me -against the evil doers?”[51] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -At first the Prince’s affairs wore an unfavourable appearance--people -of influence did not join him; but before long the tide turned, -“and every man mistaking his neighbour’s courage for his own, all -rushed to the camp or to the stations which had been assigned them, -with a violence proportioned to their late fears.”[52] A hearty -welcome awaited His Highness in many places through which he marched, -the Dissenters in particular hailing his approach. One of them, a -country gentleman, living at Coaxden Hall, rich in rookeries, between -Axminster and Chard, had tables spread with provisions under an avenue -of trees leading up to the house. The gentleman was Richard Cogan, -whose wife Elizabeth, before her marriage, concealed him under a -feather-bed, after the Monmouth rebellion, and so saved his life and -won his affections. His mother had been a Royalist; and amongst many -stories told of Charles’s adventures after his defeat at Worcester, -it is related that this lady covered him with the skirts of her -enormously-hooped petticoats.[53] The clergy of Dorset found themselves -in an awkward position after William had triumphantly passed through -the country. They had received an order of Council, sent by the -Bishop, prescribing prayers for the Prince of Wales and the Royal -family. But now, although some persevered in using the prayers, others -laid them aside. There still exists a letter to the Archbishop of -Canterbury from the incumbent of Wimborne, asking what he should do -under the circumstances.[54] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -When Ken heard that the Dutch were coming to Wells, he immediately left -the city, and in obedience to His Majesty’s general commands, took -all his coach horses with him, and as many of his saddle horses as he -could; seeking shelter in a village near Devizes, intending to wait -on James, should he come into that neighbourhood. Ken was awkwardly -situated, having been chaplain to the Princess of Orange, and knowing -many of the Dutch officers; therefore, to prevent suspicion, he left -his diocese, determined to preserve his allegiance to a Monarch -who still occupied the throne.[55] William found himself in the -neighbourhood where the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth had a few years -earlier unfurled his flag, to which certain Nonconformists had been -drawn, who paid a terrible penalty for their rashness. Many retained -keen recollections of Sedgmoor fight and Taunton Assizes, and could -scarcely calculate upon the success of this new attempt; yet they -sympathized intensely in William’s designs, as is manifest from some -of their Church records containing narratives of the Deliverer’s march -through the west of England. The Declaration said little in favour -of Nonconformists, and only by implication gave hopes to them of -legal security. But the documents received an interpretation from the -knowledge that William believed conscience to be God’s province, and -that toleration is as politic as it is righteous. - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -Three days before the landing of the Prince, James admonished -his subjects, upon peril of being prosecuted, not to publish the -treasonable Proclamations; and on the day after the landing, he -denounced the act as aiming at the immediate possession of the Crown. -Between those two dates, the Scottish Bishops, whose feudal-like -loyalty mastered their patriotism, and placed them in opposition to -their Episcopal brethren of the South, sent an address to the falling -Monarch, in which they denounced the invasion, and professed unshaken -allegiance to be part of their religion; not doubting that God, who -had often delivered His Majesty, would now give him the hearts of his -subjects and the necks of his enemies.[56] Another Scotch address, -breathing the utmost devotion, followed, in significant opposition to -the ominous silence maintained by Englishmen. This flash of enthusiasm, -however, on the other side the Tweed, did nothing for the salvation -of the House of Stuart,--the current of opinion throughout the realm, -amongst high and low, having set in the opposite direction. - -At this critical moment, amidst the confusion which reigned at -Whitehall, and as selfish courtiers were waiting to see how they could -promote their own interests, the misguided Sovereign commanded his army -to march towards Salisbury. The night before he himself started for -that city, a few noblemen and Bishops waited upon him with a proposal -to assemble Parliament, and treat with the Prince of Orange; when, -according to his own account, he told the Prelates that it would much -better become men of their calling to instruct the people in their -duty to God and the King, rather than foment a rebellions temper, by -presenting such petitions at the very moment the enemy stood at the -door. He says he regarded them as making religion a cloak of rebellion, -and was at last convinced that the Church’s doctrine of passive -obedience formed too sandy a foundation for a Prince’s hope.[57] His -answer to the request for a Parliament, according to the report of the -Bishop of Rochester, ran in these words: “What you ask of me, I most -passionately desire, and I promise you upon the faith of a king, that I -will have a Parliament, and such an one as you ask for, as soon as ever -the Prince of Orange has quitted this realm. For how is it possible a -Parliament should be free in all its circumstances, as you petition -for, whilst an enemy is in the kingdom, and can make return of near a -hundred voices?”[58] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -James reached Salisbury on the 19th of November, and took up his -abode in the Episcopal Palace,--under the shadow of the noble spire -which rises so gracefully out of the midst of a pleasant landscape of -quaint-looking houses, near the confluence of two rivers, bordered by -gardens and orchards, by green meadows and brown fields. There he had -reason enough to be alarmed by the progress of events, and to reflect -on the instability of worldly greatness; yet he did not despair. - -He was wonderfully slow in giving up all hope of help from Bishops. To -the last he seemed to cling to that order with the tenacity of a sailor -who has seized on a plank from a foundered vessel. From Salisbury he -sent for the Bishop of Winchester, who had cautiously remained at his -princely castle during these troublous times. The Bishop wrote to -the Archbishop of Canterbury the following account of this fruitless -visit:-- - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - - “May it please your Grace, - - “His Majesty’s intimation to me, that he thought my presence - would, if occasion required, very much influence his army, I - could not take it for less than a command, and accordingly - posted to Sarum, where I pressed him, with all imaginable - arguments, to call a Parliament, as the most visible way to put - a stop to those confusions which threatened the Government; - and I left him in a far more inclinable disposition to it than - I found him, and engaged several persons near him to second - what I had attempted. The next day, which was Friday, I found - that several of the troops were commanded towards London, and, - waiting upon His Majesty, he told me he would be with me as - to-morrow; so that, in order to his reception, I came yesterday - from Sarum, which is a long journey of above forty miles, and I - now understand that His Majesty comes not this way. This account - of myself I thought proper to give your Grace, that I may - receive the commands, which shall, with all duty, be obeyed by - your son and servant.”[59] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -A spirit of disaffection soon showed itself in the upper ranks. Lord -Lovelace had been deeply involved in intrigues preparatory to the -Revolution; and in a crypt under his Elizabethan mansion, called -Lady-place, at Hurley, so well known to all pilgrims to picturesque -spots, on the banks of the Thames, he had held midnight conferences -whilst all the Whigs were longing for a Protestant wind. He now quitted -his home, at the head of seventy followers, and galloped westward to -join the Prince. Colchester, Wharton, Russel, and Abingdon proceeded -in the same direction; but, what foreboded more mischief, defection -broke out in the ranks of Royalism. Cornbury, eldest son of Lord -Clarendon, and nephew of James’ first wife, at the head of three -regiments, deserted the camp at Salisbury, and joined the Prince--most -of his soldiers, more faithful than himself, deserting him, when they -discovered his treachery. Still worse defections followed. Prince -George of Denmark--the husband of the Princess Anne, James’ daughter, -a person who, with all her weakness of mind, had acquired a reputation -for Protestant zeal--went next. In company with the Duke of Ormond, -he rode off from Andover, having the previous night supped at his -father-in-law’s table. The Churchills--great favourites with James, -great supporters of his cause--soon fell into the stream. The destined -hero of Blenheim, accompanied by Grafton, pushed on his way to worship -the rising sun. A story is told, I do not know on what authority, that -William, on seeing these unexpected visitors, exclaimed, “If ye be come -peaceably to me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you, but if -ye be come to betray me to mine enemies (seeing that there is no wrong -in my hands), the God of your fathers rebuke it.” One of them replied, -“Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse. Peace, peace -be unto thee, and peace be to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee.” -The Princess Anne, imitating her husband’s example, disappeared from -Whitehall, and in a carriage--preceded by Compton, Bishop of London, -who wore a purple velvet coat and jack boots, with pistols in his -holsters and a sword in his hand[60]--was driving off at the top of -her horses’ speed to the town of Nottingham. - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -The desertions at Salisbury drove James back to London; there the last -drop was added to the cup of his domestic sorrow, when he learned -that his daughter Anne had abandoned his cause. Further calamities -befell him. Rochester, Godolphin, even Jeffreys, meeting their master -in Council, recommended the calling of a Parliament; and at the same -time Clarendon blamed James for leaving Salisbury without fighting a -battle. Eventually, after having bewailed his son Cornbury’s apostacy, -the great courtier thought it the safest course to imitate that son’s -example. - -James was now reduced to extremities, and on the 22nd of November he -issued a Proclamation, in which he recalled his revolted subjects to -allegiance with the promise of a free and gracious pardon, and tempted -the soldiers of the Dutch army to come over to the Royal standard with -the promise of liberal entertainment, or of safe dismissal to their own -country. On the 30th, appeared another Proclamation, for the speedy -calling of a Parliament.[61] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -Matters were proceeding favourably on the other side. Crossing -Salisbury Plain, marching past Stonehenge, William and his army, with -great military display, took possession of Salisbury, after which -the Prince occupied a house in the neighbouring village of Berwick. -Clarendon, on reaching the Episcopal city, which had become the head -quarters of the Revolution, alighted at the George Inn, where he found -the Dutch Ambassador; and the next morning waited on the Prince, who -took him into his bedchamber, and talked with him for half an hour, -telling him how glad he felt to see him, and how seasonable the -accession of his son had proved. The Earl, hearing Burnet was in the -house, went to see that important person. “What,” asked the latter, -“can be the meaning of the King’s sending these Commissioners?” “To -adjust matters for the safe and easy meeting of the Parliament,” -replied Clarendon. “How,” rejoined the other, “can a Parliament meet, -now the kingdom is in this confusion--all the West being possessed -by the Prince’s forces, and all the North being in arms for him?” -Clarendon urged that if the design was to settle things, they might -hope “for a composure.” The Doctor, with his usual warmth, answered, -“It is impossible: there can be no Parliament: there must be no -Parliament. It is impossible!”[62] - -Clarendon made his way to Berwick--the house used by the Prince at -the time was in the possession of one of Clarendon’s relatives--there -he had a private conference with His Highness, and was received “very -obligingly.” The Earl wished that the opposing parties might come to -terms, and talked with Burnet, who, walking up and down the room, in -wonderful warmth exclaimed, “What treaty? How can there be a treaty? -The sword is drawn. There is a supposititious child, which must be -inquired into.” Clarendon was puzzled at Burnet’s conduct, and asked -him why the day before, at prayers in the Cathedral, he had behaved -so as to make the congregation stare; for when the usual collect -for the Sovereign was being repeated, he sat down in his stall and -made an “ugly noise.” Burnet replied, he could not join in the usual -supplications for James as King of England.[63] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -As William rode on horseback from Berwick to Salisbury, the people -flocked to see and bless him. He acknowledged their affectionate -salutations by taking off his hat, saying, “Thank you, good people. I -am come to secure the Protestant religion, and to free you from Popery.” - -William’s popularity advanced with hasty strides from the south to -the north and east of England, obtaining marked manifestation in -certain towns and cities, connected with other and somewhat similar -struggles. The nobility and gentry of the northern midland counties -met at Derby--where, a little more than half a century later, the -Pretender Charles Edward lodged for a few days, flushed with the hope -of recovering his grandfather’s crown--and there they declared it to be -their duty to endeavour the healing of present distractions, as they -apprehended the consequences which might arise from the landing of an -army. They wished there should be the calling of a free Parliament, -to which the Prince of Orange was willing to submit his pretensions. -At Nottingham, the refuge of the Princess Anne--where Charles I. had -raised his standard, and Colonel Hutchinson had held the Castle--many -of the upper and middle classes assembled, to enumerate grievances -under which the nation groaned. The laws, as they said, had become a -nose of wax, and being sensible of the influence of Jesuitical councils -in the Government, they avowed their determination not to deliver -posterity over to Rome and slavery, but to join with the Prince in -recovering their almost ruined laws, liberties, and religion. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -At York--so closely connected with the Civil Wars--Sir Henry Gooderick, -in the Common Hall, addressed a hundred gentlemen to this effect, -“that there having been great endeavours made by the Government of -late years to bring Popery into the kingdom, and by many devices -to set at nought the laws of the land,” there could be no proper -redress of grievances “but by a free Parliament; that now was the -only time to prefer a petition of the sort; and that they could not -imitate a better pattern than had been set before them by several -Lords, spiritual and temporal.” Alarmed by flying reports of what -the Papists were about to do, the Earl of Danby, Lord Horton, Lord -Willoughby, and others, scoured the streets of the city at the head of -a troop, shouting, “A free Parliament, the Protestant religion, and no -Popery!”[64] At Newcastle and at Hull--ground covered by Commonwealth -memories--demonstrations occurred in favour of a free Parliament. -In the fine old Market-place of Norwich, abounding in Puritan -associations, the Duke of Norfolk addressed the Mayor and citizens, -and talked of securing law, liberty, and the Protestant religion. Just -afterwards, the townsmen of King’s Lynn--where one meets with the -shades of Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester--responded to the -Duke in a strain like his own. Berwick-on-Tweed followed in the wake -of other towns. Even the heads of Houses at Oxford sent to the Prince -an assurance of support, and an invitation to visit them, telling him -that their plate, if needful, should be at his service.[65] In short, -a flame of enthusiasm in favour of the Dutch deliverer spread from one -end of the land to the other.[66] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -I have shown that treachery weakened the cause of James; I am sorry to -say, that falsehood was employed in support of William. Two genuine -Declarations were published in his cause; a third appeared, of the -most violent description. It stated as his resolution, that all -Papists found with arms on their persons or in their houses, should -be treated as freebooters and banditti, be incapable of quarter, -and be delivered up to the discretion of his soldiers; all persons -assisting them were to be looked upon as partakers of their crimes. -It stated, also, that numerous Papists had of late resorted to London -and Westminster; that there was reason to suspect they did so, not for -their own security, but in order to make a desperate attempt upon those -places; and that French troops, procured by the interest and power of -the Jesuits, would, if possible, land in England, in “pursuance of -the engagements which, at the instigation of that pestilent Society, -His most Christian Majesty, with one of his neighbouring Princes of -the same communion, had entered into, for the utter extirpation of -the Protestant religion out of Europe.”[67] Burnet, who was in the -secrets of the Prince’s Court, observes, “No doubt was made that it -was truly the Prince’s Declaration; but he knew nothing of it; and -it was never known who was the author of so bold a thing. No person -ever claimed the merit of it, for though it had an amazing effect, -yet, it seems he that contrived it apprehended that the Prince would -not be well pleased with the author of such an imposture in his name. -The King was under such a consternation, that he neither knew what -to resolve on, nor whom to trust.”[68] It has been said[69] that -the Declaration was not made public until after the Prince had left -Sherborne. William did not issue any counter Declaration nor publish -any repudiation of the document, but left it to produce its effect. -Such a want of straightforwardness contradicts his general character, -but most likely those about him, seeing how effective the Declaration -proved, prevented its being cancelled; still, if the main blame rests -with them, their master remains responsible for having at least winked -at the maxim of doing evil that good might come. Years afterwards -one Speke--who had been in the Prince’s army, and who was goaded by -revenge for his brother’s death under Judge Jeffreys--avowed himself -the fabricator of the infamous device, and said that he gave it to -the Prince with his own hand at Sherborne Castle; that His Highness -seemed somewhat surprised at first, but that when he had considered -it, he and those about him were not displeased. No credit can be given -to a man who played the part which Speke confessed he had done. Part -of his statement is improbable, and is contradicted by the relation -of circumstances given by Bishop Burnet. At all events, the effect of -the forgery was terrible, and soon afterwards this same man contrived -another and still more diabolical scheme. In the meanwhile, attempts at -negotiation went on. James had appointed Commissioners to meet William, -but things now reached a point rendering conferences utterly idle. The -Palace was thrown into confusion by the escape of the Royal family, and -the consternation of the Court is reflected in a much damaged letter, -brought under the notice of historical students by the Historical -MSS. Commission. “Your lordship,” says Turner, Bishop of Ely, under -date December 11, 1688, to Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol, both numbered -amongst the seven, “has heard by [this time that on] Sunday night, -the Queen and Prince of Wales [left] about 2 in the morning. They -went [in a boat with] oars to Lambeth, and so, without guards, in [a -coach] towards Gravesend, where a yacht lay for [them]. Many of quality -slink away daily. ’Tis believed [the Ki]ng will follow very suddenly. -_How are the mighty fallen._ [My] Lord, these are sad and strange -revolutions for our general [and grie]vous national sins, which God -Almighty forgive and relieve us. This minute I receive an advice from -the Earl of Rochester that the King is secretly withdrawn this morning. -God preserve him and direct us.” - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -James fled to Sheerness, having burnt the unissued Parliamentary writs, -and thrown into the Thames the Great Seal of the realm. Arrived at -Sheerness, he fell into the hands of the rabble, upon which, as De Foe -relates, “he applied himself to a clergyman in words to this effect: -‘Sir, ’tis men of your cloth have reduced me to this condition: I -desire you will use your endeavour to still and quiet the people, and -disperse them, that I may be freed from this tumult.’ The gentleman’s -answer was cold and insignificant, and going down to the people, he -returned no more to the King.”[70] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -What was to be done? Amidst consternation indescribable, some of the -Peers resolved to hold a meeting in Guildhall, the walls of which -had often echoed with popular cries of all sorts. At this meeting, -held December the 10th, amidst the temporal Lords there appeared the -Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Winchester, -Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough. The Archbishop of Canterbury -presided, and a sub-committee of three or four drew up a Declaration, -in which they promised to assist the Prince of Orange in obtaining a -Parliament for the welfare of England, the security of the Church, and -the freedom of Dissenters. This was signed by the two Archbishops, the -Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough, -and by several Peers. A deputation of four, including the Bishop of -Ely, was appointed to wait upon His Highness. Riots followed. “No -Popery” became the general cry. Roman Catholic chapels were stripped -of furniture, in some instances the buildings were demolished. -Oranges--symbolic of the Deliverer--were stuck on the ends of spikes -and staves, and waved in triumph. The Embassies of Roman Catholic -countries were no longer safe, and the mansion of the Spanish Minister -was sacked. One act of vengeance will surprise no one who has read the -story of the previous reign: Jeffreys, disguised as a sailor, fell -into the hands of the mob, and narrowly escaped with life. Speke, not -satisfied with the fictitious Declaration, invented terrific stories -about massacres, which he said were already begun by the Irish. All -kinds of atrocities were to be perpetrated by the disbanded army. De -Foe repeated that, “the Irish dragoons which had fled from Reading, -rallied at Twyford, and having lost not many of their number--for -there were not above twelve men killed--marched on for Maidenhead, -swearing and cursing, after a most soldierly manner, that they would -burn all the towns wherever they came, and cut the throats of the -people.” He adds, that as he himself rode to Maidenhead, he learnt at -Slough that Maidenhead had been burnt, also Uxbridge and Reading. When -he came to Reading, he was assured Maidenhead and Oakingham were in -flames.[71] Imagination invented all kinds of horrors. In consequence -of Speke’s letters came the _Irish night_, as it is called, -when the citizens of London, in the utmost terror at the thought of -insurgents entering their gates and murdering them in their beds, sat -up till morning,--drums beating to arms, women screaming in agony, -lights blazing at windows, streets lined with soldiers, and the doors -of houses barricaded against the fancied foe. The panic could not be -confined to the Metropolis. It spread to the North; it reached Leeds. -Stories were told of Papists at Nottingham burning and slaying all -before them; whereupon, the people of Leeds mended their fire-arms and -fixed scythes on poles, kept watch and ward, and sent for the military, -who came in such strong force that they amounted to seven thousand -horse and foot. This pacified the inhabitants, until in the middle -of the night there rose a cry, “Horse and arms! horse and arms!--the -enemy are upon us! Beeston is actually burnt, and only some escaped -to bring the doleful tidings!” The bells were rung backwards, women -shrieked, candles were placed in the windows, armed horsemen rode -in the direction where the destroyers were expected; and men with -their wives and children, leaving all behind, even money and plate -upon the tables, ran for shelter to barns and haystacks. The terror -was so great that nothing like it had occurred since the Civil Wars; -but the immediate cause of it all turned out to be the shouting of -a few drunken people. Again came the cry of “Fire! fire! Horse and -arms! for God’s sake!”--simply because beacons were burning over the -town of Halifax. Whether deluded, or wishing to keep up an excitement -for political purposes, military expresses brought pretended advice -“that the Irish were broken into parties and dispersed.” The whole -was managed so artfully, that one who inquired into the matter could -not learn who contrived it.[72] Hatred against the Roman Catholics, -kindled by atrocious falsehoods, contributed to strengthen a desire -for the expatriation of all priests; but other causes, according to -the confession of Jesuits themselves, helped to bring on the downfall -of Popery. Father Con, an active Jesuit in London, wrote a letter to -the provincial of his order at Rome, telling a story, in which he -ascribes a considerable share in the catastrophe, to his own party, and -especially to D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio. The mischief, he said, came -from their own avarice and ambition. The King had “made use of fools, -knaves, and blockheads,” and the favoured agent, instead of being a -“moderate, discreet, and sagacious minister,” was a “mere boy, a fine, -showy fop, to make love to the ladies.”[73] - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -James, after a short detention at Sheerness, returned to London. Lord -Middleton heard of his coming, and hurriedly scrawled a note in these -words: “The King will be at Rochester this night, and intends to be -at Whitehall to-morrow; has ordered his coaches to meet him at his -lodgings.” Immediately from Westminster, under date “Dec. 15, 1688, 7 -at night,” the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Sancroft, “May it please -your Grace--and I am sure it will--His Majesty will be here to-morrow, -and his coaches and guard are to meet him at Dartford. This account and -orders came from my Lord Middleton.”[74] - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -The discarded Monarch came, as Middleton said, and a gleam of loyalty -burst out once more, amidst bells and bonfires. The poor man almost -thought he should gain a new lease of power, and the frightened Papists -came out of holes and corners to welcome their regal friend. He even -ventured to assume a rather haughty tone, but in vain. The die was -cast. The Dutch Ambassador informed him that the Prince would allow no -Royal guards, but such as were under his own command. This amounted to -a demand of surrender. William was in a position to insist upon it. -Three Dutch battalions reached Whitehall at 10 o’clock on the night -of December the 17th. Before the morning a message arrived from the -Prince, requiring James to proceed to Ham, near Richmond. James said he -should prefer Rochester. It mattered little where he went. The party -in the ascendant only wished to get rid of him. He went to Rochester. -There we need not follow him. It is enough to notice that several -Bishops concurred in entreating him not to leave the country.[75] From -Rochester he stole away to France. Next we find him at St. Germains. - -As the rejected King slipped down the Thames on the morning of December -the 18th, his destined successor was preparing to take up his quarters -at St. James’s Palace. He disappointed the people, who waited in -the rain to welcome him, by driving through the park. Attended by a -brilliant train of courtiers and officers, he reached the gateway -of the Royal residence late in the afternoon. The Princess Anne, -accompanied by Lady Churchill, both covered with orange ribbons, went -that night to the theatre in her father’s coach. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -William had ordered Burnet to secure the Papists from violence, -thinking perhaps of the probable consequences of the third Declaration. -He renewed the order after he had entered London; in consequence of it, -passports were granted to priests wishing to leave the country; and two -being imprisoned in Newgate, the busy ecclesiastical Minister of His -Highness paid them a visit, and took upon himself to provide for their -comfort. A little incident, recorded by Dr. Patrick, brings before -us vividly the excitement amongst Churchmen at that critical period. -“It was a very rainy night when Dr. Tenison and I being together, and -discoursing in my parlour, in the little cloisters in Westminster, -one knocked hard at the door. It being opened, in came the Bishop of -St. Asaph; to whom I said, ‘What makes your Lordship come abroad in -such weather, when the rain pours down as if heaven and earth would -come together?’ To which he answered, ‘He had been at Lambeth, and was -sent by the Bishops to wait upon the Prince, and know when they might -all come and pay their duty to him.’ I asked if my Lord of Canterbury -had agreed to it, together with the rest. He said, ‘Yea, he made some -difficulty at the first, but consented at the last, and ordered him to -go with that message.’”[76] - -Whitehall, which, up to the flight of James, had been crowded by -friends or time-servers, now became a desert; and St. James’s, which -had been a desert, now became a rendezvous for courtiers of every kind. -Those who held staves, keys, or other badges of office, laid them down; -and the whole herd of seekers, expectants, and claimants jostled one -another on the threshold of the house where the new master of England -had taken up his abode. Clarendon went to Court instantly, but could -not get near His Highness for the crowd of people. - -[Sidenote: THE CRISIS.] - -A clerical address appears to have been amongst the first, if not the -very first, presented to him on his arrival. At noon, after the rainy -night when the Bishop of St. Asaph knocked at a door in the little -cloisters at Westminster, Dr. Paman, a domestic of the Archbishop of -Canterbury, called on Dr. Patrick to inform him that the Prince had -appointed three o’clock in the afternoon to receive the Bishops. “Will -my Lord of Canterbury be with them?” asked Patrick. “Yes, yes,” was -the reply. Whether an interview between the Prince and any Bishops did -take place that day, or the messenger had mistaken the time, or the -appointment had been altered, certain it is that the Archbishop did not -go, and we have no particular account of the presentation of an address -before the 21st. - -On that occasion, Compton, Bishop of London, took the lead. Two days -before, he and some of his clergy met to agree upon an address. There -were present persons who desired the insertion of a passage to the -effect that the Prince should “have respect to the King, and preserve -the Church established by law;” and “one of considerable note refused -to go, because these clauses were not inserted.” Certain Nonconformists -heard what was going on, and requested they might unite with their -Episcopal brethren. Compton complied, and on Friday morning, the -21st, when the address was to be presented, sixteen early risers left -their homes and threaded their way through the dusky streets. “No -more could be got together in due time that morning, for the Bishop -was to make the address about 9 or 10 o’clock that day.” They deputed -Howe, Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo “to go with the conformable -clergy (who numbered about 99) and the Bishop of London to attend the -Prince.” Admitted to His Highness’s presence, the Bishop--a perfect -courtier--conducted the interview with becoming grace, addressing -him _viva voce_, and gratifying the Nonconformists by a special -reference to them as brethren who differed on some minor matters, -but in nothing substantial, and who fully concurred in the address -presented, “at which words, the Prince took particular notice of the -four Nonconformist ministers”--an incident which no doubt would give -rise to some talk that memorable Christmas-time. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -A large meeting of Presbyterian and Independent brethren was held -just afterwards, to depute four of their number to wait on Compton, -to thank him for his courtesy, and whilst they were considering this -matter, “there were divers bundles of the King’s letters, containing -the reasons of his withdrawing, delivered or thrown in amongst them -by a stranger. Some bundles had particular directions on them.” The -circumstance indicates the activity of James’ agents, and their idea -that he had special claims on the Dissenters, who had taken advantage -of his Indulgences. But, says the person who records the incident, -“they are the more fortified hereby in their purpose, that they may -cast off the imputation cast upon them by their enemies, as betrayers -of the religion and laws of the kingdom, by complying with the -Court.”[77] Other Nonconformists, who did not hear of the Bishops’ -audience in sufficient time, presented a distinct address a few days -afterwards, promising “the utmost endeavour, which in their stations -they were capable of affording, for the promoting the excellent and -most desirable ends for which His Highness had declared.”[78] - - - - - CHAPTER III. - - -England was now in the midst of a revolution. What was its character? -Its ecclesiastical aspects alone demand our attention, but these are so -closely connected with others, that we shall be compelled to look at -them all together. Politics and religion were inextricably interwoven. -They had been so in earlier changes. Changes mainly religious were also -political; changes mainly political were also religious. Lollardism -wrought a vast religious revolution, but though it principally aimed at -purifying the Church, it sought, as a means to that end, the amendment -of the State. The Reformation was pre-eminently an ecclesiastical -movement, but its political entanglements are obvious to everybody. -The Civil Wars were struggles for civil liberty--for the rights of the -people against the oppression of the Crown; but the religious spirit, -at first hidden in the heart of those conflicts, was so strong, and -soon burst out in other forms so conspicuously, that the Commonwealth -of England and the Protectorate of Cromwell became entangled with -ecclesiastical and theological controversies. The Revolution of 1688 -came in the wake of the Puritan movement. - -[Sidenote: 1688.] - -The union between Church and State, which runs back through English -history to its earliest days, rendered this intermingling of interests -an unavoidable necessity. Great movements in the Church affected the -Government; great changes in the Government affected the Church. Whilst -this union is obviously a cause of additional complexity, no thoughtful -person can fail to discover in even the simplest principles of polity -and doctrine, forces which are sure to touch society in its temporal -interests, and render inevitable political developments of religion and -religious developments of politics. If the Church were separated from -the State to-morrow, a connexion between religion and politics would -remain. - -The two great political Revolutions of England in the 17th century -sprung from religious feeling, from religious antipathies, from -religious aspirations. Fiery impulses, kindled by faith, did more to -scorch and destroy civil despotism than any constitutional traditions, -any maxims of secular policy. Religion was the prime mover in the -events of 1688. Not only did ministers of religion take part in it, but -religion itself entered deeply into the political question. When moving -in one direction the Popery of James prompted him to play the despot, -and when moving in another direction the Protestantism of his subjects -impelled them to fight for their liberties--the two forces came in -contact, and issued in a crash, bringing about the King’s downfall and -the Prince’s elevation. The same influences led to a settlement of the -long-debated question of prerogative--they consolidated the power of -Parliament, they created the Bill of Rights; without such religious -enthusiasm as then existed, it may be doubted whether such a Revolution -would have been possible; and as it sprung from religious causes, so -the Revolution produced religious results. It checked the progress of -Popery, it inaugurated a new form of Protestant ascendency, which has -lasted down to our own time; it altered the position of the Church -Establishment; it materially modified the Act of Uniformity; and it -legally secured toleration. These subjects will claim attention as we -proceed, and a fuller estimate of the character of the Revolution had -better be deferred for the present. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -The Peers met in their own House on the 22nd of December. Nothing of -moment passed. The day before Christmas-day they met again, and we find -Clarendon, with a lingering regard for the Stuart family, asking for -an inquiry into the birth of the Prince of Wales, when Lord Wharton, -an old Puritan, indignantly replied, “My Lords, I did not expect, at -this time of day, to hear anybody mention that child, who was called -the Prince of Wales; indeed I did not, and I hope we shall hear no more -of him.” It was at last decided that an address should be presented to -the Prince of Orange to take on him the Administration of affairs, and -to issue circular-letters to the counties, cities, universities, and -cinque-ports, to send Representatives to a Convention at Westminster on -the 22nd of January following.[79] - -The Archbishop did not attend. Clarendon and the Bishop of Ely sent for -him, “but the King’s being gone had cast such a damp upon him that he -would not come.”[80] James, soon after his flight, had written to the -Primate, informing him that, but for his hasty departure, he should -have explained the reasons of his becoming a Roman Catholic; that -although he had not thought proper to do this on a former occasion, -when his re-conversion had been attempted, yet he never refused -speaking freely with Protestants, especially with His Grace, “whom -he always considered to be his friend, and for whom he had a great -esteem.” His own “conversion had taken place in his riper years, and -on the full conviction of his mind as to the controverted points.”[81] -Sancroft, with all his weakness, narrowness, and obstinacy, had a -kindness of heart, which, in spite of the treatment received from -the fallen Monarch, inspired compassion for him in a season of deep -adversity. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Clarendon busied himself in interviews with the Prelates, and we find -that on the 29th of December, he and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Ely -were together reading over the King’s reasons for leaving Rochester. -Different opinions of his conduct appear, together with Clarendon’s -predilections in favour of his old master, in the following passage of -his Diary--a Diary which sheds much light on that changeful time:--“The -Bishop of Ely and I were moved, but the Bishop of St. Asaph took -the paper, and began to comment upon it, saying it was a Jesuitical -masterpiece. I think I never heard more malicious inferences than he -drew from the King’s expression in that paper. Good God! where is -loyalty and Christian charity.”[82] On New Year’s-day, 1689, amidst a -hard frost, Clarendon’s lingering loyalty to James did not prevent his -paying court to William; and afterwards visiting Sir Edward Seymour, -he heard him say, amongst other things, the countenance shown by the -Prince to Dissenters “gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of -England,” and if that Church were not supported, England would “run -into a Commonwealth, and all would be ruined.”[83] - -Another interesting peep into ecclesiastical secrets is afforded -by Clarendon, whose report, for the sake of accuracy, had better be -preserved in his own words:-- - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -“I went to dinner at Lambeth: Dr. Tenison with me. We went over the -bridge, by reason the river was so full of ice, that boats could not -pass. After dinner I spoke to the Archbishop (as I had done several -times before) of going to the Prince of Orange, or sending some message -to him by some of the Bishops: for he had yet taken no notice at all of -him: but he was positive not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave -me. We then spoke to him of the approaching Convention, and whether -he would not think of preparing something against that time in behalf -of the Dissenters. Dr. Tenison added, it would be expected something -should be offered in pursuance of the petition which the seven Bishops -had given to the King: for which they had been put into the Tower. -The Archbishop said, he knew well what was in their petition; and he -believed every Bishop in England intended to make it good, when there -was an opportunity of debating those matters in Convocation; but till -then, or without a commission from the King, it was highly penal to -enter upon Church matters; but, however, he would have it in his mind, -and would be willing to discourse any of the Bishops or other Clergy -thereupon, if they came to him; though he believed the Dissenters -would never agree among themselves with what concessions they would -be satisfied. To which Dr. Tenison replied, he believed so too; that -he had not discoursed with any of them upon this subject; and the way -to do good was, not to discourse with them, but for the Bishops to -endeavour to get such concessions settled in Parliament, the granting -whereof (whether accepted or not by the Dissenters) should be good for -the Church. The Archbishop answered, that when there was a Convocation, -those matters would be considered of; and in the meantime, he knew -not what to say, but that he would think of what had been offered by -us.”[84] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -What the thoughts of the Archbishop were just then with regard to -Dissenters, it is impossible to say. It is otherwise respecting his -opinion upon another point. - -All Protestants, high and low, had united for some months in one -thing--the desire for a Revolution which should put a stop to the -reign of prerogative, and place the liberties of the country upon a -legal basis. But what exactly was the Revolution to be? Who was to -be Ruler in the room of James? As to this pressing subject, opinions -ran in divergent lines. The Archbishop, suffering from ill-health, -worried by distractions around him, shut himself up in his Palace that -cold Christmas-time, and covered closely, with his own neat hand, -twenty-five pages of paper, from which we learn how he looked at the -politics of the hour. Gazing at the engravings taken from his portrait -in Lambeth Palace, we see him--with his simple, honest face, and a -close black cap, such as gives the wearer a Puritan look, but for a -pair of lawn sleeves sometimes worn--industriously putting down the -_pros_ and _cons_ of the puzzle. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -The King is gone. The Government is without a pilot. The captain of -a foreign force is at the head of affairs. How is the Government to -be settled legally and securely? Shall the commander of the foreign -force be declared King, and solemnly crowned? Shall the next heir--the -Princess Mary (the Prince of Wales is not mentioned)--be Queen, her -husband acquiring an interest in the government through her right? -or shall the King be declared incapable of personal government, the -commander being made _Custos Regni_, who shall administer affairs -in the King’s name? “I am clearly of opinion,” writes the perplexed -critic, “that the last way is the best, and that a settlement cannot be -made so justifiable and lasting any other way.”[85] We cannot proceed -through the prolix dissertation in which Sancroft endeavours to support -his conclusion. Every word proves his simplicity and conscientiousness, -but a weaker set of reasons, and a set of reasons more pedantically -expressed, one rarely meets with. Both the moral and intellectual -sides of the man’s character are apparent throughout. But for the -theory of the divine right of kings, and the subject’s duty of passive -obedience, which acted as a spell upon his mind, it would be impossible -to conceive how a person of ordinary intelligence could advocate such -a scheme as he did. Before long it must have been found unmanageable, -leading to a second Revolution. While professedly concocted for the -purpose of maintaining James’ kingly rights, it stripped him of all -power; and curiously enough, as appears on a moment’s reflection, it -is open to precisely the objections which had been brought against the -Puritan Commonwealth’s-men, who administered government against the -King in the King’s own name. To call James sovereign, with William as -_Custos Regni_, was to use words in the way Pym and Hampden and -Cromwell had done. What makes Sancroft’s conduct the more inconsistent -is, that he and his party supported the Act of Uniformity, which -required the Clergy to abhor that traitorous position of taking arms -by the King’s authority against the King’s person, or against those -commissioned by him. Must not William have done this, if Sancroft’s -advice had been adopted? Must he not have defended his Regency by -force against the nominal Monarch, who would have regarded that Regency -as a flagrant usurpation? - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Archbishop anxiously consulted with some of the Bishops of his -province touching this subject, and when the meetings became publicly -known, they received the name of the Lambeth, or Holy Jacobite -Club.[86] They did not all agree. Four of them went home one day from -Lambeth, in the coach of Turner, Bishop of Ely, deploring they should -disagree in anything, and especially in such a thing as that which all -the world must needs observe. Turner wrote immediately afterwards to -the Primate, asking him to draw up propositions against deposition and -election, or anything else which would break the succession, because -he was better versed than his brethren in canons and statutes, out of -which the propositions ought to be drawn. Ken, he said, had left a -draft with him, which might facilitate a completion of the task. The -afternoon of the same day, Turner was to hold a meeting in Ely House, -at which Patrick, Tenison, Sherlock, Scott, and Burnet were to be -present, as well as two Bishops--St. Asaph and Peterborough. These men -were of diverse opinions; how they got on together we do not know, but -it appears some underhand work occurred in reference to James on the -part of the Bishop of Ely. He enclosed, in his letter to Lambeth, a -paper to be kept very private, of which he says, it “may be published -one day, to show we have not been wanting faithfully to serve a hard -master in his extremity; and for the present it will be proof enough -to your Grace, that although I have made some steps, which you could -not, towards our new masters, I did it purely to serve our old one, -and preserve the public.”[87] At any rate, Sancroft appears more -straightforward in this business than some of his brethren. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -Clarendon and Evelyn met at Lambeth Palace the Bishops of St. Asaph, -Ely, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, and Chichester. They prayed, dined, -and discoursed together. Outside, some persons were disposed to have -the Princess proclaimed Queen without hesitation; others inclined to a -Regency; a Tory party wished to invite the King back upon conditions; -Republicans preferred to have the Prince of Orange constituted an -English Stadtholder; and the Popish party simply aimed at throwing the -whole country into confusion, with the hope of something springing out -of it to serve their ends. Evelyn records that he saw nothing of this -variety of objects in the assembly of Bishops, who were unanimous for a -Regency, and for suffering public matters to proceed in the name of the -King.[88] Such perfect unanimity, however, as Evelyn supposed, could -not have existed if Clarendon be right, who says he feared the Bishop -of St. Asaph had been wheedled by Burnet into supporting the transfer -of the Crown, and would be induced to make the King’s going away a -_cession_--a word Burnet fondly used.[89] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The presence of the Primate at the Convention about to be held was of -the first importance, and Clarendon earnestly urged his attendance; -but the obstinacy of the one equalled the importunity of the other. -Sancroft would not go, nor would he visit His Highness. “Would you have -me kill myself?” he petulantly asked his noble friend; “do you not see -what a cold I have?” “No,” said the Earl; “but it would do well if you -would excuse your not waiting on the Prince, by letting him know what a -cold you have, and that you will wait on him when it is gone.” All the -reply he could get was, “I will consider of it.”[90] - -Whatever might be the opinions of the Lambeth party, the Bishop of -London shared neither in their counsels nor in their sympathy. He -wished to see the Princess Mary Queen Regent, leaving her at liberty, -if she liked, to bestow upon her husband, by consent of Parliament, the -title of King. Nor did the prevalent desire of the councillors of the -Archbishop, for a Regent who should rule in the King’s name, satisfy -all James’ Anglican adherents. Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had at -his back a large number of Divines, and he contended for inviting James -back to Whitehall, with such stipulations as would secure the safety -and peace of the realm--an utterly Utopian idea. Burnet, on the other -hand, talked of William’s having acquired a right to the Crown based -on conquest--a notion scouted by most Englishmen. Nine-tenths of the -Clergy were for upholding the cause of hereditary monarchy; but this -large majority broke up into several sections, nor did the remaining -tenth part entirely agree. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -Neither were Nonconformists of one mind. Some were so engrossed in -the discharge of spiritual duties that they paid surprisingly little -attention to the questions of the day. The biographer of Oliver -Heywood informs us that little remains in his papers to show what he -thought of the Revolution, politically regarded. His mind rested on -one point--the liberty of preaching, and it seemed indifferent to him -whether it came by a Royal Declaration or by an Act of Parliament.[91] -Matthew Henry states that it was not without fear and trembling his -father Philip received the tidings of the Prince’s landing, “as being -somewhat in the dark concerning the clearness of his call, and dreading -what might be the consequence of it,”--that he used to say, “Give peace -in our time, O Lord,” was a prayer to which he could add his Amen; -but he stopped there. However, when the Revolution was accomplished, -he rejoiced in the consequences, and joined in the national -thanksgiving.[92] - -Another class of Nonconformists were in an awkward position. Their -fault had been that they identified themselves with men and measures -out of all harmony with their own principles. William Penn, Vincent -Alsop, Stephen Lobb, and others had signed obsequious addresses to -James. They had blindly credited him with a love for religious liberty, -and had really, though not intentionally, upheld his despotism. But in -this emergency they presented no word of condolence to the man whom -they had helped to befool, nor did they attempt anything to save him -from his impending fate. A double inconsistency marked their conduct: -first, they contradicted their profession of liberal principles; next, -they contradicted their profession of personal regard. They were galled -by the reproach of enemies, also they must have felt reproaches of -conscience. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Another class of Nonconformists had, without any compromise, availed -themselves of the liberty offered them, though disliking the -unconstitutional quarter whence it came. When the Revolution took -place, most of these, and others who survived to witness it, were -delighted and thankful. What John Howe did appears from what I have -said already, and shall have to say hereafter. Baxter had become -too old and infirm to take any active part in public business. -Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo, as we have seen, joined Howe in the -clerical address to William on the 21st of December; others presented -congratulations afterwards. - -If Protestant Nonconformists formed a twentieth part of the population, -the community to that extent may be reckoned as rejoicing in the -downfall of James; probably by far the larger part supported the claims -of William; yet a few old Republicans--Independent and Baptist--would, -I apprehend, have preferred to see a Commonwealth, with the Prince of -Orange in a presidential chair, such as the Lord Protector Cromwell had -occupied. - -It is no part of my task to describe minutely the method by which -the new settlement was effected: an outline is sufficient. A meeting -had been summoned by His Highness for the 26th of December, 1688, to -consist, first, of all such persons as had been Knights or Burgesses -in any of the Parliaments of Charles II.; and next, of the Lord Mayor -and Aldermen of the City of London, with fifty of the Common Council -chosen by the whole body. This mode of proceeding appears remarkably -conservative, and so far was in harmony with all the great changes -wrought in the political government of this country. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -When those who formed this meeting mooted the question, “What authority -they had to assemble,” they agreed, “that the request of His Highness -the Prince was a sufficient warrant,” and proceeded to entrust him -with the administration of public affairs until a Convention should be -held, which he was to call by writs addressed to the Lords temporal -and spiritual, being Protestants, and to the counties, universities, -cities, and boroughs of England.[93] - -A Convention being elected, the members met on the 22nd of January, -1689. It was composed of Protestants alone. These Protestants being -chiefly Whigs, and those Whigs numbering an immense majority of -Episcopalians, perhaps not more than twenty Nonconformists were -returned--a fact which ought to be carefully borne in mind. - -The day on which the Commons assembled, the Lords also appeared, to -the number of about ninety, of whom sixteen were spiritual Peers. No -prayers were read; the first thing done, after a short letter from the -Prince had been laid on the table, was the appointment of a day of -solemn thanksgiving. - -Eleven Bishops were selected to draw up a form for the purpose, -and it does not appear that any of them scrupled to undertake this -service.[94] The 30th of January fell on a Sunday; and in such a case -it had been arranged that the office for Charles’ martyrdom should be -used on that day, and the observances of the fast transferred to the -next. On the 30th, however, Evelyn notices that “in all the public -offices and pulpit prayers, the collects and litany for the King and -Queen were curtailed and mutilated.” On the 31st the thanksgiving set -aside the fast. Burnet preached before the Commons, saying, “You feel -a great deal, and promise a great deal more; and your are now in the -right way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving to -offer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owe -this new lease of your own.”[95] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have been -indicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at Westminster -Abbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took his -place.[96] - -The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the election -of Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords’ -order respecting a day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, to -debate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery, -the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the next -day Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and present -struggles by saying, “These forty years we have been scrambling for -our religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been striving -against Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny.”[97] - -The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the -constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract between -King and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, -having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of -the Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was -thereby vacant. The next day it was resolved that it had been found -by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this -Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and had -refused to read the King’s Declaration.[98] Things deemed necessary -for better securing religious liberty and law were reported from a -Committee, who particularly specified, “effectual provision to be made -for the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, and -for uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far as -may be”--in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration and -Comprehension Bills. - -The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a -Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant, -much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was -vacant--only for the present supposing it to be so--they wished to -determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be -devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated -by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were; -and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur -the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph, -who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendon -surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as -a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop -approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London -and Bristol.[99] The question raised in an abstract form--whether or -no there was an original contract between King and people--involved -a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had -maintained. For the principle of a social compact, 53 Peers voted -against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of -a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken -it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “_deserted_ -the Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “_abdicated_ the -Government;” nor would the majority allow the word _vacant_ to -stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies; -and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately -devolved upon the Princess of Orange--the claim of the infant Prince -of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at -issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed. -The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking -and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and -Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at -the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession -of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members -crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according -as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in -dispute.[100] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuously -argued against using the word _abdication_, or regarding the -throne as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree in -this, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crown -elective.[101] He wished to save the divine right. By some persons -the idea was entertained of making William sole King--an idea which -Burnet resisted, heart and soul, in a conversation held with Bentinck, -the Prince’s principal friend.[102] Amidst the heats of this debate, -the Prince thought it time for him to express his sentiments. It had -been proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of a -Regent;--that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested that -the Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy, -might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtues -he respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependent -upon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either of -the schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied with -the consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though in -vain.[103] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -William’s decision took effect, and the conference ended in dropping -what was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution--that the -Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. The -Lords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested, -amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The five -who went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat, -Hall, and Crew.[104] Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, had -supported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreak -of the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel to -convey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage of -supporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishops -accomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in the -Tower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement, -and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethren -contributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotism -of James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince of -Orange being constituted King, and two-thirds of the other Bishops -agreed with them in this respect. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lords -until they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon which -they based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying these -principles, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James--his -endeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert the -laws and liberties of the kingdom--goes on to state that the Prince of -Orange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specify -the ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear the -right of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty of -the Crown frequently to call together the representatives of the -people.[105] William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King and -Queen; the succession is determined to be in the issue of the latter; -in default of such issue, in Anne of Denmark and her heirs; in default -of her issue, then in the heirs of the King. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have been -ever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties, -namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown should -pass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a fundamental law -from the beginning, modified by a choice of the people in any great -crisis, when the interests of the nation have been seen to depend upon -the succession of one Royal personage rather than another. In 1688, -respect was paid to the ancient tradition. In the Bill of Rights the -hereditary claim is distinctly set forth. “It is curious to observe -with what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept from -the eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity to -countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forward -and fostered and made the most of.” “The Lords and Commons fall to a -pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare that they consider it ‘as -a marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation, -to preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons, most happily to reign -over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of -their hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises.’”[106] - -But the election of William and Mary, though veiled under a reference -to the throne of their ancestors, is really the point upon which their -accession hinged. Mary’s accession might, by those who disbelieved -that the Prince of Wales was James’ son, be made to depend entirely on -natural descent, but the accession of William could not rest on that -ground; his election was essential to the legitimacy of his rights. -Yet there was no setting aside of any divine laws, no contempt for -the teaching of Scripture, as was pretended by nonjurors. When we are -told “the powers that be are ordained of God,” those words invest with -divine authority all constitutional governments, whether Monarchical -or Republican, whether entirely by descent or wholly by election, or -partly by one and partly by the other; they do not apply alone to -Kings and their eldest sons. To plead nonjuring interpretations of -Scripture in England at the Revolution tended to make men slaves, even -as to plead them now in America would make men rebels. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The oaths of allegiance prescribed, as they led to momentous -consequences, ought to be given. “I, A. B., do sincerely promise and -swear, That I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their -Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.” “I, A. B., do -swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious -and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes -excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See -of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other -whatsoever. And I do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate, -state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, -superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, -within this realm. So help me God.”[107] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -Before the completion of this Parliamentary manifesto, the Princess -Mary had come to England; and upon the 13th of February she took her -place beside her husband in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall under -a canopy of State, when the two Speakers, followed by the Lords and -Commons respectively, were conducted into their presence by the -Usher of the Black Rod, to offer the Crown upon conditions implied -in the Declaration of Rights. When the document had been read, the -Prince replied, “This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust -you have in us that can be given, which is the thing which makes us -value it the more; and we thankfully accept what you have offered -to us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than to -preserve your religion, laws, and liberties, so you may be sure that -I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in -anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom; and to do all -that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.” -The day on which this tender was accepted, saw once more the gorgeous -ceremonial by which Kings and Queens in England had been proclaimed. -A long line of coaches passed from Westminster to the City, with a -brilliant array of marshals’ men, trumpeters, and heralds. A pause -at Temple Bar at the Gates, and then a formal opening took place in -due order. The Lord Mayor in a coach, and the Aldermen, Sheriffs, and -Recorder on horseback, conducted the Peers and Commons to the middle of -Cheapside--the train bands lining the way. Then, after declaring that -God had vouchsafed a miraculous deliverance from Popery and arbitrary -power through His Highness the Prince of Orange, and after referring -to the great and eminent virtue of Her Highness the Princess, whose -zeal for the Protestant religion was sure to bring a blessing upon this -nation--the heralds proclaimed William and Mary “King and Queen of -England, France, and Ireland, with all the dominions and territories -thereunto belonging.”[108] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -That evening, the Queen sent two of her Chaplains to the Archbishop of -Canterbury to beg his blessing; and, by a suspicious combination of -two errands, desired them to attend the service in Lambeth Chapel, and -notice whether prayers were offered for the Sovereigns. The Chaplain -being alarmed, asked His Grace what should be done: he replied, “I -have no new instructions to give.” The Chaplain interpreted this as -entrusting him with a discretionary power, and, wishing to keep the -Primate out of difficulty, prayed for the King and Queen who had just -been proclaimed. The act provoked Sancroft, who sent for the Chaplain, -and commanded him either to desist from such petitions, or to cease -from officiating in Lambeth; for so long as King James lived, no other -person could be Sovereign of England. Sancroft’s conviction that a -Regency was the right thing seems to have deepened, when in the opinion -of everybody else it passed utterly out of the question; for the -Primate had a temper which increased in obstinacy in proportion as the -object pursued became unattainable. - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The appointment of officers of State immediately followed the accession -to the throne. The reader will bear in mind what has been said in -former volumes respecting the mode of administering affairs in the -Stuart reigns. No Ministry, in our sense of the term, existed then, -men of different political opinions being employed as functionaries of -Government. This usage survived the Revolution; and William surrounded -himself with Whigs and Tories. Reserving to himself the Ministry of -Foreign Affairs, he appointed as President of the Council the Earl of -Danby, although that nobleman differed from him in many opinions. Danby -had countenanced encroachments by the Royal prerogatives; he had even -maintained the doctrine of passive obedience. That doctrine he was now, -through the necessities of the times, forced to abandon, and by serving -under a Monarch whose throne rested on the Declaration of Rights, he -virtually repudiated his earlier opinions. He had also persecuted -Dissenters--a policy now professedly abandoned. Yet there remained in -Lord Danby a strong attachment to high ecclesiastical views, and he -was zealous for the old connection between Church and Crown as the -best method of preserving both. Halifax, described as the Trimmer,[109] -had become more of a Liberal, and to him was entrusted the Privy Seal -and the Speakership of the Upper House. The Earl of Nottingham--another -deserter from the Tory ranks--professed that although his principles -did not allow him to take part in making William King, they bound him, -now that the deed was done, to pay His Majesty a more strict obedience -than he could expect from those who had made him Sovereign. He accepted -the office of a Secretary of State--an act which, like that of Danby, -served to give weight to the new administration in the eyes of Tories -and High Churchmen. Shrewsbury, a popular Whig, and a young man of -twenty-eight, was the other Secretary. The Great Seal came into the -hands of Commissioners, the chief of whom was Sir John Maynard, who -had upheld the Petition of Rights in 1628, had voted with the country -party in the struggles preceding the Civil Wars, had subscribed the -League and Covenant, and had advised Cromwell to accept the Crown. He -was ninety years of age, and when presented to William at Whitehall the -Prince remarked, he must have survived all the lawyers of his time. He -replied, “he had like to have outlived the law itself, if His Highness -had not come over.”[110] The Treasury fell into the hands of Whigs, -amongst whom was Godolphin, the husband of Margaret Blagge, a man of -practical ability, but of no fixed principle, a staunch Churchman, yet -one of a class that could live amongst Jesuits under King James, and -could keep on terms with Presbyterians under King William. - -This administration--a Joseph’s coat of many colours--proceeded from -a compromise which under existing circumstances seemed unavoidable. -Intended to please different parties, it actually displeased them--a -fact soon manifested. But no political appointment aroused so much -criticism as the nomination of Burnet to the See of Salisbury. That See -had become vacant through the death of Seth Ward; and it was the first -piece of ecclesiastical preferment of which William had to dispose -after his accession to the throne. The nomination of Bishops in our -own time has occasionally provoked immense discussion, but perhaps -nobody ever stepped up to the Episcopal Bench amidst such showers of -abuse as Gilbert Burnet. To select a High Churchman would have been -inconsistent and disastrous; and amongst eligible Low Churchmen, no one -had such strong claims upon William as the friend whom he and his wife -had consulted at the Hague, the Chaplain who had come with his Fleet, -the Secretary who had drawn up his Declarations, and the clergyman who -had advocated his cause from the pulpit. But the very grounds upon -which rested Burnet’s claims made him the more objectionable to many. -These grounds were decidedly political, yet though many a Bishop has -been appointed for political reasons, the services now enumerated -were not exactly such as to indicate qualification for the office of -a spiritual overseership. At the same time it is unfair to Burnet’s -memory not to say, that he was a man of piety, Protestant zeal, varied -learning, large experience, and indefatigable industry. At a later -period, after time had worn down the asperities of the controversy, -a mitre could with much propriety have been given him; but it was -scarcely in accordance with William’s policy in political appointments -to bestow it at once upon one who had obtrusively acted as a partisan, -and inspired so much dislike in the opposite party. It should be -further stated that many Churchmen were deeply offended at Burnet’s -elevation, because they had a strong aversion to what they call his -Latitudinarian and Low Church views. Consequently, when it came to the -point of sanctioning by consecration the Royal nominee, a difficulty -arose. The Dean and Chapter of Salisbury were as prompt to elect as the -King to propose; but the Archbishop of Canterbury no sooner heard of -the _congé d’élire_, than he refused to engage in the requisite -solemnity. Burnet himself goes so far as to say that Sancroft refused -even to see him on the subject.[111] No friendly influence could induce -the Primate to swerve from his determination; but by an evasion, such -as unfortunately too often commends itself to clerical judgments, -he resolved to grant a commission for others to do what he declined -to do himself. The Vicar-General appeared, produced the commission, -and through his officers received the usual fees. To make the matter -worse, when the Archbishop’s conduct was complained of by his own -party, either he, or some one in his name, contrived to abstract the -document from the Registrar’s office; and it could not be recovered -until after Sancroft’s death, when Burnet threatened to commence legal -proceedings for obtaining what was necessary to prove the validity of -his consecration and his right to the Bishopric.[112] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Some Churchmen soon manifested their dissatisfaction with the turn -affairs had taken; and Maynard, the first Commissioner of the Great -Seal, remarked, in a debate upon making the Convention a Parliament, -“There is a great danger in sending out writs at this time, if you -consider what a ferment the nation is in; and I think the Clergy are -out of their wits, and I believe, if the Clergy should have their -wills, few or none of us should be here again.” The remark brought up -Sir Thomas Clarges, who defended the Ministers in the Metropolis, and -praised the Church as a bulwark during the late trials. “Clarges speaks -honestly,” replied Maynard, “as I believe he thinks. As for the Clergy, -I have much honour for High and Low of them; but I must say they are -in a ferment--there are pluralists among them, and when they should -preach the Gospel, they preach against the Parliament and the law of -England.”[113] At a moment when some showed dissatisfaction towards -William, and the highest legal officer of the Crown thus talked about -Churchmen, Lord Danby complained to His Majesty that he did all he -could to encourage Presbyterians, and to dishearten Episcopalians--a -circumstance which, he said, could not fail to be prejudicial to his -Government and to himself.[114] It is certain that no sooner had -William as King of England grasped the reins, than intrigues became -rife; thoughts arose of bringing back James, and men in office began to -express a want of confidence in the New Settlement. Halifax muttered -something to the effect that if the exiled King were a Protestant, he -could not be kept out four months; and Danby, that if the exile would -but give satisfaction as to Religion, “it would be very hard to make -head against him.”[115] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.] - -Still, however, a large number of Clergymen not only accepted the new -order of things, but heartily espoused the cause of the new dynasty. -Besides those dignitaries who assisted in raising William and Mary to -the throne, many in the lower ranks, by exhortations from the pulpit, -arguments from the press, and the exercise of private influence, -sought to gather up popular affection, and weave it around the chosen -occupants of the throne. It may be worth while to mention that Samuel -Wesley, Rector of Epworth, the father of John, founder of Methodism, -states that he wrote and printed the first publication which appeared -in defence of the Government; and he also composed “many little pieces -more, both in prose and verse, with the same view.”[116] - - - - - CHAPTER IV. - - -In the laws respecting oaths at the period of the Revolution, certain -changes took place, which from their religions aspect demand our notice. - -The new Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Declaration of Rights -differed from the old Oaths of Allegiance imposed by statute law. -To make this change perfectly constitutional, and to secure entire -uniformity in the expression of loyal obedience, it was necessary to -pass an Act abolishing ancient forms, and determining the circumstances -under which a new one should be enforced. Leave having been granted -in the House of Commons upon the 25th of February to bring in such -a measure, upon the 16th of March the Solicitor-General reported -amendments made in the Bill, and upon the 18th of the same month the -Bill passed the House. Being sent up to the Lords, it was read by them -a second time only, attention becoming absorbed by another Bill for the -same purpose, originating in their own House, and on the 25th sent down -to the Commons, by whom it was immediately read, and committed on the -28th. The Journals of the two Houses for the month of April abound in -notices of debates, amendments, protests, reports, and conferences in -reference to this question. Its religious bearings were twofold. - -[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken by -all persons holding office in the Church of England and the two -Universities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or perform -the duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or minister -in a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possess -a fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promise -and swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William -and Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative character -of Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical preferments -on the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; and -at the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to the -Government, there appears the same reason for enacting a declaration -of loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To have -excepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have been -to make an invidious distinction between classes of the community -bound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to the -interpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraid -of the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths--if -they afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, they -certainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforced -upon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to be -disaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed by -disaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly on -two grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to King -James could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside those -vows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, their -case was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though no -appeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs, -or the captain of a regiment, might very well feel the same scruples -as troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; and -if exceptions of this sort were once begun, where were they to end? -What could not at the time fail to be noticed, and now must strike -every reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness with -respect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very same -persons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who had -treated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part of -Presbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required now -cannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. An -Episcopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the persons -who occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on the -subject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been required -to swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, but -had been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful; -and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despotic -king is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciation -of former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practical -relinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. The -law of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrine -of resistance--the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he must -denounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier era -a political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office; -at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience is -sacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swear -allegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness of -their scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings, -it is hard to discern any plausible ground for refusing to transfer -allegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold the -Divine right of Kings--and therefore preferred a Regency to a change in -the succession, as was the case with Sancroft--still it appears that -they might, consistently with their abstract principle, have sworn -to obey a _de facto_ potentate. At any rate, their difficulties -were less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethren -seven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains as -molehills,--now they magnified molehills into mountains. - -[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.] - -The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness of -clerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherence -to the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except in -the case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princes -entwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notion -that Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itself -with a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of human -law. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither could -Clergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that now -enacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, even -impious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughout -this reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divine -community, is independent of human governments. The pastors and -teachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in the -hands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritual -office and character the Civil power is not competent to denude any -servant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongst -chief officers of State, when Bishops are Peers, and Clergymen have -legally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalities -are from first to last the creations of secular government; and the -authority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business to -alter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right to -impose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to the -character of Ministers that of political legislators and officers of -a nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant under -Charles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived and -to be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, under -William III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastian -enough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restless -and to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries in -practice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries in -principle. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independence -came more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness to -its consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased in -earnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say. - -[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.] - -A further religious complication of the measure under review arose -in connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons, -and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House of -Lords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day when -leave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave was -also given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. The -Corporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation of -the doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League and -Covenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualification -for municipal office. It had been a blow aimed at Nonconformists; now -that the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged by -the Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should be -extinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Bills -originated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as much -intrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned the -Sacrament; another--who said he had been educated for the Church, and -would live and die in it--advocated the repeal of the Act; but a third -contended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holding -of a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance, -instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended in -nothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through party -complications, set aside on a question of adjournment;[117] and the -inconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution, -and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principle -destructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, was -associated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealous -in its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve the -Corporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low Church -Whigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keep -Nonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of an -engine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.] - -Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the Lower -House, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, in -a speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommended -Parliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the -admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve.”[118] -In these words he showed his desire for the alteration of the Test Act. -The Test Act had been passed to exclude Papists from holding civil -office; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformists -had supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There were -members in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes. -They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve the -State; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supported -the introduction of a clause for abolishing the sacramental test. -But the Tory Lords were too numerous to allow of its being passed; -and some Whig Peers, including the puritan Lord Wharton, recorded a -protest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for these -reasons--Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greater -security than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacrament -operated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it prevented -a thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required of -members of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates for -office. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed another -clause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’s -Supper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to its -celebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed; -and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Wharton -being again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify what -they had said before, and introduce this additional reason--that His -Majesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all his -Protestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed the same. -The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partial -repeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority of -the Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.[119] -But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support from -a majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desired -to treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make as -much allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding so -much to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to those -concessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted to -Nonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but he -easily secured the former. The policy of the Lords, both Whig and Tory, -both Low Church and High Church, was to discountenance Nonconformity, -and to maintain the Episcopalian Establishment; the policy of the High -Church Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathized -in Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure of -the new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was to -conciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, just -exalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration, -advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to his -scrupulous brethren.[120] It followed that the Bill left the Lords with -a provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his benefice -without taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for putting -his loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower House -differed from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clause -rendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment to -take the oath by the 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediate -suspension--by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of final -deprivation.[121] With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went back -to the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferences -were held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports were -made: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against the -Commons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter became -the law of the land. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Whig majority in the House of Commons were as zealous as the Tory -majority in the House of Lords in maintaining the Church of England, -but they were utterly averse to the secular and ecclesiastical politics -of that party, which the project of William, supported by the Peers, -sought to win over by conciliation. They could not forget the support -that party had rendered to the Stuart despotism, their opposition -to the Exclusion Bill, their intolerant despotism, and their steady -opposition to the Whig Commons. They could not favour High Church -views, they had no notion of the Church being independent of the -State. If the Clergy received honours and emoluments from the Civil -power, then to the Civil power they must, like other subjects, yield -obedience. The spirit of the House was Erastian; and no doubt passion -mingled with principle--resentment with the maintenance of supremacy. - -[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.] - -The Oaths of Allegiance had at an early period been readily taken by -the Commons, only two of them refusing to swear. In the other House -a vast majority of the lay and spiritual Lords had complied with the -law, but certain Bishops had been incapacitated, or were reluctant in -compliance; others altogether refused to submit to authority. In the -Journal of the Lords for the 18th of March, amongst notices of absence, -we find the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield described as “ill of the -strangury and the stone;” the Bishop of Worcester as “weak in body,” -and very aged; and the Bishop of St. David’s as writing a letter of -excuse, not at all satisfactory. This last Prelate, who had for some -time been mistrusted by his brethren, consulted Sir John Reresby, who -told him to fall back on his own conscience. The next day the Bishop -took the oath.[122] But the Primate Sancroft, Lake of Chichester, -Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Ken of Bath and Wells, Frampton of -Gloucester, White of Peterborough, and Thomas of Worcester, steadily -refused, and came forward as vanguard to that body of which we shall -have more to say hereafter. - -The oath was taken by the Clergy in various ways. Some, who objected -to its being imposed, felt they could adopt it conscientiously. Some -questioned the lawfulness of it, and did not blame the Nonjurors, but -themselves took the benefit of the doubt. Some swore with a certain -reserve, expressing the sense in which they explained the obligation -with “an implicit relaxation” of the meaning of the words. Others, at -a loss to determine the point, yielded to the opinions of lawyers and -divines.[123] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Coronation Oath came under consideration at the same time as the -Oath of Allegiance, and, like it, occasioned great discussion. The oath -pledged the Sovereign to preserve the Church “as it is now established -by law;” and the Commons were thereby led to inquire into the exact -meaning of the words, whether they affected in any way the question -of introducing changes, such as many most earnestly desired. Some, -who longed for an alteration in the formularies, were anxious that, -instead of the words “Church as it is now established by law,” should -be the words, “Church as it is, or _shall be_, established by -law,” thus expressly providing for new arrangements. It was contended -that the Church doors ought to be made wider, that it might be easily -done, and that in anticipation of this, the proposed alteration in -the oath should be accomplished. Before--some argued--it did not much -matter how the Coronation Oath ran, but it did now that a King occupied -the throne, who might say, “I do not understand what is meant by law.” -They urged no wish for any change in doctrines, but only for change in -ceremonies, and they felt unwilling that the Coronation Oath should -preclude the latter. Moreover, they desired to prevent any taunt from -foreign Protestants of the following kind--“Your Parliament has limited -you to a Church unalterable, and will let in nobody.” Some of those -who objected to the additional words replied, that their omission -would not be any bar to reform; that Parliament had power to alter -laws; that, consistently with the maintenance of Protestant doctrine, -there might be the relaxation of certain forms; that essentials being -preserved, non-essentials could be removed; and that tender consciences -could be brought in at a door without pulling down the rafters to let -them through the roof. Though a rider to the effect, that no clause in -the Act should prevent the Sovereign from giving assent to a Bill for -Church Reform was not formally adopted, yet it was at length clearly -understood that the oath did not fetter the Sovereign in any act of -legislative concurrence, but only bound him in his executive capacity; -the original words therefore were sanctioned by a majority of 188 -against 149.[124] - -[Sidenote: CORONATION.] - -The Coronation, for which this oath prepared, took place on the 11th of -April, when both political parties in unequal proportions participated -in the solemnities. Tory and Jacobite Lords, who had voted for a -Regency, increased the magnificence--one carrying the crown of the -King, another the crown of the Queen, and a third the sword of Justice; -whilst a fourth rode up the middle of Westminster Hall, as champion -for William and Mary against all comers. Noble damsels of both classes -appeared in large numbers and dazzling splendour to swell the retinue, -or to watch the movements of the Regnant Queen; and amongst them walked -the pretty little Lady Henrietta, daughter of the Earl of Rochester, -who had persistently opposed the idea that the throne was vacated by -the departure of James. The nonjuring Prelates would take no part in -the ceremonies; the absence of the Primate was a serious circumstance, -but, by a clause in the Coronation Act, the King had authority to chose -some other Bishop for the principal ceremony of the day. Accordingly he -chose Compton, Bishop of London, to place the crown upon his head. This -Low Churchman and staunch Revolutionist was accompanied by Prelates of -different characters: Lloyd of St. Asaph, one of the seven who had been -sent to the Tower, walked on the one hand, holding the paten; Sprat -of Rochester, who had been a member of the High Commission, walked -on the other, carrying the chalice; and Burnet of Salisbury ascended -the pulpit to deliver a sermon, of which the peroration, imploring -the blessing of Heaven on the King and Queen in this life, and the -bestowment upon them in the life to come of crowns more enduring than -those on the altar, excited a hum of applause from the Commons, who -were seated behind it. For the first time the Coronation occurred -neither on a Sunday nor a holiday; and for the first time really in -accordance with a precedent set at Cromwell’s installation, a Bible -was presented to the Sovereigns as “the most valuable thing that this -world contains;” and it would appear that the identical volume still -exists, for one of the treasures of the Royal Library at the Hague is a -Bible, inscribed with these words: “This Book was given the King and I -at our Coronation. Marie R.” The event was celebrated in the provinces; -garlands adorned with oranges were carried about the streets of country -towns, amidst the beating of drums, the pealing of bells, and the -huzzas of the people, followed at night by the blazing of bonfires.[125] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -As the great Revolution under William I. was perfected by the -Coronation at Westminster on Christmas-day, 1066, so the great -Revolution under William III. was perfected by the Coronation in -the same place on the 11th of April, 1689. In both cases certain -religious rites were necessary to the completeness of the new Monarch’s -inauguration, but in both cases they were celebrated only as a solemn -ratification of a choice made by the national voice. It is curious to -notice, that in addition to the coincidence of names in the case of -the authors of the two most momentous revolutionary successions to the -English crown, there is a further coincidence: each arrived on the -southern shores of England as an invader, and then became the choice of -the people; and neither of them rested on the right of conquest as the -basis of power. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -At the time when the Allegiance and Coronation Oaths were under -discussion, two other important subjects, immediately connected with -Ecclesiastical History, occupied Parliamentary attention. The one was -the widening of admission into the Church, the other was the concession -to Dissenters of liberty to worship according to conviction: both -measures had been repeatedly taken up and repeatedly laid down during -the reign of Charles II. - -The steps in reference to Comprehension may be conveniently considered -first. - -The Primate Sancroft, it is alleged,[126] looked favourably in that -direction, amidst the excitement to liberal feeling, which sprung up on -the eve of the Revolution: certainly at the beginning of the year 1689, -Lloyd, the Bishop of St. Asaph, Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, Sharp, -Dean of Norwich, and Dr. Tenison, met at the house of Stillingfleet, -Dean of St. Paul’s, as we are informed by Patrick, Prebendary of -Westminster--who was present on the occasion--to consult about such -concessions as might bring in Dissenters to communion, “for which,” -Patrick says, “the Bishop of St. Asaph told us, he had the Archbishop -of Canterbury’s leave. We agreed that a Bill should be prepared, to -be offered by the Bishops, and we drew up the matter of it in ten or -eleven heads.”[127] Coincident with the time when such proposals were -sufficiently matured to be laid before Parliament, but not coincident -with the particular purpose and method which these and other Divines -had in view, was the publication of a draft, by some irresponsible -person, for the universal accommodation of Dissenters, and the bringing -of all parties into communion with the Established Church. This scheme, -which bore the title of an amicable reconciliation, soon dropped into -the limbo of quixotic plans, but it made some noise at the time, and -is sufficiently curious to be worth a few words. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Amidst existing religious differences the principle is laid down that -as there is one Catholic Church under Christ, so there must be many -local Churches framed after some type of political organization. The -Church of England is of the latter kind, placed under the government -of King and Bishops. This Church requires a change. It wants -comprehensiveness. Now, a distinction exists between tolerable and -intolerable religions. Intolerable religions are set aside, but all -tolerable religions, it is affirmed, ought not only to be legalized, -but incorporated in the Establishment. Bishops should be King’s -officers, to act _circa sacra_; and those now called Dissenters -should be eligible for such an office, with power to supervise all -parties, in order to the keeping of them in harmony with their own -principles, so as not to disturb the peace of others.[128] This scheme -included a provision that Ecclesiastical laws should be enacted by a -Convocation, including non-episcopal members, or by the two Houses of -Parliament. - -A Bill “for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects” was -introduced in the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham on the 11th -of March, and that day received its first reading. Upon the 14th it was -read a second time and committed; and at the same sitting there was -introduced by the same nobleman, and entrusted to the same Committee, -another Bill, entitled “An Act for exempting their Majesties’ -Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the -penalties of certain laws.” Two measures, intimately connected with -each other, and embodying opinions and wishes long cherished, were thus -launched side by side, destined to meet different fates. Debated by the -Lords with considerable sharpness, the Bill for uniting Protestants -was narrowly watched by people outside, of different sentiments; and -when no regular system existed for reporting speeches, fragments of -senatorial oratory were casually picked up and preserved from oblivion -by diarists and others; a person who looked at the subject from a -dissenting point of view thus recorded what he learnt: - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -The Bill was thought by some not “large enough to comprehend the sober -sort of Dissenters, for it did not grant to them some of the great -points they had always and still did insist upon; and if it were -thought the true interest of the Church and State to comprehend them, -they must enlarge that Bill.” - -The Bishop of Lincoln considered ordination by Presbyters to be good -and sufficient, and in order to the taking of them in, it was not -necessary there should be the imposition of Episcopal hands. - -The Marquis of Winchester, fervent for Comprehension, as conducive to -the interest of the Church, was unconcerned for the Bill of Indulgence, -since “that would but nourish Church snakes and vipers in the bosom of -the Church.”[129] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Early in the month of April we find the Lords busy with the -Comprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question, -“Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause about -the indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?” The -votes being equal, the Journal records, “Then, according to the ancient -rule in the like case, _semper præsumitur pro negante_,” that -is to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided in -the negative, and therefore the clause remained. “There was a proviso -likewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament and -being baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conference -on those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as to -the lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehement -debate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissenters -had, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them to -come into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, and -I declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged that -the posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how ill -grounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave the -matter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature.”[130] - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It was -proposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymen -as well as clergymen, to prepare some plan for healing divisions, -correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of the -Church. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to please -opponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouring -their prejudice--a policy of which he afterwards repented--argued -against the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put, -strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same rule -as before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition, -the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace entered -their protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistent -with Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely to -create jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance the -dangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. The -Earl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, that -to refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutes -of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which -empowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law. - -The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the House -of Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House of -Commons.[131] - -Strange again--the fact has been overlooked by our principal modern -historians--before the Lords’ Bill reached the Commons, the Commons -were engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon a -Toleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading the -former of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading a -similar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave to -bring in another Bill, as the phrase went, for “easing of Protestant -Dissenters.” - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to row -against wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might be -adjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday. -Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measure -by mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, who -had objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to be -Papists in disguise.[132] - -Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons’ table, -the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing -gratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Church -of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the -preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he -would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of -the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is our -intention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration of -giving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”[133] The reference here is to -what is called the Toleration Bill. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon -Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons -foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to -Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates -on the point dropped in both Houses.[134] - -At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular -attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility -must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of -the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject. -The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment -of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in -many respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of those -who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as -Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union; -but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,[135] who -introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman, -must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its -provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand the conduct of -certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House, -moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of -Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it. -Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more -from fear than inclination;[136] and Burnet declares, “those who had -moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a -very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves -by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and -such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as -the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”[137] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would -not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any -encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for -dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced -afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.[138] The whole -atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the -measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of -the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the -nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child -perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity, -excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest -partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.[139] - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not -to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have -been made to it by the Commons. They had appeared at first friendly -enough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they did -so under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which might -efficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not from -violence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, but -from want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it. - -The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when we -remember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times: -as we have seen, but few Nonconformists--not more than twenty or thirty -Presbyterians--could be counted among the members. The vast majority -were Churchmen--some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye upon -the whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree, -but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for the -Episcopalian Establishment than for what was called the Protestant -Religion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentiments -of the Nonconformists; they were unable to enter into their scruples; -they were afraid that concession might endanger their own community; -and they looked with apprehension upon the nonjuring movement. Much -mischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterations -be made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment under -William and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such an -idea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might be -expected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no small -honour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Another -circumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in the -Lower House. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -Dissenters were not of one mind. Philip Henry earnestly desired -Comprehension, “for never,” says his son, “was any more averse to -that which looked like a separation than he was, if he could possibly -have helped it--_salvâ conscientiâ_. His prayers were constant, -and his endeavours, as he had opportunity, that there might be some -healing methods found out and agreed upon.”[140] It would also have -delighted Richard Baxter in his last days to see the door opened as -wide as he had long before desired it should be. Bates would have -been much pleased. The same may be said of Howe. But many were of a -different mind.[141] The Nonconformist advocates of Comprehension -belonged chiefly to the Presbyterian Church. Almost all Independents -and Baptists felt it impossible for any alterations to be made such as -could allow of their becoming parochial incumbents. More than a few had -long been voluntaries, numbers were beginning to look in a direction -opposite to that of an Establishment.[142] Selfishness has been -assigned as a motive. “Some few pastors of wealthy congregations might -be tempted to desire a continuance of the distance between Dissenters -and Churchmen.” Yet Churchmen entertained “more charitable thoughts -of sincere Dissenters.” The balance of temporal advantages certainly -inclined on the side of a nationally-endowed Church, rich in tithes -and other revenues, richer still in rank and prestige. However, it is -unfair to suppose that, except in very rare instances indeed, an eye to -income retained men in Nonconformist positions. Beyond all doubt, had -Dissenting ministers been generally zealous in supporting the measure, -they would have been charged by their neighbours with looking after the -loaves and fishes. Where, however, no love of this world influenced the -decision, the decision might be influenced by prejudice and suspicion; -for persons must have been more or less than human, who, after such -treatment as they had received for thirty years, could be free from -all passionate emotion in estimating the conduct of those who had -been either bitter persecutors or unconcerned witnesses of wrong. The -motives of Churchmen at the Revolution would not always be fairly -weighed by Dissenters. Suspicion, where it could not be justified, may -still be condoned, looking at the antecedents of the case; and where -there was not sufficient ground for imputing dishonourable motives to -Churchmen, there might be enough to lead Nonconformists to suspect, -that no warm welcome would be afforded them within the Establishment, -even should the iron gates unfold. When reports of Comprehension were -rife at an earlier period, an old story had been told to this effect: -Sancho the Third, King of Spain, put aside his brother’s children that -he might ascend the throne. A lady who was the representative and heir -of the dispossessed line of Princes married the Duke of Medina Celi, -who assumed the rights of his wife. He and his descendants accordingly -presented a petition to the Sovereign that he would restore the -crown--a petition to which he gave the reply, “_No es lugar_,” -“There is no room.” This story had been applied by Presbyterians to the -abeyance in which their claims to Church readmission had been held for -more than a quarter of a century. “So our just liberty is talked of,” -says Newcome, of Manchester, “by fits in course; and in course doft off -with _No es lugar_, There is no room.”[143] It was thought the -story remained as applicable after the Revolution as before. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -This fact should be remembered. Comprehension became to all parties -more and more difficult, and to some parties less and less desirable, -as time rolled on. However hard it might be to effect a reconciliation, -looking at the temper of Churchmen in 1662, it became harder in 1689, -looking at the position of Dissenters. They had increased in numbers, -had formed themselves into distinct Churches, had obtained their own -ordained ministers, and had begun to create an ecclesiastical history, -and to cherish in their separate capacity something of an _esprit de -corps_. The opportunity of reclaiming the wanderers, once possessed -by the Church party, had slipped away beyond recall. Overtures, which -would have been eagerly grasped before, were coldly looked at now.[144] - -The history of the measures for _easing_ or _indulging_ Dissenters -presents a marked contrast to the history of the measure for uniting -them to the Establishment. The Bill ordered on the 8th of April by the -House of Commons to be drawn up for the former purpose, was read on the -15th. The Bill from the Lords’ House, where it had smoothly passed, was -received on the 18th, and first read on the 20th of the same month. -Both Bills were committed on the 15th of May. What little of the -debate has been preserved shows it to have been brief, desultory, and -superficial--not dealing with any great principles, but only discussing -details, with an outburst now and then of ill-temper. One speaker would -not give indulgence to Quakers, because they would not take an oath. -Another identified them with Penn, and looked upon them as Papists in -disguise. Yet all the speakers supported more or less the principle of -the Bill, although some were of opinion that it should be adopted as an -experiment for seven years.[145] It speedily passed without any such -limitation, and received the Royal assent on the 24th of May.[146] - - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -[Sidenote: TOLERATION.] - -The cause of this great and successful measure lay in a deeper region -than that of political intrigue and party faction. Powerful and telling -arguments had long been pressed upon the abettors of intolerance; and -the impiety, the injustice, the absurdity, and the uselessness of -attempting to coerce the conscience, had been demonstrated hundreds of -times on grounds of Religion, Reason, and History. No class of writers -had performed this important service so fully as certain Baptists and -Independents, whom we have had occasion to notice. They had contended -against intolerant laws, not in the spirit of indifference, not because -religion was to them a matter of trivial or secondary importance, but -because it was to them all in all, and they shuddered to see its name -tainted by an alliance with despotic principles. Although their pleas -and appeals did not perhaps to any appreciable extent directly affect -public opinion, yet they secretly leavened the minds of religious -people, and prepared for the coming change. - -The doctrine of Toleration has of late been described as the offspring -of scepticism. What kind of scepticism? If it mean scepticism or -unbelief as to the obligation to punish men for opinions, or as to the -moral criminality of errors purely intellectual, or as to the wisdom -of vesting political power in ecclesiastical persons, to say that -this lies at the basis of Toleration is simply to repeat an identical -proposition. But if it mean doubt or disbelief as to religion in -general, or Christianity in particular, then to say Toleration arose -from that cause in this country is simply untrue. Herbert and Hobbes, -according to such a theory, ought to have been the apostles of freedom; -but they were not. Baptists, Independents, and Quakers, according to -such a theory, ought not to have been the apostles of freedom; yet -they were. The same thing may be said of Jeremy Taylor and John Locke. -Whilst, however, the chief advocates of Toleration were religious men, -it is not to be denied that the measure when carried was the work of -the State rather than of the Church. The Liberal Bishops supported it; -but the great body of Churchmen were averse to its provisions. With -regard to a number of the clergy and the laity, the State came forward -as a constable to keep the peace between them and their Nonconformist -fellow-citizens, whose rights they had violated. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Books and pamphlets were not the only nor the main agencies which -brought about the Religious Revolution of 1689. It is remarkable, -that the first of Locke’s famous letters on Toleration was printed -in Holland, in the Latin language, in the year 1689, and was not -translated into English and circulated in this country time enough to -assist in the passing of the Toleration Bill. It threw into form, and -it made plain to the common sense of humanity, those sentiments which -were almost universal amongst the Dutch, and were beginning to be -common amongst the English. It rather justified what was being done at -the time by the Legislature, than prompted or supported the Legislature -in its career. It formulated the reasons of a conclusion at the moment -practically reached; it expounded principles just being embodied in an -Act of Parliament. - -[Sidenote: TOLERATION.] - -John Locke brought out the philosophy of Toleration. Toleration had -become the genius of his character. Men whose minds have many sides, -and who, from large human sympathies, tolerate those who differ from -them, are made what they are by wide intercourse with the world. Born -of Puritan parents, educated at Oxford under Dr. Owen, attached to the -preaching of Whitecote, intimate with Cudworth’s family, connected -with Lord Shaftesbury, friendly with Le Clerc, Limborch, and other -Divines of the Remonstrant school, Locke caught and, in the advocacy of -Toleration, reflected influences emanating from diversified sources. -Reduced to a simple formula, the basis of his scheme was this: The -State and the Church are essentially distinct. The Law recognized a -Jewish commonwealth; the Gospel recognizes no Christian commonwealth. -He repudiated all connection between the State and the Church; but he -did not repudiate all connection between the State and Religion, for -he excluded Atheists from Toleration. He also excluded Papists, not -however on religious, but on political grounds. - -Locke’s principle, followed out, would have made him a Dissenter; -and it is a fact that he wrote a defence of Nonconformity, which he -never published. Though nominally in communion with the Establishment -to the day of his death, he generally attended the ministry of a lay -preacher.[147] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -A paper by John Howe--in which he stated the case of Protestant -Dissenters--came nearest, in point of time, to the position of a -manifesto in advance, clearing ground for the new law. His paper was -drawn up in the beginning of 1689, yet it may be doubted whether it had -any wide influence in consummating the change. - -Amongst the immediate causes of the Bill being passed must be numbered -old promises made to Dissenters by men in power, again and again; -the pledges of political parties of all sorts, Whigs and Tories, Low -Churchmen and High Churchmen, given amidst struggles against Popery -in the preceding summer, all originating in religious impulses; and -especially the influences of William, who honestly advocated liberty -on a wide scale. Beyond this, and more effectual still, there existed -a state of public feeling which, although most reasonable, had not -been produced by reasoning and, though it could be victoriously -defended by argument, had not really been reached by logical formulas. -It is only one of a number of instances in which a change comes over -the legislative enactments of a nation through a change wrought in -the minds of rulers, wrought also in the minds of a people,--the -_Zeit-Geist_, or spirit of the age,--produced by the discipline -of circumstances, and by sympathetic impulses, in which pious men -recognize the finger of Providence. What the Earl of Nottingham said -in defence of his measure when he laid his Bill upon the table, I do -not know; but I apprehend that, as a High Churchman he must have found -it difficult to show how his advocacy could be reconciled with his -antecedents. He might have been unable to explain how, by reasoning, he -had passed from his former to his present position. He and others might -be fairly charged with inconsistency; a suspicion of it might even -now and then cross their own minds. But, like all mankind, they were -the subjects of influences more powerful than syllogisms, they bent -beneath a force mightier than logic. Sophistical theories ingeniously -spun, fondly watched, and for a time vigilantly guarded, get blown to -the winds by the breath of inexorable facts, and of the spirit which -throbs at the heart of them. False systems and ideas are found to be -impracticable; as such they are given up by everybody. It is of no -use to preserve them; they must be thrown away. So with the doctrine -of religious intolerance. Englishmen could endure it in its old form -no longer. A new spirit had taken possession of the age, and ancient -restrictions must at last be sacrificed. But for such facts, men like -Leonard Busher and John Goodwin might have gone on arguing for ever in -vain. - -[Sidenote: TOLERATION.] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -In estimating the worth of what was done at this period, it betrays -a narrow philosophy to harp upon the word “Toleration” as being an -offensive term, and to ask, Has any man a right to talk of tolerating -another man in the worship which his conscience bids him render to the -infinitely glorious Creator? It is a curious fact that the word was -not used in the Bill from beginning to end. It is entitled, “An Act -for exempting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from -the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws.” Why dwell -upon what the measure was popularly called--the question is, What did -it accomplish? Its provisions confessedly are imperfect. Restrictions -inconsistent with its principle were left, reminding us, how much -more, certain feelings connected with certain events have to do with -producing them than any abstract conceptions whatever. But the Act did -this, it afforded to all Protestants, with few exceptions, a legal -protection in carrying out their systems of doctrine, worship, and -discipline. It not only granted, but it guarded liberty of conscience. -It threw the shield of law over every religious assembly within open -doors. To interrupt the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, in the -service of God, became a criminal offence. The amount of relief thus -afforded can be appreciated only by those who are familiar with the -harassing persecutions of the preceding reigns. By shielding Dissent, -the law, though of course not endowing it, might be said, in a certain -sense, to establish it. It placed Dissent upon a legal footing, and -protected it side by side with the Endowed Church. It confined national -emoluments to Episcopalians; but it secured as much religious freedom -to other denominations as to them. Nay, it secured more--a consequence -necessarily resulting from the difference in relation to the State, -between voluntary Churches and one nationally endowed. By the change -which the Act effected in the legal position of Nonconformity, it -produced a relative change in the legal position of the Establishment. -From the moment that William gave his assent to the Act, that Church -ceased to be national in the sense in which it had been so before. The -theory of its constitution underwent a revolution. It could no longer -assume the attitude it had done, could no longer claim all Englishmen, -as by sovereign right, worshippers within its pale; it gave legalized -scope for differences of action,--for their growth, and advancement, -and for the increase of their supporters in point of numbers, -character, and influence. - -[Sidenote: TOLERATION.] - -The restrictions of the Act pressed upon two classes of religionists. -It distinctly provided that the law should not be construed as giving -any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist, or Popish recusant, -whatever. It therefore left in full operation the old laws pointed -at the adherents of Rome,--laws with which James had dispensed, laws -which, with most mistaken views, at that period almost all Protestants -maintained. But not satisfied with a prohibition of Roman worship, -the Government caused to be issued Royal proclamations requiring -all reputed Papists to depart out of London and Westminster, and -confining all Popish recusants within five miles of their respective -dwellings.[148] In connexion with this fact it should be noticed, that -in the month of July, the Royal assent was given to an Act which vested -in the two Universities, the presentations of benefices belonging to -Papists. - -The other class of persons to whom liberty of worship was refused, -consisted of such as denied, in preaching or writing, the doctrine -of the Blessed Trinity declared in the Articles of the Church of -England,--a stipulation which indicated zeal for orthodoxy on the part -of a large majority of the House, and which ought to be noted amidst -the strong rationalistic tendencies of the age. Zeal of this kind we -shall find manifesting itself again and again during William’s reign. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Special provision was made for the relief of Quakers. Instead of being -required to take any oath, they were allowed to make a declaration, -first, in common with others, of their abhorrence of Papal supremacy, -and next, of their orthodoxy. The latter declaration ran in these -words: “I, A. B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ -His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed -for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and -New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” It would appear that -this declaration was altered from the original one to satisfy the -Quakers, who, represented by four of their number during the passing -of the Bill, objected to the expression “coequal with the Father and -the Son” as applied to the Holy Spirit, and to another expression, “the -revealed will and word of God” as applied to the Scriptures. These -expressions were accordingly struck out. A Quaker historian observes, -“That as a profession of faith is required of this Society only, it -evinces the truth of the conjecture, that this profession of faith -was started with a view to exclude the people called Quakers from a -participation in the benefits of the Act.” If the remark be true in -reference to the original form of the declaration--but of this I find -no proof--it certainly is not true of the revised declaration, which -received the sanction of Friends, before it was introduced into the -Bill, and was affirmed by them after it became law.[149] - -Comprehension fared differently from Toleration; but Tillotson would -not let the former drop. Nobody was more sincere and earnest about it, -and the view he took of the grounds on which Christians of different -opinions might be brought together, appears from a paper copied into -his commonplace book under the title of “Concessions, which will -probably be made by the Church of England for the union of Protestants, -which I sent to the Earl of Portland by Dr. Stillingfleet, September -13, 1689. - -“I. That the ceremonies injoined or recommended in the Liturgy or -Canons be left indifferent. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -“II. That the Liturgy be carefully reviewed, and such alterations and -changes therein made, as may supply the defects, and remove, as much as -is possible, all ground of exception to any part of it, by leaving out -the Apocryphal lessons, and correcting the translation of the psalms, -used in the public service, where there is need of it; and in many -other particulars. - -“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to be -made by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted to -the exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribe -one general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that we -do submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of -England, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach and -practice accordingly. - -“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularly -with a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation of -manners both in ministers and people. - -“V. That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, -to remedy the great abuses and inconveniences, which by degrees, and -length of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the power -of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, and -placed in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, but -upon great and weighty occasions. - -“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of the -foreign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, to -render them capable of preferment in this Church. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiastical -benefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordained -in England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been -ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their -former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the -validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and -is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive -ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: _If thou art not -already ordained, I ordain thee_, &c., as in case a doubt be made of -any one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized -in this form, _If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee_, &c.”[150] - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust -Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin; -Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought -to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered -for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was -accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however, -considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission -should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to -digest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”[151] His object -was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for -what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to -an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was -to renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeat -the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation -between Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definite -than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of -an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers. -Though Burnet had in April predicted the failure of the scheme, he -in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced -by the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the -13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops -and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners -on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber--that old -theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare. -Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners -present.[152] After listening to the Commission, they discussed the -question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church. -Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the -old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported -by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing -up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and -damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha, -yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other -hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable, -but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons -from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of -Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer -their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was -replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be -referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon which -the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when -Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority -on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his -opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing -weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly -to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation -differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew. -Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o’clock. - -At the next sitting (October the 16th), a serious discussion arose -as to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop of -Rochester--then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to the -Jerusalem Chamber--had been an active member of James’ High Commission, -and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commission -appointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former had -been the reverse, for _this_ amounted to no more than a committee -of advice, whereas _that_ claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprat -either overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talked -of the danger of incurring a _premunire_ by venturing to proceed -with business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he had -been deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some of -the Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with the -Commission under which they were now brought together, unless the whole -Judicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about the -altered official position of some Commissioners, and the small number -left at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistency -of touching formularies to which they had given their assent and -consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; and -the probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions. -Sprat found a supporter in Jane--“a double-faced Janus,” as people -called him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, he -had conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University to -coin its plate in the Deliverer’s service; and next, disappointed of -a mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberal -opinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a more -congenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Another of Sprat’s allies was Dr. Aldrich,[153] Dean of Christchurch, -a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the Peckwater -Quadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic, -a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. But -Patrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwelling -upon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging the -high legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop of -London--still zealous on the liberal side--told his brethren that -what they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that if -they did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the hands -of the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now would -facilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committees -helped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverend -and right reverend Commissioners were sitting on barrels of gunpowder; -presently the first explosion occurred, when Lloyd, Bishop of St. -Asaph, one of the most zealous advocates of Comprehension, hastily -rose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commission -were at liberty to withdraw. This offended Sprat, Aldrich, and Jane; -the last rose in a pet to leave the room, but was persuaded to remain, -and it was prudently advised “that all things that happened at that -time might be kept secret.” The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon, -when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retired -to the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister, -and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Two -days afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon the -consideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich and -Jane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained came -to the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, “it should be -in some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place in -the church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to the -rails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-day -before come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel with -a good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishop -of Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be written -down, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from the -whole.”[154] - -At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridge -contending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancient -practice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom often -became a mere matter of interest, and even went so far as to assert, -“that it was hard to find an instance of a child baptized before St. -Cyprian’s time.” - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -The calendar underwent revision, and several Saints’ days were struck -out of the list. Respecting the Athanasian Creed, much was said. -Its use, its theological meaning, especially its damnatory clauses, -had become in an age of rational inquiry, religious toleration, and -latitudinarian sentiment, momentous moot-points. The atmosphere -of theological thought existing at the time, indicated by the -controversies on the Trinity, to be hereafter described, could not -but fix attention on a formulary, which, viewed either as a creed or -as a hymn, not only embodies definite opinion on the most abstruse -of mysteries, but declares that those who do not keep it whole and -undefiled must “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Burnet and -Tillotson were willing to drop the so-called creed out of the service -altogether; so was Fowler--the first of these Divines urging that the -Church of England received the four first General Councils; that the -Ephesian Council condemns all new symbols; that the Athanasian Creed -is _not very ancient_; and that it condemns the Greek Church, -which, said the Bishop, “we defend.” The utmost amount of change -finally recommended as to this formula was its less frequent use and -an explanation of its damnatory clauses. Its repetition was to be -discontinued on the Epiphany, and the Feasts of St. Matthias, St. John -the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. -Jude, and St. Andrew; but its use on All Saints’ Day was recommended. -The word _sung_ was struck out of the rubric, leaving the creed to -be _said_; and the following came at the end:--“The Articles of -which (creed) ought to be received and believed as being agreeable to -the Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to be understood -as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the -Christian faith [according to the 18th Article of this Church].” These -last words were afterwards cancelled.[155] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successive -meetings.[156] Questions were discussed--first in reference to those -who had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard to -new candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders. -The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on the -first of these points, contending--that there was room to challenge the -orders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without imposition -of hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they are -remitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention--that -the Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches in -the case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury--that Presbyterians -had been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without being -first ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, being -present at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes, -after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As to -Dissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validity -of Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessity -for the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative side -objected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, the -Bishop of London admitting that no question arose about the validity -of Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidence -as to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as in -others, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showed -that if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they might -be by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of Du -Moulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where no -cure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmed -that he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries. -Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they were -Episcopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present any -resemblance to Nonconformists. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -Two passages in the report of the proceedings are well worthy of -attention. - -“It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to the -Dissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:[157] We sat there to make -such alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there no -Dissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.” - -“It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformists -desired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to be -allowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouth -than they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice, -there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that they -might consult if there be occasion.” - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -In answer to the suggestion of the old compromise of a hypothetical -reference to the invalidity of any former ordination, Beveridge -remarked that it looked like equivocation on the part both of ordainer -and ordained; the first believing the second not ordained before, -contrary to the belief of the second, who did not doubt his former -orders. Burnet replied, there could be no ground for this objection, -if a statement were annexed to the effect that each reserved his own -opinion. Dr. Grove suggested that the former rite might be esteemed, -not as wholly invalid, but as merely imperfect, and that the Bishop’s -laying on of hands would complete what had been previously commenced. -“But to this the Dean of St. Paul’s (Stillingfleet) replied, that in -this point we were to respect two things--first, the preservation of -the Church’s principle about the necessity of Episcopal ordination, -when it might be had; and secondly, the case of the Dissenters,” in -reference to whom he relates, or supposes, a most extraordinary and -indeed unintelligible story, “that it was much like the marrying of the -man, and the woman refusing; but after a term of years she consenting -to go on, the woman was then married alone, without beginning again -with the man.” What that means I leave the reader to find out. The -study of the whole Report is dreary work. - -Yet Tillotson, rich in common sense, must have been amused with these -debates. He simply asked why might not the Church of England admit -other orders, as it had been proposed its own should be admitted by the -Church of Rome, when Queen Mary wrote to Gardiner, saying, “_Quod -illis deerat, supplebit Episcopus_.” The Bishop’s supplement was -alone sufficient for the _potestas sacrificandi_, without any -invalidation of what had been previously accomplished. At last the -Commissioners resolved upon adopting the hypothetical scheme--Beveridge -and Scot alone dissenting from that conclusion. - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -The subject of exercising care relative to candidates occasioned -no controversy; it was proposed that a month before ordination, -testimonials should be sent to the Bishop; and that candidates should -be tested by being required to compose some short discourse in writing -“upon some point or article.” Burnet, not much to the satisfaction of -some of his brethren, who eschewed all ecclesiastical precedents taken -from the north of the Tweed, reported the Scotch method of requiring -the composition of a doctrinal and practical discourse, and the -examination of the candidate in the original Scriptures and in sacred -chronology. - -In the Ordination Service the use of the words “receive the Holy -Ghost” gave rise to much discussion, as a command to receive involves -the possession on the speaker’s part of a power to bestow; and Burnet -contended that such a use could not be traced back above 400 years, it -having been introduced in the Middle Ages for the purpose of exalting -the priesthood. The form was originally, that of a humble prayer, -not of an absolute bestowment. Thus it appeared in the Apostolical -Constitutions, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the -Canons of the Councils of Carthage--the alteration being the fruit -of Hildebrand’s time. The Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot, however, -vindicated the Church of England in her employment of the Saviour’s -words, and asserted that if they be not retained, “there is no form of -ordination authoritatively,”--a very unfortunate ground of defence, -for, as it was justly said, if so, then, the words not being used in -the absolute form until within the previous four centuries, no valid -ordinations had previously taken place. Tillotson selected a quotation -from St. Augustine,[158] proving Christ to be God, because He bestowed -the Holy Ghost; thus suggesting the argument that the Church could not -authoritatively confer the celestial gift, but only pray that it might -be conferred by the Divine Being. The rest of the time was spent in -revising the Daily Prayer, the Communion and Confirmation Services, the -Catechism, and other formularies, and in preparing new Collects. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The second paragraph of the general rubric at the beginning of the -order for Morning and Evening Prayer was struck out, and the following -passage was inserted instead:--“Whereas the surplice is appointed to -be used by all ministers in performing divine offices, it is hereby -declared, that it is continued only as being an ancient and decent -habit. But yet, if any minister shall come and declare to his Bishop -that he cannot satisfy his conscience in the use of the surplice in -divine service, in that case the Bishop shall dispense with his not -using it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall appoint a curate -to officiate in a surplice.” The new paragraph was afterwards scored -down the side, the following memorandum being appended:--“This rubric -was suggested but not agreed to, but left to further consideration.” -Another memorandum followed in these words, “A Canon to specify the -vestments.” - -Numerous verbal alterations were introduced into the Litany,--“sudden -death” being altered into “dying suddenly and unprepared;” and new -versicles and responses were inserted, “From all infidelity and -error, from all impiety and profaneness, from all superstition and -idolatry,--Good Lord deliver us.” With the Litany it was proposed to -connect the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, and the response, “Lord, -have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.” - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -To the Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions were added two -new forms: one a prayer to be said before receiving the Communion, -another a prayer for any time of calamity. Forty-two new Collects were -composed; and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, after the Ten -Commandments, came the insertion of the Beatitudes, with this petition -after each of them, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and make us partakers -of this blessing.” Here, and throughout the whole Prayer-Book, for the -title _priest_ is substituted that of _minister_. In the -office for Baptism of Infants, the presentation of children for that -purpose by godfathers and godmothers is acknowledged as an ancient -custom to be continued; it is added, that if any person comes to the -Minister, and tells him he cannot conveniently procure godfathers and -godmothers for his child, and that he desires the child may be baptized -upon the engagement of the parent or parents only, in that case the -Minister, after discourse with him, if he persists, shall be obliged -to baptize such child, or children, upon the suretiship of the parent, -or parents, or some other near relation or friends. If any Minister -objected at his institution to use the sign of the cross, the Bishop -might dispense with that particular, and name a Curate to act for him. -In reference to the doctrine of Regeneration, the form of Baptism -remained the same as before. - -Large additions were made to the Catechism and to the Confirmation -Service, the prayers after the last answer being considerably modified; -and a new prayer and exhortation prepared for the confirmed, who were -required to stay and listen to it. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The “Solemnization of Matrimony,” with several verbal changes, remains -substantially unaltered; but in “the Order for the Visitation of the -Sick,” together with fresh interrogatories, there is this important -change in the words of absolution: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath -left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and -believe in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; and -upon thy true faith and repentance, by His authority committed to me, I -pronounce thee absolved from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, -and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” - -In the Burial Service the word “dear” before the word “brother” is -struck out; so are the words “as our hope is this our brother doth.” -“Through any temptations” is substituted in place of the expression -“for any pains of death;” and the last prayer but one is so altered -that the latter portion becomes quite different. It runs thus: “We give -Thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to instruct us in this -heavenly knowledge, beseeching Thee so to affect our hearts therewith, -that seeing we believe such a happy estate hereafter, we may live here -in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto -the coming of the day of God; that being then found of Thee in peace -without spot and blameless, we may have our perfect consummation and -bliss, both in body and soul, in Thy eternal and everlasting glory, -through Jesus Christ our Lord.” - -[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.] - -No one who takes the trouble to read through the report of these -tedious proceedings but must be astonished at the extent of the -proposed alterations. They prove that some of the Episcopalian Divines -who took part in the revision of 1689 must have been a very different -class of men from the Episcopalian Divines who took part in the -revision of 1662. Calamy became acquainted with the alterations, and -said he thought if the scheme had been carried out, it would “have -brought in two-thirds of the Dissenters.”[159] No doubt a considerable -number might have been satisfied, but I consider Calamy to have been -too sanguine in his expectation; his expectation resting mainly on -what he knew of Presbyterians, who were much more disposed to return -to the Establishment than were brethren of other denominations. -But in addition to circumstances already mentioned unfavourable to -Comprehension, the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, which -involved the abolition of Prelacy in that country, produced in -Prelatists a great deal of bad feeling, and stood in the way of the -present attempt; this obstacle was greatly increased by Nonconformist -attacks at the time upon the use of Liturgies, and by a constantly -augmenting number of Nonconformist ordinations. Besides, although -extensive alterations came under discussion, very few Episcopalians -were disposed to go to such lengths as were proposed; some who were -active in the affair were also cautious, and an immense majority -outside the Committee utterly disliked the whole business, and were -opposed to any alteration whatever in the formularies.[160] - -The changes proposed did not touch any articles of faith, and -therefore exhibit the English Latitudinarian party in a very different -position from that of the foreign Latitudinarians, who threw down -all the barriers of orthodoxy, and opened the doors of the Church to -Unitarians. D’Huisseau, a distinguished professor and pastor at Saumur, -proposed the reunion of Christendom on the broadest doctrinal basis, -and received support from several Calvinistic Divines of considerable -note. The English Episcopalians, who moved in the matter as just -described, rather resembled Jurieu, an eminent French theologian, -ordained by an Anglican Bishop, yet officiating as a Presbyterian -clergyman in France and in Holland. He advocated Comprehension on an -orthodox basis, and treated Church organization and forms of worship as -of minor importance. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The sittings of the Commission ended on November the 18th. Convocation -had assembled on the 6th of the same month. - -The labour of the Commissioners was labour in vain. It came to nothing. -All that remains of it is a royal octavo pamphlet in blue paper covers, -published some years ago by order of the House of Commons. - -History records many a lost opportunity, which students of the past, -looking at events, each from his own point of view, must needs -lament. To the Catholic--the old Catholic of the Döllinger type--the -Reformation appears a lost opportunity for removing abuses and uniting -European Christendom. It comes before him as a crisis, which, if the -Catholic party had been wise, they would have used for the purpose of -purifying the Church and conciliating opponents, and so retaining them -within the same fold. By the Puritan, freeing himself from party bias, -I should think, the era of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth -must be regarded as a lost opportunity for treating Episcopalians -(their inveterate persecutors) in the spirit of Christian justice and -charity, by granting admirers of the Prayer-Book a freedom of worship -which admirers of the Prayer-Book had never granted to the Puritans; -thus returning good for evil, and so reading with emphasis a priceless -lesson to the whole world. In like manner, surely, the liberal -Churchman of the present day, whatever he may think of Tillotson’s -Commission, must mourn over the Revolution as a lost opportunity -for enlarging the boundaries of her communion, of recovering -Dissenters--not to the extent Calamy supposed, yet in considerable -numbers--and of removing from the Church of England many incumbrances, -which have ever since been points of attack and sources of weakness. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Much excitement had been manifested during the clerical elections in -the year 1661, but there was far greater excitement during the election -of 1689. Canvassing for members of Parliament was an old custom, -but canvassing for members of Convocation was a new one, and at the -time it was noticed as a sign of party spirit then so rife. The fact -is remarkable, that whilst the official members of the Lower House -included many distinguished men, nobody of any mark was _elected_, -except Dr. John Mill, the eminent Greek scholar, who edited a new -version of the text of the New Testament.[161] By far the majority -was composed of persons who had long been Tories in politics, and now -showed themselves to be High Churchmen in religion; but the Upper -House,--thinned, by refusal to attend, of those nonjuring Prelates who -still survived, two of them having died,--contained decidedly liberal -politicians and divines in the persons of Compton, Lloyd, Burnet, and -Patrick, the last of whom had in September been raised to the Bishopric -of Chichester. These Bishops took the lead in the proceedings of that -assembly, and imparted to them a liberal spirit. The difference between -the temper of the two Houses soon appeared. - -Convocation had formerly met first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at -Westminster. Now that the new Cathedral of London, though nearly -completed, had not been consecrated, Convocation assembled at once -within the walls of Henry VII.’s Chapel, when a Latin sermon was -preached by Beveridge. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -As soon as the Lower House proceeded to business, the choice of a -Prolocutor was the first step. On the 21st of November, Sharp--who -had in the Deanery of Canterbury succeeded Tillotson, now made Dean -of St. Paul’s--proposed as Prolocutor his distinguished predecessor, -who was a friend of the King, a favourite at Court, a man of prudence -and moderation, and a promoter of the scheme of Comprehension. But -Tillotson was rejected by two to one in favour of Jane. Nobody could -mistake the significancy of the choice. It would appear that personal -feeling had some influence in it. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochester -are accused of having intrigued against Tillotson from resentment -towards his patrons, the King and Queen--the latter of them, although -their near relative, not having raised them to any high employments in -the State. Moreover, it had become known, that Tillotson was intended -by William to be Sancroft’s successor, as soon as Sancroft’s deposition -could be legally accomplished. This circumstance stung the mind of -Compton, who, on account of his former relation to the Queen as her -tutor, and the signal service he had rendered at the Revolution, not -to mention his noble rank, considered he had a claim superior to -that of the Dean. Unworthy motives are often attributed to men upon -insufficient grounds, and I am unable to discover the reasons for -Tillotson’s unfavourable opinion of Compton; but as Tillotson was -not likely to have adopted suspicions without reason, it is probable -that Compton had something to do with the rejection of Tillotson as a -candidate for the Prolocutorship. Knowing what human nature is, one -does not wonder that Compton was annoyed at Tillotson being preferred -to him; yet it should be remembered that if Compton was mortified by -the Royal preference for Tillotson, it did not at present induce him to -abandon the Liberal party. When Jane the Prolocutor was presented to -Compton as President of the Upper Chamber, in the room of the absent -Primate, he finished a speech upon the perfection of the Church, and -the mischief of any change in it, with the words, “_Nolumus leges -Angliæ mutari_,” in allusion, it is inferred, to Compton’s having -adopted that motto for the colours of his regiment, when he had -played the part of a colonel. The Bishop, in his answer, indicated -his adherence to the opinions and measures he had before proposed, by -saying to the Clergy, that “they ought to endeavour a temper in those -things that are not essential in religion, thereby to open the door of -salvation to a multitude of straying Christians; that it must needs be -their duty to show the same indulgence and charity to the Dissenters -under King William, which some of the Bishops and Clergy had promised -to them in their addresses to King James.”[162] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -After the Royal Commission--a commission which spoke of rites and -ceremonies as “indifferent and alterable”--authorizing the Convocation -to proceed to business had been read, and after the delivery of a -Royal message full of gracious expressions, conveyed by the Earl of -Nottingham, the Bishops prepared an address. In this address they -thanked His Majesty for the zeal he had shown “for the Protestant -religion in general, and the Church of England in particular.”[163] To -these words a strong objection was taken by the Lower House. First, -they claimed a right to present an address of their own, which being -disallowed, they claimed a right to offer amendments. They wished the -address to be confined to what concerned the Church of England, and no -mention to be made of the Protestant religion in general. An amendment -being carried to that effect, there followed a conference between the -two Houses--Burnet representing the Upper, Jane the Lower. The Lower -House desired the words “Established Church” to be employed, which led -to a dispute between the Bishop and the Prolocutor. The Bishop argued, -that the Church of England as established was only distinguished from -other Churches by its hierarchy and revenues, and that if Popery were -restored there would still be an Established Church of England. The -Prolocutor replied, that the Church was distinguished by its Articles, -Liturgy, and Homilies. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The discussion between these two Divines resembled that between the -two knights who could not agree about the device on a shield, because -the first looked at it on one side and the second on the other. The -fact is, that the disputants were thinking of different things. Burnet -was thinking only of the circumstance of an Establishment--of that -which is a mere incident to any Church connected with the State; so -considering the question, no doubt he was right. Jane, on the other -hand, was thinking of the Church itself, and not the establishment -of it. Consequently he was wrong in saying what he did of the Church -as established, though he would have been right had Burnet used the -disputed words in the sense in which Jane was employing them. The -logomachy terminated in a compromise; and the two Houses concurred in -thanking William for the zeal he had expressed concerning the honour, -peace, advantage, and establishment of the English Church, whereby they -doubted not the interest of the Protestant religion, which in all -other Protestant Churches was dear to them, would be the better secured. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -The King, in reply, assured the Bishops, that they might depend on his -former promises, and he gave a new assurance that he would improve all -occasions and opportunities for serving the Church of England. There -also occurred in this Convocation, debates about proxies, complaints -respecting the custody of Convocation records, and charges brought -against the publication of books on the Athanasian Creed, contrary -to the Canons. We are informed that a reverend person made a useless -speech on behalf of the Bishops under suspension, wishing that -something could be done to qualify them for sitting in Convocation -without endangering the constitution of the Assembly; and Burnet tells -us that the majority in Convocation refused to consider any compromise -with the Dissenters, one argument being that it was derogatory to the -Church to make overtures to them until they expressed a desire for -reconciliation, and either offered proposals themselves, or showed a -willingness to consider proposals made by others.[164] - -Committee meetings were held in Dr. Busby’s chamber, and in Dr. -Tenison’s library there was an inspection of old books belonging to -Convocation, but nothing important was effected in any way. Convocation -adjourned on the 16th of December through successive prorogations, and -remained inoperative for ten years. - - - - - CHAPTER V. - - -The periods prescribed by the Act which altered the Oaths of -Allegiance--first for the suspension, and next for the ejectment of -those who refused to swear--were the 1st of August, 1689, and the 1st -of February, 1690. - -In the early part of the year events occurred which increased the -importance of exacting the prescribed oaths. - -James left France in the month of March, 1689. Rumour ran that he had -reached England, that he was in London, that he was secretly lodged in -the house of Lloyd, the Nonjuror.[165] This proved to be a mistake. He -landed at Kinsale in Ireland, trusting to his friends, and saying, “I -will recover my own dominions with my own subjects, or perish in the -attempt.” The French King speeded the parting guest with the equivocal -compliment, “The best wish I can form for your service is, that I may -never see you again.”[166] But with the people of Ireland James found -little favour--the Protestants disliking him as a Papist, the Papists -suspecting him because they considered his policy towards Protestants -too lenient.[167] In support of his attempt to recover the crown, his -army laid siege to Londonderry, and the French navy skirmished with an -English squadron in Bantry Bay. This occurred in April. A Parliament, -at his summons, met in Dublin the following month, and from the Castle, -where he took up his residence, he issued a Declaration to his Irish -subjects, exhorting them to support his claims. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, who after the revocation of the -Edict of Nantes had witnessed the demolition of his church, and had -dared one night, at the request of his congregation, to preach amidst -the ruins, was for the offence sentenced to be broken on the wheel. -Having effected his escape from France, he happened, at the time of -James’ arrival in Ireland, to be an exile there. One of the first -things done by this Royal friend of religious liberty was to deliver -the refugee to the Ambassador of Louis, who had him conveyed home to -undergo his sentence.[168] - -Copies of James’ Declaration were circulated in England, and found -their way to Cambridge. One Thomas Fowler, from the University, stood -at the bar of the House of Commons on the 20th of June, to state -that the documents came down in boxes, directed to the Masters of -Queen’s and St. John’s; and one of the Burgesses for the University -acquainted the House that the boxes were in the custody of the -Vice-Chancellor.[169] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Government in England, with their elected Sovereign, was challenged -to submit to the cashiered King, or to hold their own by force of -arms. The gauntlet being thrown down before the world, no alternative -remained but for William to return to Holland, or to fight out the -contest as best he could. The position in which these circumstances -placed him in reference to the Nonjurors is obvious. Personally he had -no disposition to come to extremities with them; he had given proof of -a desire to treat them with the utmost leniency; but the exigencies of -his position rendered it indispensable that at this moment he should -be unyielding towards all justly suspected of disaffection. Of the -disaffection of the Nonjurors there could be no doubt. They refused to -take the new oath on the very ground that, by virtue of the old one, -their allegiance belonged to James. James was their anointed King, -their King by Divine right; William was esteemed by them as no better -than a usurper. - -Three nonjuring Prelates died in the course of the spring and summer. -Cartwright, the semi-Popish Bishop of Chester, after joining James at -St. Germains, accompanied him to Ireland, where on the 15th of April -he expired, having received on his death-bed the sacrament and the -absolution of the Church of England, instead of conforming to Rome, -as at the time he was reported to have done.[170] Thomas, Bishop of -Worcester, died June the 25th, solemnly declaring on his death-bed -that, if his heart did not deceive him, and the grace of God failed -him not, he thought he could burn at a stake before he would take -the new oath.[171] Lake, Bishop of Chichester, followed Thomas to -the grave in the month of August, expressing satisfaction with the -course which he had pursued, and declaring his conviction that the -oaths were inconsistent with the doctrine of passive obedience, which -he maintained to be a doctrine of the English Church.[172] These -testimonies, hallowed by the solemnity of death, were heirlooms for -the Nonjurors, who preserved them with care, and exhibited them with -reverence, not without considerable effect in promoting their cause. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -The Prelates who had not sworn, persistently continued to refuse the -oaths; the Primate being reproached with his inconsistency for the part -he had taken in the Revolution. He was insolently told by a Jacobite -correspondent in Holland, “Your Grace has forfeited your neck already -in signing that traitorous Declaration at Guildhall, wherein you cast -off your allegiance to your lawful Sovereign, and applied yourself to -the Prince of Orange.”[173] Free to discharge their functions up to the -1st of August, 1689, the Bishops were then suspended from the exercise -of them. Still they enjoyed their benefices, and continued to reside -in their palaces. The interim was filled up by the defence of their -opinions. Sancroft, following the bent of his disposition, shut himself -up at Lambeth, retaining impracticable views of a Regency, refusing to -acknowledge William and Mary, combining good intentions with narrowness -of mind, and saying to the last, with Pius the IX. at Rome, _Non -possumus_. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, unfortunately sympathized -with the Archbishop, and encouraged him in his policy. Ken--a far -different man, firm in principle, of a tender conscience, yet open to -conviction, careless about his interests, only anxious to do what was -right--almost resolved to submit. But, after a night’s rest, he said -to Dr. Hooper, who had pressed submission upon him, “I question not -but that you, and several others, have taken the oaths with as good a -conscience as myself shall refuse them; and sometimes you have almost -persuaded me to comply by the arguments you have used; but I beg you -to use them no further, for should I be persuaded to comply, and after -see reason to repent, you would make me the most miserable man in the -world.”[174] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -Turner, Bishop of Ely, another of the nonjuring band, whose character -has been indicated already, whose Jacobitism is unquestionable, and -who supported the Archbishop in his defiant course, wrote to him on -Ascension Day, 1689, a letter in which he refers to Ken, and the -doubts felt respecting him. “I must needs say, the sooner we meet our -brother of Bath the better, for I must no longer in duty conceal from -your Grace--though I beseech you to keep it in terms of a secret--that -this very good man is, I fear, warping from us, and the true -interests of the Church of England, towards a compliance with the new -Government.”[175] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, coincided with Ken in his moderation; -and if the rest had resembled them, possibly a practical adjustment -of the controversy might have been reached. He is described as a -gentle, amiable man, unfitted for an Episcopal position during a season -of political trouble. After his deprivation he pursued a quiet and -inoffensive course, without giving any umbrage to the Government.[176] -Sancroft, Lloyd, and Turner were men of a different mould. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -During the period of the Bishops’ remaining in suspension, their case -excited immense interest--friends loudly expressing sympathy, opponents -loudly expressing disapproval. The press was employed. Apologies -were published; answers were returned. On the one hand the services -of the Seven in the cause of liberty were gratefully rehearsed, -their sufferings pitifully depicted, their temper under trials -enthusiastically extolled, and the sacredness of oaths, as asserted in -their conduct, earnestly enforced. Connected with this vindication and -eulogy, were mystical allusions to the perfect number of the Episcopal -confessors, the Seven imprisoned being irreverently compared to the -burning lamps before the throne of God. On the other hand, this play -of fancy met with sarcasm and ridicule; the old arguments for the -new oaths came into hackneyed use; the patient temper of the Bishops -failed to excite any longer much admiration, and a ridiculous panegyric -pronounced upon them for “the holy tears” they wept, like “trees of -sovereign balm, to cure the wounds of their Royal enemy,” only aroused -mockery, whilst their suffering and services were depreciated by a -reference to the story of Alexander the Great. Alexander had coats -of armour made for men and horses three times the ordinary size, and -left behind on the banks of the River Indus, to make succeeding ages -believe that his soldiery were of gigantic bigness. So, it was said, -the setting forth a few days’ imprisonment in the Royal palace of -the Tower,--under the notion of its being a prison such as confined -the primitive Christians,--detracted from the real glory gained by -the Bishops, since everybody saw the vast disproportion between the -dungeons of Diocletian and the Tower of London.[177] - -As the 1st of February approached, a few Clergymen in the archdeaconry -of Sudbury applied to their Diocesan, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, telling -him that though they thought of nothing less than losing all, yet they -passionately desired to know whether they should voluntarily leave -their respective cures, or wait to be forcibly thrust out; also they -wished to know how they were to behave, so as, if possible, to preserve -the ancient Church of England. He informed them that in the opinion -of eminent lawyers a judicial sentence alone could eject them; and -therefore that they might retain possession until they were judicially -expelled. Their second question he left unanswered.[178] Whether -Lloyd’s notion of law was right or wrong, the Clergy generally did not -act upon it, for most of them quietly quitted possession on the 1st -of February.[179] Amongst the most distinguished of these Nonjurors -were George Hickes, Dean of Worcester; Henry Dodwell, who, though -not in orders, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford; -Jeremy Collier, Lecturer at Gray’s Inn; and John Kettlewell, Vicar of -Coleshill, in Warwickshire. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Hickes was a man of great learning, skilled both in patristic lore and -Teutonic tongues. He was brother to the Nonconformist Minister of the -name, who suffered death after Monmouth’s rebellion; but, so far from -being tainted with his brother’s sentiments, he was an intense opponent -of Nonconformity, and an extravagant assertor of passive obedience. -He published the last speeches of two Presbyterian Ministers, under -the title of _The Spirit of Popery, speaking out of the Mouths of -Fanatical Protestants_; and declared, in his _Thebæan Legion_, -that if King James should imitate the Emperor Maximian, and doom his -soldiers to death, for refusing to commit idolatry, it would be their -duty to submit with meekness to the Royal decree. He wrote letters -to a Popish priest, and an apologetical vindication of the English -Church, in answer to those who reproached her with heresy and schism; -and he also composed a book, entitled _Speculum Beatæ Virginis, a -discourse of the due praise and heroism of the Virgin Mary_. These -works indicate what manner of man he must have been, yet it is affirmed -that at first he felt disposed to take the oaths, and came up to London -for the purpose, but swerved from it through the influence of his High -Church friends; a statement which seems very improbable.[180] Dodwell -was still more learned than Hickes, and if in his theories more -absurd, he was in practice more reasonable. Some of his speculative -ideas upon marriage and music, upon the old serpent and the human soul, -were as extraordinary as any that ever entered the human brain; but -the fact which more immediately relates to my purpose is, that on the -one hand he wrote _Discourses against the Romanists_, and on the -other hand treatises upon _Schism_ and _One Priesthood_, in -such a style, that when Tillotson read the MS. he told him some things -in it were so palpably false, he wondered the author did not see their -absurdity, and that they were so gross as to grate much upon one’s -inward sense. He compared him to Richard Baxter--a man unlike him in -most respects, but whom he resembled in pertinacity of purpose and -fondness for his own opinion. Collier was described in his own day as -a breathing library, and for metaphysical learning and eloquence as -bearing the bell from most men.[181] - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Inferior to Collier in point of ability, and to Dodwell and Hickes in -point of learning, Kettlewell exceeded them in the fervour of his piety -and in the force of his character. Eminently spiritual and devout, with -his heart fixed upon another world, he threw into his life and ministry -a spiritual force, which touched as with an electric spark those who -came in contact with him, and made him a centre of power, though he was -free from any ambition to become a party leader. He had been Chaplain -in the Bedford family, and had been held in affectionate esteem by -Lord William Russell, though he utterly differed from him in political -opinion, for Kettlewell strongly maintained the doctrine of passive -obedience. He did not join in the outcry against Popery in the reign -of James II.; he thought it betrayed unworthy fears to be so alarmed -at the antagonism of error; and instead of preaching against Romanism, -he enforced the doctrines of the Creeds. When others were exclaiming -against the miscarriages of Government, he, it is said, turned the -thoughts of his hearers upon themselves, bidding them contemplate -the judgment of God, adore His wisdom, and submit to His will.[182] -The use which he meant to be made of these religious reflections was -to reconcile people to the ruling powers, and to repress the idea of -resisting them, whatever might be the excesses to which they ran. “He -preached up,” as his sympathizing biographer, remarks, “the duties -of common Christianity and of universal obligation, of reliance upon -Providence, of simplicity and sincerity, of fidelity and perseverance, -with all the branches of the great doctrine of the Cross, and the -benefit which the Church maketh by sufferings; constantly recommending -Christianity to his flock as a passive religion, and giving them rules -for begetting in them a meek and passive spirit.”[183] The temper -of the man, the tone of his churchmanship, and the preparation he -was making for his ultimate position as a Nonjuror, are very plain; -and with peculiarities of this kind he blended a love of Ritualism, -which expressed itself in rather an unusual form, for when a new set -of Communion plate had been presented to the church at Coleshill, he -caused the vessels to be dedicated by Archbishop Sancroft. They were -placed upon a table below the altar steps, and then taken, piece by -piece, and reverently placed upon the altar, sentences of Scriptures -being repeated in connection with the presentation of each. When the -patten, the chalices, the flagon, and the bason had been so offered, -a prayer of consecration followed, then a benediction, and then the -Holy Communion.[184] Kettlewell is described as a man of a peaceable -disposition; but it is clear from his Memoirs that the ardour of his -affections led him to speak and act with a vehemence not agreeable -to those who differed from him, and “the true effigies” of his face -prefixed to the book, confirms the inference which in this respect must -be drawn from the narrative. He was unquestionably a man of enthusiasm, -and his enthusiasm had a capacity for becoming fanatical. - -[Sidenote: 1689.] - -The Nonjurors were not so numerous as Kettlewell and others wished. -Only six joined him in his own county. In the diocese of Lichfield and -Coventry there might be twenty. In one archdeaconry in the diocese of -Norwich there might be half that number, owing to the influence of a -nonjuring Bishop. In one College at Cambridge there was a considerable -majority of Nonjurors, attributable to the party spirit they managed to -maintain. Altogether, about 400 Clergymen quitted the Establishment. -When we remember how prevalent had been the doctrines of the Divine -right of Kings, and of the absolute submission of subjects; when, -besides this, we recollect the nature of the education given at Oxford, -where the decree against the opposite doctrines had been daily read, -and constantly hung up in the Colleges,--we wonder that the Nonjurors -were not more numerous. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Dignitaries were not so submissive as their inferior brethren. In -defiance of the Act of Parliament, nonjuring Bishops retained their -palaces; and so lenient was the Government, that, at the eleventh hour, -forms of proviso were proposed, under which Nonjurors might continue -to enjoy their benefices. The suspicion with which all such overtures -of kindness were regarded appears in a letter to Sancroft written by -Lloyd, the Coryphæus of the obstinates: - - “May it please your Grace, - - “Mr. Inch called upon me last Monday, and showed me a protest - contrived by him, and some of our good friends (as he styled - them), in order to fend off our deprivation. I thanked him and - our good friends for their kind designs, but at the same time I - could not well resolve what it might import, _Timeo Danaos et - dona_, and I dread lurking and consequential snares. It is - therefore necessary to consider well of this protest before any - determination about it. - - “I must confess to your Grace, that I do not think it fit for us - to appear in it, or to push it on, as it took its rise from our - friends’ kindness; for it is most proper for them to manage it. - - “Again, it may be very improper to stir the point, till we see - in what temper the gentlemen are that meet at St. Stephen’s - Chapel. The giving of a recognizance for the good behaving, or - quiet peaceable living, is a point that deserves to be well - weighed, especially since the interpretation of it depends much - on the mercy of the gentlemen that sit in Westminster Hall. - On the other hand, the circumstances of our poor noncomplying - brethren in our respective dioceses, must be considered, for (if - I mistake not) the benefit of the protest concerns them more - than us. - - [Sidenote: 1690.] - - “My Lord, upon the whole matter, I designed this day to have - waited upon your Grace and my Lord of Ely, but, in good truth, - I am not able to stir abroad. I took physic last Monday, and I - have been feverish ever since; but as soon as it shall please - God to enable me, I shall wait upon your Grace and my Lord of - Ely. In the meantime, with the tender of my humble duty and - service, - - “I remain, - “Your Grace’s most obedient servant - to command, - “WILLIAM NORWICH.”[185] - -This secession from the Church on a question touching the Crown -could not but be a trouble to William; at the same time he had other -troubles. The intrigues and trials between Whigs and Tories were the -plague of his reign. He wished he were a thousand miles away, and that -he had never become King of England. He thought he could not trust the -Tories--he resolved he would not trust the Whigs; and once he was on -the point of going back to Holland, leaving the Government here in the -hands of the Queen. He and his Ministers had warm debates, and it is -said that amongst them tears were shed. At last William made up his -mind to go to Ireland, and there put an end to the war.[186] - -He assembled a new Parliament on the 2nd of April. Terrific excitement -prevailed at the elections. The Whigs denounced the Tories as -Jacobites, and the Jacobites as Papists. The Tories denounced the Whigs -as Republicans, Fanatics, Latitudinarians, and Atheists. The Tories had -the best of it, and returned a majority. Four Tories were declared to -be at the head of the poll for the City of London. Prominent and noisy -Whigs were excluded from their old seats; liberal men, disgusted at the -excesses of their own party, voted on the other side; even Sir Isaac -Newton declined a contest at Cambridge, and recorded his name in favour -of Sir Robert Sawyer, who had been expelled from the Whig Convention. -Yet in spite of defeats, the Whigs took heart and concocted plans, -hoping to frustrate the opposite policy. This subject, however, it is -not necessary to pursue, neither need we describe the changes which -took place in the Ministry. Before the Revolution, the conduct of the -Ministry affected most materially the affairs of the Church and the -condition of Dissenters; after the passing of the Allegiance Act, the -Church was little affected by the policy of the Government, except -as connected with Convocation; still less did that policy touch the -Dissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act. - -[Sidenote: IRISH CAMPAIGN.] - -In anticipation of the Irish campaign, a national fast was fixed for -the 12th of March, when prayers were offered for the personal safety of -William. Immediately afterwards, a form of prayer of a very different -description was printed and circulated. It referred to England as in -a state of religious apostacy, and it sought the restoration of James -without mentioning him by name. He was referred to as the stone which -the builders rejected, and which God would make the head of the corner. -There could be no mistake as to what was meant by the petitions, “Give -the King the necks of his enemies;” “Raise him up friends abroad;” “Do -some mighty thing for him, which we, in particular, know not how to -pray for.”[187] - -This inflammatory performance under a devout disguise aroused -indignation, and numbers of the adherents of William ascribed its -composition to the Nonjurors. The excitement against the Bishops of -that party was increased by a publication, in which they were styled -“the Reverend Club of Lambeth,” “the Holy Jacobite Club,” “wretches, -great contrivers, and managers of Cabals,” who loved “to trample on the -Dissenters, now happily out of their clutches.” The new prayers are -called the Bishop’s “Great Guns;” and Ken is alluded to as a fellow -who had eaten King William’s bread. The most shameful passage is one -in which, under a covert allusion to the massacre of the De Witts in -Amsterdam, a violent assault upon the individuals abused is obviously -suggested.[188] - -[Sidenote: 1690.] - -The Bishops published a vindication of themselves, denying that they -had any share in the recent form of prayer, or that they had any -knowledge as to who were the writers. In reference to the attack upon -them they said, “Who the author of the libel was they did not know; -but whoever he might be, they desired, as the Lord had taught, to -return him good for evil, and recommended him to the Divine mercy.” -They had all, they went on to declare, actually or virtually, hazarded -whatever they possessed in opposing Popery and arbitrary power; and -were still ready to sacrifice their very lives in the same noble cause. -In conclusion, they lamented the misfortune that they were unable to -publish full and particular replies to the many libels which were -industriously circulated by enemies, to the injury of their reputation. -The authorship of the prayers being denied by the Bishops, it was -attributed to Hickes, or to Sherlock, or to Kettlewell; on their -behalf a protest was entered against such a suspicion in the Life of -the last of these persons; but some sympathy with the New Liturgy -itself is betrayed by the writer, when, without any condemnatory or -qualifying remark, he calls it “as solemn and expressive as any could -well be;” nor does he hint at its being the work of Roman Catholics--an -origin which, by some writers, has been suggested without sufficient -reason.[189] - - - - - CHAPTER VI. - - -On the 1st of July, 1690, the memorable Battle of the Boyne was -fought and won by William III. He received a slight wound; and that -slight wound created an unexampled sensation throughout England and -the cities and courts of Europe. A letter conveying the intelligence -reached the Queen at Whitehall just as she was going to chapel; and, -to use her own expression, it frightened her out of her wits. But out -of her senses with trouble one day, she was out of her senses with -joy the next, to find the injury turned out to be very slight.[190] -Paris, at first frantic with exultation on hearing of the supposed -death of the great enemy of France, sunk into rageful disappointment -to find that he was still alive, and ready to fight further battles in -support of Protestantism. Strange as it may appear--but the strange -combinations of European parties and politics at that time will account -for it--the tidings of the wound brought no joy to Rome, any more than -to Austria.[191] Both were reassured by a true report of the fate of -William. “No mortal man,” said Tillotson, “ever had his shoulder so -kindly kissed by a cannon bullet;” a felicitous tune of expression, -which even South, with all his prejudice against Tillotson, could not -fail to admire.[192] - -[Sidenote: 1690.] - -Whilst the battle was raging on the banks of the Boyne, a sea fight -occurred off the Sussex coast; an English Bishop, in sympathy with -his Royal master, was performing his sacred functions in the vicinity -of the latter of these conflicts; and an extract from his Diary in -reference to it is worth transcribing:-- - -“Thirtieth of June, being Monday, I began my visitation at Arundel; -and went the next day to Lewes, where I visited on Wednesday; and on -Thursday went towards Hastings, and heard by the way that the French -were burning that town. But we resolved to go on, being invited to -lie at Sir Nicholas Pelham’s, whose house was not many miles from it. -He was gone thither with other country gentlemen; the French having -attempted to burn some ships that were run on ground there. He sent us -word the town was safe, but he could not come home that night. At six -in the morning he came, and said there was no danger, but the town was -in such confusion that it would be to no purpose to go thither. For -the churches were full of soldiers, who lay there all night, and the -streets full of country people, and all the women frighted away and -fled, so that there were none left to dress any victuals. He invited -us therefore to stay with him, and entertained us most kindly. But my -Chancellor, Dr. Briggs, all on a sudden started up, and would go to -Hastings, and about noon word was brought us some of the Clergy were -there; which made me condemn myself for not going with him, though I -followed the best advice I could get. And afterward it appeared to be -the best; for though some of the clergy appeared, there was no place -wherein to visit them; and besides it might have proved dangerous: for -two men were killed with a cannon bullet in the very next house to that -where my Chancellor sat; which made him run away in haste before he had -done his business, and (as I remember) left some of his books behind -him.”[193] - -[Sidenote: SHERLOCK.] - -The Battle of the Boyne led to an important clerical conversion. -William Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had distinguished himself in -the reign of James II., not only by his zeal in contending against -Popery, but also by his decision in maintaining the principle of -non-resistance. He strongly disapproved of the turn which affairs -took at the Revolution, and advocated negotiations with the exiled -Monarch, in reference to his being restored upon terms which would -preserve constitutional liberty. The accession of the Prince and -Princess of Orange inspired indignation, and the new oaths were by him -unhesitatingly declined. He threw in his lot with the Nonjurors, who -regarded his talents with respect and his character with admiration; -and they esteemed the support of a man so popular as a tower of -strength. After losing the Mastership of the Temple, he retired into -private life, and, pensive amidst misfortunes, wrote and published his -celebrated treatise on Death. Still he deprecated schism; disapproved -of the establishment of any Episcopal sect; advised those who could -conscientiously remain, not to forsake their parish churches; and even -officiated himself at St. Dunstan’s, actually reading the prayers -for William and Mary. When the Battle of the Boyne decided the fate -of the exile, and secured peace for the occupants of the throne, -Sherlock looked at things in another light, became reconciled to the -revolutionary settlement, and took the oaths which he had before -refused. As a consequence, he returned to the Mastership of the Temple, -and also received the Deanery of St. Paul’s, vacated by Tillotson’s -elevation to Canterbury. So prominent a man on the nonjuring side, -could not pass through such a conversion without giving some reasons -for it; accordingly he wrote a book, which he entitled, _The Case of -the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers stated and resolved according to -Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England_. - -[Sidenote: 1690.] - -[Sidenote: SHERLOCK.] - -Sancroft, soon after the Revolution, published what was called -_Bishop Overall’s Convocation Book_, written in the reign of James -I., containing certain conclusions respecting Ecclesiastical and Civil -Government, one of which, notwithstanding the current tone of the -book in favour of non-resistance, is to the effect, that a Government -originating in rebellion, when thoroughly settled, should be reverenced -and obeyed as “being always God’s authority, and therefore receiving no -impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it.” The Convocations -of Canterbury and York had endorsed the contents of Overall’s volume; -and, by a canon, distinctly condemned the doctrine that a Government -begun by rebellion, after being thoroughly settled, is not of God.[194] -Sherlock made a good deal out of this, and said he should have -continued to stick at the oaths, had he not been relieved by Overall’s -book, and had not the venerable authority of a Convocation given him a -freedom of thinking, which the apprehensions of novelty and singularity -had cramped before.[195] He did not consider, as is sometimes -represented, that the Bishop and Convocation settled the matter, and -that he was to submit as a child to the authoritative decree; but that -a door had been thereby opened to the sons of the Church to look at -the matter;[196] and that he, having been thus induced to examine it -afresh, had for various reasons, which he assigns--some of which, it -must be acknowledged, run counter to his previous publications on the -subject[197]--arrived at the conclusion that he could conscientiously -take the required vow. A terrible storm assailed him after this. -Argument, satire, and abuse, sometimes in vulgar prose, sometimes in -doggerel rhyme, descended in torrents upon his devoted head. Nonjurors -reviled him on the one side; Revolutionists on the other; and people -who did not care for either side joined in the old English cry against -turncoats and time-servers. Most people maintained he had changed -for the sake of loaves and fishes; and, as Mrs. Sherlock had made -herself very notorious, and was said to have had immense influence -over her husband, she caught a terrible pelting from a literary mob, -who assailed her as Xanthippe, Delilah, and Eve, all in one. Sherlock -had to pay the penalty, which men, whose new opinions jump in the -same direction as their pecuniary interests, must ever pay; but human -motives, whether good or evil, lie so far beneath the surface, that the -reading of them by even honest historians may widely differ from the -reading of them by the only Omniscient One. Contemporaries were too -much involved in party strife to take an unbiassed view of Sherlock’s -conduct; and writers since have scarcely been able to free themselves -from prejudices handed down by the pamphlets of that day. The grave -feature of the case affecting the reputation of the Master and Dean, -is to be found, not in the new application of a principle which he -had long held; but in the repudiation of his old principles, just at -the moment when the Battle of the Boyne had destroyed all prospect -of James’ restoration--the chance upon which, as Sherlock’s enemies -believed, he had ventured hopes of high preferment, during the time of -casting in his lot with the poor Nonjurors.[198] - -[Sidenote: 1690.] - -The Battle of the Boyne having established the Revolution, and with it -the throne of William, the people who had hailed him as their Deliverer -became more than ever impatient towards all who remained disaffected -towards his Government. - -Lloyd, the nonjuring Bishop of Norwich, a friend, adviser, and -correspondent of Sancroft, not being one of the illustrious Seven, -had never shared in that halo of confessorship which for awhile had -played around their sacred heads; but he had long been, and was still -more than ever, regarded as an obstinate, violent, and intriguing -Churchman, bent upon overthrowing the new Sovereign, and bringing back -to Whitehall the exiled King. His politics, not his religion, made him -unpopular; and his letters to his archiepiscopal friend, written in the -summer of 1690, betray the fact, that whatever might be the dislike -of the London populace to nonjuring Bishops in general, a feeling of -hatred prevailed against him in particular, and threatened his security -in one of the most unaristocratic districts of the Metropolis. - -“I was yesterday,” he wrote on the 5th of August, “forced to a sudden -flight, being alarmed by the rabble, who began to appear at their -Reformation work in Old Street. I had a message from a good friend last -Saturday, which assured me that the rabble would be up in a short time. -And on Friday, my housekeeper (being among some of her relations in -Cripplegate) brought me word, that the fanatics talked bitterly against -the Bishops, and would shortly call them to an account. - -“About 9 of the clock yesterday, Mr. Edwards, of Eye, and another -gentleman, called upon me, and told me they saw about 150 of the mob -very busy in pulling down of houses in Old Street. Within a few minutes -the hawker which sells pamphlets brought the same tidings, and, in -regard the dangerous crew were so near, I sent forthwith one of my men -to see how the affair went abroad, and another to fetch me a hackney -coach, into which I got with my wife and child, and straightway took -sanctuary in the Temple. From thence I sent for further information, -and found that the crew in Old Street was dispersed; partly by Justice -Parry coming among them and taking their names and threatening them -with informations; and chiefly by a company of the train-bands, who in -that nick of time passed that way to muster in the fields. - -[Sidenote: 1690.] - -“About four in the afternoon I returned to my house and found all quiet -in the way. If the rabble had continued I would not have failed to send -notice to your Grace; and, on the other hand, I resolved not to send a -confused uncertain alarm. God be praised, this scarecrow is over, and -I hope God will still deliver us from the bloody fangs of cruel saints -and scoundrels.”[199] - -Six months later the popular fury against men of Lloyd’s order was -being fanned afresh, and again he told his sorrows to his old friend: - -“Your Grace will see by the enclosed papers how the mob are encouraged -to bring some under their discipline: their wrath is cruel, and their -malice as keen as razors, but God defend the innocent from their rage. - -“There is also published a most devilish Atheistical satire against the -Clergy in general, but more especially against poor Nonjurors. I think -no age hath seen the like of it,--it’s called a Satire against the -Priests.”[200] - -Nonjurors lived on both sides the Irish Channel. Soon after the battle -which decided the fate of James, though it did not crush the hopes and -schemes of his supporters, William had his attention called to the -refusal of the Bishop of Ossory to pray for him in public worship. “His -Majesty’s command,” said the Secretary of State to the delinquent, “is, -that your Lordship be suspended till further order. I know not the -terms, being here in a camp, that are used in things of this nature; -but I acquaint your Lordship of His Majesty’s present resentment, and -can say no more till I hear from your Lordship herein.”[201] Nonjurors -on this side of the Channel, however, gave much more trouble than they -did on the other. - -[Sidenote: SCHEMES FOR RESTORATION.] - -A scheme for the restoration of James came to light at the end of 1690. -The leader of the conspiracy was Richard Graham, Viscount Preston, -Secretary of State in the preceding reign, whose patent of nobility had -been drawn up at St. Germains, and who retained his seals of office -in spite of the Revolution. Secret conferences were held amongst the -English Jacobites, and as the result, Lord Preston, with a Mr. Ashton -and another companion, were despatched with treasonable papers to the -ex-King; but ere they had passed Tilbury Fort, in a smack which was -to convey them to the shores of France, they were seized and brought -back to London. Preston and Ashton were tried, convicted, and condemned -at the Old Bailey. Ashton was executed; Preston was pardoned. As -they lay under sentence of death, the sympathies of the Nonjurors -eagerly gathered round them, and the following letter from two -well-known members of the party, to Sancroft--who still lingered in his -Archiepiscopal Palace on the banks of the Thames--shows how earnestly -they sought to enlist his offices:-- - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - - “We who waited on your Grace on Sunday last, in the evening, - being sensible that we were defective in the delivery of - our message, occasioned, in great measure, out of profound - respect to your Grace, have, upon a fuller recollection of - the importance of that affair, presumed to lay our thoughts - more plainly before your Grace, humbly conceiving, with all - due submission to your Grace’s judgment, that if your Grace - shall think it proper to give your personal assistance to the - gentlemen under sentence of death, it would not only be a - very great comfort and satisfaction to the dying gentlemen, - but likewise a considerable support and encouragement to all - surviving honest men. - - “My Lord, the concern is very extraordinary, otherwise we had - not presumed to give your Grace this trouble, and therefore, we - humbly beg your Grace would please to excuse this freedom.[202] - - “JEREMY COLLIER, - “SHADRACH COOKE.” - -Turner, Bishop of Ely, was charged with complicity in Preston’s -treasonable business, and two suspicious letters were produced, said -to be in the Prelate’s handwriting; but I cannot find evidence of -their authorship, or any proof in their contents justifying a charge -of treason. As Turner immediately hid himself, and then absconded, -it looks, notwithstanding, as if he felt a pang of conscious guilt; -but concealment in his case seems to have been a difficult matter, -for he had such a remarkable nose, that Sancroft, with a play of -humour,--which occasionally illumined his misfortunes,--spoke of -his friend as resembling Paul’s ship of Alexandria, which carried -a well-known sign upon its prow, or beak. Hence, though London was -a great wood, it would be hard for one with such a face, however -disguised by a patriarchal beard, or by a huge peruke, to escape -detection.[203] It is not a little remarkable that, though the deposed -Primate prayed for his friend’s safety, he expressed no conviction -of his friend’s innocence. The Nonjurors, as we have seen, had been -treated with consideration and kindness. Though forfeiting their Sees -in February, 1690, after which successors were nominated, the Prelates -of the party were allowed to retain their palaces; and even as late -as April, 1691, attempts were made by friends of the Government to -compromise matters with them, in spite of the increased odium cast on -their order by Turner’s conduct: it was proposed that, at least, they -should disavow all share in the alleged conspiracy, but Sancroft would -do nothing of the kind, easy and reasonable as such a concession seemed. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.] - -There remained no alternative but to eject the disaffected, and to -induct loyal successors. As the crisis approached, questions were -raised and discussed by Nonjurors, touching the treatment of those -so inducted. Lloyd, Sancroft’s busy correspondent, now wrote to say -how perplexed he felt; for, extreme as might be his views, they were -surpassed by the views of others. He reported that they asked, what -they should do in case they appeared at any of the new Episcopal -elections,--should they oppose them? From such a proposal he shrunk, -for to carry it out might incur a _premunire_. Further, he -inquired whether for him to recommend their absenting themselves -would not be cowardly? Nonplussed by these problems, he despondingly -added, “What, then, is to be done? Here I stick.” His friend Wagstaffe -informed him, some had resolved to resist all Erastian intrusion, -and expected the displaced Bishops would assert their rights. Lloyd -grew testy at such an excess of zeal, and wished to know what the -self-appointed critics would advise the Prelates to do? Had not those -very critics submitted to deprivation? Of what use would it be for -their superiors to do otherwise?[204] - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -Presently the question came again on the carpet. - -“May it please your Grace,” wrote the indefatigable Lloyd, “I had last -Saturday a fit opportunity to discourse with Sir Edward Entwich about -the _vexatio questio_, and found him--upon consideration of the -whole matter--to be of the same opinion with Mr. N---- th. The first -question that I proposed was, whether it was advisable for us to keep -possession till we were ejected by legal processes; his answer was, we -might, if we judged it meet, dispute the possession; but then, saith -he, you must at last expect to be outed, and to pay the costs and -charges of the suit, and to be called to Westminster Hall, and perhaps -elsewhere, to answer hard questions, and that with all rigour. I then -asked whether he would advise us so to do, and appear for us, and draw -pleas as occasions offered? To this his answer was, that he knew not to -what purpose we should put ourselves to fruitless trouble; for, saith -he, if a happy turn should come, all the proceedings against you will -be out of doors. This is the sum of our discourse.” - -He adds a paragraph respecting a Nonjuror whose Jacobitism had plunged -him into serious danger: - -“I saw Dr. B[ea]ch last week, who hopes shortly to be at liberty, or at -least to be abroad upon bail. - -“It was well for him that the informer blundered in his depositions -against him, and indeed, so did the justices who took the information; -for there is not in the deposition any express mention of the time or -place, when and where the Doctor said, that _the same power which put -our Saviour on the pinnacle of the Temple, put William and Mary upon -the throne_; but I am told that there are other informations against -him. His successor has broke into his Church in his absence, and got -possession in his absence, and this is a very great trouble to the Dr. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.] - -“I hear that Mr. Dean of Worcester begins to appear again, and hopes -that the storm will blow over him. I heartily wish it may, _sed timeo -Danaos_; for commonly they are not so generous.”[205] - -The Dean of Worcester here referred to was Dr. Hickes. A little more -than a fortnight before Lloyd’s letter was written, the Dean drew up -a protest against his own ejectment, addressed to the Sub-Dean and -Prebendaries, idly declaring the appointment of a successor to be -illegal, and as idly calling upon them to defend the rights of the -dispossessed. This protesting ended in smoke. Hickes and Wagstaffe, as -well as Lloyd, had to succumb; so had Frampton of Gloucester, and White -of Peterborough. Sancroft yielded only to a legal process; and at last, -on Midsummer eve, between seven and eight o’clock, accompanied by the -steward of his household and three other friends, he entered a boat at -Lambeth ferry, which conveyed the little party to the Temple stairs, -where the deprived Primate sought shelter for a few days in Palsgrave -Court. One imagines, as amidst the lengthening shadows on the waters -that same night he left for ever the towers of the familiar palace, he -would cast “one longing, lingering look behind.” But history preserves -a more touching picture of the departure of Ken from the city of Wells. - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -After he had from his pastoral chair in the Cathedral asserted his -Canonical right to remain Bishop of the Diocese, he passed through -the gardens and crossed the drawbridge over the moat, whilst old and -young crowded round him to ask his blessing and say farewell. “Mild, -complacent, yet dignified,” remarks the Layman who writes his life, -“on retiring with a peaceful conscience from opulence and station -to dependence and poverty, as the morning sun shone on the turreted -chapel, we naturally imagine he may have shed only one tear, when -looking back on those interesting scenes. Perhaps his eye might have -rested on the pale faces of some of the poor old men and women who had -partaken their Sunday dinner so often, and heard his discourse in the -old hall.”[206] - -Dr. Beveridge, who will be more particularly noticed hereafter, was -offered the See of Bath and Wells; but he was threatened by the -Nonjurors, in case he should accept the offer, with the fate of -schismatical usurpers, like Gregory and George of Cappadocia, who -invaded the See of Alexandria, upon the deposition of the orthodox -Athanasius. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS EJECTED.] - -A rumour went abroad that the Archdeacon of Colchester had accepted a -mitre, in consequence of which friends pestered him with letters for -his suspected act, and turned against him his reputation for learning -and loyalty. Dr. Lowth prematurely addressed him under an Episcopal -title, and expostulated with him in the following terms:-- - - “May it please your Lordship, - - “You must be sensible in what great reputation all well-minded, - learned, and judicious men, have had your laborious performances - upon the Laws and Canons of the Church. But notwithstanding, - since you have accepted a nomination to the Bishopric of Bath - and Wells, of which See Dr. Ken is the Canonical proprietor; - and having not been removed by his brethren, the Bishops, - something more is required of you, whereby its comportment with - those Church Laws may appear, so frequently forbidding two - Bishops to be in one city. It is well known what separations - the same practice hath bred in God’s Church, as also that her - decision hath still been against you. If, then, the same return, - the guilt and schism of it must be laid at your door, unless - you can produce such ground for the present practice, whereof - not only yourself but the Ancient Church hath heretofore been - ignorant. These are the sentiments of many, who have formerly - been your just admirers, and desire that you will give them no - occasion of taking new measures concerning you, and particularly - of him, who, notwithstanding he may no longer--upon the account - of your present promotion--write himself your brother, yet will - always remain - - “Yours, in the faith and discipline - of the Ancient Church.”[207] - - -Whether or not such rebukes and warnings prevented Beveridge from -accepting the vacant See, at all events he declined it, and remained a -Presbyter till after the death of William. - - - - - CHAPTER VII. - - -Nonconformists regarded the Revolution with thankfulness. William -was, in their eyes, a Heavensent deliverer, and at weekly and monthly -fasts they joined in prayer, that God’s blessing might rest on his -forces,[208] which they regarded as being at war with Babylon. It is -said that had the London Dissenters been requested to raise a monument -to his memory, they would have provided a statue of gold;[209] and -Calamy paints in bright colours their payment of taxes, and hearty -intercession for both King and Queen. He also alludes to their public -ordinations, their loving carriage amongst themselves, and their -friendly behaviour towards the Established Church. There is truth in -what he says, and we can conceive how, with memories of ancestral -troubles, he would rise to enthusiastic delight whilst recording the -blessings of the Revolution; but truth throws strong shadows amidst -these brilliant hues, and, indeed, he himself, in subsequent portions -of his narrative, makes an abatement in his demands on our admiration. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Mutual charity would have been exemplified if Howe’s advice had -prevailed, for he urged Conformists and Nonconformists not to magnify -diversities of opinion, but to promote the interests of a common -Christianity. “If our rulers,” he adds, “shall judge such intercourses -conducing to so desirable an end, they may perhaps in due time think -it reasonable to put things into that state, that ministers of both -sorts may be capable of inviting one another occasionally to the -brotherly offices of mutual assistance in each other’s congregations. -For which, and all things that tend to make us a happy people, we -must wait upon Him in whose hands their hearts are.”[210] But on many -people these sentiments fell as idle words; and if by others they -were heard for one moment, the very next they were drowned by the -din of old controversies, or the outburst of new passions. Beautiful -and blessed ideals of union to most were as destitute of all charm -for their affections as of power to work themselves out into facts. -Catholic-minded men on opposite sides, if unencumbered by partizanship, -would have surmounted difficulties, and reached, if not unity of -fellowship, yet freedom of intercourse; but then, as always, prejudices -in the many defeated endeavours on the part of a few, and reopened -breaches when they seemed on the point of being healed. - -Death removed some most distinguished Nonconformist Ministers at the -era of the Revolution. - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -John Bunyan, who belongs more to the universal church than to a -particular sect, died, as he had lived, in the Baptist communion. -He has come before us in a former volume, not as a leader in -ecclesiastical affairs, but as a sufferer for conscience’ sake, and -as an author of works which have won for him an unparalleled renown. -He trod the paths of private life, save that when he came to London -his “preaching attracted enormous multitudes;” and it was in the city -which had witnessed his vast popularity that he breathed his last. A -minister of peace, he took a long journey on horseback to extinguish -domestic strife, and on his way afterwards to the Metropolis, brought -on a fatal fever, through fatigue and exposure to heavy rains. This -occurred in the month of August, 1688, when the throne of James was -tottering to its fall, and plans which led to the Revolution were being -formed; probably whisperings of what was to happen to his country -reached Bunyan’s ears in his last hours. Illness overtook him in the -house of his friend Mr. Strudwick, a grocer on Snow Hill, and just -before his death he said to his friends, “Weep not for me, but for -yourselves. I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, no -doubt, through the mediation of His blessed Son, receive me, though a -sinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song and -remain everlastingly happy, world without end.” “He felt the ground -solid under his feet in passing the black river which has no bridge, -and followed his pilgrim into the celestial city.” He expired before -the end of August, and was interred in Bunhill Fields; his church at -Bedford lamented with unaffected sorrow his loss at the age of 60; -and keep the next month days of humiliation and prayer for the heavy -bereavement they had sustained.[211] - -Dr. John Collinges, a Presbyterian, once Vicar of St. Stephen’s, -Norwich, died in 1690. He had assisted Pool in his _Annotations_, -and written practical as well as controversial works. One of them, -entitled _The Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving Spiritualized_, -was no doubt suggested to him as he had stood watching the loom in the -house of some industrious parishioner in days when the city of Norwich -enjoyed the zenith of its manufacturing industry. He left behind a -good reputation, being, as his brethren testified, “a man of various -learning and excelling as a textuary and a critic, and generally -esteemed for his great industry, humanity, and exemplary piety.” - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -John Flavel ended his days on the 26th of June, 1691, at Exeter. He -had, before his death, left the town of Dartmouth, the scene of his -long and zealous ministrations, because the rabble, headed by certain -aldermen, in 1685 paraded the town, carrying the good man’s effigy to -be burnt,--an insult he revenged by praying, “Father, forgive them, for -they know not what they do.” With his lively imagination he combined -intense spiritual emotion, and the following story, which he relates -of himself in his _Pneumatologia_ is so curious that, though -familiar from frequent quotation, it deserves to be inserted here. It -exemplifies a phase of spiritual life belonging to an age which has -passed away.[212] - -“Being on a journey, he set himself to improve his time by meditation; -when his mind grew intent, till at length he had such ravishing tastes -of heavenly joys, and such full assurance of his interest therein, that -he utterly lost the sight and sense of this world and all its concerns, -so that for hours he knew not where he was. At last, perceiving himself -faint from a great loss of blood from his nose, he alighted from his -horse and sat down at a spring, where he washed and refreshed himself; -earnestly desiring, if it were the will of God, that he might there -leave the world. His spirits reviving, he finished his journey in the -same delightful frame. And all that night passed without a wink of -sleep, the joy of the Lord still overflowing him, so that he seemed an -inhabitant of the other world. After this, an heavenly serenity and -sweet peace continued long with him; and for many years he called that -day one of the days of heaven, and professed he understood more of the -life of heaven by it, than by all the discourses he had heard or the -books he ever read.”[213] - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -Richard Baxter was an old man at the time of the Revolution, weighed -down by suffering; and the Toleration Act came too late to give scope -to energies which, had the event happened twenty years earlier, would -have been ardently spent in tilling the newly-opened fields of labour. -Yet, when the adoption of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church was -required as the condition of exercising a Nonconformist ministry, the -trembling hand of the veteran theologist could not resist an impulse -to write down scholastically the sense in which the Articles were to -be subscribed. It was his own sense, yet it was also, as he believed, -one in which many of his brethren concurred. Few, it is said, took -notice of his explication, and at this we are not surprised, as his -explication contains more in the way of suggestive thought than of -explicit definition. His metaphysics, warmed by zeal for practical -religion, appear distinctly in this farewell effort. He has something -abstruse to say as to the glorified body of Christ, and upon some -other points; and he lays down a dictum, often repeated since in a -wider sense than he specifies, with regard to legislation in Church -and State: “God’s laws are the supreme civil laws, man’s laws are -but by-laws.” He also insists upon the doctrine of the Apostle James, -as well as the doctrine of the Apostle Paul; and, after charitably -saying, “all were not accursed that hoped well of Socrates, Antonine, -Alexander, Severus, Cicero, Epictetus, Plutarch,” and others, he -adds, “there is no name, that is, no Messiah, to be saved by, but -Christ.”[214] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -In a tenement near his friend Sylvester’s, in Charterhouse Square, -Baxter spent his last days; and when disabled from preaching in his -friend’s meeting-house, he preached in his own dwelling, almost dying -in the exercise of his favourite employment. “It would doubtless,” -it is said, “have been his joy to have been transfigured on the -Mount.” “He talked in the pulpit,” as one reports, “with great freedom -about another world, like one who had been there, and was come as a -sort of express from thence to make report concerning it.” His busy -pen was employed as long as he could grasp it with his fingers, in -writing something for the benefit of his fellow-men. At last growing -infirmities confined him to his chamber, and then to his bed. There his -vigorous mind “abode rational, strong in faith and hope, arguing itself -into, and preserving itself in, that patience, hope, and joy, through -grace.” With unaffected humility he spoke of himself as a sinner worthy -of being condemned for the best duty he ever did, whose hopes were all -“from the free mercy of God in Christ.” Reminded of the good which his -works had produced, he replied, “I was but a pen in God’s hands, and -what praise is due to a pen?” When extremity of pain constrained him -to pray for release, he would check himself with the words, “It is -not fit for me to prescribe;--_when Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, and -how Thou wilt_!” “Oh! how unsearchable are His ways, and His paths -past finding out; the reaches of His providence we cannot fathom! Do -not think the worse of religion for what you see me suffer.” He had -assurance of future happiness, and great peace and joy in believing, -only lamenting that because of pain he could not express all he felt. -Still he spoke of heaven, and quoting the Apostle’s description of -the celestial Church, remarked, that it deserved a thousand thousand -thoughts. With characteristic width of sympathy, he spent many of his -last hours in praying for a distracted world, and a divided Church. -Physical pain, his old companion, continued to the last. “I have pain,” -he said, “there is no arguing against sense; but I have peace--I -have peace.” The catalogue of his diseases is enough to excite pity -in the most inhuman, and our sensibilities are positively tortured -by the pathetic descriptions he gives of himself. They illustrate -the beautifulness of his oft-quoted answer to the question, How he -did?--“_Almost well._” “On Monday, about five in the evening,” -says Sylvester, “Death sent his harbinger to summon him away. A great -trembling and coldness awakened nature, and extorted strong cries, -which continued for some time;” at length he ceased, waiting in -patient expectation for his change. The gentle cry in the ear of his -housekeeper, “Death, death!” betokened full consciousness at the last -moment, and turning to thank a friend for his visit, he exclaimed, -“The Lord teach you to die.” About four o’clock on the morning of -the 8th of December, 1691, he had done for ever with the sorrows of -mortality, and entered on the saints’ everlasting rest. His body sleeps -in Christchurch beside the ashes of his wife and mother. Many vied in -doing honour to his memory. Conformists as well as Nonconformists -carried him to the grave, and made great lamentations over him; a train -of mourning-coaches reached from Merchant Taylors’ Hall--whence the -corpse was carried--to the place of burial. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -At the commencement of the year 1692, another of the old Puritans left -this world. He represented a class which had borne the brunt of the -battle, and who, when the Revolution brought peace, loved to relate -stories of sufferings which promoted Dissent, after the severer laws -against it were relaxed. - -Francis Holcroft, son of a knight residing at Westham, near London, -was sent to Clare Hall, Cambridge, where Dr. Cudworth was Master, and -David Clarkson a Fellow. Under the instructions of the latter, the -gownsman became a Puritan, and as, on a Sunday morning, he sat over -the College Gate, in a chamber which he shared in common with young -Tillotson, described as “his bed-fellow,” he sometimes observed a -horse, which was brought up for one of the Fellows, who served the -living of Littlington, and which was frequently led away without its -master. Pitying the sheep without a shepherd, the young Puritan offered -to supply the neglected parish, where his services were crowned with -signal success. Promoted in 1655 to the Vicarage of Bassingbourne, -he became exceedingly popular, and, not content with the effect of -his sermons, he felt anxious to establish ecclesiastical discipline, -and therefore formed a Church upon Congregational principles. At the -Restoration things changed. Holcroft was ejected, and the sheep were -scattered. He met them as he could, some in one place, some in another; -but the circuit of his labours becoming too wide for his failing -strength, he arranged that four members should assist him in pastoral -work. Worship was disturbed by the beating of drums, and the pastor was -imprisoned; but the greater the persecution the more his popularity -increased, and when silenced as a preacher, he sent pastorals round -his wide rural diocese. For some time the congregations to which he -ministered, formed of Baptists and Pædobaptists, constituted only -one Church; but after the Revolution they settled down into distinct -communities. The memory of Holcroft still lingers in the neighbourhood -of Cambridge, and old barns in which he ministered were pointed out -a few years ago. He died on the 6th of January, 1692. Before his -departure, spiritual tranquility, awhile disturbed, was happily -restored, for he died exclaiming, “I know that if the earthly house -of this tabernacle be dissolved, I have a house not made with hands, -eternal in the heavens.” He sleeps in a small burial-ground beside the -churchyard of Oakington, four miles from Cambridge. Three flat stones -cover the spot hallowed by the remains of two other Nonconformist -ministers, as well as his own. Over his resting-place are inscribed the -appropriate words, “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of -the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars -for ever and ever.” - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Several others of the ejected died about the period of the Revolution. -Veneration for them increased as death swept them away: their virtues -were embalmed; their names were canonized. Collectors of anecdotes -published whatever they could find respecting the departed, sometimes -accompanied by severe reflections upon the old laws which had thrust -them out of the gates of the Establishment. People in Derbyshire were -told that rich as might be their treasures in wool and lead, the -shepherds they had lost were more precious than all the flocks grazing -on their beautiful hills; and the sermons they had preached were -costlier than all the metals dug out of their capacious mines. After -a short beadroll of pastors in the county, the writer asks, What hath -cast away the shields of the mighty? _Uniformity._ What hath slain -the beauty of England, and made the mighty fall? _Uniformity._ -What hath despoiled the neck of the Church, like the town of David -builded for an armoury, whereon there hung a thousand bucklers, all -shields of mighty men? _Uniformity._[215] - - - - - CHAPTER VIII. - - -It is a curious coincidence that Tillotson, Barrow, and Howe were -all born in the year 1630. Tillotson’s father lived at Sowerby, -near Halifax; a respectable clothier, a decided Puritan, a zealous -Calvinist, yet at that time an Episcopalian in practice, for he had his -child baptized in the Church of his native village, and a gentleman, -afterwards Rector of Thornhill, stood godfather. When this little -boy came to be Archbishop, his Puritan parentage, and the fact of -his father being a Baptist, occasioned reproach; it was said that he -had never been baptized in any way, and a preacher before the House -of Commons, after Tillotson’s elevation to the Primacy, is supposed -to have alluded to the rumour, when he declared, with more absurdity -than wit, that there were fathers of the Church who never were her -sons. The register of Sowerby, however, sets that question at rest, -showing that he was baptized in the parish church; and another moot -point touching Tillotson’s ecclesiastical life, namely, whether he was -ever episcopally ordained, is now also settled; it appears he received -ordination from a Scotch Bishop--the Bishop of Galloway.[216] - -[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.] - -Educated at Cambridge under the Commonwealth by Puritan tutors, he -afterwards became identified with the Latitudinarian school of -Divines, but in 1661 we find him amongst the Presbyterians, preaching -a morning exercise at Cripplegate. He certainly conformed in 1662, -and that fact itself implies his submission to Episcopal ordination. -At an early period he attained celebrity as a preacher, although he -read his sermons, and never was able to preach without a manuscript. -It is related of him that on one occasion he made an attempt to speak -extempore upon a plain text, and one upon which he has five discourses -in his printed works; yet he found himself so much at a loss, “that -after about ten minutes spent with great pain to himself, and no great -satisfaction to his audience, he came down with a resolution never -to make the like attempt for the future.”[217] He was successively -Curate at Cheshunt; Rector of Ketton, or Kedington in the County of -Suffolk; preacher at Lincoln’s Inn; Tuesday Lecturer at St. Lawrence, -Jewry; and Canon and Dean of Canterbury. After the Revolution he -accepted the Deanery of St. Paul’s, and his position in reference to -public affairs at that juncture has been noticed already; here it -will be sufficient to trace the steps by which he reached the highest -position in the Church of England. In some way Tillotson had become a -personal favourite with the Prince of Orange, and had been desired to -preach before him at St. James’s, soon after his arrival in London. -Burnet interested himself zealously on the Dean’s behalf; but, beyond -personal grounds, the popularity of this Divine as a preacher, his -eminent abilities, his opposition to the policy of the late King, -his liberal politics, his desire for Comprehension, his conciliatory -temper, and his moderation in ecclesiastical affairs, recommended him -to the new Sovereign as fitted to occupy the post vacated by Sancroft. -The very day Tillotson kissed hands on his appointment to the Deanery -in September, 1689, the King told him, in reply to his thanks for -an office which had set him at ease for the rest of his life, that -this was no great matter, for his services would soon be needed in -the highest office of the Church.[218] In February, 1690, William -pressed upon Tillotson the acceptance of the Primacy; of his extreme -reluctance to accept it there can be no doubt; his conversation with -his Royal Master, his correspondence with Lady Rachel Russell, and his -own private memoranda, prove that if ever a man honestly said, _Nolo -Episcopari_, Tillotson did. What he wrote within a year afterwards -shows that to him the archiepiscopal throne was a bed, not of roses, -but of thorns. The _congé d’élire_ was issued May the 1st, and -his consecration followed on Whit-Sunday at St. Mary-le-Bow, when the -congregation included some of the principal Whig nobility, and his -progress along Cheapside was an ovation amidst crowds who admired both -his eloquence and his liberality. - -[Sidenote: 1691.] - -He took possession of Lambeth Palace in November, 1691, having first -repaired the building, altered the windows, wainscoted the rooms, and -erected a large apartment for his wife, he being one of the earliest -Archbishops living there in lawful wedlock. - -[Sidenote: SANCROFT.] - -With congratulations from friends there came insults from foes. Arian, -Socinian, Deist, Atheist, were titles bestowed on his Grace; and in -allusion to the doubts respecting his baptism, he received the nickname -of _Undipped John_. His manner of bearing such treatment showed -his proficiency in the Christian virtues of patience and meekness. One -day, when he was conversing with a gentleman, a servant brought in a -sealed packet containing a mask. The Archbishop smiled, and said, “This -is a gentle rebuke, if compared with some others in black and white,” -pointing to papers lying on the table. A bundle of letters, found after -his death, exhibited a memorandum in his own handwriting, “These are -libels. I pray God forgive them; I do.”[219] - -[Sidenote: 1692.] - -It is interesting to follow Sancroft into his retirement. He left the -Metropolis--never to see it again--in August, 1691, for Fresingfield, a -village in Suffolk, where his family had been settled for generations, -where his ancestors lay buried in the parish church, and where he -himself had been born and baptized. He went down at harvest-time, the -sweet air and quiet of the place being, as he said, so preferable to -the smoke and noise of London. Presently we find him busy in building -a new house, reckoning up the time it would take to daub and tile it, -to clothe and cover it in, amidst the dews and mists which might be -expected to begin by St. Bartholomew’s-day--then at hand. He complains -of being weakly, and describes himself as eating bread-and-butter in a -morning, and “superbibing a second dish of coffee after it;” waiting -to see what that, and time, and native air would do for his health. -He gave up pills, and swallowed juniper-berries, and lived upon plain -food, and ate with a keener appetite than he had been accustomed to at -Lambeth. In the late autumn the new house remained incomplete; there -was winter work to do within doors, paving and flooring, daubing and -ceiling, plastering, glazing, and wainscoting, making doors and laying -hearths; the old tenement, in the meantime, being packed close from end -to end with the Bishop, his little household and workmen.[220] The -superintendence of building, which appears to have occupied him for a -time, presents a strange contrast to previous employments in the Church -and the Palace, the Court and the Council-Board; and the simplicity -of Sancroft’s rural life appears simpler still when we think of the -palatial splendour in which he had previously moved. He wished to shut -out the world; he sometimes felt like a dead man out of mind; old -friends dropped off, and tales of sorrow aroused his sympathies; yet -he seems, on the whole, to have spent a pleasant time down in Suffolk, -although those who disliked his nonjuring principles did what they -could to plague his peace. He was reported to be engaged with some of -his brethren in plots for the restoration of the exiled Monarch; and -Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, came under suspicion of the same offence, -in consequence of which he was arrested in his orchard at Bromley one -day, whilst quietly working out the heads of a sermon.[221] In the end, -these charges of conspiracy proved to be abominable fabrications, which -Sprat took care fully to expose.[222] Other Nonjurors were suspected of -treasonable intrigues, and Dean Hickes fell into great trouble. “If the -persons,” it is said in a letter written at the time, “now malignantly -fermented, should find him walking abroad, they would certainly take -him up and bring him forthwith to the King’s Bench, and be ready with -an information against him.” The Dean was advised to abscond for the -present, and so he became, “like the tortoise in winter-time, earthed -for some days.” Dr. Bryan about the same time heard that a warrant had -been issued for his apprehension, on account of his having written -“flat treason.” “It was advisable for him to step out of the way.” Ten -days later, Bishop Lloyd, to whom we are indebted for these snatches -of information, wrote again to the archiepiscopalian recluse, that -he found the Dean had removed his quarters, and desired to be very -private, and that messengers were searching for Dr. Bryan.[223] - -[Sidenote: SANCROFT.] - -Sancroft, who escaped arrest because Sprat, when confronted with his -accusers, exposed their falsehoods, seems to have been more annoyed -a few months before by a very different accusation. “The spirit -of calumny, the persecution of the tongue, dogs me even into this -wilderness. Dr. Lake, of Garlick Hill, and others, have (as I am -informed) filled your city with a report that I go constantly to this -parish church, and pray for I know not whom, nor how, and receive the -Holy Sacrament; so that my cousin had something to do to satisfy even -my friends that it was quite otherwise.”[224] The fallen Primate’s -intense dislike to the Establishment--as bitter as could be manifested -by any virulent Dissenter--here bursts out in unmistakable fashion. -The feeling remained as a sort of monomania to the day of his death. -It kept him from setting foot over the threshold of a parish church, -and led him to frame an instrument by which he appointed Lloyd, -the deprived Bishop of Norwich, his Vicar in all ecclesiastical -matters,[225] and inaugurated a voluntary and schismatical Episcopalian -Church. - -[Sidenote: 1693.] - -At the end of the year 1691 he removed into his new house, and on New -Year’s-day at family worship he officiated himself, “in a very cold -room where there never was a fire.” He would not employ a Chaplain. -The preparation and arrangement of Laud’s MSS. for the press, occupied -a good deal of his time, after which, in the month of November, 1693, -his end approached. “It touched my spirits extremely,” says Mr. North, -who visited him, “to see the low estate of this poor old saint; and -with what wonderful regard and humility he treated those who visited -him, and particularly myself.” His pious ejaculations were carefully -recorded by his friends, and we are glad to find him saying to a -visitor, “You and I have gone different ways in these late affairs, -but I trust heaven’s gates are wide enough to receive us both. What -I have done, I have done in the integrity of my heart.” The approach -of mortality expands human charity, yet the ruling passion may be -strong in death. Hence, though the dying man felt kindly towards all, -he insisted that only Nonjurors should read prayers by his bedside, -or officiate at his funeral. He entreated that God would bless and -preserve His poor suffering Church, which by the Revolution had been -almost destroyed; that he would bless and preserve the King, Queen, and -Prince, and in His due time restore to them their undoubted rights.[226] - -Sancroft had an active but narrow intellect, a playful but feeble -imagination, a careful but perverted judgment. His powers had been -cultivated by study, and his productions indicate compass and command -of learning. Living in a narrow circle, his prejudices were strong; -and bitter memories of Presbyterian oppression at Cambridge followed -him to the grave. His nature was not destitute of affection and -generosity, and he seems not to have been morose; he was simple in his -living, rather than ascetic in his temper. By no means a Ritualist, he -decidedly opposed Romanism, though his sentiments were what would be -called decidedly High Church. Of his conscientiousness, honesty, and -self-denial, the sacrifice of the Primacy is a sufficient proof; and of -his obstinacy, the conduct he manifested on leaving Lambeth, and the -persistency he showed in nonjuring habits, afford abundant evidence. - -[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.] - -Tillotson survived his predecessor little more than twelve months. -He did not occupy his See long enough to accomplish much either as -Bishop or Primate. In neither capacity has he left any memorials. No -injunctions from him appear in the Archiepiscopal Register, and his -biographer makes no mention of his visitations. We are told that he -convened an assembly of Bishops at Lambeth, when they agreed with him -upon certain regulations, which remained at his death unpublished, -as he preferred they should appear with Royal as well as Episcopal -authority, and he had not time to complete arrangements for that -purpose. His biographer furnishes a list of his deeds, which form but a -meagre total for a primacy of even two years and a half, when so much -needed to be done. Le Neve, who is particular in noting archiepiscopal -acts, has next to nothing to say of Tillotson’s archiepiscopal -career. The most he can do is to supply extracts from a MS. diary, -eulogizing the Primate’s eloquence and charities, and stating that -William, after his Grace’s death, never mentioned him without some -testimony of esteem. He used to say to Mr. Chadwick--son-in-law of the -Archbishop--“I loved your father: I never knew an honester man, and I -never had a better friend.”[227] - -[Sidenote: 1694.] - -From what we know of him, we should judge that the deficiency of -results during his episcopate is to be attributed more to the -difficulties of the times and the inconvenience of circumstances, than -to want of ability or the absence of devotedness. - -He was seized, in the Chapel at Whitehall, with paralysis on the 18th -of November, 1694; and though the fit crept over him slowly, he would -not call for assistance, lest he should disturb Divine worship. His -death occurred on the 22nd, at the age of 65. - -His character, as compared with Sancroft’s, has been differently viewed -by enemies and friends. Nonjurors said that his predecessor devised no -project for revolutionizing the Church, implying that Tillotson did; -that his predecessor was no Latitudinarian, more than insinuating that -Tillotson was; and when they spoke of Sancroft as a true Father, they -meant to affirm that his successor was by no means such. “Intruder,” -“thief,” “robber,” “ecclesiastical usurper,” were epithets fastened on -the Archbishop of the Revolution. Burnet, on the other hand, extols him -as a faithful friend, a gentle enemy, with a clear head and a tender -heart, without superstition in his religion, and, as a preacher, the -best of his age.[228] - -In saying so much, Burnet probably went no further than facts warrant. -And I would add, that if Sancroft made a sacrifice in renouncing the -Archbishopric, Tillotson, according to his private confessions, made -scarcely less sacrifice in accepting it. - -[Sidenote: TILLOTSON.] - -Intellectually he was a man of eminence;[229] what Burnet advances -cannot be gainsayed; for Tillotson’s writings indicate a rare amount -of common sense and of calm judgment, the more remarkable in an age -of manifold passions;[230] and he shows eminent precision and force -in stating propositions and arguments, at a time when a great deal of -loose reasoning passed muster. His sermons are chiefly remarkable in -this point of view. Free from Puritan stiffness, and what many would -call Puritan enthusiasm, free also from that academical affectation -which had so long offended pure taste,--they were couched in the -language of common life, and people felt a strange pleasure, which -they could not describe, at hearing from the pulpit language such as -they heard at their own fireside. He seems to have aimed at that which -ought to be the object of every Christian preacher, to translate the -truths of the Gospel into such forms of thought and utterance as were -suited to the age in which he lived. He spoke upon religion just as men -talk upon every-day topics; and thus he brought down Divinity to the -level of his congregation. He could be earnest and even vehement in the -inculcation of truth and duty; and never would he be more acceptable -to a large class of his hearers than when, with tact and warmth, he -exposed the errors of Popery--an opportunity for doing which he rarely, -if ever, missed. His habit, too, of insisting upon the reasonableness -of almost everything he taught would coincide with the current which, -in educated circles, had strongly set in against the enforcement of -morality and religion on grounds of authority. Preachers not only help -to promote, but they reflect the spirit of their own times. Their modes -of teaching are fashioned by it. A reaction had arisen against the -authority of the Church, of the Fathers, of the Schoolmen, and of the -Reformers; consequently, sermons filled with quotations and appeals to -great names were no longer in request. Even Scripture came to be less -favourably used in the way of exclusive authority, than in the way of -addition to the force of reasoning. Texts were with many not so much -corner-stones, as pillars and buttresses. Tillotson made a large use of -Scripture, but the common key-note with him was the reasonableness of -the doctrines he laid down. I should suppose that his appearance, his -voice, and his manner in the pulpit--the fact of what he was, as well -as the circumstance of what he said, and that indefinable something -which contributes so much to a speaker’s popularity--added immensely -to the impressiveness of his elocution. There is for modern readers -nothing attractive in his style, quite the reverse. I know scarcely -any other popular sermons so hard to read. Some are exceedingly dry -and uninteresting.[231] From natural temperament he lacked what is -signified by the word _unction_. He has no strokes of pathos, -and the spirit of his theology adds to the defect, by depriving his -sermons, to some extent, of that light and beauty, that tenderness and -power, which proceed from a clear insight into the deepest spiritual -wants of humanity, and the supply made for them in the unsearchable -riches of Christ. - -[Sidenote: 1694.] - -Wit was not wanting amongst Tillotson’s gifts. “I hate a fanatic in -lawn sleeves,” cried one of his detractors--“I hate a knave in any -sleeves,” replied the Prelate. He said South “wrote like a man, but -bit like a dog;” and when South replied, “he would rather bite like -a dog, than fawn like one,” Tillotson rejoined, “that for his part he -would choose to be a spaniel rather than a cur.”[232] Sancroft was a -Tory. Tillotson, through the discipline of the Revolution, had cast -off the last remnant of the doctrine which he unfortunately inculcated -at the time of Russel’s execution. Tillotson had by his Puritan birth, -childhood, and education, imbibed feelings which he never completely -lost; and his personal sympathies with those who retained a Puritan -creed continued to live in his later days, fostered by friendly -intercourse with members of nonconforming communions. Yet perhaps he -had not a whit more of love for Nonconformity than High Churchmen, -whose reputation for charity his own completely eclipsed. - -[Sidenote: TENISON.] - -As in our day, so it was in the days of William the III., when a -vacancy occurred in the See of Canterbury, different names were -suggested for its supply. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, and Hall, -Bishop of Bristol, were both mentioned, and their merits canvassed, -but after the lot had been shaken a little in the Royal urn, guided -by the Queen, it fell upon Thomas Tenison, Bishop of Lincoln. He had -been a distinguished London clergyman, prominent in opposing Popery and -King James. A nobleman, wishing to secure the Bishopric of Lincoln for -some one else, and to prejudice the Queen against Tenison, told Her -Majesty that he had delivered a funeral sermon for Nell Gwyn, and had -praised that concubine of Charles II. “I have heard as much,” replied -Mary; “this is a sign that that poor unfortunate woman died penitent; -for if I can read a man’s heart through his looks, had not she made -a truly pious and Christian end, the Doctor could never have been -induced to speak well of her.”[233] Tenison’s conduct in the diocese -of Lincoln increased the high estimation in which he was held by Mary, -and consequently he was nominated to Canterbury on the 8th of December, -1694, and confirmed in his election in the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow on -the 16th of January, 1695. - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -Between those two dates, his Royal patroness sickened with the -small-pox, three days before Christmas, and died three days after. -I shall employ a passage in the funeral sermon which he preached on -the occasion, not only because it well describes the event, but also -because it exhibits the preacher’s style, and occasioned at the time -considerable controversy. - -“Some few days before the feast of our Lord’s nativity, she found -herself indisposed. I will not say that of this affliction she had -any formal presage, but yet there was something that looked like an -immediate preparation for it. I mean her choosing to hear read more -than once a little before it, the last sermon of a good and learned man -(now with God) upon this subject: ‘What, shall we receive good from -the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ This indisposition -speedily grew up into a dangerous distemper; as soon as this was -understood, the earliest care of this charitable mistress was for the -removing of such immediate servants, as might by distance, be preserved -in health. Soon after this she fixed the times of prayers in that -chamber to which her sickness had confined her. - -[Sidenote: TENISON.] - -“On that very day she showed how sensible she was of death, and how -little she feared it. She required him who officiated there to add that -collect in the Communion of the Sick, in which are these words, ‘That -whensoever the soul shall depart from the body, it may be, without -spot, presented unto Thee.’ ‘I will,’ said she, ‘have this collect read -twice every day. All have need to be put in mind of death, and Princes -as much as anybody else.’ - -“On Monday the flattering disease occasioned some hopes, though they -were but faint ones. On the next day, the festival of Christ’s birth, -those hopes were raised into a kind of assurance, and there was joy, a -great joy seen in the countenances of all good people. That joy endured -but for a day, and that day was closed with a very dismal night. The -disease showed itself in various forms, and small hopes of life were -now left. Then it was that he who performed the holy offices, believed -himself obliged to acquaint the good Queen of the small hopes all -had of any likelihood of her recovery. She received the tidings with -a courage agreeable to the strength of her faith. Loath she was to -terrify those about her; but for herself, she seemed neither to fear -death, nor to covet life. It was, you may imagine, high satisfaction -to hear her say a great many most Christian things, and this among -them: ‘I believe I shall now soon die, and I thank God I have, from my -youth, learned a true doctrine, that repentance is not to be put off -to a death-bed.’ That day she called for prayers a third time, fearing -she had slept a little, when they were the second time read; for she -thought a duty was not performed if it was not minded. - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -“On Thursday she prepared herself for the blessed communion, to which -she had been no stranger from the 15th year of her age. She was much -concerned that she found herself in so dozing a condition, so she -expressed it. To that, she added, ‘Others had need pray for me, seeing -I am so little able to pray for myself.’ However, she stirred up her -attention, and prayed to God for His assistance, and God heard her, for -from thenceforth to the end of the office, she had the perfect command -of her understanding, and was intent upon the great work she was going -about; and so intent, that when a second draught was offered her, she -refused it, saying, ‘I have but a little time to live, and I would -spend it a better way.’ - -“The holy elements being ready, and several Bishops coming to be -communicants, she repeated piously and distinctly, but with a low voice -(for such her weakness had then made it) all the parts of the holy -office which were proper for her, and received, with all the signs of a -strong faith and fervent devotion, the blessed pledges of God’s favour, -and thanked Him with a joyful heart that she was not deprived of the -opportunity. She owned also, that God had been good to her, beyond -her expectation, though in a circumstance of smaller importance, she -having, without any indecency or difficulty, taken down that bread, -when it had not been so easy for her, for some time, to swallow any -other. - -“That afternoon she called for prayers somewhat earlier than the -appointed time, because she feared (that was her reason) that she -should not long be so well composed. And so it came to pass; for -every minute after this ’twas plain that death made nearer and nearer -approaches. However, this true Christian kept her mind as fixed, as -possible she could, upon the best things; and there were read, by her -directions, several psalms of David, and also a chapter of a pious book -concerning trust in God. Toward the latter end of it, her apprehension -began to fail, yet not so much but that she could say a devout Amen to -that prayer in which her pious soul was recommended to that God who -gave it. - -[Sidenote: TENISON.] - -“During all this time there appeared nothing of impatience, nothing of -frowardness, nothing of anger; there was heard nothing of murmuring, -nothing of impertinence, nothing of ill-sound, and scarce a number of -disjointed words. - -“In all these afflictions the King was greatly afflicted; how sensibly, -and yet how becomingly, many saw, but few have skill enough to -describe; I am sure I have not. At last, the helps of art and prayers -and tears not prevailing, a quarter before one on Friday morning, after -two or three small strugglings of nature, and without such agonies as -in such cases are common, she fell asleep.”[234] - -I have thought it best to give this extract without any abridgment, as -certain omissions in the account of the Queen’s last hours became the -subject of much controversy. - -Mary was buried in Westminster Abbey, with all the pomp of a purple and -gold coffin, banners, and escutcheons, Lords in scarlet and ermine, and -Commons in black mantles; far more interesting than all that is the -following incident, carefully recorded: “A robin redbreast, which had -taken refuge in the Abbey, was seen constantly on her hearse, and was -looked upon with tender affection for its seeming love to the lamented -Queen.”[235] - -Loyalty to William, and sympathy with him in his great loss, were -expressed in numerous addresses. A large collection of elegiac poems -were published at Cambridge, entitled, _Lacrymæ Cantabrigienses_, -&c., by a list of Dons, some of whom became Bishops; and the London -Clergy vied with each other in their eulogiums--to use the words of a -contemporary letter-writer, playing “the fool in their hyperbolical -commendation of the Queen, that looks like fulsome flattery, and some -expressions bordering upon blasphemy.”[236] The Presbyterians, headed -by Dr. Bates, presented an address of condolence to His Majesty. - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -The nonjuring Clergy were much excited by the publication of Tenison’s -sermon, since it represented the Queen as eminently religious and -devout, but said not a word of any repentance for having assumed her -father’s crown, and for the filial impiety considered to be involved in -such conduct. A letter to this effect, published in the month of March, -1695, created an intense sensation, being attributed to Bishop Ken. -It is printed as his composition in the Memoirs of Tenison; but the -Layman who wrote Ken’s life pronounces it “a tissue of bitter obloquy -against the Queen and the Archbishop, wholly inconsistent with the meek -spirit of the author of the _Practice of Divine Love_.”[237] Upon -internal grounds he rejects its genuineness. I feel disposed to do -the same. Tenison also, it appears, doubted it, but I find no notice -of Ken’s having disavowed the authorship; and we must not forget how -possible it is for an amiable and pious man, under the influence -of what he regards as duty, to say things which run counter to the -generally calm and quiet current of his life. - -[Sidenote: LICENSING OF THE PRESS.] - -Tenison’s sermon was zealously defended by an anonymous pamphleteer, -who included within his defence funeral discourses delivered by other -dignitaries; and whilst the press was occupied by this controversy, -the friends and agents of James were rejoicing in the death of Mary -as endangering the position of William. The Church of England, it was -now thought, would be weaned from his cause, by the outburst of his -Presbyterian predilections, even to the overthrow of Episcopacy. The -ruin of its interests seemed at hand, unless the Revolution could be -revolutionized. Ten thousand men, the Jacobite plotters surmised, would -suffice for the reconquest of the kingdom, since the Church of England -party, who had been for William only on Mary’s account, were, it was -thought, now entirely alienated from him. The confusion occasioned by -her removal was relied upon as a proof of the inclination of the people -to see their Stuart King back at St. James.[238] - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -In noticing the deaths of Sancroft, Tillotson, and Mary, we have passed -over a period marked by one of those silent changes which often elude -the notice of historians. The change referred to is connected very -closely with religious freedom. We have had frequent occasion to notice -restrictions on the liberty of the press. It is not necessary to go -back further than 1662, when Lord Clarendon’s Act for licensing books -was passed. The Act proscribed the printing and selling of heretical, -schismatical, blasphemous, seditious, and treasonable publications. -Nothing was to appear contrary to the Christian faith, or the -doctrines or discipline of the Church of England. Books on law required -a license from the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justices; books of -history, a license from the Secretaries of State; books of divinity and -philosophy, a license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The folly of -such restrictions--proved by their futility when evaded, and by their -mischievousness when carried into effect--needs no comment. The Act now -noticed was made to be in force for two years. It was then continued. -In 1685 it was re-enacted for seven years. It continued through the -Revolution; and in 1692 was renewed under the Tories for two years -more. At four different times, from 1694 to 1698, attempts were made -in Parliament to prepare new Bills for licensing printing presses, and -the Whigs on one occasion seemed on the point of following the example -of their political rivals. Movement in the old direction went so far -once, that a restrictive Bill passed the Lords and was read in the -Commons--to be thrown out on a second reading. Church and State thus -narrowly missed being shackled again in the exercise of rights ever -precious to enlightened humanity; and the year 1694, though unmarked in -history, is illustrious in fact through the melting away for ever of a -long-continued and mischievous licensing law. Not, however, as we shall -presently see, that all legislative interference with the publishers of -opinions then terminated; but a great obstacle vanished out of the path -to that wide intellectual liberty which as a nation we now enjoy. - - - - - CHAPTER IX. - - -Tillotson, shortly before his death, as already related, was engaged -with his Episcopal brethren in drawing up certain ecclesiastical -regulations to be issued on their authority, but which he afterwards -felt would be more effective if published in the King’s name. Shortly -after Tenison’s accession to the Archiepiscopate, injunctions were sent -forth by Royal command, touching points exactly of the nature indicated -to have been discussed in prior Episcopal meetings at Lambeth. When -we consider the time of their appearance, we have no doubt the new -Archbishop adopted the draft of his predecessor. It appeared in the -form of a Royal proclamation, recommending care in conferring orders, -condemning pluralities and non-residence, and urging upon Bishops to -watch over their Clergy, and promote, through them, the celebration -of Sacraments, the visitation of the sick, and the catechetical -instruction of the young.[239] - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -The publication of these articles in the King’s name is a fact not -to be lightly passed over. Royal letters had been issued by Queen -Elizabeth for the reform of ecclesiastical affairs, yet none of them -dealt so particularly with abuses as did this mandate of William’s. -It is remarkable that Charles I.--the opposite in ecclesiastical and -political sentiments to the hero of the Revolution--had addressed to -Laud a number of instructions, which strongly resemble those now under -notice.[240] After the Restoration, although Charles II. by several -missives had exercised immediate authority over the Church, and had -given explicit directions as to how the Clergy were to preach,[241] -such orders as approach nearest to those of William are found to bear -the simple impress of archiepiscopal authority.[242] What had been -attempted in the way of Church reform by Sancroft appears in the shape -of an agreement between himself and the other Prelates to do things -formerly enunciated.[243] The grounds upon which Tillotson and Tenison -arrived at the determination to seek Church reform under cover of Royal -authority, do not appear; but the proclamations indicate that, at the -time, the chief spiritual rulers of the land must have had high views -of the prerogatives of the Crown. If since Elizabeth’s Reformation the -title of _Head of the Church_[244] had not been legally employed, -all which that title could be taken to mean, successive Archbishops of -Canterbury--Tillotson and Tenison--were ready to concede; and what is a -little curious, in making this concession they could find a precedent -in the acts of Archbishop Laud under Charles I. A still more striking -example of the interference of the Crown with purely religious subjects -will soon come under our notice. - -[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS.] - -The fact is, that what is generally called Erastianism attained more -power than ever after the Revolution. The State ruled the Church. In -the matter of Toleration it maintained the liberties of Nonconformity -against the designs of bigoted Churchmen, and in the management of -internal affairs it sought to promote the interests of a moderate and -salutary reform. - -A circular from the Archbishop, addressed to each of his suffragan -Bishops, followed on the 16th of July, 1695; and in it, without -referring to the Royal communication made in the month of February, -he specifies a number of particulars which had been considered by him -and such of his brethren as were at the time in or near London. These -particulars relate to certain religious matters--to the public reading -in church of the Act against profane cursing and swearing, and to -catechetical instruction--but they relate also to a number of subjects -connected with temporalities, such as the prevention of Simoniacal -covenants, the better payment of curates, dilapidations, glebe lands, -surrogates, and the removal of clergymen from one diocese to another. -The employment of proper care in examinations for orders--a point of -great religious importance--is, however, enforced at length, and each -Bishop is urged to lay it upon the conscience of the candidate, to -observe such fasting as is prescribed upon Ember-days, and to give -himself to meditation and prayer. It is worth noticing that the third -of the injunctions calls attention to the 55th canon, which enjoins -the bidding of prayer for the King before sermon; “it being commonly -reported,” says the Archbishop, “that it is the manner of some in every -diocese either to use the Lord’s Prayer (which the canons prescribe -as the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer) or at -least, to leave out the King’s titles, and to forbear to pray for the -Bishops as such.”[245] The sentence reveals a state of things serious, -if not alarming, both to the King and the Bishops. Plainly there -brooded disaffection towards the existing power in Church and State. -Jacobites and Nonjurors troubled the British Israel, and manifested -their feelings in the House of God. Parish churches, if not cathedrals, -presented Sunday after Sunday proofs of disloyalty and spiritual -revolt. A new species of Nonconformity ate its way into the hearts of -Englishmen--a fact to be illustrated in subsequent portions of this -history. - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -Between the months of February and July, to which the Royal and the -Episcopal letters belonged, there occurred an incident which comes -in juxtaposition with what has been related of ecclesiastical powers -exercised by the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the month -of May nominated as the first of the Lords Justices of England for -the administration of public affairs during His Majesty’s absence in -Holland and Flanders. - -William had repeatedly left England since the Revolution. In 1691 he -was absent from January to March, and from May to October; in 1692 from -March to October; in 1693 from March to November; in 1694 from May to -November. Like Richard Coeur de Lion, like the three Edwards, like the -fifth Henry, William of Orange was a man of war from his youth, and -his military vocation led him, as it led them, away from the peaceful -duties of home government. As they at the head of steel-clad knights -and sturdy bowmen marched over the Tweed or through Normandy, Picardy, -and Poitou; as they led crusaders to fight battles at Jaffa, Askelon, -and Jerusalem, so did he who now swayed the English sceptre, carry his -troops over into the Netherlands to bear the brunt of the Landen fight, -or recover the strongholds of Namur. - -[Sidenote: LORDS JUSTICES.] - -When William had been abroad before in the life-time of Mary, she ruled -as Queen Consort, rendering a special regency needless; now that she -slept in her grave, it was necessary that representatives appointed by -the Crown should during the Royal absence govern the threefold realm. - -Churchmen in ancient times had held the highest offices in the State, -and had been the Prime Ministers of Kings. Whilst Richard I. was pining -in captivity on his return from Palestine, Archbishop Hubert Walter -acted as Chief Justiciary of the kingdom, and even in person laid siege -to the castles of malcontents and reduced them to his master’s sway; -and whilst the not less brave, but more prudent, Henry V. was winning -laurels at Agincourt, Archbishop Chicheley acted as Prime Minister at -home, and took his place at the head of the Council-Board.[246] After -the Reformation, Churchmen, though of diminished influence, appeared -in high political positions. Juxon held the staff of Lord Treasurer, -and Williams kept the Great Seal; but after the blow struck at the -Church by the Long Parliament, no ecclesiastic occupied any important -State office until the reign of William III. Upon this new turn in the -wheel, curiously enough, came the restoration of high civil authority -to ecclesiastical hands. At the same moment, the Church appeared -submissive to the State, and the State appeared in submission to the -chief ruler of the Church. The former kind of submission was real, the -latter only apparent. - -[Sidenote: 1695.] - -The Archbishop did not fill the place of a Prime Minister like -Chicheley, any more than he took the command of troops like Hubert -Walter. It is difficult to say who in the month of May, 1695, was Prime -Minister; as the Duke of Leeds, who had headed the late administration, -just then, though still nominally President of the Council, lay -prostrate in disgrace, and his name is omitted in the list of Lords -Justices who held the Regency. The Whigs were recovering power, and -with the seven members of that party who were commissioned to act in -the Royal name, there appeared but one Tory. William III. himself -always acted as Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he was at home or -abroad, and during his absence from England on this occasion probably -the management of domestic business principally rested with Somers, -Keeper of the Great Seal, and Shrewsbury, Secretary of State. The -Archbishop, as standing next to the Royal family, took precedence in -the Commission, but the actual power which he exercised must not be -measured by that circumstance. - -On the 10th of October William returned, after having had the -satisfaction of seeing a Marshal of France surrender to the allies, -the Castle of Namur. The sound of bells from every steeple, the -twinkling--for in those days it could hardly be a glare--of lights in -every window, and street crowds rending the air with hurrahs, welcomed -the victor as he passed through London to his favourite residence at -Kensington. Speedily afterwards he made a Royal progress, and visited -Newmarket, where, on Sunday, October the 20th, the Vice-Chancellor, -accompanied by the principal members of the University of Cambridge, -in all their sedate magnificence, waited on His Majesty, and delivered -a congratulatory speech. The usual kissing of hands and assurances -of favour wound up the ceremony.[247] He also visited Oxford, where -he had been unpopular; but now, if we were to judge by the reception -prepared, we should conclude the tide had turned; for Latin orations, -musical concerts, and a splendid banquet were all arranged in honour -of his presence. However, he would stay in the beautiful city only a -few hours, excusing himself on the ground that he had seen the Colleges -before. He had no admiration for Oxford, and Oxford had no admiration -for him; and between the two no love was lost, when he drove off in his -lumbering coach on the road to London. - -[Sidenote: ECCLESIASTICAL INJUNCTIONS.] - -The Royal injunctions relative to ecclesiastical reforms, published -in February, 1695, were followed by other Royal injunctions relative -to theological disputes in February, 1696. Just then, a money panic -struck not only the commercial classes, but the whole community. The -currency sank into such a state, that owing to the wear and tear -of coin, and the ingenious arts of clippers, neither the gentleman -who paid his guinea nor the peasant who received his shilling, knew -exactly what the piece of gold or silver happened to be worth. The -subject came up in sermons, and preachers deplored the low state of -public morality. Fleetwood, preaching before the Lord Mayor of London -in the month of December, deplored that “a soft pernicious tenderness -slackened the care of magistrates, kept back the under officers, -corrupted the juries, and withheld the evidence;” and one of the clergy -connected with the Cathedral of York, when addressing some clippers -who were to be hanged next day, dwelt on the insensibility of culprits -of that class to the heinousness of their crime.[248] Exactly at the -time when this monetary question had thrown everybody into a state of -embarrassment, a theological controversy added to the excitement of -religious people. - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -To judge of the new Royal injunctions we must first understand the -controversy, and to understand the controversy is no easy matter. To -trace the dispute through all its windings would only perplex the -reader--to enumerate the publications which appeared would be wearisome -and profitless; therefore I shall content myself with indicating the -different lines pursued by the principal controversialists, and the -treatment which consequently some of them received. - -It may be premised that the controversy indicates a new position of -Christian thought, a new atmosphere of theological feeling, as compared -with that which had obtained in Commonwealth times and after the -Restoration. The question raised did not relate to predestination, -to the nature of Christ’s death, the extent of its efficacy and -application, but to the mode of the Divine existence. It showed a -retreat back to inquiries akin to such as agitated the Nicene Age. -Oxford and London witnessed a revival of conflicts similar to those -of Constantinople and Alexandria. Battles about grace, election, and -free-will had been fought out, and the warriors were exhausted: some -had passed away, some were growing old. The human mind now ranged -over other fields long neglected, seeking fresh victories over old -errors. Theological discussion is determined in a great degree by -circumstances, idiosyncracies, friendships, and associations; but -the spirit of an age is also a mighty force, acting with, and acting -through all other influences. And it is not a little remarkable, that -as the revival of the study of philosophy in the Christian schools of -Alexandria was followed by controversies respecting the Divine nature, -so the revival of the study of a similar philosophy at Cambridge was -followed by a similar result. Whereas the logic, ethics, and politics -of Aristotle have affinity with questions relating to the Divine -government, the speculations of Plato connect themselves more with -questions as to the Divine Being Himself. Accordingly, the Aristotelian -logicians of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Commonwealth, -dwelt much upon predestination, justification, and the atonement; and -the philosophical Divines of the Revolution, trained more in Platonic -culture, devoted themselves to questions respecting the Trinity and the -Person of Christ. - -[Sidenote: CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE TRINITY.] - -At the time of the Revolution, Unitarian principles in England were -on the advance, both as to explicitness of statement and extent of -currency. The preparations for this change have been indicated. It -obtained in a decided form to no great degree, but its influence was -felt beyond its definite boundaries. According to the Toleration Act, -Antitrinitarians were as much precluded from publicly celebrating -worship after the Revolution, as Presbyterians and others had been -before; yet, by the close of the 17th century, it is said, Unitarian -meeting-houses were erected.[249] Some Presbyterians, perhaps, rather -of an Arian than of a Socinian type, at that period diverged from -orthodox paths; but it is stated that on the whole these opinions -“were more prevalent in the Church than among the Dissenters.”[250] -The republication of _Biddle’s Tracts_, and the issue of new -works, published anonymously, going far beyond the theological point -Biddle had reached, promoted the denial of our Lord’s Divinity. The -series was zealously supported, if not prepared by the well-known -Thomas Firman, who, though an Unitarian, remained a member of the -Church of England.[251] The modern assailants of orthodoxy, catching -the rationalistic spirit of the times, dwelt upon what they conceived -to be the unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity, and urged -the absence in Scripture of the scholastic terms in which the doctrine -is commonly defined. They charged the Fathers and the Schoolmen with -corrupting Christianity; then directing their attention to the doctrine -of the Redeemer’s Deity, they insisted much upon His proper humanity, -upon His trustfulness, devotion, and obedience. - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -If, said the Unitarians, Christ be God, none can be greater than He, -yet He says, “The Father is greater than I.” If Jesus Christ were truly -God, they alleged, it would be blasphemy to call Him the sent of God; -heedless of the allegation, on the other side, that if He were simply -man, it would be blasphemy to ascribe to Him Divine names, attributes, -and honours. Arguments were also adduced against the doctrine of the -Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. A violent attack also was -made, in a distinct publication, on the character of Athanasius, with -the object of damaging the theological belief which that great Father -of the Church so zealously upheld.[252] Books of this description, -vindicating opinions under a legal ban, excited the indignation both of -Church and Parliament. A work, bearing on the heterodox side, written -by a Divine of the Latitudinarian school, led to his being deprived of -the Rectorship of Lincoln College, Oxford,[253] and a vote was passed -by the Commons dooming to the flames an attack on the doctrine of the -Trinity.[254] - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -Dr. Wallis, the Savillian professor of Geometry, wrote a pamphlet[255] -in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and employed some of the -strangest expressions and illustrations with regard to the mystery -that were ever conceived by any human being. “What is it,” he asks, -“that is pretended to be impossible? ’Tis but this, that there be three -_somewhats_, which are but one God, and these _somewhats_ -are called Persons.” To explain the Trinity in unity, he compares -the Almighty to a _cube_, with its length, breadth, and height -infinitely extended. The length, breadth, and height of the cube, he -says, are equal, and they are the equal sides of one substance--a -fair resemblance of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This _longum_, -_latum_, _profundum_, such are his words, is one cube of -three dimensions, yet but one body; and this Father, Son, and Holy -Ghost are three Persons, and yet one God. Vain attempts were made by -the early Fathers to give definite conceptions of the mode of the -Divine existence--the sun and its rays, a fountain and its streams, -reason and speech, ointment and fragrance, being employed for the -purpose; but Dr. Wallis attained to an originality as unenviable as -it was startling; and were it not for his known candour and piety, -it might be supposed he intended to turn the orthodox doctrine into -ridicule. - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -Dr. Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul’s and Master of the Temple, now in the -black books of High Churchmen, undertook to meet the new attacks upon -the Trinity; and, as so much was made of the assumed unreasonableness -of that doctrine, he commenced his vindication of it with an elaborate -argument to prove that it involves no contradiction whatever. He used -the shield of reason to resist the darts of reason. His notion was, -that self-consciousness constitutes the numerical unity of a Spiritual -Being,--that the unity of a mind or spirit reaches as far as its -self-consciousness,--that, in the three Persons of the Trinity, there -is what may be called a mutual self-consciousness, a self-consciousness -common to the three; and that therefore these three Persons are -essentially and numerically one. A moral union in knowledge, will, -and love, he says, is the only union of created spirits; but there is -an essential union between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, through the -existence of a mutual consciousness. This notion contains, according -to Sherlock, the true faith of a Trinity in unity. It is orthodoxy -rationalized. It does not confound the Persons; it does not divide -the substance.[256] After working out an abstruse argument to this -effect, and after endeavouring to show there is authority in some of -the Fathers for his theory, he concludes by taking up, _seriatim_, -certain objections which had been urged in recent Unitarian writings. - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -A young man, a Master of Arts, just turned 27, stood up, on the 28th -of October, 1695, in the pulpit of St. Mary’s, Oxford, before a large -audience of Dons and Gownsmen, to preach from the text--now given up -on all hands as an interpolation--“There are three that bear record -in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three -are one.” The preacher was Joseph Bingham, a scholar of surprising -erudition, destined to throw a world of light upon the antiquities of -the Christian Church; in the sermon, and preface to it when published, -he distinguished between the patristic and the scholastic doctrines of -the Trinity, maintaining that Luther, in his theology on that point, -followed in the wake of the Fathers, whilst Calvin trod in the steps -of the Schoolmen. The Lutheran, the Patristic, and the Scripture -doctrine, in Bingham’s estimation, amounted to this--that there are -three individual substances in the Godhead, really and numerically -distinct from each other, though at the same time they are one in -another sense; for they are not of a different nature; they are not -divided like men and angels; they are not three parts of one whole; -nor are they three Beings, who have Divine natures independently, -every one from himself; nor are they three opposite principles, or -three providences, clashing with one another. No; they constitute -“one harmonious providence, and one undivided principle of all other -things.”[257] Sherlock, a citizen of the world, catching the spirit of -the age, appealed to reason; Bingham, a recluse, scarcely touched by -habits of thought outside his University, appealed to tradition. This -piece of hard, dry learning, without the slightest tincture of pathos, -or a single practical remark from beginning to end, must have proved a -repulsive lesson even to an Oxford audience. Its general drift, running -in the same direction as Sherlock’s teaching, though it included no -theory of mutual consciousness, alarmed the authorities; they went -home from St. Mary’s in great agitation, muttering against the young -preacher charges of Tritheism, Arianism, and other heresies. Bingham -was simply a student who had missed his way in theological speculation; -but Sherlock was personally disliked by Jacobites, who were irritated -by his political apostacy, and by the adherents of William, who envied -him his church preferments. No hornet’s nest could be worse than -the attacks which this unlucky controversialist aroused. Many who, -under other circumstances, would have let heterodoxy alone, could not -tolerate it when coming from such a quarter; and the most unseemly -reflections on the man’s character were mixed up with arguments against -his doctrines.[258] - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -South plunged into the fray, and used his sledgehammer with unmerciful -violence. Not unlearned, not unversed in logic, South was more of a -rhetorician than a philosopher, more of a wit than a Divine. After -denouncing Sherlock’s explication as wholly inconsistent with the -mysteriousness of the subject, and representing his exceptions to -the use of certain words in relation to it as false, groundless, and -impertinent, he exposed, with tremendous ridicule, the theory of mutual -consciousness. “For self-consciousness, according to him,” says South, -“is the constituent principle, or formal reason, of personality. So -that self-consciousness properly constitutes or makes a person, and so -many self-consciousnesses make so many distinct persons. But mutual -consciousness, so far as it extends, makes a unity not of persons (for -personality as such imports distinction and something personally -incommunicable), but an unity of nature in persons. So that after -self-consciousness has made several distinct persons, in comes mutual -consciousness and sets them all at one again, and gives them all but -one and the same nature, which they are to take amongst themselves -as well as they can. And this is a true and strict account of this -author’s new hypothesis; and such, as I suppose, he will not except -against, because justly I am sure he cannot; howsoever, I may have -expressed the novel whimsey something for the reader’s diversion.”[259] -How monstrous to think of diverting people, when professedly engaged in -studying the awful secrets of the Divine Essence! - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -South maintained that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not distinct -infinite minds or spirits--that to say they are so, is to contradict -Councils, Fathers, Schoolmen, and later Divines; that the book he -assailed contains philosophical paradoxies and grammatical mistakes; -and that the author was insolent, scornful, and proud beyond all -parallel. To quote a full sample of South’s personal abuse would be to -cover pages.[260] - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -No doubt there is much force in some of his arguments, and he -completely demolished the theory of mutual consciousness. But he was -much stronger as a destructive than as an architect. When he attempted -to define a positive notion of the Trinity, he failed, as all did -who went before him, as all have who followed after him. Nor could -he escape the infection of a most infelicitous, if not a decidedly -irreverent, habit of illustrating theological mysteries. Wallis -had written of _three somewhats_, and of a _Divine cube_ -of infinite dimensions. Sherlock had propounded a theory of Divine -_mutual-consciousness_; and now South came forward with the idea, -that the distinctions in the Godhead are _modes, habitudes, and -affections_ of the Divine substance--they are _postures_--such -in spiritual and immaterial beings, as _posture_ is to the human -body.[261] Passing over South’s coarse scurrility, I cannot conceive -how any inquirer after truth can be helped on his way by this clever -and brilliant companion, who never misses an opportunity of cracking a -joke in his reader’s ear. Even when South’s reasoning is forcible, he -is ever interrupting it with flashes of wit; and throughout one feels, -what is fatal to all religious instruction, that the polemic is more -anxious about victory than truth. No doubt his attack on Sherlock was -deemed by contemporaries a decided success; he drove his antagonist -from the field and spoiled him of his armour. But when he charged him -with Tritheism, he charged him with what Sherlock utterly denied. -That Sherlock’s theory is Tritheistic was a mere inference, and what -may seem a logical deduction to others did not appear so to himself. -In like manner Sabellianism, in the eyes of some, lurked under the -folds of South’s argument, though he indignantly repelled the idea. -The fact is, no man can attempt a logical explanation of the Godhead -without being in danger of falling into Tritheism on the one side, or -Sabellianism on the other. In such controversies we notice the frequent -use of some word not in Scripture, but considered to be an equivalent -for what is Scripture--a term conceived to be a concentration of -diffused truth--the quintessence of a doctrine previously in a state -of solution. Unfortunately such words are differently understood by -different parties. One person refuses to take them in the sense affixed -to them by another, and will employ a meaning of his own. The same -proposition thus becomes to two different minds entirely different -things, and the utmost confusion is the consequence. Theories to -explain facts are confounded with the facts themselves, and a man who -only denies a particular theory, is charged with denying the fact to -which the theory relates. Hence, whilst Sherlock and South were really -contending for the doctrine of the Trinity, each regarded the other as -giving it up. It should be added that in the end, Sherlock’s statements -were more cautious than at the beginning; for he came to admit that the -phrases--three minds, three spirits, three substances--which he had so -freely used, needed great care for their proper employment, and were -liable to be taken in a heretical sense; that after all, Father, Son, -and Spirit, are really of one and the same substance.[262] Sherlock -and South did but follow up divergent tendencies of thought and action -before the Council of Nicæa--tendencies which that Council sought to -check and harmonize. Sherlock followed in the wake of Tertullian, -Novatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, whose inquiries mainly pointed to -_distinctions_ in the Godhead. South trod in the footsteps of -Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria, who -leaned towards Monarchianism, and were jealous of any dishonour done to -the Divine Unity. - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -In this controversy, which divided two men by a distance, in -the judgment of some thinkers, infinitesimally small, homage -was nevertheless done to the essential importance of truth. The -controversy, however, betrayed the utter absence of disposition on -the part of each to learn one jot of wisdom from the other. It was -literally a _polemical_ affair; a battle, each seeing in his -opposite an enemy--in fact the old story of disputes between Church and -Church, sect and sect, conformist and nonconformist--war to the knife -by mistaken foes, instead of mutual help by friends in council. - -Of course Unitarians, as they stood by, watched the conflict with -eager curiosity, striving to turn it to their own account. In the view -of those who had advanced beyond John Biddle, the doctrine of the -Trinity and the use of the Word were repugnant; and they traced what -they deemed an innovation to the early philosophical schools that had -so powerfully influenced the after-history of theological thought. -They labelled Cudworth’s theory as the Platonic; Sherlock’s as the -Cartesian; South’s as the Aristotelian. Moreover, they connected the -scheme of Sherlock with the philosophy of Realism, and the scheme -of South with that of Nominalism. With regard to speculations which -had been woven around the teaching of Holy Scripture, there was some -ground for the nomenclature; but it really forms another instance of -the confusion of thought produced when critics identify metaphysical -theories with simple conclusions drawn from Scripture, as expressed in -the grand old words, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy -Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.” - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -Howe took part in the bewildering dispute, and has been supposed by -some to have advocated Sherlock’s side. But it seems to me that what I -have been saying accords with his views, and that he counted such an -opinion as that expressed by Sherlock only as a theory for obviating -objection to a fact, whilst another theory might be held in perfect -consistency with a sincere faith in the truth to which both theories -apply. In his _Calm and Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibility -of a Trinity in the Godhead_, the utmost he asserts is, that such -a mode of triune existence as Sherlock attributes to the Divine -Being is _possible_, and to his mind the most reasonable; but -he did not think another hypothesis of a different kind altogether -indefensible. He adopted what is called the _personal_ theory; -but he did not deem a _modal_ theory, like South’s, either absurd -or heterodox.[263] Evidently he considered that different hypotheses -are at hand not fully to elucidate the mode of the Divine existence, -but to obviate objections, by showing that a threefold distinction in -that existence can be imagined, so as not to involve any contradiction -whatever.[264] - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -Amidst this war of words, in which reason and tradition had a share, -secular authority interfered. On the 3rd of January, 1694, the Lords -spiritual and temporal ordered their Majesties’ Attorney-General to -prosecute the author and printer of an infamous and scandalous libel, -entitled, _A Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the -Trinity_.[265] This was a State condemnation of Unitarianism, and -the same year a tract printed by the Unitarian Society was seized by -authority, and the writer apprehended. On the 25th of November, 1695, -the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses at Oxford decreed it to be -false, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic -Church, and especially the Church of England, to say that there are -three infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, or that -the three Persons are three distinct, infinite minds or spirits. This -was a condemnation by the University of the doctrines enunciated by -Sherlock and supported by Bingham. The latter, in consequence of the -storm raised by his sermon, resigned his fellowship, and withdrew from -the University; but others, who thought with him, asserted, that what -the Heads of Oxford had condemned as heretical, really expressed the -Catholic faith; that the decree virtually accused of error the Nicene -Creed and the Church of England, and exposed both to the scorn and -triumph of the Socinians. Sherlock declared “that he would undertake, -any day in the year, to procure a meeting of twice as many wise and -learned men to censure their decree.”[266] Out of this state of things -also arose the new Royal injunctions I have noticed. They prohibited -every preacher from delivering 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; and -they also strictly charged the right reverend fathers to make use of -their authority for repressing the publication of books against that -doctrine.[267] - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -Charles II. had in 1662 commanded the Clergy to avoid “the deep points -of election and reprobation, together with the incomprehensible manner -of the concurrence of God’s free grace and man’s free will.”[268] -He thus claimed a high spiritual authority over the Ministers of -religion, but it was by removing certain topics from within the range -of discussion. In the instance just given, William III. enjoined -the positive inculcation of a particular doctrine, and no other. He -did not on his own authority define the doctrine, but only referred -to the doctrine authorized in the Creeds and Articles recognized -by the Established Church; indeed, he did not go beyond the terms -employed in the sixteenth clause of the Toleration Act;[269] yet it -must be confessed that altogether he appears as a still more definite -theological censor than Charles II. And it is worth notice that in this -respect he not only assumed a supreme Headship over the Established -Church, but he also claimed to rule the Free Churches of England, for -he commanded that no “preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture, -should presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the Trinity -than that defined in the Creeds and Articles.” When we weigh the -words employed, we are astonished to find the constitutional King of -the Revolution--the Prince who came to deliver the consciences of -Englishmen from the despotism of James and the tyranny of Rome--binding -upon the Ministers of religion one precise and rigid form of expression -as to the most profound of all theological mysteries. What makes -this fact still more curious, and the conduct in question still more -unreasonable, is that the most learned men in the Church at that -very crisis were unable to decide amongst themselves what was the -doctrine of her formularies, Sherlock declaring it to be one thing and -South another. The truth is, that William lent himself to a device -of the well-meaning Archbishop for maintaining the orthodoxy of all -religionists in the realm, without meaning to claim any power over -the religion of his subjects; for to any usurpation of that sort he -was, from temperament, education, and principle, utterly averse. -The Whig Archbishop, whose intellectual acuteness did not equal his -common sense, who could detect no political or philosophical heresy -in the course which he recommended, simply sought to accomplish what -he considered as a laudable end by a method which he thought most -effectual. He sought to put down error, and to promote peace, and in -doing it, hastily snatched at the rusty halberd of authority over -conscience, which the Revolution had hung up as a relic of the past. -Nothing could be more awkward and inconsistent than such a weapon, -placed by a Latitudinarian Prelate in the hands of a Sovereign adored -as the incarnation of civil and religious liberty. - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -Although it is true of ancient times and Oriental states, that “where -the word of a King is, there is power,” the King’s word amongst -Englishmen at the time we speak of, especially upon religious subjects, -carried with it no weight whatever; and although the controversy -raging when the injunctions were devised soon burnt out, the heresies -assailed lingered on, and in 1698 the Commons appealed to His Majesty -for a proclamation for suppressing pernicious books containing -doctrines opposed to the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles -of the Christian faith.[270] The King, not choosing to do this, gave -his faithful Commons a short answer, promising attention to the -subject, and wishing that provision could be made for the purpose -desired; but, however, a proclamation was immediately issued for -preventing and punishing immorality and profaneness. Not long before -this circumstance, a youth of only eighteen years of age was executed -in the city of Edinburgh for blasphemy--a victim to the zeal of the -Presbyterian Clergy;[271] and, about the same time, the orthodox -Dissenters of England, in an address of theirs, most inconsistently -urged His Majesty to deprive Unitarians of the liberty of the -press.[272] - -[Sidenote: THE TRINITY.] - -[Sidenote: 1693–8.] - -An Act of Parliament was passed in 1698 declaring that any one educated -in the Christian religion, who should, by writing, printing, or -teaching, deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth of Christianity, -or the authority of the Scriptures, must, for the first offence, -be disqualified for holding any office; and, for the second, be -incapacitated for bringing an action, possessing lands, becoming a -guardian, acting as an executor, or receiving a legacy; moreover, such -a person might be subjected to imprisonment for three years. Parliament -thus united its authority with that of the Sovereign in the support of -orthodox opinions, without perceiving the futility of such methods of -defending the Gospel. And it is not a little surprising that such a man -as Calamy, both in his _Diary_ and in his _Historical Addition -to Baxter’s Life and Times_, passes by the objectionable enactment; -indeed, so entirely unaffected by its injustice does he appear to -have been, that, in the latter work, he tells us, in the year 1698, -Parliament “did not meddle with matters of religion, though they had a -committee for religion as usually.”[273] Nothing could more decidedly -prove how much even the advocates of religious liberty had yet to learn -touching that very object which they were supposed to understand, and -were sincerely anxious to promote. It is a pleasure to be able to add, -that neither at the time, nor afterwards, so far as can be ascertained, -did this Act take any effect; and, apparently, it remained a dead -letter until its repeal in the year 1813.[274] - - - - - CHAPTER X. - - -James, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne, did not relinquish -the hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for a -descent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in which -he promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but as -for his past conduct, he had nothing to retract, nothing to deplore; -and as to his future course, he held out no hopes that he would rule -otherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resist -his new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons, -amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, were -threatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded from -mercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, did -the Exile’s cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, he -reluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promising -an amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects the -restoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and a -limitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy and -ineffectual as they were insincere. “After all,” said one who was in -the confidence of James, “the object of this Declaration is only to get -us back to England. We shall fight the battle of the Catholics with -much greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains.”[275] - -[Sidenote: 1693.] - -Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St. -Germains--which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrast -to the cheerful prospect from its windows--James, with his Court of -blinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming to -convert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappy -fortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, with -the hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church. -Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of Queen -Mary; then came schemes for assassination. Previous to that period, -the death of William had offered James no augmentation of hopes; -afterwards, to clear off the reigning Prince from the stage seemed an -advantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of his -son-in-law cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can it -be shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it can -scarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on. -Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas into -which the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid their -heads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of the -shaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. A -hundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in his -expedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory--including -the image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidels -and heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to France -from the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters, -that they talked of taking debentures on English estates, soon to -fall into their hands; also pieces of preferment in Church and State -were allotted to Royal favourites, and Jesuits rejoiced in the idea of -setting up a branch of their order within the spacious precincts of -Chelsea College.[276] These Papists abroad found sympathizing friends -at home amongst the Nonjurors, some of whom were at the time charged -with preaching from texts suggestive of treason and rebellion. - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -A correspondence between the Court of St. Germains and the English -Jacobites, ranging from October, 1693, to August, 1694, brought to -light by Macpherson, shows what was going on at that period. “It is -His Majesty’s desire,” said an agent of the Exile, “that the Bishops -and non-swearing Clergy send one or two of their number, especially -one of the Bishops, to him, with all convenient speed, instructed by -the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Sancroft], and the rest of the most -considerable of them, to inform His Majesty of the readiness they were -in last year to have joined him at his landing, and to have preached -loyalty and due obedience to the people; and to bring assurances, under -the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand, that they are in the same -disposition still, and will join His Majesty whenever he shall land. -For the same end, to encourage the people to come into their duty, and -because that there may be some danger in inserting of names, ways of -writing in white must be found out, and the paper sent by the boat, -and not be brought by any of the persons who are sent. This is of the -last importance for the King’s service, and therefore, tho’ difficult -in appearance, must be complied with; and it’s hoped that there may -be no danger, considering how safe all things come. The King is sorry -he cannot put his own hand to this. The King’s affairs depend upon the -punctual doing of what he desires, as you shall know in due time. The -person sent may come safe by Holland. He must likewise bring as good an -account as he can, of the number and names of the non-swearing Clergy; -and likewise, how the non-swearing Clergy stand affected, and what the -King may expect from them, with the best account he can of the state of -the King’s affairs in general.”[277] “You are,” it is said in another -letter, “to let the Bishop of Norwich [Lloyd] know from us, how much we -are pleased with his zeal and faithfulness in our service, to assure -him of our favour, and to return him our most hearty thanks.”[278] - -[Sidenote: 1693.] - -Assurances were sent from this side the water to the plotters abroad, -full of the spirit of revolt. “His Majesty [James] has likewise for -him, six Protestant Bishops and 600 Ministers who have not taken the -oaths, and almost all the Ministers of the Church of England who have -taken the oaths; that is to say, as one of their Bishops writes to me, -four parts in five are ready to join the King, or to preach in their -churches to stir up the people in his favour,--500 of them having -been ready to join him last year, in order to convince Protestants -that their religion was in no danger, and in order to preach their -sentiments to the inhabitants of the country, thro’ which the King -should pass.”[279] - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -Another of these conspirators assured his accomplices abroad, that he -would unite with his regiment a company of Clergymen of the Church -of England, who were determined to serve as volunteers in this -expedition; and he hoped also, by a stratagem, to seize the Prince and -Princess of Orange, and to bring them as prisoners to His Majesty.[280] - -Captain Crisp declared that the Bishop of Exeter was entirely in the -King’s interest; and that five parts of seven in the county of Cornwall -were on the same side.[281] - -[Sidenote: 1694.] - -Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, Sir John Fenwick, Major-General Sackville, -and several other persons of quality and distinction, maintained that -the persons mentioned, having made an exact inquiry through all the -counties of England, found that the mind of the nation in general -was entirely alienated from the Prince of Orange, by losses suffered -at sea, by heavy taxes, by the interruption of commerce within and -without the kingdom, and by the general disorder occasioned through -a change in the circulation of the coin. It is distinctly affirmed, -“that four parts out of five of the Clergy are disposed to declare for -the King;”[282] and His Majesty was earnestly besought to think of -some way to reconcile the Church party, and those of the Dissenters -who were in Parliament, as it would contribute much to His Majesty’s -service.[283] This was before the death of Mary, afterwards intrigues -did not end in foolish, harmless, and untruthful correspondence. A -conspiracy was formed to attack William when driving over a piece of -bad road between Brentford and Turnham Green, but the conspirators were -betrayed, and the bubble of vengeance immediately burst. Charnock, -Keyes, and King, Roman Catholic Jacobites--who, with others of the -same faith in religion and politics, had been deeply involved in this -affair--suffered for their offence, the last-named declaring at the -foot of the gallows, that what he had done was to be attributed to his -own sinful passions, not to any Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject -of tyrannicide. Two others of higher grade--Sir John Friend, belonging -to the Jacobite nonjuring class, and Sir William Parkyns, a Jacobite, -but a juror too--on the 3rd of April, also suffered death for their -share in the conspiracy. The fate of these knights created immense -excitement, chiefly on account of a circumstance which brings their -execution before us. Jeremy Collier has been already mentioned as a -distinguished nonjuring Divine, and a great sensation was produced in -the vast crowds round the fatal tree by the sight of this clergyman--in -company with two others less known, named Cook and Snatt--performing -some peculiar religious rites at the last moment of the culprits’ -lives. The three Divines were observed in the cart, not only praying -with the unhappy men, but laying hands upon them as they knelt -down--Collier solemnly pronouncing over them the form of absolution, -prescribed in the Visitation of the Sick. A paper, professedly written -by Friend, and delivered to the Sheriff, contained a prayer for King -James’ restoration, and stated that the writer was a member of the -Church, “though,” he adds, “a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it -(meaning the nonjuring part), which suffers so much at present for a -strict adherence to the laws and Christian principles. - - For this I suffer, and for this I die.”[284] - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -People were astonished at the strange absolution performed. Multitudes -more who heard of it shared in the wonder, and the circulation of the -paper increased the excitement. To all but the most obstinate, the -administering of absolution under the circumstances seemed like an -act of sympathy with civil treason, and a gross perversion of Church -formularies. London presently rose in a state of high commotion. The -Tyburn affair was in everybody’s mouth, and broadsides and pamphlets -bearing upon it were in everybody’s hands. The public authorities -interfered, and at once seized Cook and Snatt. Collier eluded their -search; and in some garret, cellar, or other out-of-the-way place, -wrote a defence of what he had done. He had, he said, been sent for -to Newgate; Sir William Parkyns had begged that the absolution of the -Church might be pronounced over him in his last moments. Collier had -been refused admittance to the prisoner in his cell on the day of -execution, and so he went to Tyburn to pronounce absolution there. He -used a form in the Prayer-Book; and as to the imposition of hands, -complained of as an innovation, he concluded that it was a very -ancient, and, at least, a very innocent ceremony.[285] - -The Bishops, considering that a scandal had been brought upon the -Church, published a declaration condemnatory both of the culprits’ -papers and the Clergymen’s conduct. The papers they charged with making -a favourable mention of so foul a thing as the assassination of His -Majesty; and the Clergymen’s conduct they denounced as insolent, and -without precedent either in the English Church or in any other.[286] -All the Bishops in London signed this document, including Crew of -Durham, and Sprat of Rochester, who, from their past career, were still -suspected of Jacobite tendencies. Collier, whose boldness equalled his -learning, returned to the charge, and from the depths of his obscurity -re-proclaimed the doctrine of the imposition of hands as scriptural, -and consonant with patristic teaching. He also pleaded on its behalf, -in such a case as the one in question, no less a precedent than the -conduct of Bishop Sanderson, oddly enough putting the Prelate in the -place of the traitor under the fatal beam. “This eminent casuist,” -says Collier, “about a day before his death, desired his chaplain, Mr. -Pullin, to give him absolution; and at his performing that office, he -pulled off his cap that Mr. Pullin might lay his hand upon his bare -head.”[287] - -[Sidenote: 1696.] - -Collier was the leading spirit in this transaction, and he willingly -accepted the chief responsibility; yet he continued to hide himself, -and finally escaped the constable’s clutches. His two companions, after -a true Bill had been found against them by the Grand Jury of Middlesex, -were set at liberty; and it is a question whether they could have been -legally convicted of the commission of any crime against the law of the -land--for absolution at the point of death, by the imposition of hands, -whatever might be thought of it in a religious point of view, could not -be regarded as a political offence; and absolving such men, although -it looked like sympathy in their enterprise, could scarcely bring the -absolvers within the compass of the statute of treason. - -Another conspirator’s name gathered round it ecclesiastical -complications. Sir John Fenwick, an active person amongst the numerous -plotters against William, fell into the hands of justice in the month -of June. A letter, from the Duke of Shrewsbury to William III., -indicates what thoughts were entertained of this conspirator, and of -the views of certain people in France at that juncture. - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -“I am not acquainted with the particulars my Lord Steward has sent your -Majesty from Sir John Fenwick; he is generally reputed a fearful man, -and though now he may not offer to say all, yet beginning to treat is -no contradiction to that character. I am confident he knows what, if -he will discover, may be much more valuable than his life. If he were -well managed, possibly he might lay open a scene that would facilitate -the business the next winter, which, without some such miracle, I doubt -will be difficult enough. - -“An acquaintance of mine saw a fresh letter to my Lady Walgrave, from -my Lord Galmoy, at St. Germains, who I think is her husband, where he -says he has never been credulous in the hopes of King James’ coming; -but that now he is well assured, it will be attempted the end of this -year, and with good appearance of success. The same person saw another -letter from another hand, they would not say from whom, but from one -more likely to know than the former, and spoke in the same language, -but with more assurance.”[288] - -Fenwick, after his capture, made revelations, as Shrewsbury supposed -him not unlikely to do; but, to the great surprise and indignation of -the latter, he learnt before long, that the cunning conspirator had -woven a story, by which he had contrived to bring the Duke himself into -suspicion. The fact is, that for a long time after the Revolution, -things were said and done--whispered, insinuated, listened to, and -winked at--which bore an ugly look in the eyes of honest people; and -it is wonderful in what a perilous position the frail, eagle-faced -champion of constitutional rights and of European Protestantism stood -for years after he had accepted the British crown. True, some men were -accused without good reason, but to many cases the adage applied, -“Where there is smoke there is fire.”[289] - -[Sidenote: 1696.] - -Charles, Earl of Middleton, took an active part in Jacobite intrigues, -and he is worth notice here as an example of Jacobitism in alliance -with Protestantism, or rather in alliance with views anti-Catholic. -He married into a Popish family, but did not adopt their religion. -Indeed, his principles on that score were very loose, although he -knew how, with a clever stroke, to repel the onsets of Jesuitical -sophistry. A priest one day tried to prove to him the doctrine of -Transubstantiation. “Your Lordship,” said he, “believes in the -Trinity;” Middleton stopped him by asking, “Who told you so?” The -priest felt amazed, upon which the Peer added, it was the priest’s -business to prove that his own belief was true, and not to question -another man about his.[290] In one of the Earl’s furtive missions -to England upon the business of the exiled Prince, he had met with -Shrewsbury, and had evidently tried, in an underhand way, to work his -mind into a Jacobite direction. Fenwick had got hold of this, and had -made the most of it against the Duke, who now occupied the office of -Secretary of State,[291] and had, during William’s absence, discharged, -along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the high function -of a Lord Justice. The letter which Shrewsbury wrote to William is -worth insertion, as illustrative of what went on behind the scenes, -of the scrapes men fell into, of the way they got out of them, of -the generosity and forgiving spirit of the King, and of the rickety -condition of English Protestantism, if it had rested upon nothing -better than the character of politicians. - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - - “I want words,” says Shrewsbury, addressing William, “to express - my surprise at the impudent and unaccountable accusation of Sir - John Fenwick; I will, with all the sincerity imaginable, give - your Majesty an account of the only thing I can recollect, that - should give the least pretence to such an invention, and I am - confident you will judge there are few men in the kingdom, that - have not so far transgressed the law. - - “After your Majesty was pleased to allow me to lay down my - employment, it was more than a year before I once saw my Lord - Middleton; then he came and stayed in town awhile, and returned - to the country; but a little before the La Hogue business he - came up again, and upon that alarm, being put in the Tower, - where people were permitted to see him, I visited him as often - as I thought decent for the nearness of our alliance. Upon his - enlargement, one night at supper, when he was pretty well in - drink, he told me he intended to go beyond seas, and asked if I - would command him no service. I then told him by the course he - was taking it would never be in his power to do himself or his - friends service, and if the time should come that he expected, - I looked upon myself as an offender not to be forgiven, and - therefore he should never find me asking it. In the condition - he was then, he seemed shocked at my answer, and it being some - months after before he went, he never mentioned his own going, - or anything else to me, but left a message with my aunt, that he - thought it better to say nothing to me, but that I might depend - upon his good offices upon any occasion, and in the same manner, - he relied upon mine here, and had left me trustee for the small - concern he had in England. I only bowed and told her I should - always be ready to serve her or him or their children. - - [Sidenote: 1696.] - - “Your Majesty now knows the extent of my crime, and, if I do not - flatter myself, it is not more than a king may forgive. - - “I am sure, when I consider with what reason, justice, and - generosity, your Majesty has weighed this man’s information, I - have little cause to apprehend your ill-opinion upon his malice. - I wish it were as easy to answer for the reasonableness of the - generality of the world. When such a base invention shall be - made public, they may perhaps make me incapable of serving you, - but if till now I had had neither interest nor inclination, the - noble and frank manner with which your Majesty has used me upon - this occasion shall ever be owned with all gratitude in my power. - - “My Lord Steward being at the Baths, nothing was resolved as to - Sir John Fenwick’s trial till his answer returns. - - “I am, with all imaginable submission, your - Majesty’s most faithful, dutiful, and - obedient subject and servant, - “SHREWSBURY.”[292] - - -Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them as -compounders and non-compounders--the compounders being anxious for -some security from King James, that English religion and liberty would -be preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders being -prepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity. -Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, and -would hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.[293] - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the House -of Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point of -deficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backed -by the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of the -attainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the Holy -Scriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of a -capital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to die -by the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shall -suffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law of -England, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, that -he and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argument -simply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses having -been confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to be -brought into connection with the law of the land.[294] In spite of -attempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. Robert -Nelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very good -friend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that you -know not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor no -man’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should I -declare a man innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill will -convince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in my -conscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincing -testimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Laws _ex post facto_ -may indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law was -necessary this is.”[295] - -[Sidenote: 1696.] - -An amusing circumstance occurred during the debate. Dr. John Williams, -Hector of St. Mildred’s, Poultry, accepted the Bishopric of Chichester, -and was consecrated at Lambeth, by Tenison and others, the day before -the third reading of the Bill. Rushing into the Bishops’ chamber to -robe himself, he was accosted by the Archbishop, “Brother, brother! -you’ll overheat yourself; what’s the reason of all this pother?” -“Nothing, may it please your Grace,” said he; “but I was fearful lest -the Bill against Sir John Fenwick should be read before I could take -my place in the House.” “Fye, my Lord,” said Tenison; “you might have -spared yourself that labour, since you had not an opportunity of -hearing the merits of the cause at the first and second reading; but -since, as I perceive, you are come to give your vote, pray, brother, -come in along with me, that you may hear it once read, before you do -it.”[296] - -After the Bill had passed, efforts were continued on the culprit’s -behalf. His Lady petitioned the House of Lords and the House of -Commons; also she threw herself as a suppliant at William’s feet in -vain. Fenwick delivered a paper, supposed to have been drawn up by -White, the deprived Bishop of Peterborough, in which he did not deny -the facts sworn, but only complained of his attainder as unjust; at -the same time declaring his loyalty to King James and to the Prince -of Wales, but denouncing, with horror, the idea of assassinating -William.[297] - -[Sidenote: JACOBITES.] - -Fenwick suffered upon Tower Hill the 20th of January, 1697. That wintry -morning, cold with storms, White appeared with him on the scaffold, -not to pronounce absolution or lay on hands, but simply to pray with a -dying man.[298] Commending the King to the Divine protection--meaning -James, but not using his name--Fenwick, as he laid his neck on the -block, cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my soul.” His corpse was buried by -torch-light in St. Martin’s Church. - -Others were hanged for treasonable practices, including Cranburne, -who professed himself a member of the Church of England; and -Rookwood and Lowick, Roman Catholics, whose _Jesu Maria_ and -_Paternosters_ are particularly mentioned by the Protestant -narrator of their last end.[299] - - - - - CHAPTER XI. - - -The peace of Ryswick, which put an end to the war between William and -Louis, and detached the latter from the cause of James, dispelled for -awhile the visions which had tantalized and disappointed the nonjuring -party; for the treaty, sanctioned by France, Spain, and the United -Provinces, recognized the constitution of England, and William as a -constitutional King. Some Clergymen, wearied by the bootless resistance -of eight long years, now came to terms, and swore allegiance to the -reigning Sovereign, adopting at last the principle which they had -denounced, that a settled Government, though illegitimate in its -origin, is binding in its authority. - -[Sidenote: PEACE OF RYSWICK.] - -Immense joy arose on this occasion; it prolonged itself during the -month of November. The anniversary of the landing at Torbay of course -set in motion peals of bells, lighted up candles in windows, kindled -bonfires in market-places, and evoked shouts of glee from assembled -multitudes. The 14th of November, the day of Williams return and -landing at Margate, became an additional season of joy. On the -16th, which turned out a bright morning, he entered his capital in -state, attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, with a measure of -the splendour which on past occasions brightened the City’s dark and -narrow streets; although some of the spectators of the sight noticed a -decline in the splendour of the pageantry.[300] The triumph of the day -was complete when the University of Oxford, to the unutterable chagrin -of the Nonjurors, struck its colours, and in an adulatory address did -homage to the hero. This tide of joy flowed into the following month. -The 2nd of December was held as a day of thanksgiving for the peace. -The King and Court attended Divine service in the Chapel at Whitehall, -where Burnet preached, or, as one who heard him says, “made a florid -panegyric,”[301] founded on the words, “Happy are thy men, and happy -are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and hear -thy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God which delighted in thee to -set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God: because thy -God loved Israel to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee -king over them, to do judgment and justice.” The same day St. Paul’s -Cathedral was opened for Divine service, and William would have been -there, instead of being in his own Chapel, but for fear lest the -multitude, thronging the streets, should render his approach almost -impracticable. The Corporation of London appeared in their civic pomp; -Compton ascended his throne, just enriched by the carvings of Grinling -Gibbons; and he afterwards preached from the appropriate text, “I -was glad when they said unto me, Let us go up into the house of the -Lord.”[302] - -[Sidenote: 1698.] - -A new Parliament, of a decidedly High-Church stamp, assembled on -the 9th of December, amidst an atmosphere of hypocrisy and intrigue -rarely equalled. A sermon preached before the Commons by the Rector of -Sutton, in Surrey, upon government originating with the people, and -good government alone being the ordinance of God, gave vast offence -to the Tories, and occasioned the passing of a curious resolution, -that no one should preach before the House unless he was a Dean or a -D.D. A Committee of the Lower House formally complained of Dissenters -being made Justices of the Peace; whereas it turned out on inquiry -that not two of their number were placed on the roll, besides such -as had become occasional Conformists. Some zealots went so far as to -propose, that an address should be presented to the King, to remove -Burnet from the office of Preceptor to the young Duke of Gloucester; -but as this was too absurd a proposal to find much support, it had to -be withdrawn.[303] Under pretence of patriotism and economy, a strong -opposition party carried one measure for a reduction of the army, which -compelled William to part with his Dutch Guards, the sorest sacrifice -he ever made; and another for the recovery of Irish estates, bestowed -by the Monarch on his supporters, a proceeding which ended in the -aggrandizement of its inventors. - -[Sidenote: PARLIAMENT.] - -The peace of Ryswick had brought “a great swarm of priests”[304] to -England, who held up their heads with so much insolence, that some -foolish Protestants and some cunning politicians absurdly declared, -the articles of peace favoured Popery, and the King was a Papist in -disguise. Soon the new Parliament, stirred by a gust of wind which -threatened a “No Popery” tempest, set to work upon a Bill obliging -every Popish minor succeeding to an estate, immediately to take the -oath of allegiance, and, as soon as he attained his majority, to -submit to the Test Act,--otherwise his property would devolve on the -Protestant next of kin. The Bill also banished Popish priests, and -adjudged them to perpetual imprisonment in case they dared to return; -the reward for conviction being £100. The Bill is said to have been -partly a trick contrived by the Tories to perplex the Whigs, who prided -themselves on being the champions of Toleration; but when they saw -the Whigs supporting it, they indicated a desire to drop the measure. -With a view of provoking defeat, they introduced additionally severe -and unreasonable clauses; yet, contrary to their expectations, the -Lords, under the influence of an anti-Popish fever, accepted what came -up to them, and the Bill, unamended, not only passed the Upper House, -but received the Royal assent. Burnet supported it, and endeavoured -to defend himself against the charge of injustice and inconsistency. -“I had always thought,” he says, “that if a Government found any sect -in religion incompatible with its quiet and safety, it might, and -sometimes ought, to send away all of that sect, with as little hardship -as possible. It is certain that as all Papists must, at all times, -be ill subjects to a Protestant prince, so this is much more to be -apprehended when there is a pretended Popish heir in the case.” The -new law happily proved a nullity. Some of the terms were so vague, and -the provisions were so oppressive, that the “Act was not followed, nor -executed in any sort.”[305] - -[Sidenote: 1699.] - -Complaints of growing immorality had been repeatedly made; -proclamations to check it had been often issued; and on the 28th of -November, Parliament requested the publication of a new one. Upon this, -the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a pastoral letter to each of his -Suffragans, requesting them to stir up the Clergy to a more zealous -discharge of their duties. The good effects of pastoral diligence had -been made apparent in London; now Ministers in general were exhorted -to imitate the admirable example. Let them by their consistent lives -recommend the doctrines which they preached. The family and the parish -were spheres of usefulness, to be filled up by the discharge of the -duties included in a Christian walk and conversation; persons in holy -orders ought to be pre-eminently holy. Enemies were seeking objections -against Christ’s religion, its friends therefore ought to be diligent -in its defence, acquainting themselves with the grounds on which it -rested, and the modes of sophistry by which it was assailed. Frequent -meetings of the Clergy for conference on religious matters might do -much good, especially if Churchwardens and others of the laity could -be brought to co-operate. Obstinate offenders should be subjected to -ecclesiastical censure, and the assistance of the magistrate should be -sought when it was likely to be effectual; people were not to shrink -from exposing crime and securing its punishment, through fear of being -denounced as informers. Finally, since education laid the firmest -basis for morality and religion, it became the parochial clergy to be -sedulous in the catechizing of children. In this way the Archbishop, -through the medium of Diocesans and their Clergy, endeavoured to -promote the interests of the Church.[306] - -[Sidenote: CHURCH PREFERMENTS.] - -The power vested in the Crown of nominating Bishops and other -dignitaries had been exercised during the life of Queen Mary very -much according to her discretion. William,--perhaps because he was a -foreigner, and also destitute of entire sympathy with Episcopalianism, -or because he was so engrossed with foreign affairs,--seems to have -been reluctant to take part in the bestowment of ecclesiastical -patronage. In the year 1700 he devolved its responsibilities, to a -large extent, upon the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the -Bishops of Salisbury, Worcester, Ely, and Norwich. Whilst he was in the -realm they were to signify to him their recommendation of such persons -as they thought fit for vacant preferments, which recommendation they -were to present through the Secretaries of State. If whilst he was -beyond the seas, any Bishoprics, Deaneries, or other specified clerical -offices in his gift, above the annual value of £140, should need -filling up, the Commissioners were to transmit the names of suitable -persons, respecting whom his pleasure would be made known under his -sign-manual. At the same time he delegated to them full power at once -to appoint to other preferments. Also, he declared, that neither when -he was abroad nor when he was at home, should either of his Secretaries -address him in reference to any benefices left to the recommendation or -disposal of the Commissioners, without first communicating with them, -also that no warrant should be presented for the Royal signature until -their recommendation had been obtained.[307] - -[Sidenote: 1700.] - -An affecting bereavement now occurred in the Royal family. William, -Duke of Gloucester, a son of Princess Anne and Prince George of -Denmark, was heir to the throne, and therefore in him centred the -hopes of the nation. He seems to have been a lively child, for in -1695, when only six years old, he ran to meet his uncle with a little -musket on his shoulder, and presented arms. “I am learning my drill,” -he cried, “that I may help you to beat the French.” Nothing could -have better pleased the veteran, who soon afterwards actually created -the boy Knight of the Garter. Military tastes continued to guide his -childish amusements, and he formed a regiment of lads, chiefly from -Kensington, who attended him at Campden House, the residence of his -mother, a quaint mansion burnt down a few years ago. The education of -the Prince early occupied the thoughts of William, who offered the -post of Governor to the Duke of Shrewsbury, now restored to the Royal -confidence.[308] Shrewsbury declined, and the office fell into the -hands of Marlborough. A story is told to the effect, that the King said -to the future hero of Blenheim, “Teach him to be what you are, and my -nephew cannot want accomplishments.” The still more important duties of -preceptor to the youth were entrusted to Burnet, as already indicated. -Windsor then being within the diocese of Salisbury, the Prince was to -live there during the summer months, when the Bishop reckoned he would -be in his diocese, and therefore in the way of his proper episcopal -duties; he satisfied himself with thinking, that all would be right -if the King allowed him ten weeks in the year for the other parts of -his diocese,--a circumstance which shows how in those days notions of -a Bishop’s office were different from what, happily, they are now. -“I took to my own province,” says the right reverend preceptor, “the -reading and explaining the Scriptures to him, the instructing him in -the principles of religion, and the rules of virtue, and the giving him -a view of history, geography, politics, and government. I resolved also -to look very exactly to all the masters that were appointed to teach -him other things.”[309] - -[Sidenote: DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.] - -[Sidenote: 1700.] - -But a sad fatality brooded over all the offspring of poor Anne. After a -few days’ attack of fever, the young Duke died on the 30th of July. - -He was buried in Westminster Abbey, and recently, upon the family vault -being opened, amongst the ten small coffins of the children of James -II., and the eighteen small coffins of the children of his daughter -Anne, lay the coffin of the youthful William, resting in remarkable -juxtaposition upon that of Elizabeth of Bohemia.[310] Thus one of an -unfortunate race, who never attained the crown he inherited, mingled -his dust with that of a great aunt, who soon lost the crown she had -prompted her husband too eagerly to seize. As the nation unaffectedly -mourned the death of the youthful Duke, a gentleman,[311] living at -Holland House, a friend of Atterbury’s, lamented the removal of his -Royal neighbour in the following lines, which afford a specimen of the -affected elegiac strains popular at the period:-- - - “So by the course of the revolving spheres, - When’er a new discover’d star appears, - Astronomers with pleasure and amaze, - Upon the infant luminary gaze. - They find their heaven’s enlarged, and wait from thence, - Some blest, some more than common influence; - But suddenly, alas! the fleeting light - Retiring, leaves their hopes involved in endless night.” - -The Duke of Gloucester was the last Protestant heir to the Crown -recognized in the Act of Settlement. His death therefore exposed the -Royal succession to new perils, revived the hopes of the Jacobites, and -created anxiety in the minds of William and his Ministers. The King at -the time had left England nearly a month; and as, amidst the gardens -of his retreat at Loo, he saw the shortening of the summer days, he -had pondered future contingencies, and laid plans for preserving the -work which he had wrought. When, in the following February, 1701, he, -bearing evident signs of increasing frailty, met Parliament, he told -the Houses that the loss just sustained made it necessary there should -be a further provision for a Protestant succession; adding, that the -happiness of the nation, and the security of religion, seemed to depend -so much upon this, that he could not doubt it would meet with general -concurrence. The addresses echoed the same sentiment, and in March the -Bill of Succession came under Parliamentary debate. It determined that -the Princess Sophia, Duchess-Dowager of Hanover, or her heirs, should -succeed upon failure of issue to William and Anne; and it laid down -the principle that whosoever wore the Crown should commune with the -Church of England, as by law established. Other important resolutions, -which it does not come within my province to notice, were incorporated -in the Bill; and these gave rise to fierce discussions between the two -great political parties, who, throughout the whole of this reign, were -teasing William out of his life, provoking the phlegmatic Dutchman to -exclaim, that “all the difference he knew between the two parties was, -that the Tories would cut his throat in the morning, and the Whigs -in the afternoon.”[312] The Act of Settlement at length passed, and -received the Royal assent. - -[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSION.] - -It is curious to observe with respect to this Act, that Sophia, who was -made the protectress of the Reformed faith, and who was to supersede -the Stuarts on the throne, was neither a zealous Protestant nor a -foe to the exiled family. For when asked what was the religion of -her blooming daughter, at the time just thirteen years of age, she -replied she had none as yet; “we are waiting to know what prince she -is to marry, and whenever that point is determined, she will be duly -instructed in the religion of her future husband--whether Protestant -or Catholic.” And in a communication, which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke -called her Jacobite letter, she bewailed the fate of the poor Prince of -Wales, who, if restored, she said, might be easily guided in a right -direction.[313] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -A limitation of the heirship, within the pale of any particular -Protestant community, which may become less and less national as time -rolls on, is open to grave objections; but the limitation of descent -within Protestant lines of some kind, appears to rest upon a sound -basis. The reasons for it are furnished not by the religious, but by -the political character of Romanism. No doctrinal or ecclesiastical -opinions ought to exclude a legitimate heir, but a Popish claimant -is the subject of another and an ambitious power, which associates -temporal with spiritual authority, and exercises assumed prerogatives -after an elastic fashion, which can contract or expand them with -exquisite cunning, as fear darkens, or as hope brightens the prospect -of futurity. A Roman Catholic Sovereign is involved in complications -intolerable to a Protestant people, with a history full of warning -against foreign interference. It was a true instinct which led Lord -William Russell, amidst the aberrations of party zeal, to deprecate -as a terrible calamity the accession of a Papist; the same instinct -prompted the limitation of the Succession Act. Taught by the story of -the past, our ancestors guarded against Romish intermeddling, and it is -well for the fortunes of this country, that, acting on this maxim, our -fathers did not, in a fit of blind generosity, mistaken for justice, -open or keep open a door of mischief which, in some perilous hour, it -might be impossible to shut. - -[Sidenote: JAMES II.] - -Another important event was now approaching. James II., tired out -by a chequered life, desired to die. Whatever may be thought of his -principles, and the effect of his reign upon the interests of his -country, no one can doubt his religious sincerity, and when the -immoralities of his earlier days had been discontinued, confessed, and -deplored,[314] he manifested an earnest devoutness, tinged, of course, -by the peculiarities of his faith. Dwelling upon the examples of some -good men who had longed to be removed from this world, and upon the -moral dangers to which others had been exposed, he counted it “a high -presumption for a slender reed not to desire to be sheltered from such -terrible gusts as had overturned those lofty cedars.” When indulging in -such meditations, he was seized with a fit in early spring, from which -he partially recovered. Once more, within the Palace at St. Germains, -he was seized, in the midst of his devotions at chapel, with another -attack on the 2nd of September. Afterwards he sent for his son, who, -seeing the bed stained with blood from a violent hæmorrhage, burst -into violent weeping. Having calmed the child, his father conjured him -to adhere to the Catholic faith; to be obedient to his mother, and -grateful to the King of France; to serve God with all his strength, -and if he should reign, to remember kings were made not for themselves -but the good of their people, and to set a pattern of all manner of -virtues.[315] - -This was good advice, but it bore an application such as would guide -the son in the father’s ways. He exhorted everybody about him to spend -pious lives, and urged his few Protestant courtiers and servants to -embrace the Catholic faith. It deserves mention that he forgave all -who had injured him, mentioning in particular his daughter Anne, and -his son-in-law William. But the most important circumstance connected -with his dying moments was the visit of the _Grand Monarque_, -who promised James he would take his family under his protection, and -acknowledge the Prince of Wales as King of England--an assurance which -drew joyful tears from the family and courtiers. On Friday, the 16th of -September, 1701, James expired; as if a saint had been taken to heaven, -the physicians and surgeons who made a _post-mortem_ examination, -kept particles of his body as relics, and the attendants dipped their -chaplets and handkerchiefs in his blood.[316] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -William went into mourning. Coaches and liveries were put in -black;[317] but tidings of the promise made by Louis soon aroused -indignation. - -The King was in Holland at this crisis, but Sir Thomas Abney, the -Nonconformist Lord Mayor of London, at once caused an address to be -voted to His Majesty, expressive of the loyalty of the citizens, and of -their determination to oppose France and the Pretender. - -After William had returned on his fortunate day, the 5th of November, -he on the 11th dissolved Parliament, and then called another: as he was -taking this step, loyal addresses poured in from all parts, and amongst -them one from the London Nonconformists, presented by John Howe. They -said they were grateful to Divine Providence for the settlement of -the Protestant succession, and pledged themselves to use their utmost -endeavours to maintain His Majesty’s title, and that of his successors, -as by law established.[318] An address of the same nature was presented -by the Baptists.[319] - -The truth is, a new war now threatened Europe, for Louis had torn in -pieces the Ryswick Treaty by the bedside of James, and deliberately -defied the provisions of the Act of Settlement. - -[Sidenote: THE SUCCESSION.] - -When William met his new Parliament on the 31st of December, 1701, -he told them that the setting up of the pretended Prince of Wales -as King of England was not only the highest indignity to himself and -the nation, but it concerned every one who valued the Protestant -religion or the welfare of his country. “I have shown,” these were -the closing words he used, “and will always show, how desirous I am -to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, lay -aside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heard -of amongst us for the future, but of those who are for the Protestant -religion and the present Establishment, and of those who mean a Popish -Prince and a French Government. I will only add this--if you do in good -earnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to be -indeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by your -right improving the present opportunity.”[320] - -His speech elicited applause. It charmed the Whigs, and many had it -ornamentally printed in English, French, and Dutch, and hung up on the -walls of their homes. Political animosities were lulled for awhile by -circumstances inspiring concern for the Empire, and “the whole nation, -split before into an hundred adverse factions, with a King at its head -evidently declining to his tomb, the whole nation, Lords, Commons, and -people, proceeded as one body, informed by one soul.”[321] Unanimously -it was resolved that no peace should be made with France until after -reparation for the indignity done to England. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -A mania for oath-taking infected our fathers, and now, in addition to -the old law, which had occasioned the nonjuring party, came a new law, -which served to revive it. When death had taken away the Sovereign -to whom they regarded themselves as pledged while he lived, the -Nonjurors began to deliberate about taking the oath, but a new form of -abjuration stopped their deliberations.[322] Ken was troubled at the -prospect of its universal imposition, and hoped its enforcement would -be limited; but a Bill passed requiring not only all civil officers, -but also all ecclesiastics, all members of the Universities, and all -schoolmasters to acknowledge William as _lawful and rightful_ -King, and to deny any title whatever in the pretended Prince of Wales. -Sixteen Lords, including Compton, Bishop of London, and Sprat, Bishop -of Rochester, protested against the Abjuration Bill;[323] and others -reasonably judged that to swear allegiance was one thing, but to swear -respecting the nature of a title to the Crown was another--that in the -first case people were within the region of fact, that in the second -they were brought into the region of theory. Calamy records, with no -apparent dissatisfaction, that the oath was thought to be the best -means of disappointing such as hoped by the assistance of France to -make way for the Pretender, and so accomplish the design of restoring -arbitrary power and the Popish religion.[324] The Abjuration Bill -received the Royal assent by Commission in the month of March, 1702. - -Naturally at this juncture there were Jacobites who felt a flutter -of excitement. Looking upon oaths as cobwebs easily brushed away, -they hoped the Hanoverian succession might prove an idle dream, and, -on the tiptoe of expectation, began eagerly to talk to one another -of prospects, which brightened as the declining health of William -foreboded his speedy removal. One busy agent forwarded for the use -of the Stuarts certain proposals, in which he curiously sketched the -political views of religious parties in this country, as they struck -his eye. - -[Sidenote: STATE OF PARTIES.] - -“As for England, the parties most to be considered are--First, the -Episcopal, which, being in possession of the bells, is by far the -most numerous, though not the most active; for, being at their ease, -and possessing not only the tythes but the magistracy and profitable -employments of the nation, they flatter themselves with an opinion -that upon any emergency or change of State, they shall be able to give -the law to all other interests. And it is not improbable they might, -could they find out a way to settle the Crown upon any solid basis. -But that not being possible to be done but in the right line, that -party rather suffers than approves of what has been done, by adding the -House of Hanover to their weak and trembling entail, which, as it was -the project only of the Prince of Orange and his Dutch Council, is by -many suspected, but despised by more, nor could have passed the House -of Commons, but that they were told it was the only way to express a -contempt of the power of France; and by that means to make the people -believe that they feared nothing thence, and likewise to oblige that -Monarch to apprehend their power to be much greater than indeed it is; -to stave off a war they more apprehend and dread themselves than he -needs to do, notwithstanding all the rabble and trading part of the -nation are universally for it. - -“The next party requiring consideration is the Presbyterian, which -consists of a malicious, sour, and subtle part of men, who are -more united in malice than the former, and do, with their demure -countenances and outside Pharisaical righteousness, draw from the -churches to their meeting-houses the most hypocritical part of the -trading people; so that their numbers are wonderfully increased of late -years, to the terror of the aspiring part of the episcopal parsons, -who dread that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters are tumbling down again, -knowing bare competencies too weak supports for their dissolute and -scandalous lives. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -“The next party to be considered is the Independent, under which -denomination may be included that rabble of divers sects, which by -above fifty several whimsical societies engross in the whole a greater -number of dissenters to the Prelatical Church than the Presbyterians -do, and are mortal enemies to both, including within them that sort of -men which are most properly called Republicans or Commonwealth’s-men, a -restless, bold, and busy spirit, easiest to be gained to your Majesty’s -interest, it being become a maxim amongst the wisest of them, that -since it appears impracticable to unite and settle all interests in a -Commonwealth, it is absolutely necessary to restore your Majesty and -the right line, to keep off the necessity of a perpetual war, which -these botching entails apparently threaten the nation with. Nay, in -their maxims they go farther, and say that it were better for the -kingdom in general, but most for themselves in particular, that the -rightful Monarch should be a Catholic rather than of the Episcopal or -Presbyterian ways, which will ever in their several turns, when united -to the Crown, persecute or at least discountenance them. - -“The numerous party of the Quakers cannot be reckoned under the last -head, and are not to be disregarded as mad men, as they seem to many to -be. For, generally speaking; they are your Majesty’s friends, and in -all discourses with their oppugners charge them with their inhuman and -unjust dealing with their rightful Prince; an argument that nonplusses -all, and converts some to see the wickedness of their ways. Besides, -to my certain experience, there are many capable of being agents and -negotiators amongst them, as willing, as able, if well directed. - -[Sidenote: STATE OF PARTIES.] - -“Lastly, the non-jurant party of the nation may be thought of, though -not numerous enough without the Catholics to make any considerable -strength or appearance in the field. These, however, are respected -as men of honour, that the penitent or discontented may safely open -their minds to, and can confide in; so that properly instructed, they -are safe agitators dispersed in every corner of the nation, who too, -upon occasion, will, to a man, appear in the field for your Majesty’s -service. - -“As for the Catholics, though I am sorry to say it, they seem the most -desponding and least useful party in the kingdom; nay, which is worse, -they are the only people who encourage the interested and atheistical -to stick to the Prince of Orange, though they both despise and hate -him as much as any; for the avowed despair the priests have brought -those to is so universally owned, that it discourages the waverers from -declaring themselves to be for their duty, and confirms the malicious -in their insolence, so that some course must be taken for altering -their conduct and conversation, or they will prove the greatest -_remora_ to any good design which may be set on foot.”[325] - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -We are apt to read History amidst mental illusions. We unconsciously -transfer our knowledge of results to those who were living amidst -antecedents. Hence, sometimes we credit Englishmen of William’s reign -with a sense of security which could only arise from a defeat of plots, -which then appeared by no means certain. Indeed, the stability of the -Revolution Settlement was not assured until the middle of the next -century. Up to that time moments occurred when Government knew it sat -upon barrels of gunpowder. William’s throne to the last remained in -a shaky condition. The end alone prevents our recognizing the obvious -parallel between his reign and that of Louis Philippe in France. A -counter-Revolution was imminent throughout; and to our fathers in those -days we must not attribute the lordly conviction of permanence which we -cherish with so much pride. People in London under William could count -on things lasting as then they were, with almost as little confidence -as people in Paris during the last forty years. But powerful elements -blended with changes in Great Britain such as have not influenced -those of our Gallic neighbours. With them Revolutions have been -political--with us religious. Puritanism and Anglo-Catholicism--factors -both for good and evil--we find at work on this side the channel, not -on the other. - -As Parliament was framing oaths, and Jacobites were brewing plots, -Convocation, being restored to activity, plunged itself into new -controversies, the outgrowths of old ones, which require to be recorded -with some minuteness, in spite of their being as dry as withered -thorns. - - - - - CHAPTER XII. - - -Convocational history in the reign of William III., from the year -1689 to the year 1700, is simply a history of writs and prorogations. -During that period no business was ever transacted, the Lower House -never met. Tillotson and Tenison, knowing the temper prevalent in -the Church, aware of the influence of the nonjuring Clergy, sensible -of the wide diffusion of sympathy with them, and alive to the fact -of an extensive revival of High-Church principles, were apprehensive -of a collision between the two Houses in case they proceeded to -business. They therefore thought it prudent to hold in abeyance the -right of meeting, until some exigency rendered their coming together -indispensable. Indignant murmurs at this state of things freely escaped -the lips of many a Dean, Prebendary, Archdeacon, and Rector; and at -length found utterance in a publication, which produced a wonderful -impression, and led to important results. Few pamphlets have been -more famous in their day than the _Letter to a Convocation Man_, -published in the year 1697. It was widely circulated, read by all -sorts of people, canvassed in City coffee-houses, discussed in country -inns, talked of by parishioners under church porches, and pondered in -rectories, vicarages, and quiet homes all over England. It made, says -Nicholson, “a considerable noise and pother in the kingdom.”[326] -The _Letter_ insisted upon the state of the country--so marked -by false and pernicious principles, by irreligious indifference, -and by immoral conduct--as a reason why the representatives of the -Church should assemble in their legal capacity. The constitutional -right of Convocation was strongly urged, the Royal writ needful for -it being, as the writer alleged, no more a sign of precariousness in -this case, than is a Royal writ in any other. A resemblance was traced -between Convocation and Parliament, and curious antiquarian and legal -questions were reviewed. The author touched on the mode of summoning -Convocation--a subject which requires to be explained, not only on -account of the use which he made of it, but on account of a use to -which it was put by another advocate on the same side. - -[Sidenote: 1697.] - -English Convocations, since the 25th of Henry VIII.--when an Act was -passed depriving Archbishops of the right to call those assemblies at -pleasure--came to be convoked exclusively by writs addressed to the -Archbishops, who were authorized, under their seals, to summon for -business the Clergy of their province. The Archbishop of Canterbury -addressed his mandate to the Bishop of London, to be executed by him -as his provincial Dean, and the Bishop of each diocese to whom the -immediate execution of such a mandate belongs, received directions -to make a proper return to his Grace or his Commissary--such return, -when made, being entered in the Register of the Archiepiscopal See. -But, as early as the reign of Edward I., there was introduced into -the writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament a clause--called the -_præmonentes_ or _præmunientes_ clause, from its beginning -with that word--requiring him to give notice of such writ to the -Prior and Chapter, and to the Archdeacon and Clergy, so as to cause -the Prior and the Archdeacon, in their own persons, and the Chapter -and Clergy by their Procurators, or proxies--one for the Chapter, and -two for the Clergy--to be present with him at Westminster, there to -attend to public affairs. After the Reformation, Deans were substituted -for Priors; and, with that alteration, the writ continued to run in -its ancient form.[327] The writ indicated exactly the same kind of -representatives to be summoned as did the Archbishop’s mandate; and, -upon this ground, the author of the _Letter_ insisted upon the -right of the Lower Clergy to assemble for deliberation as being no less -inalienable than the right of the House of Commons--the premonition, or -warning, to be delivered to the Clergy being, as he says, “an argument -of invincible strength to establish the necessity of Convocations -meeting as often as Parliaments.” - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -The author of this famous pamphlet maintained that Convocation had the -power of determining its own matters of debate; but in the maintenance -of this position, he had to explain away the sense of the words -employed in the writ of summons, _super præmissis, et aliis quæ -sibi clarius exponentur ex parte Domini Regis_--words which limit -Convocational discussions to topics proposed by Royal authority.[328] - -[Sidenote: 1697.] - -To this anonymous publication, which roused High Churchmen to activity -and filled Low Churchmen with alarm, an answer appeared from the pen -of Dr. William Wake, already well and favourably known in the world -of letters, through his answers to Bossuet, and other writings on the -Roman Catholic controversy, as well as his version of the Epistles of -the Apostolical Fathers. He contended that ancient Synods were convened -by Royal authority, that when they assembled, the Civil Magistrate had -a right to prescribe questions for debate, and that they could not -dissolve without his license. The King of England, he said, had supreme -power over English Convocations, and the Clergy could confer on no -subject without his permission. After certain historical deductions, -he denied that sitting in Convocation is an original Church right, or -that it is the same thing as the Parliamentary privilege, vouchsafed -by the _præmonentes_ clause in writs sent to Bishops. According -to Wake’s argument, the 25th of Henry VIII. has restored to the Crown -its full authority, and placed the control of Convocation entirely -in Royal hands; and he ventures to declare the possibility of Church -Synods becoming useless and even hurtful; asking, with reference to -opinions then violently expressed, “What good can the Prince propose -to himself, or any wise man hope for, from any assembly that can be -brought together, under the unhappy influence of these and the like -prepossessions?”[329] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Passing over other combatants, we must particularly notice one who -entered the field on the other side, and was destined to play a -distinguished part in the political as well as the ecclesiastical -affairs of his country. Francis Atterbury, born just before the Act of -Uniformity was passed in 1662, and educated first at Westminster and -then at Oxford, distinguished himself at the early age of twenty-five, -by the extraordinary ability which he exhibited as a controversialist. -He then won literary laurels by answering an attack upon the spirit of -Martin Luther and the origin of the Reformation; and soon afterwards, -when minister of Bridewell, where his eloquence attracted popular -attention, some of his sermons involved him in discussions upon points -of moral and practical divinity. Scarcely had he been made Preacher -of the Rolls, when he plunged into a conflict purely classical. -Charles Boyle, afterwards Earl of Orrery, who had been Atterbury’s -pupil at Oxford, published an edition of the Epistles of Phalaris and -the Fables of Æsop, then recently eulogized by Sir William Temple--a -publication which led to a controversy singularly renowned in the -history of criticism. Richard Bentley exposed the spurious character -of these Epistles by an appeal to external evidence, and thereby -paved the way for an application of similar criticism to productions -of a far different character.[330] In defiance of the exposure which -reflected upon the literary reputation of both Temple and Boyle, some -of their friends, with chivalrous devotion, came forward on their -behalf; Swift, in his _Tale of the Tub_, and his _Battle of the -Books_, tilting his lance on the side of his patron Temple; and -Atterbury--associated with others under Boyle’s name, in an examination -of Bentley’s Dissertations--appearing as the champion of his late -pupil. Though no match for Bentley in scholarship, Atterbury possessed -immense power in respect of rhetorical style, clever sophistry, cutting -sarcasm, and personal invective; and these were employed with such -effect as for awhile to overwhelm the illustrious scholar, and to -silence his charges against the defenders of Phalaris. However, the -triumph was short; Bentley resumed his attacks, and demolished the work -of his critics, in a book which, for learning, logic, and humour, is -perhaps unrivalled in that class of productions. Atterbury must have -been sorely vexed by his discomfiture when in 1700 he threw himself -into the great ecclesiastical contest of the period, and published his -_Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation_. - -[Sidenote: 1700.] - -Indulging in his fondness for personal attack, he abused the recent -volume by Dr. Wake as a shallow and empty performance, deficient in -historical learning and destructive of Church liberty. After referring -to the ancient practice of holding provincial Synods, he treated -Convocations as coming in their room, and as constituting necessary -appendages to English Parliaments. He insisted much upon the fact of -the Clergy having been summoned by the _præmonentes_ clause in the -writs addressed to spiritual Peers, and regretted that by a political -blunder the legislative representation of the Church had become -separated from the legislative representation of the State. Without, -however, attempting to revive obsolete proceedings, he asserted most -pertinaciously the indefeasible right of the clerical order to sit in -Convocation, and to petition, advise, address, represent, and declare -their judgment upon their own affairs, notwithstanding their inability -to make, or attempt, any new canons without express Royal authority. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -The question of assembling Convocation started from an historical point -of view, but it came before the public mind in its constitutional and -practical bearings; yet, amidst the multitude of publications on the -subject, one seeks in vain for a consistent and satisfying treatment of -the subject on either side. Those who believed in Convocation, and who -wished to see it vigorously revived, did not dare to express all that -they believed, or all that they wished; they were checked by the spirit -of the age, and hampered by the circumstances of the Church. At the -same time they ignored the great change which had come over political -and ecclesiastical affairs through the Revolution, and they also shut -their eyes to the fact, that it is impossible to enjoy State patronage -and emoluments without some abridgment of ecclesiastical action. Those -who wished Convocation should not assemble feared to deny its rights, -and shrunk from either proposing its extinction or advocating its -reform. They only desired to mesmerize it, till clerical animosities -should expire, and the Church should be of one mind--a consummation no -nearer now than it was then. The prudence forced upon this class of -persons by their political position, asserted itself at the expense of -logical consistency; and, as is often the case, practical sagacity made -men awkward reasoners. - -There might be arguments for abolishing Convocation, or modifying its -powers--at any rate for defining them; but, whilst no such arguments -were urged, it was impossible to silence gainsayers, who contended that -practice ought to be accordant with theory. If Convocations be like -Parliaments, things in themselves good and wise, differences of opinion -no more furnish reasons against Convocations than against Parliaments. -If what Clarendon says be true, “that of all mankind, none form so -bad an estimate of human affairs as Churchmen,”[331] that may be an -argument for extinguishing Convocational rights, not for continuing to -them a nominal instead of a real existence. - -[Sidenote: 1700.] - -Nor was there conclusiveness of historical argument, or any -consistency of demand, on the other side. High-Church advocates were -then, as always, puzzled how to forge links of union between English -Convocations and the early Synods of the Church, especially the -assembly at Jerusalem. What resemblance exists between them, except -of the most general description?--a resemblance such as pertains to -all ecclesiastical meetings whatsoever. The essential conditions of a -Convocation of Canterbury are that it must meet by authority from the -Crown; that it consist of two Houses, one composed of Bishops, and the -other of Presbyters, both purely clerical; that the members of the -Lower House must be dignitaries, together with Proctors, elected by -the Clergy, and that nothing which they do has binding force without -the consent of the Sovereign. What is there in these distinctive -features of an English Convocation to connect it with Synods before the -era of State Establishments? What precedent for any of the essential -parts of the structure can be found in the history of the meeting at -Jerusalem? The Apostles and Elders met altogether, and joined in a -deliverance upon the question at issue. No other representatives or -delegates appeared except those who came from Antioch. The resemblance -between the meeting at Jerusalem and meetings in Saxon and Norman -times is a pure imagination, beyond such resemblance as belongs to -religious conferences in general. Nor can any specific likeness -be traced between mixed Anglo-Saxon Councils and purely clerical -Convocations. An Anglo-Saxon provincial Synod was in many points very -unlike Convocation;[332] and between A.D. 816, when the Synod -of Challok occurred, in which Abbots, Presbyters, and Deacons met, -and A.D. 1065, I do not find that more than one provincial -Synod was held; a national Synod met under Dunstan, A.D. 969. -Provincial Synods, previously occasional and rare, did not become -regular and frequent until the reign of Edward I. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Convocation, with full power to deliberate, to propose and enact -canons, to alter existing formularies, to pronounce authoritatively -upon points of doctrine, and to originate schemes of ecclesiastical -action, co-ordinate with the functions of Parliament, would have been -a reality; but, in the view of many, such power would be inconsistent -with the secular relations of the Church, as dependent on the State -for much of its pecuniary support, for more of its social prestige, -and for all of its political pre-eminence. Convocation, as it was -permitted to exist under William III., was really a mere form, and -that a very troublesome one. Nor did Atterbury, or any who sided -with him, endeavour to bring it into accordance with their theory. -The theory was one of ecclesiastical independence; but when they saw -some of the difficulties of their position, they only endeavoured to -loosen a little the chain which bound up the liberty of Convocational -action.[333] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -The new Ministry, formed in 1700, stipulated that Convocation should be -restored to its sessional rights and privileges.[334] This point being -conceded, those of the Clergy whom it particularly gratified, burst -into a state of clamorous excitement, broaching new or reviving old -theories. Atterbury, as earnest in action as he was eloquent in speech, -regarded it as eminently a critical juncture, and felt a strong desire -that those members who thought with him should come to town a fortnight -beforehand for consultation. He wished them, he said, to take proper -methods for preventing or breaking through the snares of enemies.[335] -He urged upon his friends, Trelawny, Sprat, and Compton, the execution -of the _præmunientes_ clause in the Parliamentary writ, as well -as the execution of the Archbishop’s provincial mandate.[336] In -this measure the Bishops just named concurred, and used their writs -accordingly; so did Hough, Bishop of Lichfield, and Mew, Bishop of -Winchester.[337] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Tenison, in his archiepiscopal barge, started from Lambeth Palace on -Monday morning. February the 10th, and landed at St. Paul’s Wharf, -whence he was escorted by a number of Advocates and Proctors to -the west end of the new Cathedral; the Portland stone being then -unblackened by London smoke, and the structure, as well as its -ornaments, being still in a state of incompleteness. Received by the -Dean and Canons, his Grace was conducted to the choir, and placed in -the Dean’s Stall, fresh from the touch of the carver’s chisel,--the -Suffragan Bishops occupying the other stalls on either side. After the -Litany had been chanted in Latin, the Bishop of Chichester preached, -and at the close of the sermon the choir sung an anthem. The assembly -proceeded to the new Chapter-House, where the Archbishop, being seated -on his throne, addressed his brethren, after the writ of summons -had been read by the Bishop of London. The election of a Prolocutor -for the Lower House followed in order; the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. -George Hooper, being preferred to the Dean of Gloucester, Dr. William -Jane. High Churchmen, with dismal forebodings of opposition from Low -Churchmen, whispered amongst themselves as soon as they had presented -their Prolocutor, that perhaps they would be adjourned, without -permission to enter on business. This policy Atterbury determined -to obstruct; for, said he, if we come to any resolutions, they will -certainly be for the honour and interest of the Church, since we have a -majority in the Lower House, as remarkable as that of our opponents in -the Upper.[338] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -Convocation having solemnly assembled, and the usual preliminaries -being accomplished, Atterbury was intent on going to work; but his -correspondence indicates that he moved too fast to please some of his -brethren, and that he had reason to apprehend they meant to reject his -leadership. They had not proceeded many steps, when Dr. Ashurst and Dr. -Freeman incurred Atterbury’s censure, because after the Archbishop’s -form of prorogation had come down, and the Prolocutor had informed the -House they were not to regard themselves as being prorogued until he -told them they were, these two gentlemen, as the Archdeacon states, -were very noisy, insisting upon it that they were actually prorogued, -and that it was a dangerous thing for them, under such circumstances, -to sit any longer. The Prolocutor immediately arose, and said, as these -gentlemen were fidgeting about in their scarlet robes, that if they -thought they were incurring any risk, they were at liberty to depart. -They immediately rose, with the hope of a respectable following, but -as they vanished, they were, if we may depend on an opponent’s report, -followed only by a general smile, and the condemnation of their own -party.[339] - -Another question agitated the House the same day. Complaints were -made of episcopal interference with the election of clergymen, and -accordingly a resolution to that effect passed the House, supported -by a large number, says one authority--by a small number, says -another.[340] The same day a committee was appointed to investigate -disputed elections--a step which, in the estimation of Low Churchmen -encroached upon the episcopal prerogative, for they maintained that -the Bishop with his suffragans must be the final judge of all such -matters.[341] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -Robing themselves on the 28th of February, the members glided along -the aisles of the Abbey up the steps of Henry the VII.’s Chapel, when -they proceeded to business, without taking any notice of their right -reverend superiors, who had also robed themselves that same morning, -and sat down within the Jerusalem Chamber. It plainly appeared that -the two ecclesiastical conclaves were becoming hostile camps. A -message from the Archbishop soon reached the Lower House, asking for -an explanation, why they went to prayers before the Bishops came. The -question at issue now formally arose, and then began a lengthened -contest, as to whether the Lower House had self-contained rights, like -those of the Commons--a right of self-adjournment and prorogation, -and a right to meet, consult, and resolve, without being dependent -from step to step upon the will of Prelates. The High-Church party, -so zealous in theory for episcopal order, thus in practice broke with -their right reverend fathers. In the controversy was mixed up also -an obstinate contention on the part of the Prolocutor about what was -meant by the words, _in hunc locum_ in the Archbishop’s schedule; -to settle this point were added the words, _vulgo vocatum Jerusalem -Chamber_. For a little while, some semblance of union continued. -Each party treated the other with punctilious respect. Atterbury, -indeed, at the commencement anticipated, in the matter of the address, -a “tough dispute,” and, as he said this, resembled a war-horse snorting -on the edge of a battle-field. He pressed the Lower House not to wait -for the Lords, but to prepare an address of its own; yet, when an -address came down to them, the Lower House heartily joined in it, only -proposing a slight alteration, which the Prelates approved. Ripples -quickly rose on the surface of debate. According to Atterbury, upon -the 8th of March, the Dean of Peterborough, Dr. Freeman, already -mentioned, behaved amiss, and threw out words reflecting on the -Prolocutor, for which a censure was demanded, and would have followed, -had the offender not begged pardon. The confused statement made to -this effect, indicates that some of the Clergy resisted the highflown -policy of their brethren; two days afterwards, however, we find both -Houses amicably taking a journey to the pleasant village of Kensington, -where stood His Majesty’s favourite palace. At half-past two on Monday -afternoon, March the 10th, the Archbishop and Bishops, in their -distinctive attire, and the Prolocutor in his cap and hood, and the -rest of the Clergy following, took coach at the west end of the Abbey. -They proceeded by Knightsbridge and the side of the Park--the trees -beginning to bud with early spring, the people by the way watching the -dignitaries as their faces peered through the windows of the lumbering -vehicles--until, arriving at the Dutch-looking palace, with its prim -gardens, the procession of the Clergy reached the Royal presence--the -Bishops going to the right hand of the throne, the Prolocutor and the -rest to the left. A loyal address was presented, and a gracious reply -returned. - -The tug of war, of which there had been omens before that pleasant -excursion, began in earnest soon afterwards. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -The Lower House asserted its claim to independent action, to adjourn -itself when and where it pleased, to originate and transact any -business whatsoever and howsoever it pleased; always, it should be -distinctly stated, choosing its time of sitting according to the time -fixed by his Grace of Canterbury’s schedule. To accomplish what was -designed, committees of the whole House were appointed, who claimed a -right to sit, in this form at least, upon intermediate days, when many -did so assemble under cover of a strict adherence to admitted rules; -but others would not, counting it a breach of law in substance, if not -in form. A matter of business, originating in the Lower House, without -consultation with the Upper, and in known opposition to its wishes, -was the examination of a certain heretical book--namely, Toland’s -_Christianity not Mysterious_--the object of which is explained on -the title page, “A Treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel -contrary to Reason, nor above it, and that no Christian Doctrine can be -called a Mystery.” - -It should be stated, that at the same time another book, entitled, -_Essays on the Balance of Power_, in which the author asserted, -that men had been promoted in the Church who were remarkable for -nothing but their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ--a statement -intended to bring certain Bishops into disrepute--attracted the -attention of the Upper House; upon which their Lordships caused to be -affixed to the Abbey doors a paper calling upon the author, whoever he -might be, to make good his assertions or to submit to punishment for so -base and public a scandal. This was an extraordinary plan, reminding -one--chiefly, however, by contrast as to importance--of Luther’s -doctrinal theses affixed to the church gates at Wittenberg; and also -recalling--more in the way of resemblance--how Archbishop Arundel’s -citation of Lord Cobham was stuck on the entrance to Rochester -Cathedral, to be defied by him to whom it was addressed. - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -When Toland’s book was sent up from the Lower House to the Bishops for -judgment, they felt that it was a serious matter to enter upon the -business, as by condemning certain published opinions, and approving -others, they might be altering the recognized doctrines of the Church. -Legal objections had on a similar occasion been alleged against such -proceedings, because of the consequences they might involve; now they -were urged afresh. The Bishops, therefore, came to the conclusion, in -accordance with the advice of eminent lawyers, that they could not -censure the books without license from the King, lest they should incur -certain penalties. - -Upon the eve of a prorogation for Easter, after the dispute about the -rights of sitting and adjournment had been carried on with an obstinacy -which it would be tiresome to describe, the Archbishop delivered to the -members of Convocation a speech, in which he alluded to the existing -dispute: “We have many enemies, and they wait for nothing more than -to see the union and order of this Church, which is both its beauty -and its strength, broken by those who ought to preserve it.” “For the -maintaining the episcopal authority is so necessary to the preservation -of the Church, that the rest of the Clergy are no less concerned in it -than the Bishops themselves.” “I have thought fit, with the rest of my -brethren, to prorogue the Convocation for some time. It is a season of -devotion, and I pray God it may have a good effect on all our minds.” -“We, on our part, are willing to forget all that is past, and to go -on with you at our next meeting, as well as at all times, with all -tenderness and parental affection, in all such things as shall conduce -to the good of this Church.”[342] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -In spite of the prorogation until the 8th of May, the Prolocutor and -some of the Clergy persevered in their assertion of independence, and -sat for some hours the same day on which his Grace prorogued both -Houses; then they adjourned to meet the next day. But this policy, -being esteemed by some High Churchmen as a stretch of power quite -unconstitutional, led to a secession, which considerably weakened the -influence of the party. - -When all had come back from celebrating the Easter festival, and the -Prolocutor appeared before the Upper House with a paper in his hand, -the Primate returned to the old charge of irregularity, and told him -he could not recognize any of the proceedings carried on since his -adjournment. The Prolocutor replied, that he had been commanded by -the Lower House to bring up the paper, and did therefore present it, -as an Act of the House. After being laid upon their Lordships’ table, -the paper was found to contain arguments against the course pursued -by them in reference to Toland’s work. The Bishops now proposed -that committees from the two Houses should meet, with a view to an -amicable arrangement, but the majority of the Lower House refused to -nominate any committee for the purpose; a refusal which exceedingly -annoyed several members. The majority determined to ride the high -horse, and to dig the spur into its flanks; so when the schedule of -adjournment next time came down, the Prolocutor refused to notice -it at all, and adjourned on his own authority; an act against which -Beveridge, Sherlock, and others protested, in a paper which they -signed and presented to the Archbishop. What still more annoyed the -Upper House, was that the Clergy, under the Prolocutor’s presidency, -agreed upon a censure of a book by one of the Prelates. This was _The -Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, by Bishop Burnet, in which, with -learning, moderation, and good temper, he expounded the doctrines of -the Church of England according to his idea, treating the Articles as -terms of peace and union, intended to receive a considerable latitude -of interpretation. Anything but unanimity and decorum of behaviour -marked the proceedings of the Lower Assembly at this moment; and -a report went abroad that one of the members, in consequence of a -speech he delivered, ran the risk of having his gown torn off his -back. The report is an exaggeration; it arose out of the conduct of -some one who, by rudely twitching the dress of a speaker, put an end -to his unpleasant oration. Words uttered within the Abbey walls were -reported outside in garbled forms, which led to explanations and -counter-explanations, to assertions and denials, which provoked fresh -controversy, and it became a difficult thing to determine what exactly -the two parties up in arms did and said. Enough, however, was manifest -to prove, that many of the ministers of religion, assembled to promote -the prosperity of Christ’s Church, were sadly forgetful of the simplest -lessons of the Gospel. - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Connected with the presentation of the censure upon Burnet’s book -to the Upper House, there occurred two or three curious episodes. -Adjoining the Jerusalem Chamber is a small apartment called the Organ -Chamber; and there, a month before, on the 5th of April, had happened -an incident which ruffled the feelings of the very reverend Prolocutor, -and the clergymen who accompanied him. They were kept waiting at their -Lordships’ door, as they said, an hour and a half, as their opponents -said, only so long as was needful to read their paper and debate upon -it; the circumstance being attributed by some to the insolence of the -Prelates, by others, to a mistake of the doorkeeper. On the 30th -of May, when the Prolocutor, with the Deans of Windsor and Christ -Church, went up with the paper about Burnet’s book, and were again -waiting a while in the same antechamber, the Bishop of Bangor came -out, commissioned by their Lordships, to ask the Prolocutor whether -the message he had now to bring in, was to set right the irregularity -complained of? The Prolocutor, according to the Bishop’s report, -said, first “it was something in order to set that irregularity -right;” then, correcting himself, he added, “it was concerning that -irregularity.” After which the door to the chamber being opened, in -walked the Prolocutor and his companions, the Archbishop observing -to them, “If you have anything to offer, in order to the setting -right the irregularity we have complained of, we are ready to receive -it.” Immediately the Prolocutor stated, that he had brought a humble -representation touching an _Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, -that it had no relation to the alleged irregularity; but with regard to -that, they were ready to satisfy their Lordships whenever called upon -to do so. The paper containing the censure was rejected, and some of -the Prelates considered the Prolocutor had employed a subterfuge for -its introduction. The Bishop of Bangor, in so many words, complained of -prevarication, a charge which fanned the Lower House into a blaze of -resentment. - -At this time, as on a former occasion, some of the minority in the -Lower House protested against the proceedings of the majority, by -signing a paper to that effect, to be presented to the Bishops; George -Bull, Archdeacon of Llandaff, being amongst those who appended their -names. This protest, in its turn, became another element of discord. - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -Upon the 6th of June, as the Prolocutor and others of the Lower House -crowded the little Organ Chamber, whom should they find there, quietly -putting on his robes, but the Welsh Bishop, whom they so much disliked. -Looking at him, the incensed president of the Lower Clergy asked, -according to one version, “Were you pleased to say in the Upper House -that I lied to you?” According to a second, “My Lord of Bangor, did -you say I lied?” The Bishop answered, in some disorder, “I did not say -you lied; but I did say, or might say, that you told me a very great -untruth.” Amidst threats and demands of satisfaction, the Prelate was -glad to get out of the noise of the crowded anteroom into the serene -atmosphere of the more spacious chamber; which, however, as soon as -the Prolocutor had been admitted within the door, witnessed a renewal -of personal strife. Bishop Humphreys adhering to his statement about -what had taken place, and Dean Hooper adhering to his, something still -worse immediately followed. The Prolocutor having inquired whether -their Lordships had entered upon their Acts any reflections upon -him, Tenison rejoined, with all his rock-like firmness, and all his -prudent control of temper, “Acts, we have no acts, only minutes.” The -Prolocutor’s inquiry proved too much for Burnet, the person attacked -in the paper, who now--with characteristic impetuosity, his round face -no doubt flushed with scarlet--cried aloud with a sonorous voice, -“This is fine, indeed. The Lower House will not allow a committee to -inspect their books, and now they demand to see ours.” “I ask nothing,” -exclaimed the Prolocutor, “but what I am concerned to know, and what -of right I may demand.” “This,” retorted Burnet, “is according to your -usual insolence.” “Insolence, my Lord, do you give me that word?” -asked the other. “Yes, insolence,” reiterated the Bishop of Salisbury; -“you deserve that word, and worse. Think what you will of yourself, -I know what you are.” The Archbishop, wondering whereunto all this -might grow, civilly interposed, that perhaps the Prolocutor had been -misrepresented, which the Prolocutor turned to his own advantage, and, -to Burnet’s annoyance, wound up this extraordinary altercation with -the remark, that he was “satisfied if in this matter he stood right in -their Lordships’ opinion; about what his Lordship of Salisbury pleased -to think, he felt not much concerned.” Back went the Dean to Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, determined to make the best of the business to the -Clergy, who sat down to hear his report; but when he said that the -Upper House had expressed their satisfaction, or seemed to be satisfied -(for the _ipsissima verba_ in these contentions were continually -coming into question), up rose one who had attended him to the Bishops’ -chamber, to say, “he must do this justice to declare, that their -Lordships did not so much as seem to be satisfied, but had showed their -partiality.”[343] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Another heap of fuel was by all this cast upon the already blazing -fire, and it was moved that the House should resent the indignity -offered to their Prolocutor in the execution of his office, and return -him thanks for his conduct. - -The House recorded in its minutes the following entry: “Whereas the -reverend the Prolocutor hath been hardly treated in the Upper House, -and particularly this 6th day of June, 1701, was taxed by the Bishop of -Salisbury as behaving himself with his usual insolence, saying further, -he deserved that and worse words, we cannot but resent this great -indignity offered to our Prolocutor and this House; and, therefore, -take this opportunity to return our most humble thanks for his conduct -in the faithful and recent discharge of his office upon all occasions.” - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -The Upper House, on the 13th of June, determined that the Lower had -no power judicially to censure any book; that it ought not to have -entered upon the examination of one by a Bishop, without acquainting -the Bishops with it; that the censure on the Bishop of Sarum’s work was -in general terms, without any citation of passages; that the Bishop had -done great service by his _History of the Reformation_, and other -writings; and that, though private persons might expound the Articles, -it was not proper for Convocation to enter upon such a subject. They -also resolved, that the Bishop of Bangor had made a true and just -report of what had taken place between himself and the Prolocutor; -that the paper read by the latter did not relate to the irregularity -complained of; and that his answer was such as ought not to have been -given to his Grace, or to any member of the Upper House. - -Convocation was prorogued to the 7th of August, then to the 18th of -September, and was at length dissolved with the Parliament. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -All the Prelates, with three exceptions, concurred in these -proceedings. The exceptions were Compton, Bishop of London; Trelawny, -Bishop of Exeter; and Sprat, who, with the Deanery of Westminster, held -the Bishopric of Rochester. - -Compton, after his extreme liberalism and low churchmanship at the -time of the Revolution, had, by the end of the century--soured, -perhaps, by being twice passed over in appointments to the -primacy--become a decided Tory; and now he threw his influence into the -High-Church scale, without, however, making himself conspicuous in the -Convocation controversy. Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, had been -immensely popular in his native county at the time of the great trial, -and had formed the burden of a Cornish ballad-- - - “And shall Trelawny die? - And shall Trelawny die? - There’s twenty thousand Cornish lads - Will know the reason why.” - -He retained a secret attachment to James II. after the Revolution. -That monarch had, in the midst of his troubles, promised to translate -him from Bristol to Exeter; but the turn of events in favour of -William, so it is insinuated, drew the Bishop into a betrayal of his -old master; at any rate, in some way, from William he obtained his -improved preferment; but afterwards he showed himself anxious to deny -that the Bishops had invited the Prince over, though, as he said, “we -found ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.”[344] Trelawny -never showed any sympathy with the party led by Tillotson, Burnet, and -Tenison; and, in the _Correspondence_ of Atterbury, he appears -as the chief of those to whom, as diocesan and friend, the lively -and interesting letters of the Archdeacon of Totness are addressed. -The Archdeacon constantly kept the Bishop informed of what was going -on in the Jerusalem Chamber and in Henry the VII.’s Chapel; and it -is plain, from the way in which he wrote, how much influence he had -acquired over his patron’s mind. The intimate, cordial, and approving -friend of Atterbury could not but be opposed to the proceedings of -Tenison and Burnet. Sprat was not a man of much principle; he had -joined with Dryden and Waller in poetic praise of Oliver Cromwell, he -had sat on James’ High Commission, he had read the _Declaration of -Indulgence_ in servile submissiveness, but with faltering lips; he -had voted for the Regency, and then taken the new oaths, and assisted -at the Coronation; and though he had cleared himself from the charge -of treason, there is reason to believe that he was Jacobite at heart. -He hated Nonconformists, and went in for High Church measures; and as -no love was lost between the Bishops of Rochester and Salisbury, the -latter said of the former, he had “been deeply engaged in the former -reigns, and he stuck firm to the party to which, by reason of the -liberties of his life, he brought no sort of honour.”[345] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -In the spring of 1701, when the great ecclesiastical tournament was -going on within the Abbey walls, a new ecclesiastical knight entered -the lists outside, in the field of literature. He not only broke -a lance, but engaged in a hand-to-hand encounter with the famous -antagonist who had distinguished himself equally in book-writing and -in debate; White Kennet came forward to answer Francis Atterbury. -White Kennet--a curious-looking person, whose forehead, to the day of -his death, bore witness to an accident which happened in his youth, -for he wore a large patch of black velvet over a ghastly scar--was -a man of great archeological research, an eminent Saxon scholar, -and a friend of Mr. Tanner and of Dr. Hicks. He had published, in -1695, his well known _Parochial Antiquities_, and now he sent -forth his _Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations -historically stated and vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Mr. -Atterbury_. The title intimates that the object was not to test -the Convocation question by applying to it texts of Scripture, or the -opinions of the Fathers, or principles of reason, or the results of -experience; but to examine it closely in its connection with English -history and English law. After the fashion of the day, especially as -it appears in the polemical department, whilst using occasionally -courteous expressions, he deals very unpleasant blows, depreciating -his opponent’s learning, exposing his mistakes, pointing out where -he had confounded facts and fallen into sophistry, not omitting to -throw the shield of his erudition over Dr. Wake, who had been roughly -handled by his excited adversaries. Kennet’s main positions were--that -Parliamentary Convocations are not in essence and nature the same -things as ecclesiastical synods; that not spiritual affairs, but the -taxing of the Clergy, gave the first occasion of their being called -together in connection with Parliament--their first appearance in that -association being in the year 1282, in the eleventh year of Edward I., -the first proctors of the rural priesthood being soon brought into -parliamentary attendance. Repeatedly he asserts that Parliamentary -Convocations, although ecclesiastical in their constituent parts, are -not ecclesiastical in their objects and purposes, and he repeatedly -charges Atterbury with confusing civil councils with sacred synods.[346] - -[Sidenote: 1701.] - -It was a pet idea with Atterbury, that Bishops should avail themselves -of the _præmunientes_ clause. Kennet undertook to show that -he was mistaken as to the time of its origin; that he incorrectly -maintained the constancy of its practical application; that he was -deceived in his notice of its nature and effect, and that the modern -had not, any more than the ancient Clergy, reason to be fond of it. -The provincial summons to Convocation, issued by an Archbishop, he -maintained to be a sufficient authority without diocesan writs. “From -the three or four first years of Queen Elizabeth,” he says, “when the -Protestant Clergy might be trusted for obedient subjects, there is not -one proof that ever any Bishop made a return of the _præmunientes_ -to the Crown, or that ever the Crown challenged such a return from any -Bishop.”[347] - -Of the erudition and ingenuity shown in Kennet’s book there can be no -doubt: it clears up some interesting archeological points in English -history; but I am at a loss to understand what bearing his arguments, -as far as they go--for it must be remembered he gives only the first -part of the work--are meant to have on the practical determination of -the controversy. If, as he represented, the existing Convocation was -but the relic of an extinguished prerogative of self-taxation, once -possessed by the Clergy, then it remained only the shadow of a name, -and stood amongst the meaningless things which it would be a good -clearance to sweep away. If he took such a view, he does not, as far as -I can find, express it; rather he assumes throughout, that Convocations -by Royal authority, under archiepiscopal control, without the power -of making laws or discussing theological or ecclesiastical questions, -are quite wise and proper. How they can be so when reduced to such a -nullity, it is difficult to conceive. Kennet’s theory, to any one free -from the prejudices and heartburnings of the dispute, is unsatisfactory -to the last degree. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -When winter approached, the prospect of a new Parliament and a new -Convocation opened on the eyes of Atterbury with a fascinating effect; -and as the autumn leaves fell in the London parks, the Archdeacon -girded up his loins for a fresh attack. He was concerned about many -things--about the opposition his party was likely to encounter, about -the exact place of meeting of the Clergy, and about the execution of -the _præmunientes_ clause, notwithstanding Kennet’s destructive -criticisms. He says to Trelawny, “Unless some spirit be put into our -affairs, and the managers of them, and they attend here punctually, -and behave courageously, our cause must sink, and we must be broken; -for we are beset, and unless a vigorous stand be made, shall find they -will be too hard for us. Their Lay interest is much stronger than it is -imagined to be; they know it, and feel it, and accordingly speak in a -much higher strain than ever they used to do, and talk more securely of -success at the next meeting.”[348] - -It was thought the Lower House needed more room for their assembly. Sir -Christopher Wren was consulted on the subject; but “any carpenter in -the town understood that matter as well as he, and I would undertake,” -said the impatient Archdeacon, “to bring one that should contrive seats -to hold near six score, which is more than ever yet met at once.”[349] - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -Christmas festivities had scarcely ended, holly branches still hung -in the parish churches, when the new Convocation met. The day before -New Years’ Day, after a Latin service read by the Bishop of Oxford, -a Latin sermon preached by the Dean of St. Paul’s, and the King’s -writ and the Bishop of London’s certificate formally delivered, “the -Archbishop admonished the Clergy to retire into the chapel, at the west -end of the church, where morning prayers are usually said, and there, -under the conduct of the Dean of St. Paul’s, to choose a Prolocutor, -and present him in Henry the VII.’s Chapel, on Tuesday, the 13th of -January.”[350] No sooner had they met for that purpose, than the old -embers of strife were kindled afresh, and blazed up furiously as -before. The first contention pertained to proxy votes, the Dean of -Canterbury contending they were valid, others answering they were quite -contrary to custom, and indeed, that absent members were guilty of -contumacy till their absence received judicial excuse, and therefore -lay under a canonical impediment,[351] which for the time deprived -them of their ecclesiastical power. The election of Prolocutor was the -next struggle. Even such a candidate as Beveridge, decided Anglican as -he was, could not satisfy the extreme party, and they elected, by a -majority of 36 or 37 against 30, the Dean of Salisbury, Dr. Woodward, -a civilian who had grown popular with High Churchmen by opposing his -Diocesan. At that very moment, the two were engaged in litigation with -each other; and, in addition to this circumstance, which rendered the -election unseemly, the fact should be remembered that Woodward, now a -sharp thorn in the sides of Burnet, owed to that Prelate his church -preferment. The election over, the new Prolocutor approached the chair -occupied by the Dean of St. Paul’s as temporary president whilst the -votes were being taken; but the Dean kept possession of his seat, on -the ground that the Prolocutor could not preside when as yet there was -no House. The Prolocutor being duly presented to the Archbishop, on the -13th of January he made a speech, bristling with military allusions. - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -After this, Archbishop Tenison, rock-like as ever, in a graceful -tone, recommended charity and union, and lamented existing divisions; -the only good effect of which, he said, was the impulse it had given -to the study of historical questions, whereby light had fallen on -Convocational rights, privileges, and customs. “The Prolocutor and -Clergy were then ordered to withdraw to the consistory at the west end -of the church.” Now reappeared the old bone of contention. A schedule -of prorogation from the Archbishop reached the hands of the Prolocutor: -“A paper,” he called it, “by which their Lordships had adjourned -themselves;” a paper which he would not read to the House himself; a -paper which he gave the actuary to read; a paper to which he added -words of his own, substituting _this place_ for _Jerusalem -Chamber_--the gist of his treating the document thus, being that he -would not admit the power of the Upper House to prorogue the meeting -of the Lower. “Mr. Prolocutor,” said Archdeacon Beveridge, “I advise -you, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to open our first meeting in such -contempt and disobedience to the Archbishop and Bishops, and in giving -such offence and scandal to our enemies.” “I have,” replied Woodward, -“the power to alter the schedule when I intimate it.”[352] The battle -for independence now reopened, the majority of the Lower House, headed -by the defiant Prolocutor, resolving to fight it out to the last. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -The Clergy, on the 20th of January, assembled early in the cold nave -of the Abbey, after which they proceeded to prayers in the Jerusalem -Chamber. Thence they returned to Henry the VII.’s Chapel, where they -found the floor matted and curtains hung,--no small comfort on a -frosty morning.[353] If their feet were as warm as their tempers, -they had no reason to complain, for no sooner had they taken their -places than it was proposed to have prayers over again by themselves, -to show their independence. The motion was opposed. Debates followed. -The Archbishop’s messenger waited at the door while the question of -his being admitted was discussed. After “a little noise,” he came in -with the hated schedule of prorogation. The Prolocutor took it up, -and “playing with it in his hands, supposed it to be a paper about -adjourning; and at last repeated the place and time, and putting it -to the House for their pleasure, drew up a paper and read it.” This -occurred on the 22nd of January. Upon the 28th, the Prolocutor again -informed the members he had received a message of adjournment, but that -he would not communicate it except by order of the House. Dr. Freeman -maintained it ought to be delivered in obedience to the Archbishop. The -Prolocutor tartly replied, he did not need to be taught what was his -business; and Atterbury, starting up, accused Freeman of using indecent -words.[354] Then came discussions about committees for purposes -presented in the last Convocation. Further personalities arose. -One made an offensive allusion, another felt annoyed. “Expressions -were used,” it is said, “which might have laid the foundation of a -misunderstanding or something worse,” but for subsequent explanations. -On the 28th, Atterbury--the spirit of the storm--rejoiced in his native -element, as he proposed, and at last carried the point, that the -Prolocutor should have inserted in the minutes a phrase which assumed -the right of independent assembling. “This new and improper entry,” in -Kennet’s judgment, “so thrust upon the minutes, was the great cause of -widening the divisions in the Lower House.”[355] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Another source of discord was found in the quarrel between Burnet -and Woodward the Prolocutor. Some members complained of a breach of -privilege, and an indignity to Convocation offered to the Prolocutor -by Burnet, his Diocesan, who was said to have required him to attend -a visitation, while he was occupied with Convocational duties, and to -have issued a process against him for non-compliance. Burnet was also -charged by Woodward himself, with declaring that Convocation had no -privileges which it could plead.[356] - -On the 9th of February, Beveridge “made a long and pathetic speech upon -the dispute at present depending between the two Houses.” “He earnestly -exhorted both sides to union, and to think of such methods of healing -the breach as might secure the Lower House’s liberty, and yet not -entrench on the Archbishop’s authority.” He so influenced his brethren, -that a committee was appointed to consider an expedient for composing -the differences relative to prorogations.[357] But to this note of -peace there speedily succeeded another outburst of war. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.] - -Never, perhaps, did Convocation pass through a more tumultuous day -than Thursday, the 12th of February, ushered in though it was by -a circumstance adapted to calm the spirit of ever so excited an -assembly. Between 9 and 10 o’clock, as the members of the Lower House -were pacing up and down the nave of Westminster Abbey--not then -crowded with monuments as it is now--waiting for the commencement of -business, and eager to know what turn discussions were about to take, -news came that Woodward, the Prolocutor, had been taken ill--very ill, -and could not possibly attend to his duties. He must send a deputy, -said his friends, and the deputy sent, turned out to be Aldrich, Dean -of Christ Church, a man of like spirit with the Prolocutor himself. -Upon proceeding to read prayers in the Lower House, this deputy -was interrupted by a question, whether he ought to take the chair, -without receiving the sanction of the Archbishop to his appointment. -Kennet and Birch hastily departed to inform his Grace of what had -been done; but on their way through the cloisters[358] to the yard, -into which opened the principal door to the Jerusalem Chamber, they -were stopped by another member, who proposed that they should return -and wait until after prayers. They did so. As Aldrich, encouraged by -Atterbury, ventured to take the chair, “a tumultuous noise” arose. -Opposing members “persisted with vehemence in their demand, that -the Dean of Christ Church should relinquish the chair.” They were -“peremptory in their manner”--they came “prepared for a rupture,” -says a nettled member on the other side.[359] In the midst of the -disturbance, Wickart, Dean of Winchester, and Archdeacon Beveridge, -removed the instrument of substitution from the table, and carried it -to the Upper House, where they met with a gracious reception. After -the two had ventured so far to take the matter into their own hands, -the Lower House came to a resolution formally to depute certain -others to go and wait upon their Lordships; but these messengers, -unlike their predecessors, were not admitted. Instead, an order was -despatched for the whole House to attend. Accordingly they left Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, the Dean of Christ Church at their head “in his -square cap and a verger before him,”[360] and crowded up the steps -to the Jerusalem Chamber, where, face to face with those whom they -regarded as their enemies, they heard from the lips of the Archbishop a -simple acknowledgment of a paper of consequence having been received, -in allusion to their choice of a deputy, as “an incident of great -moment;” and, besides, a formal announcement of prorogation until -February the 14th. This Atterbury and his friends confessed to be -“every way a surprise to them;” yet, nothing daunted, the Corypheus -of the party--as the members were struggling through the small room, -and the narrow passage which formed the only outlet from what was -the Prelates’ audience-room--pushed them on, crying, “Away to the -Lower House--to the Lower House.” In accordance with this boisterous -suggestion, about forty-two members rushed towards the steps of Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, and there, in defiance of archiepiscopal authority, -placed their sub-prolocutor in the chair, intending by this method -to constitute a House. Having, as they considered, thus saved their -rights, they then formally adjourned to the same day as the Upper -House had fixed. Woodward died on the 13th of February. The House now -destitute of a Prolocutor--a body without a head--became organically -incomplete, and therefore incapable of constitutional action. The first -object of desire with the members struggling for independence, was to -supply the deficiency; but this was what the Archbishop and his friends -in the Upper House were determined to prevent--being by this time tired -out of all patience with their impracticable brethren. When, therefore, -the Lower House, on the 14th, formally communicated intelligence of the -death of Dr. Woodward, his Grace curtly expressed surprise at the news, -and at once ordered a schedule of prorogation for the 19th, the day -after Ash Wednesday. Tenison persevered in the policy of prorogation. -On the 29th he told his brethren, in plain words, he meant to do so, -assuring them, on the one hand, that they were mistaken who thought -that he and the Bishops wished to bring Convocation into disuse; and -remarking, on the other, that such heats as theirs had given great -scandal to those who understood not the controversy, but were much -concerned that there should be any differences among men, who were by -profession ministers of the gospel of peace. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -The party who sympathized with the Bishops felt satisfied; a great -majority felt otherwise. They met of their own accord in Henry the -VII.’s Chapel, and having chosen a Chairman or Moderator, marched -up to the little old anteroom, which had become a sort of outpost -for the episcopal garrison, where the invincible besiegers were ever -pressing upon the trenches of the upper citadel. They were now met by -the Bishop of Lincoln, whom they requested to convey a message to the -other Bishops, expressing a desire to elect a Prolocutor. A new point -of difference immediately arose. As amidst the confusion of the crowded -apartments, some members began to dictate a message to the effect that -the House wished to proceed to an election, Kennet interposed, saying -he hoped the message would not be worded so, for they were not a House, -and were unable to act as such; and, moreover, some of the members, he -being one, did not agree to the proposed message. The Bishop wrote down -the communication as coming from certain members of the Lower House--a -form of expression vehemently opposed by several of the listening and -agitated group, and bringing down hot indignation upon him who had -suggested it. - -[Sidenote: DEATH OF WILLIAM III.] - -One death had already disabled the Lower House, another death suddenly -and completely extinguished its paralyzed and convulsed existence. - -William of Orange fell from his horse as he was riding in the -neighbourhood of Hampton Court, and broke his collar-bone. Removed to -Kensington, he was seized with shivering fits, and it soon appeared -death was approaching. The Earl of Portland states, “that when he was -once encouraging him, from the good state his affairs were in both home -and abroad, to take more heart, the King answered him, that he knew -death was that which he had looked at on all occasions without any -terror; sometimes he would have been glad to have been delivered out of -all his troubles, but he confessed now he saw another scene, and could -wish to live a little longer. He died with a clear and full presence -of mind, and in a wonderful tranquillity. Those who knew it was his -rule all his life long to hide the impressions that religion made on -him, as much as possible, did not wonder at his silence in his last -minutes; but they lamented it much, they knew what a handle it would -give to censure and obloquy.”[361] Early on Sunday, January the 8th, -he received “the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, with great devotion, -from the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury”[362]--about 8 o’clock -he was a corpse. Round his neck a black ribbon was discovered with a -gold ring, and a lock of Queen Mary’s hair. - -[Sidenote: 1702.] - -[Sidenote: WILLIAM III.] - -The moral conduct of the King had not been in accordance with his -religious professions. Burnet, who honestly gives his impressions of -William’s character, says in a few words, “He had no vice but of one -sort, in which he was very cautious and secret”--a statement which, -whilst it presents a contrast to James and Charles, who were barefaced -in their sensualities, admits the fact of William’s being addicted -to vicious indulgence, of which concealment neither expiated nor -diminished the guilt. It is not a little surprising that so many good -men, both Churchmen and Dissenters, who could not have been indifferent -to the interests of morality, should have lauded, as they did, the -Hero of the Revolution, both living and dead, as if he had been the -very ideal of virtue and piety. Yet Burnet, who was disposed to take -the most favourable view of his character, cannot be charged with -exaggeration when he informs us, that “he believed the truth of the -Christian religion very firmly, and he expressed a horror at atheism -and blasphemy, and though there was much of both in his Court, yet -it was always denied to him, and kept out of his sight. He was most -exemplary, decent, and devout in the public exercises of the worship of -God--only on week days he came too seldom to them. He was an attentive -hearer of sermons,[363] and was constant in his private prayers and -in reading the Scriptures; and when he spoke of religious matters, -which he did not often, it was with a becoming gravity. He was much -possessed with the belief of absolute decrees: he said to me, he -adhered to these, because he did not see how the belief of Providence -could be maintained upon any other supposition. His indifference -as to the forms of Church government, and his being zealous for -toleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the Clergy, gave -them generally very ill impressions of him.”[364] The effect of frigid -manners, felt by the nation at large, was deepened in the case of high -Churchmen, by William’s well-known Presbyterian predilections, and -his dislike to what is meant by Anglo-Catholicism. As we have seen, -during the life of Mary, he left the exercise of his prerogative in -reference to ecclesiastical matters in her hands, and after her death -meddled with them in the smallest possible degree, so that he never -could be said to have exerted any direct influence in the government -of the Church.[365] But, indirectly, by the Revolution itself, and -by the Act of Toleration which followed, and was promoted by him, he -changed the position of the Establishment altogether, and opened up to -the Episcopal Church a new career, in which conciliation instead of -persecution could alone prove its permanent safeguard, and a secret of -prosperity. The first monarch on the throne of these realms who loved -a constitutional system of religious liberty, William not only won -the affection of Dissenters, as he might be naturally expected to do, -but by his wise and equitable policy in this respect, laid the whole -kingdom and posterity under obligations which have never yet been fully -acknowledged. - - - - - CHAPTER XIII. - - -The most distinguished divines who sat upon the Episcopal Bench in the -reign of William III., were more or less imbued with what were called -Latitudinarian sentiments. - -Tillotson and Tenison who did so much, especially the latter of them, -by force of character, as well as prominence of position, towards -keeping the Church in subordination to the State, have already -occupied a considerable space in this History. Next to them, Burnet -was most distinguished, and he also has received repeated notice as an -ecclesiastical statesman; it should be added, that he was no less a -diligent diocesan and a laborious divine. His treatise on _Pastoral -Care_ expresses the spiritual anxieties of a good minister of Jesus -Christ: his Histories are pervaded by a spirit of Erastianism, as -described by some; by a tone of liberality, as denoted by others; and -his _Exposition of the XXXIX Articles_, in like manner, is both -condemned as latitudinarian, and commended as comprehensive. - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -No work gives me so favourable an opinion of Burnet as his _Four -Discourses_, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum.[366] -For learning, earnestness, and ability, they deserve a higher place in -theological literature than they have ever won. In them he exhibits -the evidences of the Christian religion with considerable vigour of -thought, and for the age in which he wrote, with much originality. His -dissertation on the Divinity and death of Christ exhibit the orthodox -Creed, as to the Godhead and Atonement of the Lord, together with a -view of Justification by Faith, very similar to that inculcated in -the writings of Bull. The authority of the Church he discusses as an -enlightened Protestant, and demolishes the arguments of the Papists; -giving, as he proceeds, some valuable hints on the history of religious -opinions, and dealing with the dogma of infallibility in a way which -is singularly curious, looked at in the light of the recent Ecumenical -Council. The obligation to continue in the communion of the Church of -England is exhibited, from his own point of view, in a temperate spirit. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Stillingfleet accepted, in reward of his theological services, the See -of Worcester in 1689. His reputation, connected with a friendly bearing -towards Dissenters in the latter, as in the earlier period of his -life, caused him to be engaged as referee in a doctrinal dispute, to -be hereafter related; his polemical skill and unimpeachable orthodoxy -were manifested afresh in his _Vindication of the Trinity_; -he also entered into a metaphysical controversy with Locke, but to -diocesan duties Stillingfleet devoted the remainder of his life. In his -younger days he had been an eloquent preacher, generally dwelling upon -the ethical more than the doctrinal side of religion; he nevertheless -insisted upon theological points, following, in his views of salvation, -Bull’s line of thought, as did Burnet, and others of the same school. -There is an hortatory tone in his sermons, approaching in fervour -to that of the Puritans, which, if not in harmony with the taste -of the upper classes in the palmy days of Tillotson’s popularity, -must have commended Stillingfleet’s ministry to the hearts of common -people. In his first Visitation Charge, in 1690, he says there is -“an affected fineness of expression which by no means becomes the -pulpit, but seems to be like stroking the consciences of people by -feathers dipped in oil;” then, after speedily dismissing the subject -of preaching, and condemning extempore sermons, he proceeds, at great -length, to vindicate episcopal order, and to enforce the discharge -of pastoral duties. These topics, with discussions relative to -Ecclesiastical Courts, appear prominently in his episcopal charges. -And his attempts to enforce discipline, his zeal for the Reformation -and authority of Church tribunals, his enforcement of residence on -the Canons of his Cathedral, his protection of the poor, and his care -about the application of charitable funds, are the chief grounds on -which Stillingfleet’s episcopal career is eulogized by his admiring -biographer. It strikes me as unsafe to judge of him simply by what -that writer has advanced. Another and more spiritual aspect of his -character, suggested by his sermons and other productions, is left -untouched in those unsatisfactory memoirs.[367] - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -Patrick, made Bishop of Chichester in 1689, and of Ely in 1691, was -a man of inferior ability to Stillingfleet, but of greater learning, -perhaps of higher spiritual mark. Ranked amongst Latitudinarians -through his early connection with John Smith and Henry More, he caught -and infused into some of his writings a Platonic tincture; but as -to the philosophical spirit of inquiry, cultivated in the Cambridge -school, he was a perfect alien. He agreed, with the least moderate -of the class, in a dislike to Puritanism, and went beyond them all -in dogmatic emphasis and Anglican leanings. He distinguished between -traditions to be rejected and traditions to be received--including -amongst the latter, not only primitive testimony as to the transmission -of Scripture, and the settlement of the Canon, but as to the doctrines -of the Faith, and the polity of the Church. He insisted upon the -efficacy of baptism as producing regeneration, and held that ordinance -to be necessary for the salvation of infants.[368] As to the Lord’s -Supper, he dwelt little upon its nature, but much upon its benefits, -and the duty of frequent communion. His published sermons are not -specimens of his general preaching, for they were mostly delivered on -political and other public occasions. Some posthumous discourses on -contentment, and resignation to the will of God, have been preserved, -through accidental circumstances, not on account of any superior -excellence.[369] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -He wrote, besides his Paraphrases and works against Popery, a number -of practical and devout books; amongst them the _Parable of the -Pilgrim_, which might be read with more satisfaction, did it not -provoke humiliating comparisons with Bunyan’s Allegory. The reputation -Patrick enjoyed in his own day for devout composition, suffers greatly -when, in the light of modern taste and criticism, we examine the -forms which he prepared for the revised Prayer Book, contemplated in -1680; but I know of nothing to invalidate the manner in which his -conduct as a Bishop is eulogized. He early appeared as a champion -of the Church of England against Dissent, by publishing what he -called a _Friendly Debate_,--in point of fact, a most unfriendly -production, full of virulent attacks upon those who separated from the -established communion, and even advocating coercion in the service of -Uniformity.[370] The book appeared anonymously in 1668; fifteen years -afterwards, notwithstanding the damaging circumstance that it had been -condemned by Matthew Hale, and praised by Gilbert Sheldon and Samuel -Parker, the author stated his continued opinion that the discourse was -“useful and reasonable.”[371] It may be hoped Patrick repented of what -he had done, for he expressed in the House of Lords “regret for the -warmth with which he had written against the Dissenters in his younger -years;” and Wharton said of him, “After he was made a Bishop, he lost -his reputation through imprudent management, openly favouring the -Dissenters, and employing none but such, whereupon he lost the love of -the gentry.”[372] However, there is evidence, that towards the Baptist -denomination, at least, he continued to manifest a most unfriendly -spirit. - -After the Revolution, he expressed concern at finding so little of -unity and concord, when it was natural to expect they would have been -the result of that deliverance. He seems to have become weary of the -world before he left it, and cried out with the Psalmist, “O that I -had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away and be at rest.” -Stillingfleet wrote his _Irenicum_ in 1660, and twenty years after -the _Mischief of Separation_. Patrick advocated intolerance in -1683; and twenty years afterwards, though still retaining some of the -old leaven, uttered words of charity and healing. - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -To the class of Cambridge theologians probably belongs John Moore, -consecrated Bishop of Norwich in 1691, who is described as enjoying -Burnet’s confidence, and as being consulted by him in the composition -of his works. But Moore was one of a considerable number who gain a -reputation among friends for ability to do what they never accomplish; -since, according to one of his eulogists, “the world had reason to -expect from him many excellent and useful works,” had not episcopal -duties prevented their being composed. He was also one of a still -greater number in whom the love of books weakens regard for the rights -of property; for according to a critic less friendly to his reputation, -Moore indulged an “avarice in that respect,” which “carried him a step -beyond the sin of coveting.” His library numbered 30,000 volumes, -and was bought, after his death, by George I., as a present to the -University of Cambridge.[373] - -Cumberland, made Bishop of Peterborough in 1691, wrote in reply to -Hobbes, a Latin treatise, _On the Laws of Nature_, mentioned -in a former volume, and of him his great grandson Richard says, “He -had no pretension to quick and brilliant talents; but his mind was -fitted for elaborate and profound researches, as his works more fully -testify.”[374] He is known to posterity, and that with faded light, -simply as a philosopher of the Cambridge stamp, and has left no proofs -of pre-eminence in episcopal efficiency; but we may conclude that he -was devoted to his office from the anecdote, that, when in his old age -his friends recommended retirement and rest, he said, “I will do my -duty as long as I can; I had better _wear_ out than _rust_ -out.”[375] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Something similar may be said of Fowler, an active opponent of -James’ Declaration, promoted to the See of Gloucester in 1690, whose -exposition of Latitudinarian theology has been described in the -_Church of the Restoration_. His broad views of Christianity, and -his opposition to Popery, recommended him to a Bishopric. He is spoken -of as a very respectable, but not very eminent, Prelate; and what is -curious in connection with his rationalism, he was credited with a -faith in the existence of witches and fairies, “whom he dreaded as much -as the lady upon the seven hills, and all the scarlet train.”[376] - -Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had, before he wore a mitre, -passed through circumstances which must have left a deep impress -upon his character, and were calculated to impart moderation to his -episcopal proceedings. He, in 1662, was deprived of his living for not -subscribing to the Prayer-Book, before he could examine it. Approving -of it after examination, he pursued a chequered career, struggling -with poverty, but exhibiting generous dispositions; suffering during -the plague year, but persevering in his spiritual duties; vexed by -Nonconformists in his parish, yet administering the Lord’s Supper -to those who refused to kneel. His autobiography, besides sketching -these circumstances, relates what he did in the way of Visitations, -Confirmations, and Ordinations, and how he was troubled by the conduct -of some of his Clergy, by the behaviour of a physician who courted his -daughter, and by a faction in his diocese who opposed his ordination of -one who had been a Nonconformist. - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -Kidder paid half his income from the See of Bath and Wells into the -hands of ex-Bishop Ken; and another circumstance is related respecting -him, which places his integrity in a conspicuous light. A message was -sent him by a minister of King William, telling him he MUST -give his vote in Parliament in a certain way. “_Must_ vote!” -“Yes, _must_ vote: consider whose bread you eat.” “I eat no man’s -bread but poor Dr. Ken’s; and if he will take the oaths, he shall -have it again. I did not think of going to the Parliament, but now I -shall undoubtedly go, and vote contrary to your commands.”[377] The -autobiography suggests the idea that Kidder was a well-meaning man, -sometimes wanting in firmness and wisdom. His publications, which are -numerous, include--besides his Boyle Lecture--Tracts against Popery, -and Plain Treatises enforcing the practice of a religious life. The -only sermon of his which I have read, one preached at Court on the duty -of fasting, suggests no high opinion of his pulpit power. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Amongst the Episcopal Divines of William’s reign, only one can be -considered as a decided Puritan. This was John Hall, Master of -Pembroke, Oxford, who retained that position after he became Bishop of -Bristol in 1691,--a poor piece of preferment. He is far less noticeable -as a Bishop than as a Theological Professor, in which capacity, -however, he earned no enviable fame, even in the estimation of those -who sympathized with him in his theological opinions; for Calamy says, -that he brought all the theology of the Westminster Assembly out of -the Church Catechism. He was a good man, laughed at by the wits, but -esteemed for his godliness by pious people. - -Nicholas Stratford--possessed of learning, a firm supporter of the -Church of England, and, judging of him by his primary visitation -charge, an earnest preacher and a faithful pastor, bent on the -salvation of souls--succeeded Cartwright in the Bishopric of Chester, -in 1689; and in the same year, John Hough, the Champion of Magdalen, -rose to the episcopal chair of Oxford.[378] - -An Archiepiscopal mitre rewarded, at the suggestion of Tillotson in -1691, the staunch Protestantism of Dr. Sharpe, the Dean of Norwich; -and, if we are to believe all the encomiums on his virtues, inscribed -upon his monument in York Cathedral, scarcely ever before did such -a paragon of excellence exist.[379] Notices of him by Thoresby--to -whose conversion from Dissent to Episcopacy, Sharpe had largely -contributed--so far confirm the praise in his epitaph, as to show that -he was diligent, courteous, devout, and kind, and most zealous in -endeavouring to win Nonconformists over to the Church. He is described -as the best of the Bishops who had honoured Leeds with their presence, -“a most excellent preacher, universally beloved.”[380] Samuel Wesley, -who was under great obligations to him, ranked him as a preacher above -Stillingfleet, and even above Tillotson, calling him “a more popular -pulpit orator than either;”[381] but a set-off against these partial -commendations will appear, when we reach the history of Religious -Societies and of Dissenting Academies, and observe the course which his -Grace pursued in relation to them. - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry until 1699, when, on the death -of Stillingfleet, the King translated him to Worcester, is described -by Whiston, who received ordination at his hands, as engaging in “a -most uncommon, but vastly improving examination and instruction, in the -Cathedral, beforehand.”[382] Lloyd’s prophetical studies, vindicated by -Whiston, exposed him to a good deal of raillery and satire; Shippen, in -his _Faction Displayed_, saying of him-- - - “Then old Mysterio shook his silver hairs, - Loaded with learning, prophecy, and years.” - -As with other students in the same school, his studies proved labour -lost, for Dr. Johnson relates, that “his writings supplied the kitchen -of his successor with fuel for many years;” but his character defied -detraction, and whilst revered for his virtues, that reverence was -increased by his “learning and longevity.”[383] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Politics, rather than Divinity, recommended men as Bishops under -William III. They were constitutional Whigs sympathizing in the objects -and promoting the interests of the Revolution. The anti-Papal zeal, and -the readiness of most of them to conciliate Nonconformists, gave them -favour in the eyes of both King and Queen; nor should we overlook the -influence of Tillotson and Burnet, the great ecclesiastical apostles of -the period, in the advancement of these brethren. Sharpe’s promotion -was owing to the former, probably Moore’s was owing to the latter. - -In point of personal character the new Prelates will bear comparison -with their predecessors. Kidder indeed never enjoyed the reputation -for sanctity possessed by Ken. Tillotson, Tenison, Burnet, -Stillingfleet, Patrick, Cumberland, and Fowler, were in mental power -superior to Sancroft, Thomas, Lake, White, and Frampton; and as to -personal religion, which admits not of precise judgment, there is no -evidence that they were inferior. Stratford might easily surpass the -disreputable Cartwright; the name of Hough is as illustrious as the -name of Samuel Parker is disgraceful, and the name of Timothy Hall -obscure. In political bias, ecclesiastical feeling, and theological -opinion, the new Prelates differed from their predecessors, and must -therefore have imported into their dioceses some new methods of -procedure.[384] - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -Another class of Bishops consisted of men who appear in history as -political celebrities. - -Compton, Bishop of London, is familiar to the reader as an active -revolutionist, a man of disappointed ambition, and a friend to the -High Church party in Convocation. Having nothing to do with the -Court after Queen Mary’s death, he steps out of historical notice -for a while, spending his time in the quiet discharge of episcopal -functions, and relieving himself in hours of leisure, amidst the -flowers and shrubs of his beautiful garden at Fulham, with botanical -studies, which brought him into scientific correspondence with Ray, -Petiver, and Plunkenet. Other letters of his indicate the active and -zealous part he took in electioneering affairs, seeking to promote -the return of Church candidates;[385] and a charge he delivered -soon after the Revolution, deals largely in warnings against heresy -and schism, Popery and Dissent--with a few milder words at the end -relative to a kind treatment of loving brethren, if “found humble and -of a quiet spirit.”[386] Burnet speaks of Compton as “a generous -and good-natured man, but easy and weak, and much in the power of -others,”[387]--an estimate of his character, copied by Birch and -repeated since; but as to Compton’s imputed weakness, it is right to -remember that Burnet, after his right reverend brother’s alliance with -the High Church party, cannot be regarded as an impartial witness. The -fragment of a Greek inscription upon Compton’s tombstone at Fulham, if -placed there by his request, would indicate a devout appreciation of -the redemptive nature of the Gospel, for the letters which remain are -part of the Apostle’s memorable words, “God forbid that I should glory, -save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -The tergiversations of Trelawny, successively Bishop of Bristol and -Exeter, modify the traditionary laudation of his courage and alacrity, -magnanimity and address, in defence of the just rights and privileges -of the Church; yet I am not aware of anything which contradicts the -statement, that “he was friendly and open, generous and charitable, a -good companion, and a good man.”[388] Atterbury seems to have greatly -admired him, and in the dedication of his own sermons to the Prelate, -he delicately praises him for manifold virtues. The virtue of loyalty -to the existing Government he certainly did not possess.[389] - -Of the politics of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, I have spoken before. It -will suffice to notice him now as a preacher. His style of composition -secured the applause of contemporaries, and Dunton, in one of his -extravagant flights, eulogized the Bishop by saying-- - - “Nature rejoic’d beneath his charming power, - His lucky hand makes everything a flower,” - “On earth the King of wits (they are but few) - And, though a Bishop, he’s a preacher too.”[390] - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -Respecting his oratory, an amusing anecdote is related by Dr. Johnson. -Burnet and Sprat were rivals. “On some public occasion they both -preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days -an indecent custom; when the preacher touched any favourite topic in -a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed -by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. -When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and -so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his -handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the -like animating hum; but he stretched out his hand to the congregation -and cried, ‘Peace, peace, I pray you peace.’”[391] - -Let the story pass for what it is worth. Both Burnet and Sprat were -men of power; both had at command a flowing and, when they pleased, -a rhetorical style; and both delivered sermons marked by superior -instruction and fervent appeal. Each attended to the method of -delivery, as well as to the substance of thought, a matter to which -Sprat devotes considerable space in an episcopal charge. After urging -the Clergy to set forth the public prayers to “due advantage, by -pronouncing them leisurely, fitly, warmly, decently,” he tells them to -utter their discourses “in a natural, comely, modest, yet undaunted -force of pronunciation;” but he reprobates extempore preaching, no less -than extempore prayer.[392] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who bore -that name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother to -the family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seat -in Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policy -of James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowly -secured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment, -and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-named -Monarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, and -princely munificence--although commending him to the affection of -friends and the gratitude of dependants--could not redeem his character -from the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render him -either a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church. - -[Sidenote: BISHOPS.] - -I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,[393] to notice one who -attained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop of -St. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceeded -against in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence of -deprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offerings -given at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servants -as gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining at -other times than the Sundays next Ember weeks; conferring orders -on a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; and -demanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottom -of these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He is -reported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct, -and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these were -not the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused of -Popish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected of -Romanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whose -policy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to do -with the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords against -the sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed. -The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal of -controversy. In a _Review_[394] of it published by a friendly -hand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false, -the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process is -described as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspired -by “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writer -intends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating that -he was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whether -he had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponent -declaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishop -at an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. I -cannot but think that political feeling prompted the prosecution; -yet, if we look at the characters of such men as Tenison, Patrick, and -others, who united in his condemnation, we must suppose that he had -been guilty of great irregularities in his episcopal office.[395] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -There were to be found distinguished clergymen occupying parochial -cures--clergymen eminent for learning, godliness, and zeal, amidst -the bustle of a London life. Some were Anglican. William Beveridge, -Rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, united with a profound reverence -for antiquity, an attachment to doctrinal truths dear to Puritans. -He insisted upon Episcopacy, Sacraments, the observance of Lent, and -fellowship with the Church of England, and he did this often in a -narrow, hard, exclusive spirit; yet he sometimes preached sermons such -as would be admired by modern Evangelicals.[396] Those published in -six octavo volumes, were regarded at the time as forming a valuable -theological library. They exhibit no closeness of reasoning or sagacity -of remark, no command of illustration, or felicity of style, yet they -are sensible, unaffected, and somewhat forcible, from the manifest -sincerity and earnestness of the author. Beveridge’s _Thoughts on -Religion_ are perhaps the most edifying, certainly the best known of -his works, though they were written when he was a young man; but as to -terseness of expression--not as to breadth of thought--he appears, in -my judgment, to more advantage in his _Ecclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia -Catholica_, a posthumous work on the Articles. In the exposition of -the XI. Article, on Justification, he decidedly follows the Puritan -lead, saying, “It is not by the inhesion of grace in us, but by the -imputation of righteousness to us, that we are justified; as it is -not by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion of -grace in us, that we are sanctified.” As to the XVII. Article, on -Predestination, he is cautious, and his quotations would not satisfy, -but they do not condemn, Calvinistic Divines. - -[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.] - -Down in the pleasant county of Gloucester, at the Rectory of Avening, -George Bull--besides his literary labours, which before the end of -the century won for him such high renown, that he was complimented by -Bossuet--showed himself to be indefatigable in discharging pastoral -duties, putting down country revels, and otherwise aiming at the -improvement of his parishioners. - -In Wiltshire, John Norris, an English disciple of Malbranche, held the -living of Bemerton; and, while he practised the quiet virtues of the -parish priest, he selected for the pulpit, subjects of a moral and -spiritual nature, rather than the more distinctive truths connected -with our redemption by Christ; not but that there is a tone in Norris’s -teaching in unison with habits of thought cultivated by modern -Evangelicals.[397] His published discourses, for the most part, are -plain and practical; yet sometimes his handling of topics is such as -to make his readers think that he shot over the heads of the Wiltshire -farmers and peasantry. In Suffolk, William Burkett, Rector of Milden, -added to his ministerial excellence, large-hearted efforts for the -French refugees, and for preaching the Gospel in America. He secured -a long reputation by his _Expository Notes on the New Testament_, -which strongly reflect the opinions of others, and whilst decidedly -Arminian, are more practical than critical. Of a well-known Kentish -clergyman, Stanhope, Vicar of Lewisham, in no sense a party man, Evelyn -remarks: “He is one of the most accomplished preachers I ever heard, -for matter, eloquence, action, and voice.”[398] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -In closing this list of distinguished clergymen, I would refer to two -men known as ecclesiastical archæologists, rather than as preachers -and pastors. John Strype, Incumbent of Low Leyton, in Essex, then -between fifty and sixty years of age, was just beginning that career -as a biographer and historian, which he prolonged for so many years -afterwards, and for which he had so laboriously amassed materials -during the previous portion of his life. His memoirs of Cranmer, -Smith, and Aylmer, which issued from the press under William III., -and the large correspondence of the author at the time, preserved in -the University Library at Cambridge, indicate, in connection with his -diligence of research, his busy care respecting ecclesiastical affairs. -Working hard upon black-letter books and hardly decipherable MSS., he -was ready as a rural Dean, at the call of his Diocesan, to arrange -for clerical meetings, or to preach visitation sermons.[399] Henry -Wharton at the same time, though a young man, was closing his course -as a laborious editor and critic, in fact, a martyr to excessive -study; and, in turning over the _Strype Correspondence_, I was -much touched by the following passage, in a letter written to Strype -by one of Wharton’s friends, in reference to a visit paid him at -Canterbury:--“One day he opened his trunk and drawers, and showed me -his great collections concerning the state of our Church, and with a -deep sigh told me that all his labours were at an end, and that his -strength would not permit him to finish any more of the subject.”[400] - -[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.] - -One clergyman claims separate notice as a foreigner, a poor pluralist, -and an exceedingly popular preacher. Dr. Horneck, a native of -Bacharach--so familiar to all Rhine tourists--held, in conjunction with -a stall at Exeter worth only twenty pounds a year, the preachership -of the Savoy, which afforded but a miserable income. His poverty -ended three years before his death, when, through the united kindness -of Queen Mary and Archbishop Tillotson, he was made Prebendary of -Westminster. But from first to last his ministry was exceedingly -popular; it was no easy matter for him to get through the crowd to -his pulpit. So great was the number of communicants at his church, -that he had to seek the help of clergymen in the delivery of the -bread and wine, “and with such assistance it was very late before the -congregation could be dismissed.”[401] His virtues are extolled in the -epitaph inscribed on his monument in the Abbey. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Leaving men of honourable renown, in order to throw in truthful shadows -amidst grateful lights, I will mention a case of their fanaticism. -It appears in the life of John Mason, Rector of Walter Stratford, -in Buckinghamshire.[402] Holding Predestinarian opinions to such -an extent as to acknowledge no other difference between Judas and -St. Peter than what proceeded from absolute decrees and irresistible -grace; and further believing that it was all one whether a man kept the -commandments or broke them, inasmuch as Christ observed the whole law -on behalf of His people; this strange mortal, who had drunk the dregs -of Antinomianism, added to his absurd caricatures of Calvinism, other -ideas equally extravagant respecting the personal reign of Christ--a -reign which he expected would instantly be set up. So far as extreme -Predestinarianism and Millenarianism are concerned, he may be taken -as typical of a small section of religious teachers living then, not -entirely extinct even now; but he proceeded to the excess of regarding -himself as a favoured recipient of celestial visions. Not long before -his death, he fancied he saw Christ clothed in a crimson garment, His -countenance exceedingly beautiful, with an abundance of sweetness and -great majesty. Relatives indignantly denied a charitable report that -he was mad, and did not doubt he would prove the prophet of the age--a -Noah to warn the world, a John the Baptist to herald in the Messiah, an -Elijah sent before the just and terrible day. Beyond his own circle, -belief in his predictions spread, until nigh a hundred followers from -the country ten miles round came to the rectory, and took up their -abode within and around it, waiting for a revelation, which it was -said came on the 16th of April, 1694, in the manner described. “When -I entered the house,” relates one who wrote an account of his visit, -“a more melancholy scene of a spiritual Bedlam presented itself. Men, -women, and children running up and down, onewhile stretching their -arms upwards to catch their Saviour coming down, others extending them -forward to meet His embraces; a third, with a sudden turn, pretends to -grasp Him; and a fourth clapping their hands for joy they had Him; with -several other antic postures, which made me think that Bedlam itself -was but a faint image of their spiritual frenzies. All this while they -were singing as loud as their throats would give them leave, till they -were quite spent and looked black in the face.”[403] Fanaticism, more -insane than ever possessed any of the Roundhead preachers in Oliver -Cromwell’s camp, thus raged in the person of an episcopal clergyman -under William III. Country folks crowded about his house, his barn, -and his garden; hundreds more are said to have venerated his character -and believed in his prophecies. The story affords an instance of the -wild enthusiasm which it is in the power of extravagant visionaries -to excite, even in an age commonly considered as rationalistic and -cold.[404] - -[Sidenote: DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.] - -It is very remarkable, in casting one’s eye over these sketches, to -notice the absence of the old Puritan party. Hall, of Oxford, as -already noticed, was the only Divine of that class on the Bishops’ -Bench; and amongst names of repute belonging to the rest of the -Clergy, not one of the same kind can be produced. I do not deny that -there may be clerical publications of the period marked by Puritan -divinity; I only say that the celebrated authors were of another -description. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Vigorous and commanding Puritanic thought, such as moved the religious -intellect of England a generation or two earlier, for a time quite -died out in the Establishment. Low Churchmanship had been of the -Puritan type. Montague, Laud, and the like, found their opponents in -Calvinistic clergymen. Now Low Churchmanship took what some would call -a rationalistic form; at any rate its advocates were inspired by a -philosophical theology, rather than by the institutes of Calvin, or the -genius of Geneva. Sancroft and Hicks found their opposites in Tillotson -and Burnet. The Act of Uniformity had clearly done its work, and shut -or kept out teachers akin to Calamy and Marshall. Their theological -spirit, their distinctive evangelical teaching, disappears, so far as -the Established Church is concerned, like the stream of Arethusa, and -flows underground for a considerable space, to burst out once more in a -strong current, a century afterwards. - - - - - CHAPTER XIV. - - -Attempts were not wanting on the part of some of the Bishops to -maintain ecclesiastical discipline. There are papers amongst the -_Tanner MSS._ which indicate what went on amidst the throes of the -Revolution, in the diocese of Norwich, before the ejectment of Bishop -Lloyd. John Gibbs, Rector of Gissing, had been a convert to the Church -of Rome; but on the 14th of November, nine days after the landing of -the Prince of Orange, when Protestant East Anglicans would be exulting -at the advent of the Deliverer, this recusant is referred to as wishing -to be reconciled with the Church of his fathers; and a report is given -of the sermon which he preached on the occasion.[405] A little while -afterwards an instance occurs of clerical immorality, and of that kind -of trouble which has often disturbed episcopal peace: a Norwich rector -was accused of “lewdness,” amounting to a capital crime. - -The case was undoubted. It came to the Bishop’s knowledge. To conceal -the fact would have been to connive at the sin, to make it known to -endanger the culprit’s life. Indeed, to conceal it was no longer -possible, and to stifle the charge was felt to be a scandal to -religion. Under these circumstances, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, asked -the Archbishop whether, by a judicial monition, he might not require -the offender to abstain from clerical functions till he could purge -himself from the terrible accusation brought against him. - -The Canon law, he said, did not deal with the offence in question, and -he felt himself in much difficulty as to the course of proceeding. As -capital punishment might follow conviction, the Bishop feared lest it -should prove a _causa sanguinis_--an affair with which he wished -to have nothing to do. The common tactics of defence were adopted by -the accused. He appealed to the Archdeacon, with the view of gaining -time, and by such means he cunningly slipped entirely out of the hands -of the Consistory at Norwich; but the Bishop comforted himself by -hoping that the criminal would meet with justice at Doctors’ Commons. - -On the 30th of August, 1689, when Lloyd had been himself suspended, he -wrote to Sancroft, saying, “It is too late for me now to meddle further -in the matter.”[406] - -After the Revolution, we meet with a case in which moral discipline -was exercised by Patrick, Bishop of Ely. The Incumbent of Great -Eversden had, by intemperance, drowned his reason and scandalized -his profession. Grieved at what he heard, the Bishop required him to -preach two penitential sermons, one in each of the churches where -he officiated, from the words, “He that covereth his sins shall not -prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” He -did so, and concluded with the words: “You see, beloved, what a black -indictment I have here drawn up against myself, wherein I have not been -favourable or partial to my fatal miscarriages, but have dissected and -ripped up my many enormous crimes, and exposed them to public view. -I beseech you not to be too censorious and uncharitable, since I have -passed so severe a censure upon myself.”[407] - -[Sidenote: WORSHIP.] - -A passing remark is required touching the manner of worship. Nothing -like what is now called Ritualism had then any existence. Things -continued much as they were before. No coloured vestments were worn -by Anglicans either within or without the Establishment, nor were -there any attempts at extraordinary ornamentation of either altars -or churches. Æsthetic culture, apart from distinctive ecclesiastical -opinions, may powerfully affect psalmody, and other accompaniments of -devotion, as well as the structure and adornment of the House of God; -but the reign of William was not at all an age in which such culture -prevailed. Some religious people have a keen sense of propriety as to -outward observances; others have none. It matters not to them, though -the adoration of the High and Lofty One be marked by slovenliness of -arrangement and irreverence of behaviour. There were many persons of -this kind amongst Clergy and laity during the last ten, as there had -been during the previous fifty years of the seventeenth century. - -The use of the surplice in the pulpit, now a common practice with -almost all sections in the Established Church, was within our own -recollection very rare, and when first prominently introduced, produced -excitement and confusion. It seems to have been a novelty in the reign -of William III. “Yesterday,” says the writer of a letter in 1696, “I -saw in Low Leighton Church, that which to my remembrance I never did -see in a church in England but once, and that is a minister preach in a -surplice for Mr. Harrison (whereas other ministers on Fast-days do not -so much as wear any surplice), he, by way of supererogation, preached -in his. The sight did stir up in me more of pity than anger to see the -folly of the man; but if he preach in a fool’s coat we will go and hear -him.”[408] - -Low Leighton (or Leyton), it will be remembered, was the parish in -which John Strype fulfilled his ministry, and therefore it was in the -pulpit of that distinguished ecclesiologist, that the writer of the -extract beheld the phenomenon which startled him out of his propriety; -if the surplice was worn by the Incumbent, or with his sanction, the -circumstance would indicate that he regarded the usage as canonical, -however it might have fallen into abeyance. - -Amongst the Lambeth archives is a very long letter by Edmund Bowerman, -Vicar of Codrington, who gives a curious account of his parish, of -the extreme ignorance and irreligion of the people, and of their -desecration of the church. They played cards on the communion-table, -and when they met to choose churchwardens, sat with their hats on, -smoking and drinking--the clerk gravely saying, with a pipe in his -mouth, that such had been the practice for the last sixty years. Not -ten persons in the place had ever received the Sacrament; one used to -take it by himself in brown bread and small beer.[409] - -An important change took place in the psalmody of the Church of -England. The archaic version of the Psalms, by Sternhold and Hopkins, -kept possession in cathedral and parish congregations until the middle -of the reign of William III. Attempts had been made at improving the -versification. _A Century of Select Psalms_, in verse, for the -use of the Charterhouse, by Dr. Patrick, appeared in 1679. Richard -Goodridge followed him by a similar effort in 1682. Dr. Simon Ford, -not to mention others, attempted something of the same kind in 1688. -But a more successful enterprise was accomplished by Nicholas Brady -and Nahum Tate, who, in 1695, published a tentative _Essay_, -and in 1696 a _Complete New Version_, differing from such as -they themselves had previously prepared. This version, afterwards so -popular, did not escape criticism; but was most determinately opposed -by Dr. Beveridge, who preferred the old rhymes of the Reformation to -any modern rendering of the Songs of David. His course of argument, if -it had any force, would be fatal to any attempt at improving scripture -translations of all kinds.[410] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.] - -The character of the Clergy at that time has been drawn by different -hands. Samuel Wesley, in the _Athenian Oracle_, said, that out of -fifty or threescore parishes with which he was acquainted, he could not -think of above three or four clergymen who disgraced their office. - -The Nonjurors represented their brethren in the Establishment as -newsmongers and busy-bodies, guilty of non-residence, faulty in their -morals, and negligent of their duties. Some were often seen frequenting -ale-houses and taverns, where they behaved disorderly. The communion -in the London parish churches, before largely attended, was, according -to the same authority, unfrequented; and in cathedral churches things -were worse, so that the alms collected did little more than pay for the -bread and wine.[411] - -Nonjurors looked through a prejudiced medium at those who took the -oaths. They regarded most of them as indifferent to a matter of -immense importance, and not a few as deliberately dishonest, swearing -to that which they did not believe. The amount of false swearing at -that period must have been prodigious; and the fact could not fail to -produce mischievous results--it demoralized such as indulged in it, and -impressed people with an idea of the falseness of their instructors. -Men looking at the subject from another point of the compass, also came -to an unfavourable conclusion. Whiston declared how well he remembered -that by far the greater part of University members and clergymen took -the oaths with a doubtful, if not an accusing, conscience. Considering -the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance in which they had -been educated, he thought it could not be otherwise; and he scarcely -knew who were the worst, some who imposed or some who submitted to the -new law of allegiance.[412] - -As the Nonjurors judged of ministers through the medium of the oath -question, so Whiston, who rejected the Athanasian Creed, judged of -ministers through the medium of that formulary. No doubt he was -prejudiced, and his conclusions were exaggerated; but it is hard -to understand how men of latitudinarian views could, with thorough -honesty, repeat an intensely orthodox formulary imbued with an -intensely exclusive spirit. What Whiston says of a rather later -period, may be applied here. Conversing with Lord Chief Justice King, -about signing articles not believed, in order to secure preferment, -he heard his Lordship observe, “We must not lose our usefulness for -scruples.” “In your Courts do they allow of such prevarication?” asked -the Presbyter. “Certainly not,” rejoined the lawyer. “Suppose then,” -returned Whiston, “God Almighty should be as just in the next world as -my Lord Chief Justice is in this, where are we then?”[413] Whiston’s -estimate of some of the Clergy is corroborated by Burnet, who mourns -over the inconsistency of men described as practically contradicting -the oaths they had taken and the prayers they preferred.[414] - -[Sidenote: CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.] - -De Foe acknowledged that there were in England a great many religious -persons, both among the gentry and Clergy; but he remarked upon -the inconsistency of many in both classes. “The parson preaches a -thundering sermon against drunkenness, and the justice of peace sets -my poor neighbour in the stocks; and I am like to be much the better -for either, when I know, perhaps, that this same parson and this same -justice were both drunk together but the night before. A vicious parson -that preaches well, but lives ill, may be likened to an unskilful -horseman, who opens a gate on the wrong side, and lets other folks -through, but shuts himself out.”[415] In judging of the Clergy of those -days, we must take into account indirect evidence. The Convocation -controversy, degenerating into a contemptible feud between class and -class, or into a despicable squabble between clergyman and clergyman, -proved the extensive existence of prejudice, obstinacy, and resentment, -and must have drawn off the minds of many from the discharge of their -proper duties. Neither was the method of conducting controversy on more -important points--the doctrine of the Trinity, for example--at all -calculated to preserve ministers of religion from injurious habits; -for the temper shown in books and tracts on this subject is most -irreverent, most conceited, most uncharitable, most unchristian. - -It should also be noticed, that after religious freedom to some extent -had been legalized by the Toleration Act, a clerical reaction violently -set in. Low Churchmen had been the principal advocates for granting -liberty of worship to their Nonconforming brethren; but beyond their -circle were some who, during appearances of Popery under James II., had -looked with sympathy upon fellow Protestants outside their own pale, -and had afterwards hailed them with a kindly welcome to the enjoyment -of their rights. When the no-Popery tempest subsided, and when -political fears, raised by Royal despotism, passed away, some of these -persons relapsed into their previous state, and together with those who -had been bigoted throughout, looked at Nonconformists with bitterness -and hatred.[416] A wide current of intolerant feeling returned, of -which the result became visible enough after the accession of Queen -Anne. - -[Sidenote: CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.] - -Turning from the character of the Clergy to notice their circumstances, -we meet with an interesting picture of domestic life in the case of -the father of the Wesleys. He was a rector upon £50 a year at South -Ormsby, a little village in Lincolnshire, skirting the parks and -woodlands of a goodly mansion. We find the same clergyman shortly -afterwards established in the same county at the Rectory of Epworth, -described, in a survey of the period, as consisting of “five bays built -all of timber and plaister, and covered with straw thatch, the whole -building being contrived into three stories, and disposed into seven -chief rooms, namely--a kitchen, a hall, a parlour, a buttery, and three -large upper rooms, besides some others of common use, and also a -little garden impaled between the stone wall and the south.”[417] This -minute description brings before us a humble, but pleasant parsonage -of the end of the seventeenth century; and it is added that to the -dwelling stood attached one barn of six bays, likewise built of clay -and thatch; also one dovecote of timber and plaister, and one hempkiln. -The glebe was stocked. Cows fed in the meadows, and pigs in the stye. -A nag and two fillies occupied the stable, and flax and barley waved -in the fields. The parishioners were, according to Wesley’s daughter, -“unpolished wights,” “dull as asses,” and with heads “impervious -as stones.” The clerical dress, the rustic manner, and the lowly -employments of the Rector, are portrayed by another member of the -gifted family: - - “To rub his cassock’s draggled tail, - Or reach his hat from off the nail, - Or seek the key to draw the ale, - When damsel haps to steal it; - To burn his pipe, or mend his clothes, - Or nicely darn his russet hose, - For comfort of his aged toes, - So fine they cannot feel it.” - -The outlay upon taking the new living amounted to £50--just one-fourth -of the annual income of the living. It was a practice for parish -officers to compel people to lighten parochial burdens by taking, as -apprentices, the children of paupers; and one of these unfortunates -was actually palmed on the Epworth Incumbent, who said he supposed he -must teach the boy “to beat rhyme.” These items are worth mentioning -as illustrations of the times, and in this case they are interesting -in connection with the early life of the founder of Methodism and the -master of English psalmody. The two boys played in the rectory garden; -and from their parents derived some of the power and peculiarity of -their mature life. The parents, it is curious to remember, differed on -the Jacobite question; and a story is told to the effect that Wesley, -observing that his wife did not pray for William, and hearing her -declare she could regard him only as Prince of Orange, told her, in -sorrowing words, “If that be the case, you and I must part; for if we -have two Kings, we must have two beds.” It is added that he took horse -and rode to London; and being “Convocation man” for the diocese of -Lincoln, resided in the Metropolis a whole year without corresponding -with his family. The anecdote perhaps has in it much of exaggeration, -and it has been questioned of late more than once, yet one would think -there must be some truth in it, since it rests on the authority of John -Wesley.[418] At that time a mean-looking parsonage was the rule, not -the exception: and even in the parish of Kensington, though honoured by -the presence of Royalty, the vicarage is described as having been of -a very humble character, with lattice windows. A large proportion of -the livings were very poor, some as low as £14 or £15 per annum.[419] -Wesley’s first income was £30 a year from a curacy in London; and if -so small a sum was paid in the Metropolis, what must it have been in -some of the provinces! The pitiful condition of clergymen under Charles -II. could have undergone no great improvement under William III. Of -course in places of importance, if clerical incomes happened to reach -a large amount, a handsome rectory or vicarage might be found, of -which a few, built in Sir Christopher Wren’s time, with more regard -to convenience than taste, still remain. Of nearly the same date, -deaneries and prebendal houses still linger amongst us--and long may -they linger--snugly ensconced amidst pleasant gardens, in those most -pleasant of all English precincts--our cathedral closes--so green and -quiet, solemn and quaint. - -[Sidenote: CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.] - -As in the reign of Charles II., so in the reign of William III., the -office of chaplain in the families of the great was not enviable. -The salary was small, the position undignified, the treatment often -disrespectful, and the means of usefulness limited and questionable. In -the _Athenian Oracle_, the chaplain of a family not very regular -or religious--forced to see Misses drinking and gaming, and afraid -to open his mouth on the subject--complains of the miseries of his -situation; he inquires what he ought to do, so as neither to betray -religion nor give offence. He could not believe that to say grace and -read prayers, when his patron was at leisure, constituted his duty, -yet he found his brethren thought they had done enough when they had -done no more than that.[420] Thomas Wilson, afterwards Bishop of -Sodor and Man, certainly took a different view, for when chaplain and -tutor to Lord Derby, he, with commendable faithfulness, rebuked his -pupil’s extravagance, so as to restore his reputation and relieve his -creditors. Once, as the young nobleman was about to sign his name, he -felt some melted sealing-wax dropped on his finger by this eccentric -mentor, who remarked, that the pain ought to impress him with a -resolution never to sign what he had never examined.[421] - -Clerical costume is a trifle worth only a passing sentence, and it may -be observed that it remained the same after the Revolution as before. -But Archbishop Tillotson introduced a novelty. He is the first Prelate -represented in a wig. The wig is of moderate dimensions, and not much -unlike a head of natural hair. It is curious to find him remarking -upon this innovation in one of his sermons. “I can remember, since the -wearing the hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the first -magnitude; and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, did -either find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair; -and if they saw anyone in the congregation guilty in that kind, they -would point him out particularly, and _let fly at him_ with great -zeal.”[422] - -Partly as the result of causes at work ever since the Restoration--such -as the poverty, the imperfect education, and the unexemplary character -of many incumbents and curates--the Clergy, as a class, were in low -esteem. What has been related of the profession in the reign of Charles -II. produced effects which lasted long, and the conduct of a number of -Constitutionalists, as well as of Jacobites, contributed to deepen the -unpopularity of the order. Good men, lamenting the evils of the age, -traced to them this state of feeling, and Robert Nelson speaks of the -great contempt of the Clergy, than which he thought nothing could be a -greater evidence of the decayed state of religion.[423] - -[Sidenote: STATE OF SOCIETY.] - -Whatever may be the relation between social corruption and clerical -unpopularity, it is certain the two things co-existed. Nelson deplored -a decay of the spirit and life of devotion;[424] Thoresby declared that -God seemed angry with the nation, as well He might, and so hid counsel -from men, and left them to take such courses as would be neither for -their own nor the public good;[425] and Burnet relates, that profane -wits were delighted at the circulation of books against the Trinity; -that it became a common thing to treat mysteries in religion as -priestly contrivances; and that, under cover of popular expressions, -the enemies of religion vented their impieties.[426] Patrick lamented -the prevalent coldness and carelessness in religion, “scarce an handful -of people appearing in many churches at Divine Service, when the -playhouses were crowded every day with numerous spectators;”[427] and -John Norris referred to the decay of Christian piety and the universal -corruption of manners. Christ seemed to him, asleep in the sacred -vessel, while the tempest raged, and the waves almost overwhelmed the -bark. Students of prophecy, regarding the state of Christianity as -_anti-christianized_, anticipated the outpouring of the vials of -wrath, the breaking-up of Christendom, and the replacement of God’s -chosen people, the Jews, on the ruins of the Gentile Church.[428] - -Profane swearing so far prevailed, that it is said in many circles -a man’s discourse was hardly agreeable without it;[429] and it is -remarkable that the instances given of John Howe’s courtesy, and the -wisdom with which he administered reproof, relates to the frequent -utterance of oaths. On one occasion, a gentleman addicted to this -practice expatiated at great length on the merits of Charles I. Howe -remarked that in his enumeration of the excellencies of the unfortunate -Sovereign, he had omitted one--that he was never known to utter an oath -in common discourse. On another occasion, he heard two gentlemen in -the street damning each other. The Divine, taking off his hat with a -polite bow, exclaimed, “I pray God save you both!” Meeting a nobleman -in the park, who, in speaking of the Occasional Conformity Bill, -burst into a rage and said, “Damn the wretches! for they are mad, and -will bring us all into confusion!” Howe replied, “My Lord, it is a -great satisfaction to us, who in all affairs of this nature desire to -look upwards, that there is a God who governs the world, to whom we -can leave the issues and events of things; and we are satisfied, and -may thereupon be easy, that He will not fail in due time of making a -suitable retribution to all, according to their present carriage. And -this great Ruler of the world, my Lord, has among other things also -declared, He will make a difference between him that sweareth and him -that feareth an oath.” “Sir, I thank you for your freedom,” was the -reply; “I understand your meaning: I shall endeavour to make a good -use of it.” “My Lord,” added Howe, “I have a great deal more reason -to thank your Lordship for saving me the most difficult part of a -discourse, which is the application.”[430] - -Intemperance, increasing from the time of the Restoration, continued -to extend its curses towards the close of the eighteenth century; old -public-houses attracted more customers than ever, and many new ones -were opened, the money spent in this way by the lower classes reaching -an incredible amount.[431] Sober people lamented that their neighbours -were, with temperance, losing also that kindliness of temper which had -been prevalent amongst Englishmen. - -[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.] - -The shock of an earthquake in September, 1692, alarmed the nation, and -made “those who studied apocalyptical matters imagine that the end of -the world drew near.” Burnet tells us it brought people “to more of -an outward face of virtue and sobriety;” but, in his apprehension, -they “became deeply corrupted in principle; a disbelief of revealed -religion, and a profane mocking at the Christian faith and the -mysteries of it, became avowed and scandalous.” Orders were given to -execute the laws against drunkenness, swearing, and the profanation of -the Lord’s-day; and, consequently, loud complaints arose of Puritanical -regulations, savouring of John Knox’s doctrine and discipline. Blame -for this was laid on the Bishop of Salisbury’s shoulders; and to make -the whole thing appear ridiculous, a noble commentator on the right -reverend historian, relates that hackney-coaches were not allowed to -be used on the Sabbath, and constables were directed to take away -pies and puddings from anybody who might be carrying them through the -streets.[432] - -Popular opinion in reference to supernatural agencies requires some -notice, and presents signs of both mental stagnation and mental -progress. Many were in a state of superstition as immovable as that -of their fathers, believing in the reality, and smitten with the -terrors, of diabolical possession and infernal witchcraft. Even towards -the end of William’s reign, the diocese of Worcester was infected -with this kind of faith; and the Bishop, Dr. Lloyd--who succeeded -Stillingfleet--urged his Clergy to preach against errors respecting -Satanic agency, indicating to them his own views on the subject. He did -not doubt the extraordinary power of the Devil over heathen nations in -ancient and modern times; but he thought the Gospel had diminished -his power; that those who were in the covenant of grace could not be -injured by him, either in their persons, their possessions, or their -children; nevertheless he admitted that a man, by profligacy, might -yield himself to the great enemy, but could not receive from him -supernatural help to hurt anybody else.[433] - -Lancashire continued the home of such beliefs, and in the middle of -King William’s reign, a place in that county called Surrey became -powerfully agitated by the case of a lad, who stood upon his head, -danced upon his knees, scrambled about on all fours, barked like a -dog, talked shreds of Latin, ran into the water, and told things at -a distance--all, it was said, the result of selling his soul to the -Devil, in hopes of thereby becoming a first-rate dancer. The neighbours -treated it as a real possession, and so did certain Presbyterian -ministers, who appointed days of fasting and prayer on the youth’s -behalf, and continued them weekly for a twelvemonth. Folks from the -country flocked in to see and hear the marvels going on, and made -themselves merry at the expense of the fruitless intercessors; they, -in their turn, laid their want of success at the door of the boy’s -family, saying the witches were in league with Satan, and therefore -supplication could not avail. The supposed demoniac named three Popish -priests as likely to cure him--a circumstance which led the discomfited -Presbyterians to say that the Devil had more mind to let the Popish -priests have “the credit of casting him out, because his ends would be -better served by Popery than by them.” - -The Episcopal Clergy in the neighbourhood stood aloof from this -stupid credulity. That the boy had been given to tricks from his -early days was shown by witnesses; and collusions with his sister in -pretended intercourse with the spirit-world were also proved. Foolish -and wretched creatures now began to trade upon what had been a genuine -belief, and their conduct, whilst it showed that sincerity was parting -company with superstition, helped to undermine faith in all such things. - -[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.] - -In London, similar but still more disgusting exhibitions were made by -people pretending to be possessed; and in one case a miserable woman, -through an accusation for witchcraft, had her hair torn off her head, -and after being kicked and trampled on, was thrown into a horse-pond. -A new result followed: instead of the supposed witch being punished, -the pretended victim was. All sorts of pretences were shown up, and -pretenders suffered the punishment they deserved, whilst poor old -crones, bent double with age, escaped the river, the gallows, and the -stake. Between 1640 and 1680, many unhappy creatures were punished -for witchcraft. Between 1680 and 1691, three were hanged at Exeter, -the last instance of capital punishment inflicted in England for this -offence; three were imprisoned in Somersetshire; and several in other -counties were ducked in horse-ponds. - -An accused widow, really insane, died in Beccles Gaol; another, -represented as having black and white imps, which turned out to -be a white lock of wool in a basket, throwing a deep shadow, was -acquitted. Afterwards, acquittals became common; indeed, I find no -more convictions in England during the reign of William III.; on the -other hand, I notice cases of people put in the pillory for pretending -to be possessed.[434] Very much of this change must be ascribed to -the course pursued by Lord Chief Justice Holt. The wise and humane -Sir Matthew Hale had retained through life a belief in the black act. -His wisdom and humanity did not prove sufficient to penetrate to the -delusion which from boyhood lay all around him; but Sir John Holt came -into the world at a later period, and when he reached manhood, old -prejudices had less power, the atmosphere of superstition was less -dense; his shrewdness led him to see the falsehood of the theory, and -to him belongs the honour of having swept the dust and dirt of the -whole business clean out of English courts for ever. - -The merit of Sir John Holt is all the greater in that a belief in -bewitchment kept ground in many religious minds; and it was still -common in other lands to punish people accused of the offence. One of -the last books Baxter wrote contained notices of diabolical agencies, -which he pressed upon atheists, sadducees, and infidels, with a view -to their conversion. Many of the stories were communicated by such men -as the Duke of Lauderdale, Lord Broghill, Dr. Daniel Williams, and the -Rev. Thomas Evelyn, of Dublin, the last two being by no means persons -of a superstitious turn. Making allowance for incorrect information, -clever imposture, and the operation of natural causes, we find -mentioned some things which must be referred to the operation of occult -influences, never yet explained. The idea that there are no mysteries, -evil as well as good, in the universe, is quite as much a prejudice, as -the idea current in the days of Baxter; and the words which Shakespeare -puts into the lips of Hamlet are profoundly wise-- - - “There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, - Than are dreamt of in _our_[435] philosophy.” - -Yet to make use of such stories as Baxter tells for religious purposes -is vain. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they -be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” His book no doubt proved -to be labour lost, but he had plenty of people still to keep him in -countenance. Samuel Wesley wrote in defence of the doctrine,[436] and -in Scotland witch finding went on with vigour. In 1697 no less than -twenty-eight people were accused, and seven of them were executed.[437] -Nineteen were hanged within sixteen months (1692–3) in New England; -eight more were condemned; one hundred and fifty were imprisoned; above -two hundred were accused, of whom many fled the country to save their -lives.[438] - -[Sidenote: SUPERSTITION.] - -One piece of superstition maintained by English Sovereigns received a -vigorous check, but not a death-blow. I have described the ceremony of -touching for the “king’s evil,” so ostentatiously revived by Charles -II. His brother perpetuated the practice. The pecuniary benefit of -submitting to the operation, no doubt, made it very popular, since -it cost £10,000 a year for silver coins to be hung round the necks -of patients. When, at the close of Lent, crowds besieged his doors, -William exclaimed, “It is a silly superstition; give the poor -creatures some money, and send them away.” Once only could he be -prevailed upon to touch a suppliant, when he added, “God give you -better health, and more sense.” There were not wanting some to reproach -the King as cruel and impious, for refusing to exercise a Divine gift; -but the Jacobites turned his conduct to account by saying, he did not -dare to pretend to a power which only belonged to the Lord’s anointed. - - - - - CHAPTER XV. - - -Courses of lectures on doctrinal and devotional themes had been -fashionable with the Puritans. Robert Boyle, looking at the spread of -infidelity, provided, by his will, for the appointment of a lecturer, -to preach eight sermons in a year upon the Evidences of Christianity; -and thus set an example which has been followed by Bampton, Hulse, and -others. The trustees--Tenison, then Bishop of Lincoln, and John Evelyn -being two of them--selected for the first performance of the duty a -rising clergyman, already known in University circles by his vast -attainments, and afterwards famous throughout the world of letters. -Evelyn records the appointment in his _Diary_, by saying “he -made choice of one Mr. Bentley, chaplain to the Bishop of Worcester;” -and the comparatively obscure student, so described, regarded it in -after-life as the greatest honour with which he was ever invested. He -determined to follow Cudworth and Cumberland without imitating them, -to go down to the basis of all theology, and to confute the opinions -of Hobbes and Spinoza. Bentley’s Lectures, entitled, _A Confutation -of Atheism_, after exposing the folly of a godless belief, aimed at -demonstrating the Divine existence from an inquiry into the faculties -of the human soul, the structure of the body, and the frame of the -world. It was a movement along the line of rational thought. The -Revolution had appealed to reason in matters of government. Without -throwing aside traditions--even while appealing to constitutional -forms--Englishmen were seeking after fundamental political principles; -and reason came now to be earnestly invoked in the service of religion. -Philosophy had been employed in attacking Christian beliefs; philosophy -now came to the rescue. Faith in an infinite cause, shaken by the human -intellect, was to be reinforced by a more vigorous exercise of the same -faculty. - -Boyle, the founder of the Lecture, had collected scientific facts -available for the lecturer’s purpose. Locke, by illustrating the -essential difference between matter and mind, had become a pioneer -in the path along which Bentley pushed parts of his argument; and -Newton, by his _Principia_, had prepared for him methods by which -to demonstrate the Creator’s providence and goodness. Thus assisted, -Bentley showed himself possessed of original genius; and having at -command satire as well as logic, with a style adapted to give effect -to his thoughts, he produced a deep impression by his discourses. The -first he delivered at St. Martin’s--the second at Bow Church; when -Evelyn, ensconced in a tall-backed pew, listened with delight to the -preacher, and immediately admitted him to his friendship. Before he -published his work he wrote to the great philosopher, then resident in -Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton corrected and modified Bentley’s -opinions upon some points, but he confirmed his views respecting most, -and supplied him with additional arguments.[439] - -[Sidenote: BOYLE LECTURE.] - -Bentley soon afterwards obtained a stall in Worcester Cathedral, -probably through the influence of Stillingfleet, his patron. If we are -to believe his words, he had what was a better reward, for he says: -“The Atheists were silent since that time, and sheltered themselves -under Deism.” It is a pity that historical justice requires it to be -said that this advocate of natural theology did not possess the primary -virtue of religion, and the chief ornament of all learning. A nobleman -happening one day to sit near Stillingfleet at dinner, observed to him, -“My Lord, that chaplain of yours is certainly a very extraordinary -man.” “Yes,” he replied; “had he but the gift of humility, he would be -the most extraordinary man in Europe.”[440] - -According to the terms of Boyle’s will, which authorized the -appointment of the same lecturer for three years, Bentley might have -delivered another course of sermons; but owing, as it is said, to the -favouritism of one of the trustees, and in opposition to Evelyn’s -wishes, Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, delivered the second -series, entitled, _A Demonstration of the Messias_. Williams, -afterwards made a Bishop, exhibited in his lectures _A General Idea -of Revealed Religion_. Gastrell, subsequently Bishop of Chester, -a friend to Atterbury, and one who pleaded for him in Parliament, -insisted upon _The Certainty and Necessity of Divine Religion_. -Dr. Harris refuted the objections of Atheists to the existence and -attributes of God; a superfluous task, it would seem, if we are to -admit what has been said of the effect of Bentley’s dissertations. -Bradford, “the little ebony doctor,” as he was called--an enemy -of Atterbury’s--discoursed upon the credibility of the Christian -Religion. Blackall, afterwards a Bishop, established and illustrated -the sufficiency and perfection of the Old and New Testaments; and Dr. -Stanhope defended the truth and excellence of the Christian Religion -against Jews, Infidels, and Heretics.[441] - -In 1695, Locke anonymously published his _Reasonableness of -Christianity_. Again the appeal was made, not to authority, -tradition, or history, but to reason. The main object was to present -the simplest and most rational form of religion. He concluded, from -his study of the Gospels, that the primary requirement is, that men -should believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed and sent of God; -that such a belief makes everyone a Christian; and that upon it the -superstructure of Christian piety must ever rest. Every reader of this -work must see how hardly he labours to establish his point, how he -repeats over and over again his fundamental principle. He objects to -the enforcement of particular creeds, and he is opposed to all Church -authority in reference to religion; though he speaks in general terms -of salvation through Christ, he enters into no definition whatever of -evangelical doctrines, indeed such definitions he regards as foreign to -his purpose. - -Whilst teaching of this kind, with a continuous appeal to reason, -runs through the larger part of the book, towards the close he -enters upon the supernatural evidences of Christianity. Locke was an -apostle of human reason as opposed to human authority, but he was -no rationalist in the sense of opposing revelation. Revelation he -recognized as a form of supernatural wisdom, and in advocating it he -appealed to supernatural wonders. He dwelt upon the miracles of Christ -as conclusive proofs of His Messianic office--a topic which he also -largely treated in a distinct essay, which will be noticed hereafter. - -[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.] - -The book was attacked not by infidels but by believers, not by those -who objected to Christianity but by those who, attaching importance -to certain truths passed over by Locke, thought that he presented -an objectionable view of the Gospel. He appeared to them to be a -rationalist. Dr. Edwards, a clergyman of the Church of England, son -of the famous Presbyterian who wrote the _Gangræna_, assailed -the treatise with bitterness; and so great was its unpopularity in -some quarters, that a Prelate, who thought of it favourably, candidly -confessed: “If I should be known to think so, I should have my lawn -sleeves torn from my shoulders.” Foreign divines, however, hailed it -with applause, especially Dutch friends of the Remonstrant school, Le -Clerc and Limborch. It found numerous readers abroad, and a Dorsetshire -rector, named Samuel Bold, though thoroughly orthodox on the subject of -the Trinity--respecting which Locke laboured under some suspicion--took -up his pen in defence of the lay theologian. Locke’s idea of faith, as -a simple belief that Jesus is the Messiah, will be regarded by most -theologians as very defective; nor is the account which he gives of -Christianity one likely to afford satisfaction to any reader who has -mastered the contents of the New Testament, whether he believes them -or not. Absorbed in the effort to enforce his own view of the Gospel, -Locke merely ignores, without disproving, certain doctrines, which by -evangelical teachers of Christianity are identified with the system -itself. I plainly see that with his habits of close philosophical -thinking, he could not but be repelled by the manner in which those -doctrines were urged by some warm-hearted divines. Yet however -objectionably or offensively presented, they require to be noticed -and disposed of in some way. They are true or false--if true, they -must be taken into full account before any conclusion can be drawn -respecting the reasonableness of revelation; if false, they need to be -refuted, ere such a notion of Christian faith as is propounded by our -philosopher can be placed upon a sufficient basis. But Locke’s defects -or mistakes relative to the extent of faith do not invalidate his main -reasoning. His proofs of the truth and divinity of the Gospel, drawn -from the miracles of Jesus, and from the necessity of an authoritative -revelation of truth and morals, remain the same; and I would add, that -of the devout faith of the author there can be no doubt, when we are -assured that “he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the method -found out for the salvation of mankind, and when he thought upon it, -he could not forbear crying out, ‘O the depth of the riches of the -goodness and knowledge of God.’”[442] - -[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.] - -Locke, in his _Essay on the Human Understanding_, enters -at large upon the question of the boundaries between reason and -revelation--a question involved in what he says on the Reasonableness -of Christianity. He asserts most plainly the principle, that revelation -cannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason, but then, -immediately afterwards, he adopts the distinction between things -contrary to reason and things above reason--citing, as examples of the -latter, the fall of angels and the resurrection of the dead. Anything -not contrary to reason, he contends, is to be believed if taught by -revelation; “whatever proposition,” he says, “is revealed, of whose -truth our mind, by its natural faculties and notions, cannot judge, -that is purely matter of faith, and above reason.” Revelation in -such matters “ought to be hearkened unto.” Indeed, Locke goes so far -as to say, that in those things concerning which the mind “has but -an uncertain evidence, and so is persuaded of their truth only upon -probable grounds, which still admit a possibility of the contrary -to be true, without doing violence to the certain evidence of its -own knowledge and overturning the principles of all reason: in such -probable propositions, I say, an evident revelation ought to determine -our assent, even against probability.” Afterwards dwelling upon the -evils of enthusiasm, of which he had a great horror, he goes on to -remark: “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything;” which, -strictly taken, would mean that no revelation can be a final authority; -but he proceeds in the next sentence to tell us: “I do not mean that -we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed -from God can be made out by natural principles, and if it cannot, -that then we may reject it, but consult it we must, and by it examine -whether it be a revelation from God, or no. And if reason finds it to -be revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for any -other truth, and makes it one of her dictates.”[443] This explanation -restricts the office of reason to an inquiry into evidence, as to -whether what is thought to be revealed is really such, and leaves faith -to rest ultimately, not in the apparent truth of a doctrine, but on the -revelation making it known. To some, Locke in all this will not appear -to have diverged from an orthodox treatment of evidences; to others, he -will seem to have vacillated a little, leaning now in a rationalistic, -and then in an opposite direction; by none, I think, can he be fairly -regarded as holding the modern doctrine of a verifying faculty--a -doctrine based on a philosophy different from his, and leading to -conclusions at variance with his belief. Whatever might be Locke’s -abstract opinions, it is quite clear that he had no sympathy with -the Socinian party, of whom he speaks as “positive and eager in their -disputes;” “forward to have their interpretations of Scripture received -for authentic, though to others in several places they seem very much -strained;” impatient of contradiction, treating their opponents with -“disrespect and roughness.” “May it not be suspected,” he asks, “that -this so visible a warmth in their present circumstances, and zeal for -their orthodoxy, would (had they the power) work in them as it does in -others? They, in their turn, would, I fear, be ready with their set of -fundamentals, which they would be as forward to impose on others, as -others have been to impose contrary fundamentals on them.”[444] - -[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.] - -Bentley and Locke added what was of the highest value to the literature -of the Evidences. On a far lower intellectual level appeared Leslie, -the Nonjuror, who, eschewing paths of reason, prepared to enter the -path of history, and addressed himself to those of his countrymen who -have little time for study and less capacity for reflection. In 1696 -he published _A Short and Easy Method with the Deists_, in which -are laid down certain rules as to the truth of historical statements; -and he contends that when they all meet, statements cannot be false. -The rules are: “That the matter of fact be such, as that men’s outward -senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it; that it be done -publicly, in the face of the world; that not only public monuments be -kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed; that -such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted and do -commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.” These rules, -Leslie insists, could be successfully applied to the facts connected -with the origin of the religion of Moses and the religion of Christ, -pointing to the institution and observance of Baptism and of the Lord’s -Supper as memorials of the latter. Mohammedanism, he said, lacks such -evidence, and he challenged Deists to show any action that is fabulous, -in support of which all the four marks can be alleged. The work is of -a very slight description, and is composed in a loose and inaccurate -style. It could not meet the case of any who have adopted the -principles of historical inquiry laid down by Voltaire and developed by -Niebuhr, and by them applied to classical annals; nor could the method -be applied by any critical student without great modification, and at -the expense of an amount of learning, which would render the argument -useless for popular purposes. - -Charles Blount, after a side thrust at Christianity in his _Notes -on Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius Tyanæus_, left behind him -papers, which were published in a book, entitled, _The Oracles of -Reason_, containing desultory attacks on revelation, chiefly in a -covert form. Indeed, Blount quaintly observes: “Undoubtedly, in our -travels to the other world, the common road is the safest; and though -Deism is a good manuring of a man’s conscience, yet certainly, if sowed -with Christianity, it will produce the most plentiful crop.” It is a -curious fact that the editor and publishers of these posthumous essays -afterwards became convinced of their true character, and, with a view -to counteracting their effect, issued the _Deist’s Manual_. - -John Toland--who, after being educated a Roman Catholic, whilst still -a boy rushed out of gross superstition into what was to him the more -congenial region of scepticism--began his career as an author by -writing his _Christianity not Mysterious_, a discourse showing -that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason nor above it, -and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. In -this work he does not appear as an antagonist of Christianity; perhaps -he had not yet begun to regard himself otherwise than as a Christian; -yet the tendency of his opinions is to undermine the authority of -revelation. His book, which attracted wide attention, and was, as we -have seen, condemned by the Lower House of Convocation, engaged the pen -of the Bemerton Rector, John Norris, whose extraordinary metaphysical -genius found scope for its exercise in examining Toland’s lucubrations. -His _Account of Reason and Faith, in Relation to the Mysteries -of Christianity_, is one of the ablest books of the period, and -displays a power of analysis, and a determination to reduce the powers -of the human mind to their simplest form, such as reminds one of the -subtle originality of Dr. Thomas Browne. - -[Sidenote: WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.] - -Metaphysics are made to do duty in the service of orthodoxy. Norris -dwells upon the distinction of things contrary to reason and above -it, showing that there is a valid ground for the distinction, that -human reason is not the measure of truth; that, therefore, a thing -being incomprehensible by reason, is of itself no conclusive argument -of its being untrue; that if the incomprehensibility of a thing were -an argument against it, human reason would become the measure of -truth; and, therefore, he concludes that incomprehensibility should -not militate against faith. Of course the terms of a proposition must -be intelligible and not contradictory, for no man can accept what is -plainly nonsensical or obviously false; but the mysterious nature of a -fact asserted in a proposition, Norris proves to be no valid objection -to the veracity of the proposition. His mode of handling this subject, -though extremely skilful and effective, is not always such as to bear a -very close scrutiny; and some modification of his argument is required, -in order to a safe entrenchment against inimical attacks. But he -successfully establishes this point--the fundamental one throughout the -controversy--that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly consonant -with the laws and constitution of the human mind, to believe upon -the authority of revelation, in other words, upon the authority of -infinite wisdom. Norris does not treat Toland’s doctrine as a form of -Deism; his particular application of the principles laid down in this -account of reason and faith is to the Socinian system, but much of the -reasoning is strictly applicable to a form of Deism very prevalent in -the present day. A great deal of what he says goes to the heart of -certain modern theories, and several pages upon the nature and degrees -of mental assent deserve careful study in connection with existing -controversies.[445] - -It will be sufficient to complete this sketch if I observe that Toland -made a decided attack on the New Testament Canon in his _Amyntor_, -published in 1698; and that the formidable controversialist, Samuel -Clark, the next year commenced his polemical career by a successful -encounter in defence of the canonicity of the Gospels. - -In the course of this work I have had repeated occasions for noticing -the theological literature of the period--dogmatical, practical, and -polemical. It will not be impertinent, as we wind up the subject, to -remark respecting its form and style. - -The Renaissance had been at work in art and poetry, and had gradually -supplanted the old romantic school. Gothic churches disappeared -in the fire of London; those built on their ruins were classical -reproductions. A new St. Paul’s arose on Ludgate Hill, in contrast with -old St. Peter’s on Thorney Island. Multiplicity of parts, angularity -of form, picturesqueness of detail, brilliancy of hue, gave place -to regularity of outline, a mathematical exactness of proportion, -smoothness of ornament, and absence of colour. No more pointed arches, -no more niches, no more finials and crockets, no more richly-stained -windows;--all became round, uniform, pale, cold. - -[Sidenote: LITERARY STYLE.] - -A similar change came over poetry. It were an indignity to the -great bard of the seventeenth century to compare him with any other -than the great bard of the sixteenth. Milton’s name is linked with -Shakespeare’s, but in the way of contrast, just as St. Paul’s Cathedral -is associated with Westminster Abbey. The poet of the Renaissance -succeeds the poet of romance. The architectural character of the two -buildings symbolize the characteristic differences of the two masters -of English song. And this same Renaissance spirit worked its way into -theological literature. Taylor and Bunyan, indeed, all the great -religious writers of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, appear -more or less romancists in the style of their thoughts, regarded from -a literary point of view. Divisions, pointedness, quaint expression, -warmth of sentiment, such as arrests us in mediæval buildings, are -reproduced in the books of that picturesque age. The two authors just -mentioned belong to the class of romancist prose poets. But all is -changed when we turn to the theological literature of King William’s -days--Tillotson, Burnet, Bentley, Locke. We miss Anglican and Puritan -sweep of thought, minuteness of detail, intensity of utterance, and -glow of passion. There is no depth of colour, all is pale; no flash of -fire, all is cold. We meet with regularity, order, smoothness. It is -the age of Renaissance in Divinity. - - - - - CHAPTER XVI. - - -Roman Catholicism, during the Middle Ages, had given scope to the -institution, and had paid attention to the culture, of voluntary -societies. Such societies had sprung up in different parts of Europe -amongst the Clergy and amongst the Laity, being placed in subjection -to the laws, animated by sympathy with the spirit, and directed to the -promotion of the interests of the Church. Monks praying in cloisters, -friars preaching in streets, secular fraternities in towns and cities -visiting the poor and sick, had engaged in spontaneous activity, yet -had remained faithful to their spiritual mother. English Protestantism, -at first, did not produce or encourage any such forms of operation. -Cathedral and parochial clergymen, in dignified or humble routine, -were its only authorized agents. Missionary efforts, foreign and -domestic, as well as lay associations for spiritual improvement, were -unknown. In one ascertained exceptional instance, under Edward VI., an -unordained person was allowed to preach; but it was the rule to exclude -all but men in orders from every kind of public or socially organized -usefulness. Not only were Anglicans destitute of any association of -lay helpers in Christian work at home, and of any means for carrying -on Missions abroad, but Puritans were in the same predicament, since -meetings for prophesying, catechizing, and lecturing, and plans for -purchasing presentations to livings, did not constitute the kind of -co-operation now in view. Presbyterians, and many Independents also, -not only from necessity, but from that neglect of unclerical enterprise -which characterized the age, confined themselves, with few exceptions, -to pulpit teaching and pastoral influences. High Church and Low Church, -the Establishment and the sects, exhibited disregard of a principle in -full play in other portions of Western Christendom. A clerical jealousy -of laymen, a fear of schism, and a dislike of everything approaching to -irregularity, lay at the bottom of the Anglican aversion to lay agency. -Prejudices of a similar kind influenced Puritans; for although there -existed abundant religious irregularity during the Commonwealth, there -were not a few amongst Nonconformists wedded to their own notions of -church order. They were High Churchmen in their own way, regarding the -ecclesiastical principles of the New Testament as so comprehensive in -their direct application, as to render all associations distinguished -from the Church itself as perfectly needless. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -This state of things prevailed during three-fourths of the seventeenth -century, when a movement began, opening the way to consequences which -ever since have been unfolding themselves. At present, the vast number -of our religious societies--some in slender connection with churches, -some in no connection with them at all--form phenomena worth the study -of social philosophers; and the rise of them may be distinctly traced -in those combinations for certain purposes, just before and during the -reign of William III., which are now to be described. The outburst of -zeal at that time has received much less notice than its importance -deserves. - -It was about the year 1678--sixty years after the first establishment -in Paris of the societies by St. Vincent de Paul--that a few young men -in London, belonging to the congregations of Dr. Horneck, the popular -preacher at the Savoy, and of Mr. Smithies, an impressive lecturer at -St. Michael’s, Cornhill, came under one of those inspirations which -mark epochs of revival. They agreed to meet weekly for religious -conference, prayer, and scripture reading. When, under James II., -signs of Papal outgrowths were visible, they sought to check returning -superstition, and promoted the use of daily common prayer at the -church of St. Clement Danes, as a sort of protest against the use of -daily mass at the Chapel Royal. Feeling a more than ordinary desire -for the Communion, they frequented the Lord’s-table whenever they had -an opportunity, and stimulated clergymen to celebrate, not only upon -Sundays but upon holidays; and on the vigils of feasts they met for -preparation at one another’s houses. They thus fell in with a current -of sacramental feeling, which became prevalent and powerful at the -opening of the eighteenth century--promoted by the writings of Robert -Nelson and others, and by the example of distinguished persons amongst -both Clergy and Laity.[446] They also raised money for the payment -of clergymen who read prayers, for the relief of the poor, for the -support of schools, and for the spread of Christianity abroad and at -home. They laid down rules of conduct, drawn from their own religious -and ecclesiastical principles, “To love one another; when reviled -not to revile again; to speak evil of no man; to wrong no man; to -pray, if possible, seven times a-day; to keep close to the Church of -England; to transact all things peaceably and gently; to be helpful -to each other; to use themselves to holy thoughts on coming in and -going out; to examine themselves every night; to give every one his -due; to obey superiors, both spiritual and temporal.” Controverted -points of Divinity were banished from discussion, no prayers were used -but those in the Prayer-Book, or sanctioned by clergymen; the strong -Church element in these societies further manifesting itself in careful -abstinence from a lay use of absolution. Resembling in some respects, -in others differing from, Young Men’s Christian Associations, they must -be regarded as harbingers of the latter institutions; and, so regarded, -they in certain minds acquire an interest beyond that which inherently -belongs to them. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -The societies, developed in the way described, attained vigour and -prosperity in the middle of King William’s reign, being promoted by the -approval of Queen Mary, who took a deep interest in their proceedings. -Thirty-nine of them were instituted in London and Westminster. -They spread into the midland and western counties; we find them at -Nottingham and Gloucester, and we follow them across the Channel to -Ireland, to Kilkenny and Drogheda, especially to Dublin, where no less -than ten of them arose under the sanction and help of the Bishops and -Clergy.[447] - -Tillotson, Compton, and other Prelates, at an early period looked -favourably upon the associations and aided their endeavours; but some -at first were shy. Archbishop Sharpe, for example, and other clergymen, -both Bishops and Presbyters, frowned upon all movements of the kind, -as violations of order and as productive of schism. Amongst the lay -promoters of these societies, Robert Nelson becomes conspicuous after -the year 1700, when he abandoned the Nonjuring party. - -Another kind of society, originated about the year 1691--not intended, -like the Young Men’s Associations, for personal religious improvement, -but for checking public immorality--was formed so as to include -Nonconformists. The methods of operation were manifold. The most -prominent was to enforce the execution of the laws against vice and -profanity; and to stir up people to join in this enforcement, the -utmost ingenuity and the most plausible eloquence were employed. An -abstract of the statutes against the profanation of the Lord’s-day, -drunkenness, swearing and cursing, blasphemy, lewd and disorderly -practices, and gaming, was published and circulated, with a list of -penalties annexed; and all good subjects were exhorted, on grounds of -patriotism and religion, to aid in executing these statutes. Other -associations were formed for the same purpose. Persons of eminence, -members of Parliament, justices of the peace, and London citizens, -constituted one division of the army enlisted in the service of public -morals; they chiefly furnished the supplies for carrying on the war. -About fifty persons, including tradesmen and others, composed a second -band, to promote, by individual efforts, the prosecution of the design. -A third detachment embraced constables, who were “to meet to consider -of the most effectual way to discharge their oaths, to acquaint one -another with the difficulties they met with, to resolve on proper -remedies, to divide themselves in the several parts of the city so as -to take in the whole to the best advantage for inspecting of disorderly -houses, taking up of drunkards, lewd persons, profaners of the -Lord’s-day, and swearers out of the streets and markets, and carrying -them before the magistrates.” A fourth rank of men, described as the -corner-stone of the undertaking, contained as many as were disposed -to inform against delinquents; the money arising from informations -being devoted to the help of the poor, except a third part of the -penalty against Sabbath-breaking, which the magistrate had the power to -distribute, but which had never, so it was said, been bestowed upon the -informers themselves. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -The necessity of laws for the punishment of offences against society -and individual rights is plain, but the efficacy of legislation for -the suppression of immorality and irreligion is more than questioned. -Fines and imprisonments can only produce a skin-deep reformation, and -when relaxed are followed by fresh outbursts of vicious indulgence; -and if the least objectionable part of the plan now under review -was defective, the encouragement given to informers was adapted to -produce bad results, only second to those which were assailed. To stir -up people to lay informations against their neighbours, must breed -mutual suspicion; and with the honest intention of destroying one -evil, provoke another into fiercer rage. The laws against drunkenness, -houses of ill-fame, and gambling, were wise and good, and deserved to -be put in force; but the laws against some kinds of conduct, called -Sabbath-breaking, and profaneness, and blasphemy, were of a different -class and of a doubtful character. Blasphemy included the denial of -the doctrine of the Trinity, so that any honest and upright Socinian -came under the scourge, it being sophistically added as a note at the -bottom of the published abstract, “This statute punishes not the error, -but the impudence of the offender.” It should be stated further, that -over the enforcement of the law against immorality and irreligion -an even-handed justice did not preside. The bandage sometimes fell -from the eyes of that impartial lady. The cases of rich and poor, of -high and low, were not always weighed in the same scales. The crusade -against sinners in the valleys and low lands of social life was most -vigorously carried on; the sinners on the hills were left to do very -much as they liked. De Foe exposed this kind of double-dealing. - -But the result of the prosecutions was such that the good people, -working in this way, regarded themselves as very successful. Seventy -or eighty warrants a week were executed upon street swearers, so -that the constables “found it difficult to take up a swearer in -divers of our streets.” Sunday markets ceased; drovers and carriers -were stopped; bakers did not dare to appear with their baskets, or -“barbers with their pot, basin, or periwig-box;” hundreds of bad -houses became closed; and “thousands of lewd persons were imprisoned, -fined, and whipped, and the Tower end of the town much purged from -that pestilential generation of night-walkers, forty or fifty of them -being sent in a week to Bridewell, from whence, at their own desire, -they were transported to America, to gain an honest livelihood in the -plantations.” - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -Means of another and an unexceptionable nature were employed for the -furtherance of the general object. The distribution of tracts--now -become so conspicuous and powerful an agency--was then systematically -commenced, and we notice in the scanty but gradually increasing -list, _Kind Caution to Profane Swearers_ and _The Soldier’s -Monitor_, the last of these publications indicating the interest -taken in the spiritual welfare of the army. A hundred thousand short -tracts against drunkenness and other vices were distributed throughout -the country, and we meet with the statement that especial care was -taken to present them to culprits after their conviction. Connected -with this enterprise appears the germ of another usage, exceedingly -popular in our own times--the preaching of sermons on particular -occasions in behalf of societies. Episcopal clergymen advocated them -from the pulpit of Bow Church, Nonconforming ministers from the pulpit -of Salter’s Hall. With eloquence, or with varying degrees in the want -of it; with spirit, or with dulness; with a pleasant voice, as of one -who can play well on an instrument, or with an unmusical delivery, -which grated harshly on sensitive ears,--did these divines stand up -before congregations, crowded or scanty, charmed or disappointed, -enthusiastic or critical; after which a collection was made, yielding -a goodly amount of gold and silver, or the reverse. Then, as now, -secretaries would be filled with anxiety, committees would listen -with a feeling of responsibility, praises and censures would follow -the appeals, complacency would be inspired, mortification would -be provoked, thanks would be returned; and the good and evil, the -grace and the frailty, the virtues and the infirmities incident to -such occasions would begin to manifest themselves on a small scale, -in prophetic type of what obtains in the May anniversaries of the -nineteenth century. - -The meetings at Bow Church, graced by the presence and assisted by the -advocacy of such men as Patrick, Burnet, Trelawny, Kidder, Williams, -Stanhope, and Bray, were held once a quarter; and, besides sermons -delivered on behalf of these societies, there were sermons preached, -exposing the vices of the age. In different parts of the country -efforts of this kind were made. Stratford, the Bishop, and Fog, the -Dean of Chester, warmly took up the new cause, and the picturesque old -city in the north became head-quarters for the new crusade. - -Societies for the reformation of manners gradually multiplied, and -within a few years they existed numerously, not only in England, but -in Scotland and Ireland; and the undulations of the excitement rolled -over Europe, touched Flanders, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, -Sweden, and also reached as far as the West Indies and North America. - -There were not wanting Churchmen who fixed a jealous eye on these -proceedings, seeing that they combined Conformists and Nonconformists -in works of charity. The goodness of the object did not prevent -disapproval of union with schismatics. Archbishop Sharpe, whose -suspicions as to the Young Men’s Societies have been already mentioned, -refused to countenance in any way those on a broader basis; and Henry -Newcome, son of the eminent Presbyterian of that name, when preaching -a Reformation Lecture, railed against Dissenters, a circumstance which -led Matthew Henry to say, “The Lord be judge between us. Perhaps it -will be found that the body of Dissenters have been the strongest -bulwarks against profaneness in England.” The practice of laying -informations sometimes produced bad blood in Church circles. “My -brother Hulton,” Henry records in his _Diary_, “on Lord’s-day was -seven-night, observing the churchwardens of St. Peter’s with a strange -minister and others, go to Mr. Holland’s alehouse, and sit there three -hours, told the Recorder of it. The Bishop came to hear of it, and -Mr. Hulton desired his Lordship to admonish them. They set light by -the Bishop, and challenged the magistrates to fine them; whereupon -Mr. Hulton was summoned to inform against them, and did so, and they -were fined, but they were very abusive to him.” The co-operation of -Churchmen and Dissenters excited political suspicion; and Vernon, -Secretary of State, by no means friendly to such movements, told the -Duke of Shrewsbury that the Archbishop apprehended their design was -to undermine the Church, and that the Lord Chancellor thought they -rather aimed at discrediting the Administration. Even William approved -of a watch being kept over the movement, and Somers was for finding -out all ways of getting into their secret, and by clandestine means -to defeat clandestine objects. Not that Dissenters were suspected of -treason, but his Lordship wished to know “what discontented Churchmen -or discarded statesmen meant by insinuating themselves into their -familiarities.”[448] - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -In one instance the activity of the reformers occasioned a riot. May -Fair reached its zenith in the reign of William III., when, in addition -to the sale of leather and cattle, all sorts of exhibitions took place -adapted to high and low, rich and poor. Graceful dancers attracted -noblemen; duck-hunting in a pond at the back of a wooden house--which -then, in rural simplicity, stood in what is now the heart of a west-end -population--drew together crowds of the vulgar; and for the curious of -all ranks there was provided a model of the City of Amsterdam, carved -in wood; and, amongst other wonders, a body was shown with the words -_Deus Meus_ written on the pupil of one eye, and on the other a -Hebrew inscription, which had to be taken on trust. Want of loyalty -was not one of the vices of the place, for a play-bill informed the -public that during the time of May Fair an excellent droll would be -performed, called, “King William’s Happy Deliverance, and Glorious -Triumph over his Enemies.” Even ecclesiastical zeal penetrated this -multifarious assemblage, for the bill gave as a second title of the -piece, “The Consultation of the Pope, Devil, French King, and the -Grand Turk.” _Vivat Rex_ closed the advertisement.[449] Not -confining themselves to the quiet distribution of tracts, the friends -of morality who visited the Fair in 1702 were bent upon executing -the law. Informers, constables, and magistrates were busy at their -work, apprehending the worst offenders, and no doubt plenty they -found to do, for it is stated by a contemporary that young people, by -the temptation they met with here, committed much sin, and fell into -much disorder. “Here they spent their time and money in drunkenness, -fornication, gaming, and lewdness, whereby were occasioned oftentimes -quarrels, tumults, and shedding of blood.”[450] The consequence of -the excitement produced by the reformers was, that a set of ruffians, -including a number of soldiers, swore at the constables, drew swords, -made an assault, killed one, and wounded several. The man who slew the -constable was hanged. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -At the close of the year 1698 an organization more important than -any of the preceding took its rise. Dr. Bray and four distinguished -friends, consisting of Lord Guildford, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Mr. -Justice Hook, and Colonel Maynard Colchester, met, and drew up a -document, by which they agreed as often as conveniently, to consult -together how they might be able, by due and lawful methods, to promote -Christian knowledge. The last words pointed to the general object -contemplated, and gave a distinctive name to the institution arising -out of these circumstances, _The Society for Promoting Christian -Knowledge_. As the purpose was comprehensive, and the means -remained to be arranged, a principle of selectness appeared essential -to success; and, accordingly, the possession of “noted humility, -condescension, and charity,” was laid down as essential to membership. -It was determined to have a chairman to preserve order, and the members -were urged, first, to “prevent heats and to allay such as may arise,” -and then “to exercise discretion in talking of their affairs.” Prayers -were to be offered upon commencing business. Members were to be -carefully elected, no payment of money or possession of office being -recognized as a qualification. A candidate was proposed at two meetings -before admission, and in the minutes for June, 1699, it is recorded -on the 27th, that the Lord Bishop of Gloucester was proposed for the -first time, and on the 29th that he was proposed a second time. Eminent -persons, including Prelates, Presbyters, and Laymen, soon joined the -new association. Amongst the Prelates were Patrick, Fowler, Williams, -Kidder, Lloyd, and Burnet. Amongst Presbyters were Shute, Manningham, -Wheeler, and Mapletoft, the latter two being clergymen of Nonjuring -principles, and their association with such men as Fowler and Burnet -in this kind of work is very remarkable. Amongst the Laymen were -Richard Blackmore, William Melmoth, and Robert Nelson; the last, who -joined in 1699, whilst still a Jacobite, and a non-communicant with the -Established Church, further illustrates the toleration of political -and ecclesiastical differences. Besides members in London, who could -meet for personal conference, there were corresponding associates. -John Strype, at Low Leyton, turned aside from his ancient rolls and -faded manuscripts to unite in this movement, and Samuel Wesley formed a -branch at Epworth. - -Manifold were the methods adopted at the beginning, and various schemes -being from time to time discussed, the Society pursued diversified -forms of action, according to circumstances. It was primarily a Book -and Tract Society. The establishment of parochial libraries in America -to aid the work of the Clergy, and of lending catechetical libraries -in market towns of this kingdom, together with the distribution of -good books, as the Society should direct, are amongst the decisions -mentioned in the minutes. At an early period we find in its list of -publications, _Bradford on Regeneration_, _Scougal’s Life of God -in the Soul of Man_, _Melmoth’s Great Importance of a Religious -Life_, and _Bull’s Corruptions of the Church of Rome_. Thirty -thousand copies of _The Soldier’s Monitor_ were sent to the army -in Holland. Admiral Benbow and Sir George Rooke caused similar tracts -to be circulated throughout the fleet; and _Cautions to Watermen_ -were sent down to the West for distribution amongst people employed on -rivers and canals. It was also a School Society upon Church principles. -Catechetical schools in and about London received attention; and before -the end of the year 1699 it was reported that in Whitechapel, Poplar, -St. Martin’s, Cripplegate, Shadwell, Shoreditch, and Bishopsgate, -they had been set up through the Society’s operations. Other similar -efforts were made, as appears from a report by Lord Guildford, as to -teaching paupers in workhouses and instructing them in the Catechism; -and further, it may be stated that resolutions were passed to induce -the parents of scholars to attend catechetical lectures. It is also -worth noticing, as a curiosity, that Mr. Symons, schoolmaster at -Cripplegate, discovered a secret, by which he could teach twenty or -thirty boys the alphabet in a day. Allusions occur, in the months of -July and August, 1699, to efforts at instruction in the parish of St. -George’s, Southwark, being “much obstructed,” when it was ordered that -the agents should immediately treat with a schoolmaster, the Society to -ensure him one half-year’s pay; but the measure was postponed in hopes -of an agreement with the parish officers, who seemed to have thrown -difficulties in the way. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -Whilst the promotion of Christian knowledge, by means of publications -and schools, formed the main object of the Society, other purposes were -incidentally contemplated, and we find these good men anticipating the -labours of John Howard by seeking to improve the state of prisons, -and the modern condemnation of duelling, by giving thanks to Sir John -Phillips for his noble Christian example in refusing a challenge. -Numerous references occur in the earliest proceedings to efforts for -the conversion of Quakers, and, as they are so singular, they claim -notice and require explanation. - -There was a man named George Keith, a native of Aberdeen, and a -fellow-student with Gilbert Burnet at the University of that city. He -went over to America, and there pursued a distinguished course as a -preacher amongst the Quakers; but disputes arose between him and the -Pennsylvanian Friends, which ended in their disowning him, and in his -resisting them. They could not retain a person who openly declared -that he “trampled their judgments under his feet as dirt;” who charged -those who opposed him, with apostacy from Quakers’ principles; and who -established a separate meeting for such as sympathized in his views. -Strange to say, after protesting against American Friends as untrue to -the doctrine of their Society, this energetic person became a member of -the Church of England, and, on his return to this country, entered into -holy orders. He now became a zealous opponent of the people with whom -he had been identified, and being brought into intimate connection with -Dr. Bray, that gentleman considered him a suitable agent for the new -Society. Whether the Society originally designed him for the purpose -or not, certainly Keith deemed it his vocation to do all in his power -to bring Quakers within the pale of the English Church, and the records -of the Society endorse his efforts in this respect. They “report about -the Quakers, and give a satisfactory account of Keith’s designs,” -bestowing upon him a certificate or recommendation, to protect him -in his travels and procure him encouragement from the justices of -the peace, at the same time resolving to circulate his narrative and -catechism. A little later a resolution was adopted “respecting Keith’s -progress into the country to convert the Quakers,” and the sum of -£10 12s. was voted for the purchase of publications, which he was -to distribute in his tour. Reports were sent in by him stating the -result of his mission in Bristol and elsewhere; and it seems that, as -the Quakers at an earlier period had been in the habit of entering -parish churches, to bear witness there against what they considered a -departure from the spirit of the Gospel, so now their former friend, -George Keith, carried on his labours against them in a strictly -retaliative form. - -It is stated in the Society’s minutes, that the Quakers opposed his -attempts to preach in their meeting-houses; and one is surprised -to find, after the Act of Toleration had passed, the following -entry:--“Resolved, that Mr. Keith attempts again, and, if opposed, that -he pursue his remedy according to law.” - -Quakers are not the only persons whose conversion was specially -contemplated; particular attention was paid to Roman Catholics, and -it was agreed that the members of the Society should endeavour to -inform themselves of the practices of priests to pervert His Majesty’s -subjects. I do not find any mention made of special endeavours to -bring back to the Church any other section of Nonconformists than the -people called Quakers.[451] - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the parent of another -society of not less importance. Dr. Bray was deeply interested in -Missions abroad; with extraordinary efforts for the diffusion of the -Gospel in England, he combined extraordinary efforts for the diffusion -of the Gospel in the American colonies. He went out to Maryland -at his own expense, as Ecclesiastical Commissary to the Bishop of -London, and did not return to England until after he had exhausted -his resources. It appears that in March, 1697, when a Bill was being -read in Parliament respecting estates devoted to superstitious uses, -he presented a petition, praying that a portion of such estates might -be set apart for the propagation of the reformed religion in Maryland, -Virginia, and the Leeward Isles, or that some other provision should -be made for the purpose. Animated by this spirit, he induced the -Society to approve of libraries in North America for the use of the -Clergy. He visited Holland to obtain from His Majesty a grant in aid, -and reported the design of Sir Richard Bulkeley to settle on his Irish -estate a rent-charge of £20 a year, and his gift of a share in certain -mines for the furtherance of this object. At length, floating desires -assumed definite shape, and steps were taken to secure a charter -for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Dr. Bray, through the -instrumentality of Archbishop Tenison and Bishop Compton, succeeded in -accomplishing this object, and in May, 1701, the draft of a charter -“was read and debated, and several amendments made, and the names -of the secretary and other officers proposed and agreed to.”[452] -Repeated conferences took place at the meetings of the Society, -touching points connected with the new undertaking; and on the 9th of -June, Dr. Bray stated that His Majesty in Council had signed an order -for incorporating the Society. Convocation had turned its thoughts to -Foreign Missions, but relinquished further proceedings upon finding -this charter was granted. The instrument described the objects of the -new Society as being, first, the providing of learned and orthodox -ministers for the administration of God’s word and sacraments amongst -the King’s loving subjects in the plantations, colonies, and factories -beyond the seas. So far the enterprise was strictly colonial, intended -for the spiritual instruction and welfare of English emigrants to -distant shores. The charter, secondly, contemplated the making of -such other provision as might be necessary for the propagation of -the Gospel in those parts; and this, read in the light of subsequent -operations, might be interpreted to signify the diffusion of Christian -knowledge amongst such of the heathen as lived in the neighbourhood of -English colonists. Still the objects remained limited; it was confined -to the British dominions, and took no account of pagan countries -lying outside. Now that our Indian dominion is so extensive, the old -charter may be construed as pointing to an immense field of labour -there; but the charter at first--when our colonial dependencies were -of comparatively narrow extent--contemplated, consistently with its -nature as an incorporation under the English crown, a range of effort -far within the wide sweep which Missions since have happily taken. -Power was given to hold property, to carry on legal proceedings, to -make bye-laws, and to collect subscriptions. To stamp the whole with -a Church of England character, the Archbishops of Canterbury and -York, the Bishops of London and Ely, the Lord Almoner, the Deans of -Westminster and St. Paul’s, the Archdeacon of London, and the Regius -and Margaret Professors of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge for the -time being, were constituted trustees, the selection of some of these -dignitaries at first being doubtless determined on personal grounds. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -Under the presidency of his Grace of Canterbury, a meeting of members -took place within one of the apartments of Lambeth Palace on the 27th -of June, 1701; and we can fancy Compton, Williams, Fowler, Sherlock, -and others, coming in barges along the Thames, or in coaches, on -horseback, or a-foot through the narrow streets, to the well-known -gateway of the Archiepiscopal abode. The charter was read. Five hundred -printed copies of it were ordered. Melmoth was chosen treasurer, and -Chamberlayne secretary. According to a vote on the occasion, there was -prepared a symbolical seal, representing a ship in full sail, with a -gigantic clergyman, half-mast high, standing by the bowsprit with an -open Bible in his hands, whilst diminutive negroes, in an attitude -of expectancy, are sprinkled over a hilly beach. Overhead is one of -those awkward scrolls, devised to convey words uttered by the persons -introduced; and here it contains in Latin the Macedonian prayer, which -the little blacks are supposed to be offering: “Come over and help -us.” At the top is a face surrounded by sun rays, apparently intended -to denote the presence and benediction of God vouchsafed to the -undertaking. - -Meetings afterwards were held at the Cockpit, in Whitehall, or in the -vestry of Bow Church, and afterwards in Archbishop Tenison’s library, -in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. Soon the secretary prepared parchment -rolls for the use of members deputed to receive subscriptions, amongst -whom were Bishop Patrick, Archdeacon Stanley, and others. The Society -for Promoting Christian Knowledge had at least contemplated missionary -work in our western colonies; but now that a new Society had been -incorporated for extending the Gospel in foreign parts, these fields of -labour were placed under its care. - -As a precursor of publications in religious literature, issued within -a short time in such numbers as would fill a library, there was -presented, at the close of the first year’s operations, a report, from -which it is worth while to extract a passage or two illustrating the -way in which such documents were then drawn up, and of the nature of -the work accomplished by the Society. - -Mention is made of “one missionary for the service of the Yeomansee -Indians to the South of Carolina;” of regard had to infidels amongst -English settlers in North America; and of the determination also to -resist the progress of “Quakerism, Antinomianism, ignorance, and -immorality, which have hitherto fatally overspread those infant -churches.” Provision was made for “some of the islands by a supply -of two ministers;” further, there had been “a settlement compassed -for a congregation at Amsterdam, with the consent of the magistrates -of the place;” and encouragement had been given to commence a church -at Moscow, of which the Czar had laid the foundation. The expense of -these undertakings was paid out of a fund of about £800, aided by -subscriptions amounting to £1,700. - -[Sidenote: RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.] - -In an appendix of the year 1701 is found a plan, proposed by Patrick -Gordon, for establishing seminaries on the verge of the Indian -territory, where boys from London charity-schools should be sent; -the main object being to “induce Indian children to play with these -boys, that marriages might be promoted among them, and a mixed race of -Christians might thus arise.”[453] - -It is a curious fact that in the year 1703 overtures were made by White -Kennet on behalf of the Society to Thomas Hearne, to settle in Maryland -in a parochial cure. He was to be ordained at the charge of Dr. Bray, -to have a library of books to the value of £50, to receive for his cure -£70 per annum, and by degrees to be better preferred. He was to be -librarian to the province, at an additional salary of £10 a year; and -it was added: “When you have been there any time, you have liberty to -return with money in your pocket and settle here in England, if you are -not more pleased with all the good accommodations of that place.” The -offer was not accepted. Hearne felt no vocation to colonial work.[454] -By his refusal, the Society lost one who might have been no very -successful missionary, and Oxford gained an illustrious archæologist. - - - - - CHAPTER XVII. - - -A bold step taken by the Nonjurors in the year 1694 deepened and -perpetuated their schism, and some circumstances tainted their -proceedings with more disloyalty than could be involved in the mere -refusal of an oath. Sancroft, as if copying Romish pretensions, -had appointed Lloyd, ex-Bishop of Norwich, his “Vicar,” “Factor,” -“Proxy-General,” or “Nuncio.” Lloyd accordingly proceeded, in concert -with the deprived Prelates of Peterborough and Ely, to appoint two -Bishops. To soften appearances and to avoid collisions, they gave the -persons appointed the titles of Suffragans of Thetford and of Ipswich, -and, in keeping with their own Jacobitism, they consulted the Royal -Exile respecting those who should fill the offices. Dr. Hickes was -despatched on a visit to St. Germains, with a list of the Nonjurors, to -ask James to exercise the prerogative by nominating two clergymen for -these posts. He graciously received the delegate, who spent six weeks -in travelling that short distance, and in overcoming the difficulties -of access to his Court. Having consulted the Pope, the Archbishop -of Paris, and Bossuet of Meaux, whether it would be consistent with -loyalty to the Church to do what was asked, James, with their sanction, -nominated Hickes as Suffragan of Thetford, and Wagstaffe as Suffragan -of Ipswich.[455] It is plain that James made capital out of this to -further his own designs, for he was at that time deep in plans of -invasion, and his correspondence with Hickes and the Bishop of Norwich -points to them as accredited agents.[456] On the 24th of February, -1694, Hickes and Wagstaffe were admitted into the Episcopal order by -the three deprived Bishops, and the ceremony took place in a private -house in London, where the Bishop of Peterborough lodged, the Earl of -Clarendon being present on the occasion. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Great care was taken by some of the Nonjurors to ascertain the number -and circumstances of clergymen included within their party. It is the -effect of such ecclesiastical divisions to bring into bonds of closest -acquaintance those who agree upon some distinctive principle. Amongst -the _Baker MSS._ is a document containing a long list of those -who forfeited their preferment rather than take the new oath,[457] -and among them the following names occur, with some indications of -character and position appended:-- - -“Mr. Milner, Vicar of Leeds and Prebendary of Ripon, a very learned, -worthy person, is thought well able to live; hath a son preferred to -a good living in Sussex by the late Bishop of Chichester, his uncle, -and a daughter yet unmarried. Mr. Yorke, one of the Vicars Choral of -the Cathedral Church of York, and Curate of St. Belfrey’s, a sober, -loyal person, and zealous for our Church. He hath a wife and child, -but low in worldly circumstances; his losses might amount unto about -£80 per annum. Mr. Cressey, Vicar of Sheriff Hutton (of the yearly -value of about £50), a gentleman well born, of good principles, and -sober conversation; he married old Mr. Thinscrosse’s niece; hath with -her two children; little to live on, save the charity of relations, -and that Sir Henry Slingsbie at present retains him for his domestic -chaplain. Mr. Winshup, Curate of Malton and Prebendary of York (his -loss may be computed about £80); a very learned, good and brisk man; -hath a wife but no child, and some pretty temporal estate, and, as I am -told, is now at London, bending his studies towards the law; a great -acquaintance of late Baron Ingleby. Mr. Symms, Rector of Langton (value -about £80 per annum), a truly loyal and firmly-principled Church of -England man; was lately imprisoned through malice, when the Papists -were secured, the grief whereof (as thought) broke his wife’s heart, -who was a devout gentlewoman; he hath a daughter, and may be an object -worthy of compassion and charity. Mr. Holmes, Rector of Burstwicke and -Vicar of Paul (value about £100 per annum), a gentleman of good family, -(fellow-sufferer with Mr. Symms), sober and well deserving; hath a wife -(who was Dr. Stone’s daughter of York) and many children, and now makes -very hard shift to live. Mr. Rosse, Vicar of Scawby (valued at £40 per -annum), a man of very good parts and learning, but given to excess of -drinking, even to scandal, yet hath a wife and charge of children, and -is an object of pity and charity (if he could be reformed), and very -right in his principles. Mr. Mawburn, Minister of Crake, though within -ours, yet of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Durham; one who is -master of too much learning, except he made better use of it, a great -complier with all the designs of the late reign, and too scandalous -in his conversation upon all accounts. I do not know of any charge he -hath, nor what is become of him, but his living was commonly reported -about £100 per annum.” - -Many other names are given, some reported as “poor,” others “not poor,” -or “well to pass.” - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -The Nonjurors fixed their head-quarters in the Metropolis. There -Kettlewell settled after leaving his incumbency. With all his ardour -and decision he did not practically go so far as some of his brethren. -He objected to the clergy attending parish churches, because, as -he said, if only two or three joined them in private, they might -canonically minister, and have Christ in the midst of them; but he did -not object to the laity uniting in worship with clergymen who took -the oaths. Upon examining the ground of this concession, however, we -find it rests on the idea that the ministration of the ordained is -essential to the Divine acceptance of social service, and the public -devotion in which he allowed the laity to participate only consisted of -common prayer on ordinary occasions, not of special prayer connected -with national festivals.[458] He would in no way sanction the use of -intercession for William and Mary, and was himself very particular in -praying not only for King James, but in obeying the order issued before -the Revolution, for supplications on behalf of the Prince of Wales. He -reached, by a confused logical process, the high ecclesiastical ground, -“that the determination of the Church of England, so solemnly given -in her prayers, was on his side, and was so binding as it could not -be reversed by a superior authority, or even reversed at all, without -making the public voice of this Church to contradict itself.”[459] He -pushed his views of the individual responsibility of clergymen--and, -if I understand him aright, of laymen as well--to such an extent that -he reached a position of thorough independency, for he says, true and -faithful pastors are not so strictly bound to keep up external unity -and peace, as to maintain truth and righteousness and the unpolluted -worship of the Church; and that however private persons are bound to -use modesty and caution in following the “venerable ecclesiastical -judicatories on earth, yet it is not any _implicit dependence_ -on men, or a _blind obedience_ to any human sentence or decision -whatsoever, but observance of the truth itself, and of what God hath -in His Word decided, that must justify them in determining themselves -whom they are to follow.”[460] This is the very protestantism of the -Protestant Religion, the very dissidence of dissent, and it affords an -example of the inconsistency which comes in the wake of circumstances, -and of the odd way in which extremes meet. Kettlewell, in fact, had -become a Nonconformist, and he justified himself only by arguments -of the same description as those which other Nonconformists employ. -From the same cause he was led to declare, there might be ground for -breaking off from any Church without incurring schism, “there being -some things not to be borne with, nor others to be parted with, for the -sake of an external union;”[461] so far he made common cause with John -Robinson and John Owen. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Kettlewell entered with sympathy into the poverty and sufferings of -his brethren. They had many of them lost all, and this benevolent -man, anxious to assuage their distress, drew up a plan for collecting -and distributing a fund for their relief, directing inquiries as to -the income and expenditure of the deprived, with a view to prevent -impositions upon charity. He proposed that the Clergy in London, who -had no business there, but remained only because it was the best -place for obtaining gifts, should be sent where they would be better -maintained at less expense, and where they might make themselves of -some service. Then, touching upon a notorious evil, he remarked, that -others would then have no excuse for frequenting coffee-houses and -hunting after benefactions, but would have time to promote their own -improvement, and he advised those who sought relief, simply to note -their sufferings, without making reflections.[462] He did not confine -himself to sectarian charity, but sought also to promote the welfare of -persons not of his own communion, of which a monument remained after -his death, in a comprehensive trust, of which he was the founder.[463] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Kettlewell remained a Nonjuror to the last, and on his death-bed -expressed his distinctive principles; but he did something better, and -beautifully uttered the language of Christian hope. - -He expired April the 12th, 1695, in London, and was buried in the -parish church of All Hallows, near the Tower, in the same grave which -had contained the remains of Archbishop Laud from his death till the -Restoration. Ken was permitted by the Incumbent to read Evening Prayers -on the occasion, and to attend in his episcopal robes to perform the -burial service. - -Kettlewell’s scheme of charitable relief received the sanction of the -Nonjuring Bishops, who wrote a letter in its favour. The proceeding -was laudable; yet such was the political antipathy to the Nonjurors -by those in power, that Ken had to appear before the Privy Council to -account for putting his name to the appeal; and of the interrogations -he received and the answers he gave, there remains a report under his -own hand. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Dodwell threw his whole soul into the Nonjuring cause, and continued -on its behalf, after the schism had occurred, the advocacy he had -undertaken at the beginning. His pen was busy with denunciations and -encouragements; in private letters to those whom he suspected of -timidity, he deplored the general apostacy from Church principles; -described the apostates as pretending to the name of the Church of -England, whilst acting on the principles of its adversaries; spoke of -latitudinarian notions as tincturing those of the laity who were so -warm for what they call liberty of conscience; and expressed his deep -sorrow for what he considered vacillation and cowardice. - -No multitude of apostates, he declared, could ever be pleaded as an -authoritative example against a small number continuing firm. The -doctrine and practice of these faithful Abdiels, he added, had been -maintained by the Church in all the cases which had occurred from -the beginning of the Reformation to that very day. In the case of -Queen Mary and the Lady Jane Grey, in the case of Cromwell and King -Charles II., nay, in the present case, and in opposition to republican -adversaries. He believed there were few of these great lapsers but -would, a few years before, have resented it, like Hazael, as a great -calamity and scandal had they been charged with doing the things which -they had since actually done. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -He denounced all compliance, eschewed all compromise, and reprobated -all “carnal politics;” warned against balancing expediency with -conscience, and against seeking to promote Protestantism by a sacrifice -of Church principles.[464] He set aside reasons for taking the oaths, -by saying there is no cause so bad but something may be said in its -support, and by referring to Carneades’ _Oration on Injustice_, -Burgess and Barnet’s _Defence of Sacrilege_, and the Hungarian’s -_Vindication of Polygamy_. As an illustration of the lengths to -which party spirit will carry people, I may cite the following passage -from Dodwell’s vehement lucubration: “It is not a particular sect or -opinion that we contend for, but the very being of a Church and of -religion. Whether there shall be any faith that shall oblige to our -own hindrance? Whether religion, which ought to add to its sacredness, -shall be made a pretence for violating it? Whether our Holy Mother, the -Church of England, which hath been famous for her loyalty, shall now be -as infamous for her apostacy? Whether there be any understanding men -who, in this incredulous age, can find in their hearts to venture the -greatest worldly interest for their religion; that is, indeed, whether -there be any that are in earnest with religion?”[465] - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Yet Dodwell wrote from Shottesbrook, August 29th, 1700, to Archbishop -Tenison, requesting him to use his influence in providing Bishops -for the colonies. “The occasion of this present address,” he says, -“is not to beg any favour for myself, nor for our dear fathers and -brethren whom I follow in this excellent cause; it is for that very -body which is headed by you against us, which, we hope, will at length -unite with us on the old terms, when worldly concerns are removed. -You have an opportunity put into your hands of doing God service in -the plantations, and of entitling yourself thereby to greater rewards -from God than you can expect from any of your worldly designs.” And -in November of the same year I discover him corresponding with the -same distinguished person as to healing the Church’s wound. First, -he despatched a _feeler_ on the subject, which was civilly -received, with a request for further communication, and then he -propounded certain terms of recommunion. He thought the Clergy who had -taken the oaths might agree with the Nonjurors so far as to maintain, -in opposition to all Commonwealth’s-men, the doctrine of passive -obedience “to the lawful Prince for the time being,” each party being -left to apply the principle in his own way. As to the doctrine of the -Church’s independency, he proposed there should be “expressions as -full as possible disowning the validity of the Lay Act with regard to -conscience, and protesting against what had been done in this matter -as unfit to pass into a precedent.” As to prayers for the reigning -family, so strongly objected to by Kettlewell, he did not regard -them as obliging a separation. He took, he says in obscure language, -the right of public offices to belong to governors who might _bona -fide_ differ in opinion from their subjects, and, notwithstanding, -be included by them in their intercessions. He did not mean that men -might own those opinions as true which they believed false, yet they -might let them pass as the sense of the community of which they were -members. At the beginning Dodwell suggested, if the reconciliation -could be effected, that the remaining deprived Bishops should “hold -their places, with a third part of the profits, without taking the -oaths;” and in the end, “If you will do nothing on your part to qualify -you for union with us, our fathers will have performed their part, and -you alone must be answerable for the consequences of it.”[466] - -Hickes, Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, resided in Ormond Street, -exerting an influence very different from that of Ken, Kettlewell, and -Nelson; for whilst they kept aloof from political intrigues, he plunged -deeply into the eddying whirlpool, and whilst they allowed the laity to -attend parish churches, he denounced those who did so. He most absurdly -maintained that even when no State prayers occurred in the service, -simply to hold fellowship with schismatics--and such he denominated all -except Nonjurors--was a flagrant betrayal of Christian principle.[467] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -On another point he was at variance with Kettlewell. Hickes thought it -lawful to wear a military disguise that he might escape detection, and -once was introduced, in Kettlewell’s presence, as Captain or Colonel -Somebody, for which a patriotic precedent was characteristically -alleged, by quoting the case of a certain Bishop of old, who, amidst an -Arian persecution, assumed a military title. Nor did Turner object to -the practice of absconding under borrowed names. But against everything -of this kind the severely truthful Kettlewell set his face like a -flint, and would not have swerved a hair’s-breadth from the straightest -line of honesty to save his life.[468] - -Eccentric individuals might be found amongst those who, by Nonjuring -sympathies, were drawn together in a city then, as now, containing -social worlds, scarcely by any chance touching each other. Such -precisians cut themselves off from general intercourse and form -narrow-minded habits, which satisfy their own consciences, but provoke -the ridicule of other people. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Amongst those who in William’s reign often met together and talked over -the affairs of the deprived Clergy, occurs the name of Dr. Francis -Lee--Rabbi Lee, as he came to be called, because of his Jewish -learning. He had been deprived of a fellowship at St. John’s College, -Oxford, and after travelling abroad and practising as a physician in -Venice for a couple of years, had returned to London in 1694, when he -joined a company of Mystics, and married the prophetess of the sect--a -wild sort of lady, who imagined that she received revelations from -God and from angels, and had been taught by them the finite duration -of future punishment. Besides this species of modern Montanism, Lee -adopted peculiar opinions on other subjects, and published proposals -to Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, for the better framing of his -extensive government.[469] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -No layman attained such a position amongst the Nonjurors as Robert -Nelson, pupil of the Anglican Dr. George Bull, and friend of Dr. -Mapletoft, who had been educated in the family of his great-uncle, -Nicholas Farrer, of Gidding. He early imbibed influences favourable -to the adoption of High Church views. His friendship with the -Latitudinarian Archbishop Tillotson, and with the half-Puritan Bishop -Kidder, might hold in check for awhile prior tendencies, but could not -prevent their ultimately producing effect. His personal regard for -Tillotson lasted till death; he held the Primate in his arms at the -moment he expired; yet then all Nelson’s deference to his opinions had -ceased, for from the crisis of the Revolution he had been a Nonjuring -Jacobite. The conversion to Popery of his wife--an aristocratic widow, -the Lady Theophila Lucy, who had become violently enamoured of his -handsome person--did not incline him at all towards Rome, though it -could not prove inimical to the development of his Catholic tendencies. -Of his intense devoutness and religious zeal there can be no doubt, -nor of his respectable abilities; and the importance of such an -accession to the new sect was heightened by other circumstances. No -one can look at his portrait without admiring the taste of Lady Lucy. -His fine features, set off to advantage by a good complexion and the -adventitious decoration of a magnificent wig, must have given him an -imposing presence. That presence was further aided by the taste and -expensiveness of his apparel, to which should be added the recollection -of his wealth and his aristocratic connections. Thus fitted to make his -way in society, he naturally became amongst poor and persecuted people -a commanding personage--an oracle with some, a counsellor with all. He -associated with Lloyd; corresponded with Frampton; was acquainted with -Ken; for Kettlewell he felt a warm attachment; Collier and Spinckes -were numbered amongst his friends; and Hickes lived close neighbour to -him in Ormond Street, Red Lion Fields. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -In his previous residence at Blackheath Nelson wrote books by which -he has become well known to posterity. Few may have heard of _The -Practice of True Devotion_, which he anonymously published in 1698, -or of his _Exhortation to Housekeepers_, which appeared in 1702; -but a lasting fame has followed his _Companion for the Festivals and -Fasts_, which issued from the press in 1704. Bodies of divinity, -founded upon the Apostles’ Creed and upon the Thirty-Nine Articles, -bearing distinguished names, were popular at the time, and books -explanatory of Church offices had attained some reputation;[470] but no -book aiming to explain theological doctrine, through ecclesiastical -associations, could vie with this in the extent of its immediate -circulation. The design struck in with tendencies then beginning to -unfold--not ritualistic in the modern acceptation of the term; but -sacramental--in the way of frequent celebration of the Eucharist and a -strict observance of sacred seasons. The production is pervaded with -a cast of thought which, though pre-eminently cherished by Nonjurors, -was not peculiar to them. Nelson believed that the Episcopal Church of -England is the great conservator of orthodoxy; that her Prayer-Book is -an unparalleled help to devotion; that Sacraments lie at the centre -of Christianity; and that holy days are seasons of blessed revival. -He wrote accordingly; and what he wrote was acceptable to members -outside his own circle, not only on account of their sympathy with -his Church views, but because there lay at the bottom of it this true -idea, that theology should be the handmaid of devotion; that faith -finds expression in worship; that religion is not a metaphysical idea, -but a life which pours itself out in prayer and praise before God, -and in justice and charity towards man. I must add, however, that the -popularity of Nelson’s publication seems in some degree due to the -patronage it received, the eulogiums pronounced upon it, and the means -adopted by religious societies for its circulation. In a literary -point of view it can pretend to little, if any merit. The form of -question and answer, as bare as any catechism, gives it no attraction. -The remarks are commonplace, without any attempt at illustration. For -whatever learning may be found in its pages the reader is indebted not -to Robert Nelson, but to Dr. Cave. - -The book, prepared I presume at Blackheath, was published whilst Nelson -lived in Ormond Street, where he received the congratulations of -his friends, especially of the Nonjurors, who naturally regarded the -popularity of the work as a signal service to their cause. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Nonjuring circles in the Metropolis must often have been agitated -by rumours of plots, real or imagined. In the saloons of Jacobite -nobles, in the back rooms of city shops, in the garrets of Little -Britain, stories would be whispered of preparations made for restoring -the legitimate Sovereign. In the autumn of 1698 such tales reached -the ears of the Duke of Shrewsbury’s Secretary. A Jacobite party had -provided sixty horses: these were dispersed in Kent and about town, -some in the hands of jockeys. They had engaged a Canterbury innkeeper -to help onward their project, had raised a fund of above £1,000, were -on the tiptoe of expectation, and only waited for a signal to mount -their steeds and be off like the wind. So the Secretary heard, and, -in connection with the retailing of all this talk, he stated, that -he was on the point of apprehending a person who dealt in policies -of insurance upon James’s restoration. He paid a guinea--so runs the -letter--to receive fifty if the King or his son should reascend the -throne by the following Michaelmas--certainly a strange scheme for -promoting his return, since it became the interest of everyone who -received the guinea to keep the Royal refugee away.[471] - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Centres of Nonjuring influence and activity existed in the country. -Shottesbrook Park, near Maidenhead, with its beautiful church of -decorated Gothic, and its manor-house full of convenience and -comfort--the home of Francis Cherry, a country gentleman, both handsome -and accomplished, “the idol of Berkshire”--offered a pleasant retreat -for the deprived.[472] Many could be accommodated within the spacious -Hall, for it contained not less than seventy beds; and the owner -was as free in his hospitality as he was rich in his resources. His -heart went with the exiled King, and a story is told to the effect -that once, in a hunting-field, when closely pressed by William’s -steed, he plunged into the Thames where the river was deep and broad, -hoping that the piqued monarch might be induced to follow through the -uncomfortable if not perilous passage. To Shottesbrook House, Robert -Nelson often repaired. There the Nonjuror Charles Leslie found a -welcome, and at a later period than this volume embraces, disguised -in regimentals, when, in danger of apprehension, he obtained shelter -in a neighbouring house until by Cherry’s help he made his escape, -and set out to Bar-le-duc to attempt the conversion of the Pretender. -Many a scene of excitement, many a flush of hope, many a flutter of -fear, many a pang of disappointment must have occurred under the roof -of the Shottesbrook squire, as persons deep in political intrigues -met for conference. Bowdler, Nelson’s neighbour in Ormond Street, -accompanied by his family, was a visitor to this spot; Brokesby, a -deprived clergyman of Rowley, near Hull, found in it a resting-place; -and the learned Prussian Lutheran, Dr. Grabe, who had come over to -receive orders in the Episcopal Church, cultivated friendships at -the agreeable mansion--convenient for him because not very far from -Oxford, where treasures of learning excited his curiosity and increased -his erudition. Hickes delighted in his company, and after his death -compared him to a great and mighty prince, who, dying, leaves behind -many plans of noble and curious buildings, some half, some almost, -and others entirely finished.[473] In the same place, there also -resided the famous Henry Dodwell, whose views distinguished him from -Kettlewell, and still more from Hickes. Entering into ecclesiastical -subtleties, Dodwell would say “that if there had been a synodical -deprivation of the orthodox and faithful fathers of the Church, however -in itself unjust, yet the Clergy and laity ought to have complied -with the greater obligation of owning the Episcopal College than with -the less obligation of owning any particular Bishop.” In this respect -he differed from Kettlewell, who would no more allow of a synodical -than of a secular deprivation, making, as we have seen in reference -to this question, individual conscientiousness the paramount rule of -action. And further in the same line he differed from Kettlewell, for -Kettlewell made the Church throughout subserve religion, but Dodwell -made religion subserve the Church.[474] Dodwell was really in principle -a higher Churchman, though in practice lower, than Kettlewell--much -lower than Hickes; for Hickes would not attend parish worship at all, -and Kettlewell discountenanced it in the Clergy; but Dodwell would -join in morning and evening prayer, childishly satisfying his scruples -when the name of the reigning Sovereign occurred by sliding off his -knees and sitting down on the hassock. It is amusing to notice the -methods of protest against prayers for the reigning family adopted -by Nonjurors. Some rose from their knees and stood up in the face of -the congregation; some shut their books; some turned over the leaves -so as to make a noise; some satisfied themselves by declining to say -_Amen_, or by mentally substituting the names of the exiled -Stuarts. Dodwell, whilst living with Mr. Cherry, had a remarkable pupil -in Thomas Hearne, who was patronized by the generous host, supported -at his cost, and prepared at his expense for the University, as if he -had been his own son. Hearne, as we are informed on his own authority, -was instructed “in the true principles of the Church of England”--an -expression we can easily understand; and we learn from the same -source how busily the incipient archæologist engaged at Shottesbrook -in studies and work subsidiary to literary schemes carried on by the -eminent Nonjurors there congregated together.[475] - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Within a few miles of Frome, in Somersetshire, stands Longleat House, a -palatial abode, surrounded by gardens, in the midst of a wooded park, -worthy of the beauty and magnificence of the mansion. Just outside -the park paling rises the old church of Horningsham, and hard by is a -little Dissenting meeting-house, the most ancient in our island. The -place is not above twenty miles from Wells, and part of the domain -comes within the diocese. There the most eminent and the most admirable -of Nonjurors, Thomas Ken, took up his abode, at the request of Lord -Weymouth, the possessor of Longleat; and if social gatherings like -those of Shottesbrook did not occur there, the residence of the Prelate -rendered it a source of the purest Nonjuring influence. He occupied a -room at the top of the house, removed from the noise and bustle of an -English hall, “open to all comers of fashion and quality.” Surrounded -by his large library, “he wrote hymns, and sang them to his viol, and -prayed, and died.”[476] The most popular of all his sacred lays--the -Morning and Evening Hymns--were composed on the top of a hill, which, -from the prospect it commands through a break in the woods, is well -known throughout the neighbourhood by the beautiful name of “the Gate -of Heaven.” - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Whether he attended the services at the parish church is matter of -controversy. One of his biographers thinks that up to the accession -of Queen Anne he enjoyed, in Lord Weymouth’s private chapel, “the -privilege of pure services, without alloy of the State prayers;” but -it is added, “During his visits to his nephew at Poulshot, or when he -was in other places where he could not find any Nonjuring assembly, we -may conclude, from what he himself says, that, rather than be debarred -the solace of Christian communion, he went to church.”[477] At all -events, Ken was distressed at the idea of perpetuating schism; he -had no sympathy with the spirit of Hickes; though he allowed excuses -for clandestine consecration, he declared his own judgment to be -against them; and though his scruples compelled him to retire from his -bishopric, he longed earnestly for the reunion of the Church. - -Ken survived King William some years, but two of the Nonjuring -Prelates, in addition to those already deceased, expired before the -Sovereign whose rights they would not acknowledge. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -White, Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1698. Bishop Turner sent to -the Dean of St. Paul’s to bury the deceased Bishop in St. Gregory’s -churchyard; the Dean had it intimated to him “that any clergyman -conformable to the Church and Government might bury him.” “Bishop -Turner, who was one that carried up the pall, with thirty or forty -more of the Clergy, and some few laymen, attended him from the house -where he died, and being come into the churchyard almost as far as -the grave, they espied Mr. Standish, one of the Minor Canons, in -his surplice, ready to read the office. At the sight of him they -immediately made a halt, and, after they had conferred amongst -themselves a little while, all the Clergy opened on each side to let -the corpse pass along to the grave, and went, every one of them, -back again, so that only two or three of the laity stayed to see him -interred. It seems the party renounced all manner of communion with any -person conformable to the Church and Government.”[478] I have already -pointed out that there were two classes of Nonjurors: the practically -moderate, represented by Ken and others, even indeed by Dodwell--and -the extreme, represented by Hickes; and it is apparent that the persons -who attended White’s funeral were of the latter description, and would -not in any way hold fellowship with any but their own party. - -In the month of November, 1700, the Bishop who attended that funeral -followed his episcopal brother into the invisible world. Turner was -very poor--“in very needy circumstances,” says Bishop Nicholson, -“having a large family, and no support out of the common bank of -charity.” He lived in extreme retirement, and was buried in the chancel -of Therfield Church, Hertford, where he had once been rector, a single -word only being inscribed on the stone which covered his mortal -remains, but that word most expressive--_Expergiscar_. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -Samuel Pepys, who lost his official appointment upon the accession of -William and Mary, and consequently at that time retired into private -life, wearied in his last days with cares and jaded with pleasures, -sought relief in the duties of religion, and inquired through Nelson -for a spiritual adviser. Nelson’s reply to his request throws a -curious light upon the circumstances of the Nonjurors’ condition: -“After the strictest inquiry, I find none of our Clergy placed in your -neighbourhood nearer than Mitcham, where lives one Mr. Higden, a very -ingenious person, who married the late Lord Stowell’s sister; but I -believe you may have one with greater ease from London, by reason of -the conveniency of public conveyances. Our friend, Dean Hickes, is at -present at Oxford; but if you will be pleased whenever your occasions -require it to send to Mr. Spinckes, who has the honour of being known -to you, he will be sure to wait upon you, and take such measures -that you may always be supplied whenever you stand in need of such -assistance. He lodges at a glazier’s in Winchester Street, near London -Wall.”[479] - -Pepys died in the summer of 1703, and, in a letter to Dr. Charlett, -Hickes described the services he rendered the dying man, and the effect -which they produced upon him. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -Some Jacobites who took the oaths with certain qualifications repented -afterwards, and openly threw in their lot with such as refused to -swear. One of them drew up a penitential confession, in which, with -morbid conscientiousness, he dwelt upon what he called his sinful -compliance. Acknowledgment after acknowledgment of minute particulars, -expanded in terms which magnified each, occurs in the document, closing -with the reiterated prayer: “I accuse, and judge, and condemn myself: -God be merciful to me a penitent!” Retraction was accompanied by a -petition to the ejected Bishop, in which the writer exclaims: “Blessed -Jesu! though I cannot now glory in my not having fallen, yet I will -take all the shame of my fall to myself, that I may give Thee glory; -and though I cannot now rejoice in my innocence, I desire to cause -joy in heaven (and if Thou pleasest, many penitents on earth) by my -repentance.”[480] No one who is at the trouble of perusing this tedious -composition can doubt the sincerity of the writer, but nobody of common -sense can fail to perceive his weakness, not to speak of the mischief -he did to morality and religion by exaggerations of minor casuistical -points. For though this man mentions his “first dismal step of taking -the sacred name of God in vain,” he does not dwell upon the sin of -perjury, but expatiates upon the wickedness of having connived at, -though he never used, the prayers introduced at the Revolution. - -Another clergyman did what was still more astonishing: he publicly -retracted his oath, and preached upon the words: “I have sinned greatly -in that I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the -iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” at the same -time he exhorted his congregation to renew their allegiance to James, -for whom, as the King of England, and for his family, he publicly -prayed. Such an act was downright rebellion, and no wonder the man got -into trouble. Being tried for his offence, he was sentenced to stand -in the pillory and to pay a fine of £200; but the Government wisely -treated him as a lunatic, and offered a pardon if he would confess his -fault. This he declined to do; consequently he remained in confinement. - -Not only did other clergymen retract compliance, but a layman who -had qualified himself for office by taking the oaths, solemnly, on -his death-bed, in the presence of witnesses, signed a declaration of -penitence. The political feeling mixed up with the confession is -plain, and all these people, while professing the utmost piety, proved -themselves to be unfaithful subjects. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -The political views of the Nonjurors were narrow in the extreme, and -though to be irreligious was a thing they dreaded most of all, their -views of the State were of a very irreligious kind. They took away from -it all moral and religious life, and if they consistently followed -out their own theory, they took away all conscience from the subjects -of a legitimate and anointed King. Their system exalted such a person -to the highest point of favour, and degraded the people to the lowest -step of slavery. Denuding them of political rights, they denied them -political duties, and annihilated all their political responsibilities. -In the death-blow aimed at popular power, morality and religion, in -reference to political life, were blindly smitten. Yet whilst their -creed only left scope for patience in suffering, numbers of them -did not practice this patience, but were everlastingly plotting a -counter-revolution. To them the State appeared as an instrument in the -hands of the Church--to be controlled for its use, to afford revenues -for its support, to supply means for the enforcement of its laws. The -civil power, according to their theory, has been described as “a body -constituted, it would seem, of three principal elements--an absolute -king, money-bags, and a hangman.”[481] It must be said, to the credit -of the Nonjurors, that however slavishly loyal to an absolute king, -they showed an indifference to the “money-bags” and a contempt for the -“hangman”--a fact worthy of imitation by some who entertain a different -theory from them. - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -To Sancroft, the Nonjurors, the ecclesiastical Tories of the period, -and all men of that stamp who clung to the notion of the divine right -of kings, may be applied the remark: “The great crises in the history -of nations have often been met by a sort of feminine positiveness and -a more obstinate reassertion of principles which have lost their hold -upon a nation. The fixed ideas of a reactionary politician may be -compared to madness. He grows more and more convinced of the truth of -his notions as he becomes more isolated, and would rather await the -inevitable than in any degree yield to circumstances.”[482] - -The Nonjuring movement took a narrow and troublesome political -form, yet, notwithstanding all we have said, it was animated by -an intensely religious spirit. This movement did not proceed from -any principle founded upon reason, observation, or experience, -but from a theological dogma about the divine right of kings, -and the consequent duty, religious as it appeared to them, that -subjects should unresistingly obey the Lord’s annointed. The scheme -tended to the political enslavement of the country; it sapped the -liberties of our constitution; yet it appears to have been an honest -endeavour--prejudiced and ignorant, still an honest endeavour--to serve -God: one of a multitude of instances in which false opinions have -perverted true sentiments, and good motives have given sincerity and -disinterestedness to bad actions. No philosophy of history, but one so -wretchedly narrow as to forfeit all title to the name, will deny the -co-existence of right and wrong in the same men, however hard it may be -to untie the knot between them. - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -High Church theology of the Thorndike type had no adequate -representative amongst the Nonjurors. They included no one of -intellectual mark. Bull, the most distinguished scholar and the ablest -divine of the old Anglican school, remained in the Establishment; -so did all the chief theologians who leaned in the same direction -with him. But High Church sentiment of the Laudean order, and such -as belonged to Cosin and Seth Ward, drained off almost entirely into -Nonjuring channels. The Nonjurors also went beyond their predecessors -in this respect. They cast off all the Erastian trammels which were -willingly worn by the Bishops of the Restoration. - -Gladly would the Nonjurors have wrought out a method of parochial -discipline which would have kept in order not merely such religionists -as agreed in their views, but the population at large, reducing -everybody to a Procrustean bed of belief and practice. No Presbyterians -under the Commonwealth could have been more rigorous apostles of -uniformity than the Nonjurors would have proved, had they but obtained -permission to do as they pleased. They would have gone beyond their -predecessors; for though Milton says presbyter is priest writ large, -a mere presbyter has not the same element of despotic force at his -command as is possessed by the genuine priest. The priest, as a steward -of mystical sacraments, becomes more potent than preacher or pastor. He -is constituted lord of a domain beyond the borders of reason and moral -authority; he carries keys which open and shut what the superstitious -imagine to be gates of heaven. The Nonjurors were priests, not with -limitations, like some of their episcopalian brethren, but out and out. -Their ministers offered sacrifice upon an altar, they did not merely -commemorate one at the Lord’s-table. Laymen imbibed their views--they -were maintained by Robert Nelson.[483] - -[Sidenote: 1694–1702.] - -As to modes of worship, the Nonjurors were in circumstances which -precluded ritualistic magnificence. They were proscribed, as -Nonconformist confessors had been, and therefore were forced to -serve God in obscurity. Cathedrals and churches were closed against -them--they were driven into barns and garrets. Pomp, such as is now -so fashionable, was to them an impossibility; not that I find them -manifesting any cravings in that direction. They did not follow -Archbishop Laud. High sacramental views are by no means necessarily -connected with Ritualism. Ritualism may be purely æsthetical, and quite -separate from peculiar doctrinal opinions; at the same time a belief in -the Real presence and in the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper may wear an -outward form not more artistic than that which obtains in a Dissenting -meeting-house.[484] - -[Sidenote: NONJURORS.] - -With all the political and ecclesiastical passions of that age, there -existed comparatively little of what may be properly called religious -excitement. The principal amount of religious excitement in the reign -of William III. must not be sought in the Established Church, or -amongst Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists. It must be divided -between Nonjurors and Quakers. Dismissing the latter for the present, -it may be said that the former exhibited abundant enthusiasm. Hickes -was as much a spiritual fanatic as any of the Presbyterian army -chaplains, or any of Cromwell’s troopers. Some who reviled the madness -of the sects during the Civil Wars and the Commonwealth, were as mad -themselves after the Revolution. Of that kind of devout fervour, which -though not healthy is free from worldliness, and which draws its main -inspirations from the world to come, Kettlewell is a fair example. In -intensity of religious feelings, he resembled a staunch Methodist of -the eighteenth century. - - - - - CHAPTER XVIII. - - -The last ten years of the seventeenth century witnessed the -consolidation of Dissent. Growing in confidence, Dissenters made -bolder ventures. If some old congregations melted away in villages, -where an ejected clergyman had worn out his days, or where the -original supporters had died without bequeathing their opinions, -together with their property, new congregations were formed in towns, -where population gave scope for activity, and social freedom aided -religious effort. Preachers with a roving commission settled down -into local pastors, and a spirit of enterprise appeared in building -places of worship. Nonconformists had for some time amidst hindrance -and irritation been digging again the wells of their fathers, stopped -by the Philistines; but the days of strife were so far over that -they could say: “Now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be -fruitful in the land;” yet such names as Rehoboth and Beersheba, so -often ridiculed, were not used by them as by some of their descendants -of later date. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -As to the erection of religious edifices in London, it may be -mentioned that about the era of the Revolution one was erected in Zoar -Street, another in Gravel Lane, and a third in Hare Court.[485] The -neglected Halls of City Companies had become available for Dissenting -worship, and by economical alterations were transformed into houses -of prayer. Turners’ Hall fell into the hands of the General Baptists -about the year 1688; soon afterwards the Presbyterians erected “a -large substantial brick building of a square form, with four deep -galleries, and capable of seating a considerable congregation.”[486] -Chapels, as we should call them--but the name was not used by the early -Nonconformists--arose in Fair Street, Southwark; in Meeting-house -Court, Blackfriars; in the Old Barbican, beyond Aldersgate; and over -the King’s Weigh-House, Little Eastcheap. At the end of the century, -the Presbyterians provided a moderate-sized wooden building with one -gallery in King John’s Court, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, -Bermondsey. About the same period, the Independents provided a place of -worship in Rosemary Lane; and soon afterwards a large and substantial -edifice was built by Presbyterians in the Old Jewry, Aldgate. It is -remarkable that, after the Act of Toleration had been passed some -years, liberty seemed of so precarious a nature, that to enjoy it -concealment was necessary. Private houses, therefore, were in this case -erected between the meeting-house and the street, that the former might -be screened from public view.[487] - -Nonconformists in the provinces imitated Nonconformists in London. -Bath, then at the head of English watering-places, though still a city -much occupied by clothiers, had a congregation which before had been -wont to meet in “a shear-shop,” but now dared to come into open day, -and to build in Frog Lane, afterwards New Bond Street. In the pleasant -neighbourhood of Shepton Mallet, people who had assembled in the -green woods now erected chapels in the town and adjacent villages. The -Warminster people raised a meeting-house at the cost of £487 2s. 7d., -the sum being obtained partly by subscription and partly by the sale of -pews and seats, which became the property of the purchasers, and were -accordingly sold and bequeathed.[488] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Turning to midland counties, we find that at Nottingham--where -Nonconformists had met in rock cellars such as honeycombed the sand -formation, and are now formed into a cemetery--Presbyterians registered -rooms in Bridlesmith Gate, and the Independents sought shelter in -Postern Place. A few months after William’s accession, the former set -to work upon a meeting-house in the High Pavement, and the latter -cautiously attempted a smaller edifice at Castlegate. Little leaded -windows admitted light through diamond panes; two pillars sprang from -the floor to support the ceiling; stairs rising within led up to a -small front gallery; a sounding-board covered the pulpit; and square -pews, with other accommodation, provided for about 450 people.[489] - -At Chester a new edifice, still in existence, carefully preserved, -and not long ago tastefully restored, cost £532 16s. 1d. It was opened -in August, 1700, when Matthew Henry preached from a text indicating an -apologetic spirit for what was thought a daring enterprise: “The Lord -God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He shall -know, if it be in rebellion, or if it be in transgression against the -Lord, that we have built us an altar.” - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -At Daventry, in Northamptonshire, Dissent made a humble advance, but -under circumstances so interesting as to deserve notice. The origin -of the church there forms one of the legends which in the following -century became dear to many. When Charles II. was on the throne, it -happened that a minister put up on his way to London at the sign of the -Old Swan. He was taken ill and detained for more than a week, during -which period the host and his family paid him kind attentions and -completely won his heart. The traveller, restored to health, summoned -into his room the kind-hearted people, thanked them for their great -civility, and expressed his satisfaction at the order maintained in -the house--an exceptional instance in days when hostelries were given -over to unrestrained indulgence and boisterous merriment. He added: -“Something leads me to suspect there is not the fear of God among you, -and it grieves me to see such honest civility, economy, and decency, -and yet religion wanting--the one thing needful.” He entered into -conversation, and closed by telling them he had in his saddlebag a -little book, which he begged them to accept, requesting that they would -carefully read it. Having presented them with Baxter’s _Poor Man’s -Family Book_, he went on his way without telling them who he was, -nor did they ever ascertain his name, but they felt a suspicion the -stranger was no other than Baxter himself. The result of reading this -and other works by the same author was that the innkeeper and some of -his family became Nonconformists. Weary of his mode of life and having -acquired a competence, he retired to a house having a close behind -it, at the extremity of which stood some humble outbuildings. These -after the Revolution he converted into a legalized meeting-house. His -neighbours came, a congregation was established, and a pastor chosen. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Places of worship were put in trust. Presbyterians drew up their deeds -in general terms, not enumerating articles of faith or referring to -any ecclesiastical standard. In many cases, Congregational edifices -were secured in a similar way, some schedule being annexed to the deed, -declaring that the structure should be used by such Protestants in -the neighbourhood as could not conform to the established religion. -Whatever might be the policy ruling the arrangement, the selection of -ministers, and the character of their preaching, in numerous cases -still easily ascertained, betrayed no indifference as to what is -esteemed orthodoxy of sentiment.[490] - -Energies which resisted persecution did not expire in the midst of -freedom, although Bishop Burnet predicted “that Nonconformity could not -last long, and that after Baxter, Bates, and Howe were laid in their -graves, it would die of itself.” The last of these, on hearing the -prophecy, remarked to the Bishop, “that its existence depended much -more on principles than persons”--an opinion verified by subsequent -facts. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The Presbyterians formed the largest, and, in point of social position, -the most respectable branch of English Nonconformists in the reign of -William. What most indicated their persistency and hope is discovered -in their numerous ordinations. Down to the time of the Revolution -they had been privately conducted. Just as the Prince of Orange was -being driven back to his native shores by untoward storms, a young man -named Joseph Hussey, who had been preaching for eight years, sought -the rite from the hands of Dr. Annesley and other Presbyterians. Not -in the meeting-house of Little St. Helen’s did the parties dare to -assemble, but at the Doctor’s “private dwelling in Spitalfields, in an -upper chamber.” There, on the 24th of October, 1688, the candidate, -as he himself reports, was examined “in the parts of learning by -the Elder, who took the chair and spoke in Latin.” The next day he -defended a thesis against the Papacy. Upon the 26th he was ordained. -The proceedings were begun and finished within the same chamber, in -a neighbourhood then losing the last vestiges of rural life under -the encroachments of weavers, driven from France by the revocation -of the Edict of Nantes.[491] As another instance of the privacy of -Nonconformist services, I would mention that the Lord’s Supper was -not publicly celebrated in the new chapel in Leeds until the month of -October, 1692.[492] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Ordinations emerged from private habitations when, in September, -1689, five ministers were ordained by Oliver Heywood and four of -his brethren, after a notice had been given that the service would -be held in the meeting-house at Alverthorpe, “to which whoever had a -desire might repair.” One of the candidates stood behind a chair, and -poured out a Latin discourse, which seemed to be _extempore_, but -which Heywood believed to be _memoriter_, upon the validity of -Presbyterian orders. This person behaved in an extraordinary manner the -next day, for he was seen “walking in a lane, reading a book,” whilst -the ordaining ministers were waiting for his appearance. After he had -arrived, and had given in his confession, “running through the whole -body of Divinity, according to Mr. Baxter’s _Methodus Theologiæ_, -we proceeded,” says Heywood, “to setting the candidates apart. I came -down, and there being a void space made, we made them kneel down, one -by one, while we all prayed over them.” This was succeeded by the -imposition of hands, the delivery of a Bible, the grasp of fellowship, -a charge to the ordained, and a sermon to the congregation. The -ministers assembled at eight o’clock, waited till ten for the eccentric -youth, and did not terminate the service before five in the afternoon, -when a dinner followed, at the charge of the ordained. - -Another service occurred in 1690, with accompaniments still more -unseemly, the misbehaviour now being on the part of ordainers. The -service took place at Rathmel in Yorkshire. Oliver Heywood and other -Presbyterians came to share in the solemnity with two Independent -ministers. Strange as it appears, those who thus met had not agreed -what should be done; and one of the Independents, as Heywood reports, -urged objections which the Presbyterians undertook to answer. He -objected, amongst other things, that messengers from neighbouring -churches were not present, and that the minister in this case would -not be, as he ought, ordained in the midst of the congregation he -intended to serve. Both the Independents were desired to pray, -but they refused, “and sat by the whole day taking no part in the -proceedings.” The service, however, was decorously enough conducted -by the Presbyterians, who, touching the heads of the candidates, -offered prayer, and after presenting a Bible, gave the right hand of -fellowship. Heywood preached to the candidates and to the people, -and the whole ended with singing and prayer. If anybody had wished -to prejudice orderly people against Nonconformity, he could not have -followed a more effectual method than we find pursued by Independents -on this occasion. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -A few Presbyterians attempted to revive synodical action, and a -meeting with that view at Newbury created much stir--displeasing -Nonconformists, who regarded it as injudicious, and provoking -Churchmen, who urged it was unjust. Convocation remained in shackles; -why, then, should Presbyterian Synods be free?[493] This question was -asked, in forgetfulness of the obvious difference relative to the state -of voluntary churches on the one hand, and endowed churches on the -other. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -As ministers could not continue by reason of death, it became -necessary to reinforce the ranks. One young student of honourable -descent made his appearance in public life at this juncture. Edmund -Calamy--grandson of the Divine of the same name, who had been -Incumbent of Aldermanbury--after studying in Holland, where he had -accumulated stores of Dutch theology, returned to his native land, -and went down to Oxford, where he devoted himself to the study of -the question, whether he should enter the Church, or continue his -lot with Dissenters? Certainly if anybody ever gave himself to the -investigation of the subject, young Edmund did--for, first, he studied -the Bible; then he read several of the Fathers, with all sorts of -critical helps; then he perused Pearson, on the Ignatian Epistles, -as well as Monsieur Daillé and Larroque on the other side; then he -betook himself to the examination of Chillingworth’s _Religion of -Protestants_, which he carefully epitomized; then he attacked -Hooker’s _Ecclesiastical Polity_, and went through it book by -book, setting down the arguments with such remarks as they suggested; -then he turned to Jeremy Taylor’s _Ductor Dubitantium_, dealing -with this as he had done with the rest; and, lastly, with care he -read over the Articles, Liturgy, Homilies, and Canons of the Church -of England.[494] Such an amount of reading for the settlement of -opinion was very well for a youth of twenty-one, and, making allowance -for a bias derived from family traditions and from the ugly memories -of 1662, we must credit him with candour in looking at the subject -on all sides. According to his own account, his reading was chiefly -in favour of Episcopacy; yet his conclusion was decidedly in favour -of Nonconformity. The Nonconformity which he adopted, however, was -moderate; it shrunk neither from Episcopal orders, Liturgical worship, -nor the Establishment principle, but from certain things enforced by -the Church of England. He tells us himself that he would have received -ordination at the hands of a Bishop, “could he have found anyone that -would not have demanded a subscription and engagement to conformity, -and a subjection to the present ecclesiastical government.”[495] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -It is remarkable to find how much this young man engaged in preaching -when he had made up his mind upon ecclesiastical points. He occupied -pulpits wherever they were open. He seems to have been welcomed -everywhere--now officiating at the opening of a meeting-house, and -once at least preaching in a parish church.[496] He had conflicting -invitations. He describes a visit to Andover, where the meeting-house -was in a back yard, through which he had to pass, the people making a -lane for him and presenting their acknowledgments for his good sermon; -and how he found the parlour full of men, women, and children--amongst -them was a grave old woman with a high-crowned hat, who thanked him -civilly for his pains, telling him she thought a special Providence -had sent such a shepherd to such neglected sheep. The conversation, -however, as it went on proved less and less satisfactory, since -it turned out that these Andover folks were divided into parties, -the old lady’s Calvinistic sentiments being loftier even than her -steeple headgear.[497] Calamy travelled down to Bristol, the great -Nonconformist stronghold in the west, to preach to a congregation -of 1,500 people, and was met at Bath by a couple of gentlemen, -“with a man and horse,” to conduct him to his destination. Upon the -road others came to welcome the stranger, like the brethren who met -Paul at Appii-Forum, and brought him on his way “in a manner very -respectful.” Many of the congregation were wealthy, and they offered -him £100 a year and a house to live in, as assistant to their infirm -pastor. But, upon returning to London, Calamy decided on accepting -an invitation to assist Mr. Sylvester upon an allowance of £40 per -annum.[498] He had there the counterbalancing advantage of mixing in -the best Nonconformist society. He spent many an evening at the house -of Dr. Upton, in Warwick-court, where he met his colleague and Mr. -Lorimer, Mr. John Shower, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, Mr. Thomas Kentish, Mr. -Nathaniel Oldfield--names now little known, but celebrities in their -own day. Other ministerial meetings were kept up in Dr. Annesley’s -vestry, Little St. Helen’s, where once a month Latin disputations took -place. Whilst thus engaged, Calamy remained unordained. Desirous of -this rite, he successively requested Howe and Bates to take part in it. -But no public ordination had yet been held within the city precints. -Howe at first seemed pleased with the proposal, but afterwards -demurred, saying he must wait upon Lord Somers, and inquire whether -such a proceeding would not be taken ill at Court. Bates decidedly -declined, and continued to do so for reasons he would not communicate. -Matthew Mead was indirectly asked, but begged to be excused, because, -as an Independent, he feared he might offend some of his brethren by -joining in a Presbyterian ordination. The whole of the transaction is -enveloped in mystery; perhaps Bates had not given up all hopes of a -comprehension, and thought a public ordination might bar the way to it; -perhaps he had given some pledge not to engage in any such service; -perhaps Howe was not quite free from similar determents, and both might -for personal reasons be unwilling to do what they had no objection -should be done by others. My own impression is that both, especially -Howe, clung with tenacity to the idea of one united church in England, -and though they had little hope of seeing the idea turned into fact, -they shrunk from a service like public ordination as perpetuating a -separation they would fain have seen come to an end. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -At length Calamy and six others were publicly set apart to the -ministry, at Dr. Annesley’s meeting-house, by the Doctor himself, -Vincent Alsop, of Princes Street, Westminster, Daniel Williams, pastor -at Hand Alley, Bishopsgate Street, Richard Stretton, of Haberdashers’ -Hall, Matthew Sylvester, of Carter Lane, and Thomas Kentish of the -Weigh-House. Annesley began with prayer; Alsop preached; Williams, -after another prayer, delivered a second sermon; then he read the -testimonials in favour of the candidates; next each of them delivered a -profession of faith; and then, one after another, different ministers -prayed; Sylvester followed with a charge, and concluded with a psalm -and a prayer.[499] The service lasted from before ten o’clock until -past six. - -As vacancies in Nonconformist pastorates occurred, successors had to be -appointed; and it is amusing to meet in the Diaries of the day, cross -lights thrown upon the choice of ministers. The famous antiquarian -Thoresby was in 1693 a leading member of the old Dissenting Church at -Leeds. When deprived of its excellent instructor, Mr. Sharp, “we had -several meetings to consult in order to the choice of a successor. I -had the usual hap of moderators, to displease both the extremes. In -the interim I wrote to several ministers to supply his place. We rode -to Ovenden, and made our first application to Mr. Priestly, a person -of moderate principles, learned, ingenious, and pious; but the people -about Halifax and Horton could not be prevailed upon to resign their -interest in him, without which he was not willing to desert them. I -afterwards rode with some of the people to Pontefract, to solicit Mr. -Manlove, who was at first very compliant, yet after relapsed, but in -the conclusion accepted the call and removed to Leeds.”[500] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Glimpses are caught of meeting-house politics. Thoresby received -from his cousin a discouraging account of Mr. Manlove; but when this -candidate visited the people, Thoresby found an unanimous desire for -the man’s coming, testified by proffered subscriptions.[501] After this -person’s settlement at Leeds, the love of Thoresby towards him and the -old Dissent began to cool. His archæological pursuits brought him into -the society of ecclesiastical dignitaries, and he frequently attended -the parish church. By degrees his sympathy with Episcopalians deepened; -he received the sacrament with them--a proceeding which offended -old friends, and produced alienation. Attracted on the one side and -repelled on the other, after hanging for awhile in suspense between -the opposite communities, he found himself drawn into the bosom of the -Establishment. The Corporation elected him one of their fraternity, and -not long afterwards we find him saying: “I received a most comfortable -letter from my Lord Archbishop of York, answering many objections -against my Conformity, and gave me great satisfaction.”[502] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Fallings-off from Dissent happened in one place, accessions occurred in -another. A clergyman, named Michael Harrison, who had usually preached -at the church in Caversfield, gathered a congregation of Dissenters at -Potterspury, near Stony Stratford, and died a Nonconformist minister at -St. Ives.[503] Amidst the reproaches of High Churchmen at the growth -of Dissent, from Low Churchmen there were received expressions of -goodwill. Hough, Vicar of Halifax, stepped into Heywood’s new place of -worship at Northowram, and putting off his hat, exclaimed: “The good -Lord bless the Word preached in this place!”[504] - -The education of boys, and the theological training of those designed -for the ministry, were matters of great anxiety during the reigns of -Charles II. and James II., and afterwards received increasing attention. - -Seminaries for Dissenters did not in the seventeenth century attain -the dignified title of colleges. They were schools where youths were -educated for secular vocations, and only by degrees did they become -the resort of candidates for the ministry. There was no trust-deed, -no constituency, no council, but the entire management rested with -the person responsible for opening the institution. In the romantic -district of Craven, Richard Frankland, a learned ejected minister, -received pupils, but the Five-Mile Act drove him to Attercliffe. First -and last he educated three hundred youths for the professions of law -and of medicine, and for the work of the Christian ministry. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Archbishop Sharpe was requested by some of the Clergy to prevent -Frankland from proceeding in his labours. He consulted Tillotson as to -the best method of procedure, and received from him this reply: “His -instructing young men in so public a manner in University learning is -contrary to his oath to do, if he hath taken a degree in either of our -Universities, and I doubt, contrary to the Bishop’s oath to grant him -a licence for doing it; so that your Grace does not, in this matter, -consider him at all as a Dissenter. This I only offer to your Grace -as what seems to me the fairest and softest way of ridding your hands -of this business.” To explain this advice, it is proper to remark, -that in the Middle Ages, factions arose at Oxford and Cambridge, and -hosts of students, under some favourite professors, would march off -to Northampton or Stamford to set up rival schools and grant degrees. -Hence an oath came to be required of the University graduates, that in -no other places than in the favoured retreats on the Isis and the Cam -would they ever establish a scholastic lecture. It was in harmony with -Tillotson’s characteristic wariness to give such counsel, but it is -hardly worthy of his reputation for gentleness and Catholicity to put -the disconcerted Prelate up to the trick of masking the batteries of -intolerance under the specious cover of obsolete precedents. - -It should be added, that Archbishop Sharpe behaved very courteously to -Frankland throughout this unpleasant business;[505] and also that other -Dissenting tutors in different ways were hindered by the opposition of -Churchmen. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Two other academies sprung out of Richard Frankland’s--one at -Attercliffe under the superintendence of Timothy Jollie, another -at Manchester under the care of John Chorlton. In the old town of -Shrewsbury, Francis Tallents established a seminary about the time -of the Revolution. At Taunton, Matthew Warren educated several young -gentlemen for the pastorate and for secular occupations. So did Samuel -Birch at an earlier period in Shilton. Joshua Oldfield also kept a -school at Coventry. John Woodhouse, of Sheriff Hales, Shropshire; -George Burden, of Somersetshire; Edmund Thorpe, of Sussex; Joseph -Bennet, of the same county; and Josiah Bassett, of Warwickshire, may be -added to the list of Nonconformist schoolmasters at different dates, -between the ejectment and the end of the century. - -The Metropolis drew towards it several learned men in this capacity, -and Newington Green became “the favourite seat of the Dissenting -Muses.” There the learned Theophilus Gale, and the less known but -erudite and able Charles Morton, educated a number of young men. Edward -Veal had a school at Stepney, and Samuel Wesley, after having been a -pupil of Veal’s, became a student under Morton. Violent opposition to -the Established Church is said to have been fostered under Veal’s roof, -and this young man, who possessed a lively poetical talent, answered -invectives against Dissent by invectives against the Church, until, -from some cause which has been differently explained, he abandoned -Nonconformity, and one August morning in 1683, with forty-five -shillings in his pocket, walked all the way to Oxford, and entered -himself as a servitor of Exeter College. Samuel Wesley, in a letter -published in the year 1703, reflected upon the Dissenting academies, -and afterwards defended what he said in a reply to Mr. Palmer. Much -bitterness appeared in Wesley’s pamphlet, and he was accused of -ingratitude for assailing institutions, to one of which he had been -indebted for a gratuitous education. Palmer vindicated the academies -from the charge brought against them; but, by a curious coincidence, -he like Wesley gave up all connection with Dissent, and obtained the -living of Maldon, in Essex. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Thomas Doolittle, of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and Thomas Vincent, -of Christ Church, Oxford, united in conducting, until within a short -time before his death in 1708, an academy at Islington. Thither Philip -Henry sent his son Matthew, and immediately after his arrival the -young man wrote to his sisters, informing them that in his tutor’s -meeting-house “there are several galleries. It is all pewed, and a -brave pulpit a great height above the people,” adding, in the same -letter: “I perceive that Mr. Doolittle is very studious and diligent, -and that Mrs. Doolittle and her daughter are very fine and gallant.” -During Matthew Henry’s stay at Islington he pursued a course of reading -which bore upon the Christian ministry, but when he left that place he -studied law for a time at Gray’s Inn, although it does not appear that -he ever thought of entering the legal profession. The fact is, that the -elder educated Nonconformists of that day valued all kinds of learning, -and were anxious that their children, especially if designed for the -ministry, should traverse the widest curriculum of study. Further, it -may be mentioned that Ralph Button, fellow and tutor of Merton, Oxford, -who died in 1680, conducted another academy at Islington. - -Dissenting academies could not resemble national Universities. A -variety of professors, extensive libraries, aristocratic society were -beyond their reach, and polite literature and the graces of composition -were but little cultivated. Too much time was given to the study of -dead languages--a mistake, indeed, shared by the Universities. A keen -observer, Daniel De Foe, noticed this defect, and pointed out how -absurd it was, that all the time should be spent on the languages which -learning was to be _fetched from_, and none on the language it was -to be _delivered in_. To this error he attributed the fact that -many learned, and otherwise excellent, ministers preached away their -congregations, “while a jingling, noisy boy, that had a good stock -in his face, and a dysentery of the tongue, though he had little or -nothing in his head, should run away with the whole town.”[506] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Youths of all sorts were admitted into these academies, as into modern -boarding-schools; hence some pupils might be of doubtful character. -Also prejudices against the Church of England would naturally arise. -Amongst the elder pupils the controversies of other days would be -revived, and enthusiastic spirits would tilt a lance on the side -of “the good old cause.” Charles I. and Charles II. would be no -favourites; James II.’s Popery would be denounced; Cromwell would be -excused and praised; and William III. lauded to the skies. In the -common room where students unbent, there might be fun and laughter; -in the private study there might be other volumes than classical and -theological text-books; levity and idleness probably existed in these -gatherings of great boys and young men; and damaging charges, no -doubt, could be substantiated against some of them; but the character -of these maligned institutions must, after all, be judged by their -courses of study, by the character of their professors, and by their -educational results. These tests being applied, lead to a favourable -conclusion. The studies combined logic, metaphysics, and ethics, with -readings in Colbert, Le Clerc, Suarez, More, Cicero, and Epictetus; -natural and political philosophy, with the use of Aristotle, Descartes, -and Vossius; and the perusal of Latin and Greek historians and poets. -Candidates for the pastoral office read Divinity, and studied the Greek -Testament with such critical helps as were afforded in those times. We -are assured that in lectures the Church of England was treated with -respect, the Predestinarian controversy was discussed with moderation, -and Monarchical maxims of government were upheld.[507] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -What the most distinguished teachers were, and what many of the pupils -became, may be seen in preceding pages. - -I must not conclude this chapter without stating that as these -academies were interrupted by intolerant laws, common schools also -were subject to the same inconvenience. Cunning methods were sometimes -adopted by schoolmasters, or were alleged to be so, with the view of -overcoming clerical opposition,[508] and occasion was given for the -display of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary; -bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed between -Churchmen and Nonconformists. - - - - - CHAPTER XIX. - - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -During the Civil Wars, heartburnings existed between Presbyterians and -Independents. They continued under the Protectorate, they diminished -after the Restoration, and it might have been hoped would then have -died out for ever; but unhappily they revived when the Revolution had -set both parties at liberty. When old persecutions ended in England, it -could not be said, as it was when Saul of Tarsus ceased to breathe out -threatenings and slaughter, “then had the Church rest.” Whatever might -be the dispositions of some--and certainly Howe and others were lovers -of peace--ancient animosities exploded afresh. What happened at the -Rathmel ordination indicated this; other proofs will appear. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -An effort at union was, however, made in 1690, under the form of -articles agreed to by the Dissenting ministers. They were published, -under the title of “_Heads of Agreement_, assented to by the -united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian -and Congregational.” This document is worth attention, not only -as an experiment to bring together different parties, but also as -indicating modifications of opinion on both sides. The Presbyterians -and Independents, who after the Revolution adopted these Articles, -could not have held exactly the same views as did Presbyterians -and Independents before the Restoration. The former must now have -abandoned all notions of parish presbyteries and provincial synods, -and must have approximated to the Congregational idea of what used to -be called “gathered churches,” or limited communities, resting on a -principle of mutual choice. Reference is made to parochial bounds as -not being of divine right; yet for common edification, the members -of a particular church, it is said, ought, as far as convenient, to -live near each other. A great deal was conceded by Presbyterians, when -they allowed that each church has a right to choose its own officers, -and that no officers of any one church shall exercise any power -over any other church.[509] The Independents also must have passed -through a change, inasmuch as they now ceased to insist upon the duty -of church members entering into formal covenants, and allowed that, -in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastor and -elders to _rule_ and _govern_, and to the brotherhood to -_consent_, according to the rule of the Gospel. They also tacitly -admitted that a man might be ordained to the work of the ministry -without having a specific pastoral charge, and that the pastors or -bishops of neighbouring churches should concur in the ordination of a -new pastor or bishop over a particular congregation. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -In the chapter relative to the communion of churches, the Independents -of the Revolution showed more disposition towards unity than their -predecessors had done, and the chapter indicates an approach to -Presbyterian government.[510] Seeds of concord between the two -denominations bore some fruit in the provinces. An association -combining them grew up in Devon and Cornwall, and Flavel preached and -presided at its first meeting. In Hampshire and Norfolk the plan met -with favour. So it did in Nottinghamshire, and in the neighbourhood of -Manchester, where, however, Independents were few. It was warmly taken -up in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at Wakefield a united meeting -was held, when Heywood preached from Zech. xiv. 9: “In that day shall -there be one Lord, and His name one.” It seems that the townspeople at -Wakefield were alarmed at the influx of ministers walking through their -streets--the fashionably-dressed people of the reign of William III., -in their jaunty costume, looking with curiosity and suspicion upon -the Puritan garb and the staid demeanour of their visitors. Yet these -reverend gentlemen did not amount in number to more than twenty-four, -and “when the service at Mrs. Kirby’s” was over, “they thought it -prudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which they -dined.”[511] - -A violent controversy--which, before its close, ran through both -Calvinistic and Socinian questions, and gathered up personal -entanglements--started into life soon after the Act of Toleration -had been passed. The doctrines of Justification, the Atonement, and -Christ’s Divinity came successively within its range. Combatant after -combatant entered the field, and although the antagonists, for the -most part, were Nonconformists, they managed, before they had done, to -involve one or two distinguished Churchmen within the coils of their -dispute. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The scene of the first stage was the little town of Rowell, in -Northamptonshire, where a devoted Puritan, named John Beverley, had -created a considerable sensation in the days of the Commonwealth, and -out of this a church had sprung. After the Revolution, Richard Davis, -from the Principality, became minister; and as an indication of his -narrow and jealous independence, it is mentioned that he was “installed -in the office of pastor or bishop” by the church itself, and by that -church alone, some pastors of other congregations, who had come “to -behold their faith and order,” withdrawing from the assembly, because -there was nothing for them to do. Brooking no restraint, he made the -whole county of Northampton his diocese, and went from place to place -preaching and gathering converts into his fold. He enflamed others with -ardour like his own, and became the centre of a wide circle of lay -agency. People living at a great distance were brought into fellowship -with the band at Rowell, and they would, lantern in hand, trudge twenty -miles along dirty roads on winter mornings to hear him preach, and in -the same way go back at night. Offshoots from this vigorous community -became in time distinct societies. These proceedings soon excited -jealousy, and the jealous were not slow to accuse the lay agents of -ignorance, and their superintendent of great imprudence.[512] A noisy -revival broke out in February, 1692, and the press was soon employed -in giving what is called _A Plain and Just Account of a most Horrid -and Dismal Plague at Rowell_, in which tract the “visions and -revelations” of Richard Davis and his “emissaries, the shoemakers, -joiners, dyers, tailors, weavers, farmers, &c.,” are odiously -exhibited. Tidings of this reached London, and attracted the attention -of respectable Presbyterian ministers, who were as much shocked as -it was possible for any Episcopalians to be. What was worse, heresy, -as reported, mingled with wildfire, and Davis stood charged with -maintaining that believers always appear before God without sin; that -if they do wrong they are still without spot; that prayers are offered -more for the sake of discovering guilt to their own consciences, than -for securing forgiveness from God; and that Christ fulfilled the -covenant of grace, “and believed for us as our representative.” Oddly -enough, this Antinomian preacher is said to have entertained an idea -that baptism in the parish church is invalid, for this, amongst other -reasons, that the administrators are not of Christ’s sending. Davis -defended himself as best he could, and the church of which he was -pastor vindicated his character, denying some ridiculous stories, yet -speaking of his ministry in terms corroborative of its high Calvinistic -type. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -The second stage of this controversy appears in London. The Calvinism -of the Commonwealth had by no means perished. Old books bearing its -impress, old preachers repeating its echoes, remained, and wherever -sympathies with it continued to thrive, of course the Northamptonshire -pastor found advocates. Just at this moment an insignificant incident -fanned the flame. A son of the noted Dr. Tobias Crisp reprinted his -father’s works, with additions from unpublished papers; and very -artfully, the editor procured the names of some well-known Divines, -simply, as he said, to attest the genuineness of the MSS.--a thing -perfectly superfluous--really, as he must have meant, to promote the -sale of the new edition. Crisp was a Predestinarian of the first water, -and maintained the doctrine of Election and the limitation of the -Atonement in the narrowest and most repulsive form. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The excitement produced by this book, in connection with the -disturbance created by Davis, was wonderful. The advocates of High -Calvinism hailed it as the commencement of a millennium; they talked -and preached and wrote with renewed vigour, and those who opposed them -were denounced as legalists. On both sides bitterness increased. The -more Crisp’s book was condemned, the more it was read. Its circulation -was greatest amongst the uneducated, who praised the author up to the -skies. The editor informs us that, in so unlikely a place as Guildhall, -at one of the livery meetings, he was accosted by a citizen, who -wrung him by the hand, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked him for -reprinting his father’s sermons. - -Daniel Williams, a Presbyterian minister, formerly of Dublin, and at -the time of the Revolution presiding over a numerous congregation at -Hand Alley, in Bishopsgate Street, was then rising into eminence; and -being a moderate Calvinist, he determined to oppose the circulation -of Crisp’s work. Consequently, in 1692, he published his _Gospel -Truth Vindicated_, in which Crisp’s dogmas are arranged, errors -are separated from truths, and confutations supplied, not only from -Scripture, but also from other writings of that very Divine. Prefixed -to Williams’ book is a list of approving theologians, including Bates, -Howe, Alsop, and Lorimer. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -This publication led to unpleasant complications, and to understand -them we must refer to the celebrated lectures delivered in Pinners’ -Hall. Lectures in the heart of the Metropolis had been popular when -Puritanism was at its zenith. Merchants turned from their walk in -the Exchange and their seats in the counting-house, to listen to a -favourite preacher as he meted out his message by the hour-glass. -When Indulgence came, Pinners’ Hall happened to be vacant, and being -conveniently situated in Broad Street, it was hired for a Wednesday -morning exercise. Four Presbyterians and two Independents undertook -to officiate in succession. Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, Mr. Baxter, and -Mr. Jenkyn, had as their associates Dr. Owen and Mr. Collins. From -the beginning, however, unfortunate bickerings appeared, and at the -Revolution dogmatic differences became increasingly manifest--the -Independents were more Calvinistic than their Presbyterian brethren. -The circumstances of this Lecture perhaps had something to do with the -way in which the Northamptonshire quarrel was taken up, certainly it -added fuel to the fire kindled by the republication of Crisp’s works. -In 1692, of the old Pinners’ Hall lecturers only Bates remained, his -new colleagues being Williams and Alsop. The other new lecturers were -Mead and Cole, decidedly Independent, and John Howe, who, although -previously reckoned amongst Independents, seems by this time to have -associated chiefly with Presbyterians, and to have had more sympathy in -their temper than in that manifested by some of his active Independent -brethren. Attempts at union entirely failed. Storms of feeling could -not be allayed by verbal incantation, and a contemporary, who narrowly -watched the proceedings, deplored the absence of a healing spirit.[513] -Williams, by his book against Crisp, offended some of the supporters -of the Lecture--a circumstance which led to discussion amongst the -lecturers; and in 1694, Williams was voted out, and three of the -number--Bates, Howe, and Alsop--withdrew from Pinners’ to Salters’ -Hall, and commenced a distinct lecture there. Cole and Mead, the two -Independents, remained in the old place, and associated with themselves -four other Independents--Mather, Cruso, Lobb, and Gouge. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -But I must hasten to the third stage of this intricate dispute, when, -in 1695, Stephen Lobb, “the Jacobite Independent,” charged Williams -with implicitly denying the commutation of persons between Christ and -believers, because he had denied such a relation as Crisp maintained, -who went so far as to declare Christ to be by imputation as sinful as -man, and the believer to become through faith as righteous as Christ. -This led to explanations too wearisome for notice. If anyone will take -the trouble to look into what Williams wrote, he will be astonished to -find a man, who went so far in his notions of the union between the -Mediator and His people, suspected of not believing in the Atonement; -and he will discover a signal instance of the intolerable demands which -some will make upon others, in order to enlist from them a full amount -of prescribed orthodoxy. - -The battle raged hotter and hotter. Williams was even accused of -Socinianism, and not content with robbing him of all claim to -orthodoxy, his exasperated opponents tried to filch from him his -virtuous reputation. But he kept them at bay, and at last completely -overcame them.[514] - -Towards the end, two distinguished Churchmen came upon the stage--Dr. -Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and Bishop -Stillingfleet--both of whom were appealed to by the disputants as to -the doctrine of Commutation, and the charge of Socinianism brought -against Williams. The Bishop, of course, contradicted Crisp’s absurd -notion, and pronounced Williams innocent of heterodoxy. - -It is said that the number of Antinomians amongst Nonconformists -diminished after the close of the controversy. - - - - - CHAPTER XX. - - -Dissenters cannot be charged with an absorbing attachment to their -distinctive system; they valued more the common truths of Christianity, -but they were prepared to vindicate their own ecclesiastical views -and to repel aspersions. David Clarkson, who had before published -books on Episcopacy, in answer to Stillingfleet, sent forth in 1689 -his discourse on Liturgies. The charge of being schismatical, laid -at the doors of Nonconformists, led Matthew Henry to publish in the -same year a _Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism_, in which -he endeavoured to prove, that there may be schism where there is no -separation, and that there may be separation where there is no schism. -The discourse being attacked, William Tong, in the year 1693, came -forward in its defence, maintaining that the want of charity, not the -want of particular ministerial orders, creates sinful schism; and -that to charge the crime upon such Dissenters as cultivate candour, -liberality, and love, is “a piece of diabolism which the Gospel abhors, -and of which humanity itself will be ashamed;” and complained at the -end, “that non-resistance and passive obedience was the universal cry -in the Church, and squeezed till the blood came: but the mischief was, -when they had nursed the prerogative, till it had stung some of them -and hissed at all the rest, they presently let the world see they -never brewed this doctrine for their own drinking.” - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -James Owen, a learned Presbyterian minister, published in 1694 a plea -for Presbyterian ordination, and afterwards composed another essay -in support of his views, showing that neither Timothy nor Titus were -diocesan rulers; that the presbyters of Ephesus, not Timothy and Titus, -were successors to the Apostles in the government of the Church; -that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the meeting at -Miletus; and that the ancient Waldenses did not acknowledge diocesan -prelates. This course of reasoning is a specimen of the manner in which -Presbyterians were wont to state and defend their own system. - -But Nonconformist polemics were not confined to the maintenance of a -common cause; they took an internecine turn, not only in connection -with the Crisp affair, but in connection with occasional conformity. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -By the Corporation Act, everyone holding a municipal office was -required to receive the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England. Sir -John Shorter, a Presbyterian, had by such conformity qualified himself -to act as Lord Mayor of the city of London in the reign of James II., -and two distinguished Dissenters in the following reign occupied the -same civic post and adopted the same policy. Sir Humphrey Edwin was -Lord Mayor in 1697, and, dressed in a gown of crimson velvet, carried -the city sword before William, as, on his return from the Continent, he -passed through London with the customary pomp of a public procession. -He not only conformed at certain times during his mayoralty, but he -also, on one occasion when he attended Divine Service at Pinners’ Hall -Meeting-house, caused the civic paraphernalia to be carried before him. -I am not aware whether any other Lord Mayor did this. Sir Humphrey -Edwin might be said to bring the State over to Nonconformity, as at -other times, when he knelt at the altars of the Establishment, he -brought Nonconformity over to the State. At all events, his conduct -subjected him to annoying criticism. He was attacked by a clergyman who -preached before the Corporation in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ballads and -lampoons, caricaturing what he had done, were hawked about the streets, -and Swift, in his _Tale of the Tub_, satirized Sir Humphrey in his -well-known reference to Jack’s tatters coming into fashion, and his -getting upon a great horse and eating custard. Tragical exclamations -were uttered in High Church circles, and in a publication of later -date it is declared, that “to the great reproach of the laws, and of -the city magistracy,” the Mayor “carried the sword with him to a nasty -conventicle, that was kept in one of the City Halls, which horrid -crime one of his own party defended by giving this arrogant reason for -it, that by the Act of Parliament by which they have their liberty, -their religion was as much established as ours.”[515] The Lord Mayor’s -proceeding did not meet with the approbation of his co-religionists. -They felt the injustice of the attacks which it had occasioned; it -seemed to them inconsistent and arrogant for Churchmen to speak in the -way they did of a religion which had the same object of worship, the -same rule of faith and life, and the same end and aim as their own; yet -they saw that Sir Humphrey’s conduct had been such as naturally to lead -to misapprehension and to produce annoyance. Calamy lamented that “this -measure drew unhappy consequences after it, both in this reign and in -that which succeeded.”[516] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Sir Thomas Abney, a Presbyterian, became Lord Mayor of London in the -year 1701. Prior to that date he had favoured occasional Conformity. -When in office he attended church. This occasioned a controversy -between two Nonconformists, who regarded the conduct of Abney and Edwin -from different points of view. - -Daniel De Foe, who had been educated in Mr. Morton’s academy with a -view to becoming a Presbyterian minister, and then found the study of -politics and the pursuits of literature more congenial to his taste, -distinguished himself by a firm attachment to Nonconformist principles, -and carried them out to an extreme extent. He had written about half -a dozen clever pamphlets in about fifteen years, and was on the point -of commencing that career as an author which made him so notorious -among contemporaries, so popular with posterity, when, in 1697, he -published anonymously an _Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of -Dissenters_. In his own trenchant style, with vigorous Anglo-Saxon -idioms, employed after a rasping fashion, he declared that none but -Protestants halt between God and Baal; none but Christians of an -amphibious nature could believe one way, and worship another. - -In the year of Sir Thomas Abney’s mayoralty, De Foe republished -his _Enquiry_, and prefixed to it a preface addressed to John -Howe. John Howe was Sir Thomas’s pastor, and addressing him, De Foe -demanded that Howe should declare to the world, whether the practice -of alternate communion was allowed either by his congregation, or by -Dissenters in general. The practice, he said, should be defended if -defensible, otherwise “the world must believe that Dissenters do allow -themselves to practice what they cannot defend.” - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Howe being dragged before the public, referred to his own moderate -views in points of difference between Conformists and Nonconformists, -but denied having advised Sir Thomas as to his conduct; he declined to -enter upon the question, and only contended that occasional conformity -to one communion, if a fault, should not exclude a person from habitual -fellowship with another. De Foe had taken up occasional Conformity as -a qualification for holding office, and had shown that so regarded it -is incapable of vindication; but Howe regarded the question generally, -and proved that a person who, apart from worldly motives, communes -with one church on particular occasions, and with another church on -common occasions, does nothing which impeaches his conscientiousness or -destroys his consistency. - -The author’s calm temper becomes ruffled towards the close, when he -alludes to the “stingy and narrow spirit” of his opponent, and to his -seeking to impose upon the world a false impression of the English -Puritans. He declared that in 1662 “most of the considerable ejected -London ministers met and agreed to hold occasional communion with the -now re-established Church, not quitting their own ministry or declining -the exercise of it as they could have opportunity.”[517] - -De Foe replied, vindicating his own character, and animadverting upon -Howe’s want of zeal. The latter having reluctantly taken part in this -business, could not be induced to say another word. The spirit of -Howe had greatly the advantage over the temper of De Foe; nothing but -one-sided partizanship could induce any man to charge the advocate of -occasional communion with disloyalty to Nonconformist principles. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Nonconformist preaching was orthodox. The existing generation, -however, deviated from their father’s footsteps. Sermons differed -from those of an earlier period in form: divisions were less numerous -and perplexing, bones were not so visible, there was more symmetry -of proportion, and more roundness of style. In spirit some preachers -diverged from their predecessors--betraying a lack of fire, unction, -and healing power. Nevertheless, there were pastors who caught the -mantle and spirit of the departed. Anyone visiting “the ancient and -fair city of Chester” found a specimen of this in the ministry of -Matthew Henry. At a meeting-house in Crook Street--still in existence, -as I have already said, with the original pulpit and sounding-board, -from which the good man delivered his homilies--he had a congregation -so large, that ultimately it contained as many as 350 communicants, -including a few city magnates. They assembled in their large oaken -pews at 9 o’clock on a Sunday morning, the richer men in curly wigs, -lace ruffles, and ample broad cloth suits; their wives and daughters -with long stomachers, hoops, and lofty head-dresses; but beneath -costumes fashioned by the fancies of the age, they carried in their -hearts wants, cares, and desires belonging to all ages, and such as the -worship and ministry upon which they attended were adapted to meet and -satisfy. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -The service began with the hundredth psalm, according to the version of -Sternhold and Hopkins; and then we can easily image the pastor beneath -the huge sounding-board, standing erect--portly in form, dignified in -mien, comely in face, his person set off to advantage by a curled wig -and a flowing gown--offering prayer and next expounding a lesson in -the Old Testament. The matter and manner may be learnt from perusing -his _Commentary_, where, in the picturesque quaintness of his -thoughts, he aims not at singularity, but at fixing Divine truth in -people’s memories and hearts. Another psalm and a longer supplication -succeeded, and judging from his book on prayer, he must have excelled -in that form of spiritual exercise. Then followed a sermon full of -useful practical thought, arranged in singular devices, after Puritan -precedents; for Matthew had great reverence for the ways of his father -Philip, and of his father’s friends. What is said of the sire may be -said of the son: “Many a good thought has perished because it was not -portable, and many a sermon is forgotten, because it is not memorable; -but like seeds with wings, the sayings of Henry have floated far and -near, and like seeds with hooked prickles, his sermons stuck in his -most careless hearers. His tenacious words took root; and it was his -happiness to see, not only scriptural intelligence but fervent and -consistent piety spreading among his parishioners.”[518] Singing and -praying wound up the service, after it had lasted some three hours. -This protracted worship would be deemed sufficient for one day; but in -the afternoon the same thing was repeated, the exposition of the New -Testament being substituted for that of the Old. We are apt to pity men -who performed or endured such lengthened duties, but really the duty -cannot be regarded as having involved much hardship for them. Such long -services were their own choice. Some might fancy that under the weight -of these prayers, these expositions, and these sermons, every Sabbath -regularly for twenty-four years, the pastor’s strength would break -down; yet the good man seems to have borne the wear and tear of it all -remarkably well. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The Lord’s Supper he celebrated monthly, remarking that “among the -Jews, the beginning of the month was esteemed sacred; and although -he did not consider the Jewish law as to the new moons still in -force, yet from general reasoning he thought the conclusion a safe -one, that whatsoever may be our divisions of time, it is always good -to begin such divisions with God--seeking first His kingdom and its -righteousness.”[519] - -He was impressive in his mode of administering baptism, which he -likened to the taking of a beneficial lease for a child while in -the cradle, and putting his life into it. He used the Assembly’s -Catechism, and when “he perceived in any of his catechumens symptoms of -thoughtfulness upon religious subjects, he specially noticed them, and -as soon as there was a competent number, conversed with them severally -and apart upon their everlasting interests; afterwards in the solemn -Assembly, he catechised them concerning the Lord’s Supper, by a form -which he printed.” He next appointed a day in the week preceding the -monthly sacrament, in which, before the congregation, he was their -intercessor at the Heavenly Throne: a sermon was addressed to them, -and the following Sabbath they were welcomed to the Lord’s-table. -“Such in his judgment, as in that of his father also, was the true -_confirmation_, or transition into a state of adult and complete -church membership.” He considered the ordinances of Christ as -mysteries, of which His ministers are the stewards, and in admitting -any to membership, “they were entrusted with the keys.”[520] Holding -this view, he kept in his own hands the exercise of discipline; and -on one occasion he pronounced sentence of excommunication on three -persons, the act being accompanied by a congregational fast. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Neighbouring villages were visited, and periodical lectures -established. Twice a year county unions met, when ecclesiastical -matters came under discussion. “Affairs of the State or the Established -Church were never meddled with.”[521] - -The account I have given applies particularly to Presbyterians, but -association meetings were also held by Independents. They did not, -however, at these gatherings ordain ministers; ordinations amongst them -generally took place in the presence of the church members by whom -the pastor was chosen. Orders--technically speaking--maintained by -Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians, could scarcely be said to be -recognized by Congregationalists, who considered ordination simply as -an acknowledgment of the church’s act in electing ministers. The key to -the difference between the two denominations is found, on the one hand, -in the Presbyterian idea of power being lodged in the ministry, and, -on the other hand, in the Congregational idea of power being lodged in -the people; and as this distinction and difference affected the subject -of ordination, so it did that of admission and discipline. Admission -of members amongst Congregationalists depended upon a vote of the -church, after an account had been given of the candidate’s religious -character. Congregational churches were not all alike as to terms of -admission. Some were narrow and severe. They exacted circumstantial -proofs of conversion, and an ample confession of faith. In not a few -cases this was required to be given in writing. Others accepted the -children of members, to use their quaint language, when they took hold -of their father and mother’s covenant, and expressed their confidence -in Christ’s passion, and repentance from dead works. The Church having -nothing to object to “their walking,” they were permitted to partake of -the Ordinance of the Supper, and were confirmed.[522] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Yet churches less exacting in terms of admission were curiously -vigilant in the oversight of members, and would call people to -account even for lying in bed, instead of coming to the communion; -for consulting a lawyer on a Sunday afternoon; and for going to a -cock-fight when the brethren were met to seek God.[523] Acts of -discipline depended upon church votes, and sometimes differences of -opinion arose between pastor and people. - -An instance of the manner in which the Independents of the village -of Guestwick, in Norfolk, invited a minister, and prepared for his -reception, is preserved in their church book. They set forward for -London about the beginning of the month of October, 1694, and from -thence to Chalfont in Buckinghamshire, with letters from the church -to the gentleman whom they wished to become their pastor. If he would -come, the church would comply with what he desired. At last they -obtained his consent, the tidings of which were forwarded to the -church. One of the deacons tarried to accompany him and his family. -They went by coach, and were met by several of the brethren at -Swaffham the 1st of November, and arrived at Guestwick the 2nd, at -night. The charges which the church and other friends incurred for -this expenditure amounted to nearly £20. A similar entry of later date -may be found in the Yarmouth Congregational Church-Book, relative to a -coach and four being sent for the conveyance of their new Bishop.[524] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -When ministers grew old and needed assistance, churches were ready to -contribute an additional income. At Cockermouth the aged pastor wished -his son to be associated with him; consequently, the people agreed to -give a call for that purpose, and a letter accordingly was drawn up -and numerously signed. Previously “they subscribed to make him £30 per -annum, with a great deal of readiness and freedom.”[525] - -Congregations testified their interest in public events. At the place -just mentioned, in January, 1689, the people assembled to seek the Lord -for the Convention, held that day in London for settling the nation. -The pastor spoke from Psalm lxxxii. 1. In February, 1698, “the church -passed a day of prayer for the Protestants in France;” and in the -following November they kept a solemnity for God’s deliverance of the -nation and the Church from “the Popish hellish powder-plot;” also “for -saving the nation from Popery and slavery by the landing of the Prince -of Orange.” When the pastor died, December, 1700, the church recorded -his last words: “Lord, remember my poor brethren in France.”[526] - -The Independent mode of conducting worship resembled the Presbyterian. -Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were observed by both much in the same -way. The latter was celebrated in most places once a month; in some, -once in six weeks.[527] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Ecclesiastical revenues of course were voluntary. The expense of -educating men for the ministry was met by parents or friends; -assistance in some cases being provided out of charitable funds. -The Fund Board was established soon after the Revolution, and from -its proceeds young candidates received grants. To this fund the -Presbyterians contributed £2,000, and the Independents nearly £1,700, -a year. Assistance also proceeded from an endowment under the will of -a Mr. Trotman, who, after the Act of Uniformity, bequeathed property -for Nonconformist purposes. The trustees were ejected ministers, -almost all of them belonging to the Independent denomination; and -they afforded small exhibitions to persons studying for the ministry. -Amongst distinguished beneficiaries were Stephen Lobb, who entered -Trinity College, Oxford, in 1679; Benjamin Chandler, who studied -at the same University; Samuel Wesley, who, for awhile, as we have -seen, contemplated being a Dissenting pastor; William Payne, of -Saffron Walden, a friend of John Owen; and the celebrated divine and -poet, Isaac Watts, the last of whom received aid from the Fund Board -also.[528] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -The support of Dissenting pastors depended mainly upon their flocks. -Sometimes, as we have seen, money was raised for the erection of -meeting-houses by the sale of pews, which became the property of the -purchasers; but in such cases, as well as others, the salary of the -minister principally arose from the subscriptions of the people. -Endowments in certain cases increased the revenues, but sometimes, -where churches had no such resources and needed sustentation, grants -were made from the Fund Board. Trotman’s Trust availed in a small -degree for ministerial support, as well as education, so long as any -of the ejected survived, and the money bequeathed to them lasted; for -by his will he left £500 to poor ministers, who had been removed from -“their employment” in the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity. - -We have noticed the public worship of Nonconformists. It is worth while -to advert to Sundays at home. In many a farmhouse and city dwelling, -the master called his household round him in the evening, to read a -chapter and to ask religious questions; all being catechised, from the -old servant by the door to the child who sat beside the cosy hearth, -within the folds of mamma’s ornamented apron. Perhaps a discourse was -read, a psalm sung, and a prayer offered. The young folks might have -looked sleepy before all was over, and some of the older ones might -with difficulty have kept their eyes open; but there were men and women -who could say at the end of these Puritan Sabbaths, with the Henry -family at Broad Oak: “If this be not heaven, it is the way to it.” - -The relation of the pastor to his flock was intimate. He was their -guide and counsellor. Families grew up calling him their own friend and -their father’s friend; for the pastoral bond was rarely broken in those -days, except by death or some very remarkable circumstance. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Of the character of the early Nonconformists, testimony is borne by -Dr. Watts, who loved to cherish memories of the old Dissent, as he had -seen it in his young days. No doubt we sometimes deceive ourselves -in looking down the vista of the past. A transparent haze mellows the -whole; perhaps fancy takes liberties with the details, and lays on -tints of her own. How more than halcyon were the times of the Confessor -from the distance of the reign of Rufus; yet there was truth in the -Saxon’s estimate, under a Norman dynasty, of a former generation. -Unquestionably, there is truth in Watts’ review. He refers mainly to -a period rather earlier than that embraced within this chapter, yet -the light of Puritanism’s autumn day did not expire so long as Baxter -and Howe survived; Watts mentions the reverence of Dissenters for the -name of God, of their strict observance of the Sabbath, of their habits -of religious conversation, of their regular discharge of religious -duties, of their nonconformity to the world, and of their economical -expenditure. - -But all was not sunshine in the old Dissent. Indeed, Watts lamented -the changes he witnessed. So did Howe; his lamentations being deepened -by the loss of early friends--“so many great lights withdrawn, both -such as were within the National Church Constitution, and such as were -without it.” And, no doubt, in connection with altered circumstances -and the advance of free ecclesiastical opinion, there came a -considerable decline of spiritual fervour. The strain and tension of -earlier religious life almost ceased. As in the Church of England there -was more calmness and moderation in Tillotson, Tenison, and Burnet, for -example, than in Cosin and Ward--so it was with Dissenters, as appears -when we compare such a man as Matthew Henry with such a man as Richard -Baxter, or when we place Edmund Calamy by the side of his grandfather. - - - - - CHAPTER XXI. - - -One by one in the reign of our third William the fathers of the old -Dissent passed away. They just saw the morning of religious liberty, -they just touched the border of the land of promise, they dwelt under -its vines and fig-trees for a very little while, and then died in peace. - -Philip Henry expired in the summer of 1696. A few candidates for the -ministry, who had in private academies gone through what they termed -a University course, were permitted to reside at Broad Oak, and to -listen to the instructions of its master. “You come to me,” he would -say, “as Naaman did to Elisha, expecting that I should do this and the -other thing for you, and, alas! I can but say as he did: ‘Go wash in -Jordan.’ Go study the Scriptures. I profess to teach no other learning -but Scripture learning.” - -Philip Henry reminds us of John Bunyan’s pilgrims in the land of -Beulah, as we read the following passage, written not long before his -death: “Methinks it is strange that it should be your lot and mine to -abide so long on earth by the stuff, when so many of our friends are -dividing the spoil above, but God will have it so; and to be willing to -live in obedience to His holy will is as true an act of grace, as to -be willing to die when He calls, especially when life is labour and -sorrow. But when it is labour and joy, service to His name, and some -measure of success and comfort in serving Him, when it is to stop a gap -and stem a tide, it is to be rejoiced in--it is heaven upon earth.” - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The shadow of death in mid-winter enveloped another scarcely less -famous Puritan home. Samuel Annesley, an older man than Philip Henry by -twelve years, with a ministerial history which ran far back into the -troubles of the Commonwealth and Civil Wars, continued to preach in -Little St. Helen’s to a congregation of wealthy citizens, amongst whom -might be seen Daniel De Foe,[529] sometimes the eccentric John Dunton, -and at an earlier time the almost equally eccentric Samuel Wesley, the -two latter being married to two of Annesley’s daughters. Of a hardy -constitution, still more indurated by severe personal habits, Annesley -could bear the greatest cold without hat, gloves, or fire. He drank -little besides water, and to the day of his death could read small -print without spectacles.[530] The pastor’s family was large, for Dr. -Manton, baptizing one of them, asked how many children he had. Annesley -returned for answer, that he believed it was two dozen or a quarter -of a hundred; “this reckoning children by dozens,” says Dunton, “was -a thing so very uncommon, that I have heard Dr. Annesley mention it -with a special remark.” He to the last retained great influence amongst -the Presbyterians, having, “the care of all the churches on his mind, -and being a great support of Dissenting ministers and of the Morning -Lecture.” He entered his pulpit for the last time, saying, “I must work -while it is day,” and died with ecstatic exclamations on his lips: “I -have no doubt nor shadow of doubt--all is clear between God and my -soul. He chains up Satan; he cannot trouble me. Come, dear Jesus! the -nearer the more precious, and the more welcome. What manner of love is -this to a poor worm! I cannot express a thousandth part of what praise -is due to Thee! We know what we do when we aim at praising God for His -mercies! It is but little I can give, but, Lord, help me to give Thee -my all. I will die praising Thee, and rejoice that there are others -that can praise Thee better. I shall be satisfied with Thy likeness! -satisfied! satisfied! Oh, my dearest Jesus, I come!” The old register -of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, for December, 1696, has this entry: -“Samuel Annesley was buried the seventh day, from Spittle Yard.”[531] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Nathaniel Vincent, when the Revolution brought him rest from spies, -informers, and constables, quietly went on with his work in St. -Thomas’s, Southwark, amidst the Presbyterian congregation which he -had gathered; but an unhappy division before his death gave him -trouble--sixty members breaking off to join another church, but no -blame attached to him for this. If the eulogium pronounced by his -friends be true, “he scarcely entered into any company, but he was -like a box of precious ointment, and left some sweet perfume from -his heavenly discourse.” Vincent’s end was sudden and premature; he -had only leisure to exclaim: “I find I am dying. Lord! Lord! Lord! -have mercy on my family and my congregation.” His age was but -fifty-three.[532] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Dr. William Bates, a close friend of Archbishop Tillotson, retained his -popularity and his renown for “silver-tongued” eloquence beyond the -Revolution of 1688. As one of the preachers at Salters’ Hall after the -establishment of the New Lecture there in 1694, although an old man of -seventy-four, he preached to a thronged assembly; but he lived in the -village of Hackney, where he ministered to a Presbyterian congregation -in Mare Street.[533] Howe’s estimate of Bates’ character has been -quoted in a former volume; it is sufficient here to add the following -words by the same writer: “God took him, even kissed away his soul, -as hath been said of those great favourites of heaven, did let him -die without being sick, vouchsafed him that great privilege--which a -good man would choose before many--not to outlive serviceableness. To -live till one be weary of the world, not till the world be weary of -him--thus he prayed wisely, thus God answered graciously.”[534] He died -in July, 1699. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -John Howe survived his friend about five years. It appears from -his allusion to “the great lights of the National Church,” how his -affections lingered around those who were its ornaments, and passages -occurring in his answer to De Foe, indicate Howe’s increasing -tenderness towards the Church of England in his last days. He had -always been a moderate Dissenter, but his moderation assumes broader -dimensions than ever in that publication--the effect, I apprehend, -partly of natural tenderness and partly of unpleasant circumstances. He -had, from the very constitution of his mind, what many great and good -men have not--a burning thirst for union, for a large fellowship of -souls on earth preparatory to the final gathering of the purified and -perfected. This passion increased in Howe the nearer he approached the -world of light and love. He longed, as his days ebbed away, to embrace -within his fellowship the good and wise of all parties; consequently -lines of distinction between church and church, between sect and sect, -became in his eyes paler and paler. And I cannot help seeing that -the disputes amongst Nonconformist ministers in London--the unhappy -divisions arising out of the Crisp controversy--vexed him exceedingly, -and loosened a little the bonds which had bound him to the Independent -body. A moderate Congregationalist in earlier life, he appears -latterly to have sympathized most with Presbyterians. The church in -Silver Street, of which he took the pastoral charge, was Presbyterian. -The Salters’ Hall Lecture, with which he identified himself, was -Presbyterian. Presbyterians were less opposed to the Established Church -than were Independents; the latter felt no wish for comprehension, -the former did; and in that wish, which the impossibility of its -gratification could not quench, John Howe to the last deeply shared. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -In his latter days he largely experienced the joys of religion. He -seemed at that period to attain a more ethereal purity of soul, a -more sublime elevation of mind, and a more seraphic glow of devotion. -The ancients believed that the nearer men approach the hour of death -the more divine they become, and the more piercing is their insight -into the mysteries of futurity. Howe, under the influence of a divine -enthusiasm, certainly appeared during the last year of his life as -if the veil of flesh had been parted, and his free spirit had found -a pathway which “the vulture’s eye hath never seen.” It is related -that on one occasion, at the Lord’s-table, his soul was suffused with -such rapture that the communicants thought his physical strength would -have sunk under the weight of his preternatural emotions. And another -instance of overpowering delight about the same time, is recorded by -himself in a Latin note found on the blank leaf of his study Bible. -After notice of a peculiarly beautiful and refreshing dream which he -had some years before, he adds: “But what of the same kind I sensibly -felt through the admirable bounty of my God, and the most pleasant -comforting influence of the Holy Spirit, on October 22nd, 1704, -far surpassed the most expressive words my thoughts can suggest. I -then experienced an inexpressibly pleasant melting of heart, tears -gushing out of mine eyes for joy that God should shed abroad His love -abundantly through the hearts of men, and that for this very purpose -mine own should be so signally possessed of and by His blessed Spirit.” -One trembles at criticizing such a phenomenon, and at attempting to -resolve it all into a delirium of excitement. Who that has ever mused -on the nature of the human mind, on the mystery of that unseen world -which presses close around it, on the piety of such a man as Howe, and -on the special love which God bears to those whom he makes so like -Himself, would dare to speak lightly of such an incident? - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Howe spent some of his closing days in the composition of a work _On -Patience in Expectation of Future Blessedness_, expressive of his -own religious experience; and it shows that such were his thoughts of -heaven, such his desire to depart, that he had to practice an unwonted -form of self-denial to reconcile himself to continuance in a world -which so many are loth to leave. Friends conversed with him to the -last, and the visit of one of them deserves special notice. Richard -Cromwell called upon him in his last illness, but the words they -interchanged have died away, save an indistinct echo lingering in a -brief sentence by Calamy: “There was a great deal of serious discourse -between them; tears were freely shed on both sides, and the parting was -very solemn, as I have been informed by one that was present on the -occasion.”[535] - -As a proof that Howe needed patience of an unusual kind, I may mention -that he said to his wife: “Though he thought he loved her as well as -it was fit for one creature to love another; yet if it were put to his -choice, whether to die that moment, or to live that night, and the -living that night would secure the continuance of his life for seven -years to come, he would choose to die that moment.” In the same spirit -he remarked to an attendant one morning, after being relieved from the -intense sufferings of the previous night: “He was for _feeling_ -that he was alive, though most willing to die, and lay the ‘clog of -mortality aside.’” When his son, a physician, was lancing his leg to -diminish his sufferings, Howe inquired what he was doing, and observed: -“I am not afraid of dying, but I am afraid of pain.” Indeed, he had -a peculiar sensitiveness with regard to physical agony, which seems to -have been constitutional. All but joy soon afterwards terminated, for, -on the 2nd of April, 1705, his spirit entered those regions of repose -which he had long so fervently desired to reach. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -The passing away of the old Puritans could not but produce a great -effect. When the last of the Apostles left the world, those who -remained in the line of succession--so far as Apostles could have -any proper successors--would fail to reach the level of experience, -character, and influence which their predecessors occupied. And when -the last of the Protestant Reformers died, there would be a falling -off in the ardour and force which marked the religious leaders of the -next generation. And so, without equalizing Apostles, Reformers, and -Puritans, we may say of the last, that when they were all gone--though -their cause remained in the hands of men who had learned their -lessons--the fire no longer burned with the glowing heat it had done -before. There might be more breadth of view, there might be advancement -in some respects, but there remained not the same force which had -operated so mightily at an earlier period. Puritanism, as a creed, as a -discipline, as a form of worship, as a religious sentiment, remained; -but much of its original inspiration passed away. - -Another circumstance may be noticed. The Puritans of the Commonwealth -had in early life mingled socially with Anglicans. They had sat on -the same forms at school, had lived under the same college roof, had -preached in the same places of worship. Owen, Baxter, and Howe had all -shared more or less with Churchmen in the same modes of life before -the severance of 1662. Those who followed them were for the most part -wholly separated from the Establishment, from its universities, its -pulpits, its society, its courtesies, its atmosphere. Hence arose a -personal estrangement between two great parties, in some respects more -mischievous in its results than any of the controversies previously -waged. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -There have been influences at work in Society which rarely arrest the -attention of historians, because hidden in the obscure depths of common -life; and yet they have had a potency of effect, beyond even some -prominent events which come out as landmarks in the past. I am inclined -to ascribe to the social separation of Churchmen from Nonconformists, -which opened in the middle of the seventeenth century, and gaped so -wide at the close--much of that mutual suspicion, and that tendency -to attribute bad motives to those of a different opinion, which still -prevent, more or less, a candid and charitable consideration of each -others’ arguments. Friendly intercourse is a moral discipline which -affects our intellectual nature, and, by softening the asperities -of temper, prepares a man to meet his fellow man with less of that -prejudice so common to all, which blinds one person to phases of truth -discerned by another. - - - - - CHAPTER XXII. - - -The Baptists multiplied after the Revolution, and continued--what -they had been before--often obscure, but always staunch supporters -of independence and voluntaryism. In this respect they differed from -Presbyterians, and often went beyond Independents. The representatives -of more than one hundred churches met in London in the year 1689, and -continued in conference a few days. They republished a Calvinistic -confession of faith, adopted in the year 1677, but their business in -the main was with practical matters and the religious improvement -of their denomination. One doctrinal question which they discussed -was whether believers were _actually_ reconciled, justified, -and adopted when Christ died; this they resolved by affirming that -reconciliation and justification have been infallibly secured by the -grace of God and the merit of Christ; but that their _actual_ -possession comes as the result of individual faith. They took a gloomy -view of spiritual affairs, and, although looking at them from a very -different point of view, reached conclusions resembling those of the -Nonjurors. And this is noteworthy: they referred to the Jews, and -entreated their brethren to “put up earnest cries and supplications -to the Lord for the lineal seed of Abraham.” In furtherance of their -objects they appointed a general fast, and directed that the causes -and reasons of it should be explained. With respect to government -and discipline, they disclaimed authority, nor did they attempt to -settle differences even in respect to communion. They projected a -sustentation fund, in aid of churches, ministers, and students; at -the same time they pronounced it expedient for small churches, in -the same neighbourhood, to unite together for the support of the -ministry. They ventured to commence an attack on the long periwigs of -men, especially ministers, and the bravery, haughtiness, and pride of -women, who walked “with stretched-out necks and wanton eyes, mincing -as they went.” They deplored worldly conformity, and though they did -not deny that ornaments were allowable, they said every ornament which -opens the mouths of the ungodly ought to be cast off. Baptists had -been reproached as Trimmers under James II. for the sake of their own -liberty; but the representatives on this occasion declared that, to -their knowledge, not one congregation had ever countenanced a power -in the King to dispense with penal tests, and that William III. was a -Divine instrument for the deliverance of England.[536] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -A second assembly of the same nature met in London upon the 2nd of -June, 1691, and another on the 3rd of May, 1692. They proposed to -divide their annual assembly into two--one for the east in London, and -the other for the west in Bristol, and they enjoined the making of -quarterly collections for objects specified, at the same time expressly -repudiating all idea of exercising synodical control. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Musical harmony had been a cause of discord; some of the Baptist -celebrities, including Kiffin and Keach, had plunged into disputes on -the subject, and it was alleged that facts had been misrepresented -and unwarrantable reflections published to the world. The matter -came under the notice of a committee, which appears to have given an -impartial decision. They declared that both parties were in the wrong; -that, granting some statements might be true, they had laid open one -another’s errors in an unbecoming spirit; that they ought to remember -how Ham, for discovering the nakedness of Noah, was accursed of God, -and how failings were forbidden to be told in Gath and Gilgal. They -recommended that all the publications produced by the dispute should -be called in and disposed of by the Assembly; and they finished their -award by entreating, as upon their knees, that the brethren would keep -the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.[537] - -Kiffin and Keach were amongst the Baptist magnates at the end of the -Revolution, and were far more influential than Bunyan. Of Kiffin I -have had occasion to speak. It only remains to add, that he continued -his ministry to old age, and that his latter days were adorned by an -act of beneficence. After the French Protestants had been driven from -their own land, he took under his protection and entirely supported a -family of rank, nor would he when these refugees recovered a portion of -their fortune, accept any return for past services. He died in 1701, -leaving a reputation for piety, consistency, and theological knowledge, -and also for moderation, together with firmness in the maintenance of -Calvinistic and strict communion views. - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Of Benjamin Keach I have also spoken. Although a good man, and of an -ingenious turn, he must have been rather pugnacious, for his works are -of a controversial stamp, relating to the seventh-day Sabbath and the -question of psalmody. He was one of those who have not the smallest -doubt of being themselves right, and of everybody else being wrong. -Adult Baptism he described as _Gold Refined_; the Athenian Society -he attacked for what it had said respecting Pædobaptism; he rectified -a Rector by proving Infant Baptism unlawful in his _Axe Laid to the -Root_, or one blow more aimed at that practice, which one blow would -beat down for ever the arguments of Mr. Flavel, Mr. Rothwell, and Mr. -Exell; finally, by _A Counter Antidote_, he strove to resist the -assaults upon what his antagonists would call _Anabaptism_. His -congregation is spoken of as the first to sing in public worship. So -cautious were they, because of the prejudices of their brethren, that -they went on step by step, for a long time restricting the practice -to the close of the Lord’s Supper, then venturing upon a hymn amidst -the exultation of a thanksgiving-day, and at last, after a struggle of -fourteen years, becoming so bold and yet so temperate, as to sing every -Sunday, after objectors to the practice had been allowed to retire.[538] - -The distinction between Particular and General Baptists assumed sharper -form and greater prominence after the Revolution. The General Baptists -of the county of Somerset, in the year 1691, published an original -manifesto of doctrine. These articles, upon the Will of Man, the -Work of the Spirit, God’s Decrees, and the Saints’ Perseverance, are -decidedly anti-Calvinistic, and the final chapter bears a millenarian -impress; but, to avoid being charged with the excesses of the old fifth -monarchists, the brethren declared that the “kingdom ought not to be -set up by the material sword,” that being “contrary to the very nature -of Christianity.”[539] - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Matthew Caffin was a celebrated man amongst the General Baptists. Five -times he suffered imprisonment for his Nonconformity, besides which he -was repeatedly fined under the Conventicle Act. Opposed to the doctrine -of Calvinism, like the rest of his brethren, he also distinguished -himself by opposition to the Athanasian Creed. He objected to its -definition and to its damnatory clauses, although he did not adopt -either Socinian or Arian tenets. - -Caffin appears to have been one of those one-sided people who, with -a repugnance to all assumption on the part of the Church, and with a -dislike of what are called dogmas, do not sufficiently consider the -importance of principles as resting-places for faith and as sources -of religious inspirations. In his horror of ultra-Calvinism, he -forgot that dangers may arise from other points of the horizon. Not -foreseeing the consequences of his course, not intending to open the -door of heresy, he, through lack of sufficient positiveness, became -the forerunner of those lax opinions which afterwards injured the -churches of the General Baptist order. Orthodoxy is not identical with -scholastic definitions; neither is it a foe or a stranger to charity. -Caffin’s forgetfulness of this involved him in disputes with his own -and with other denominations, and brought upon him suspicions which he -did not deserve. Of his pugnacity, evidence exists in the account of -his debates; and as a specimen of his wit, the following incident is -related: A Quaker called on Caffin, saying he had a message from the -Lord. “Come in then and do thy message,” replied Caffin. The Quaker -rejoined: “I am come to reprove thee for paying tithes to the priests, -and to forbid thy doing so any more.” “I think I can fully convince -thee,” said the Baptist, “that thou art deceived, and that the Lord -hath not sent thee; for I assure thee I never did pay any tithes, -nor am ever like to be charged with any.” The land he rented was -tithe-free.[540] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Turning to the Quakers, we find them placidly thankful for toleration, -yet vexed by demands for tithes and church-rates--sufferings, of which -records were drawn up and sometimes printed and circulated. When they -approached the Throne, both the King and the Lord-Keeper treated them -with respect, and gave them assurances of friendship. Parliament -listened to their expostulations, but of course the laws of the country -rendered it impossible that they should be exempted from the payments -in question any more than other people. Justified by the substitution -of affirmations for oaths, the members of their community did not -shrink from an anti-Socinian test; but the continued requirement of -oaths in various relations exposed them to much hardship, for as they -would not swear in legal exigencies, they were often defrauded of their -rights. The policy of the Revolution opposed this condition of things, -and in 1695 the complaints of Quakers and the efforts of their friends -secured a beneficial change: affirmations were substituted for oaths in -civil as well as ecclesiastical concerns. - -Fox and Barclay remained leaders, visiting societies and promoting the -spread of their principles. Identifying their own cause with the cause -of humanity, regarding themselves as charged with a pacific mission to -the world, they continued to serve their generation in the spirit of -the angels’ song: “On earth peace, goodwill toward men.” - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -Barclay died in 1690, signifying, as it is quaintly said, with a good -understanding, that it was well with him as to his soul. “God,” he -remarked to a friend, “is good still, and though I am under a great -weight of weakness and sickness, yet my peace flows: and this I know, -whatever exercises maybe permitted to come upon me, they shall tend to -God’s glory and my salvation; and in that I rest.” - -Fox died in 1691, saying to those around him: “All is well; the Seed -of God reigns over all, and over death itself. And though I am weak in -body, yet the power of God is over all, and the Seed reigns over all -disorderly spirits.” By “the Seed,” we are informed that he meant the -Divine Saviour. A few hours before his departure he exclaimed: “Do not -heed: the power of the Lord is above all sickness and death; the Seed -reigns, blessed be the Lord.” - -William Penn, although adhering to Quaker principles, was too much -occupied with other things to allow of his being in later life very -prominent as an apostle of the Quaker faith. - -Friends continued to maintain their self-government. The poor were -taken care of; widows and orphans were provided for; local meetings -were held by each congregation for the supervision of affairs every -week, fortnight, or month, according to numbers; quarterly meetings -were held in every county; and a general yearly meeting was held -in London in Whitsun-week, “not,” it is cautiously said, “for any -superstitious observation the Quakers have for that more than any -other time, but because that season of the year best suits the general -accommodation.”[541] In the genial spring, therefore, the Friends met -in the days of King William; and with the men attired in their drab -garments, might be seen matrons and maidens clothed in the finest -raiment, like troops “of the shining ones.” Nonconformity to the -world in point of dress was an important article of practice, and -sorely were the spirits of the Elders vexed by the tendency of younger -members. The question was discussed: Friends were warned against the -fashions of the world, and were forbidden not only to wear but to sell -any garments of vanity. Earnest exhortations were delivered touching -religious education and simplicity of speech.[542] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Mysticism, at the close of the seventeenth century, found a home -almost exclusively amongst Quakers. It had won wide sympathies at one -time; Davenant had predicted that in a hundred years religions would -come to a settlement in a kind of “_ingeniose_ Quakerism;” and -Hales, as he studied writings of the mystical Familists’ school, used -to say that some time or other these fine notions would take in the -world. But, instead of a widening flow, these “fine notions” came to -be contracted within a single channel. Instead of an “_ingeniose_ -Quakerism” leavening the world, the world left this leaven to ferment -all but entirely amongst the people called Friends. Norris was the -principal person outside that circle who, in the reign of William III., -cultivated a mystical spirit; and he did so in a limited degree. But -few of the many pieces written by him indicate any marked quietest -sentiments. In a paper entitled _An Idea of Happiness_, he speaks -mystically of the fruition of God and of seraphic love, but in the -same paper he speaks of the mystical doctrine of infused virtue as -being a paradox in Divinity, like the doctrine of occult qualities -in philosophy.[543] Norris’s mysticism did not go beyond that of a -Platonistic divine. The Quakers had almost all the English mysticism of -the age to themselves. - -[Sidenote: NONCONFORMISTS.] - -[Sidenote: 1688–1702.] - -Amongst them, too, there was more of religious enthusiasm than amongst -any other body of Nonconformists as a whole. Then occurred what is -a curious but not uncommon fact, that as a rationalistic spirit was -creeping over theology, sobering the spirit of most denominations, the -fires of excitement were kept burning in two extreme divisions of the -Christian camp. The Quakers and the Nonjurors were the two most fervent -religious bodies at the end of the seventeenth century. - - * * * * * - -Here for the present I lay down my pen. I have endeavoured in preceding -volumes to tell the story of ecclesiastical change, theological -development, and religious life, amidst political scenes and incidents, -of which that story was partly the cause and partly the effect. -It is impossible to understand such an inner circle of thought, -experience, and conduct, without an examination of national events -occurring outside, nor can the state of one religious section be fully -understood apart from its bearing on other communities: therefore -I have interwoven the threads of their respective destinies, and -of their mutual relations and antagonisms. The series of struggles -portrayed present something of an Epic interest; for during the Civil -Wars there was strife for _Ascendency_, which ended in the -triumph of Puritanism, and in the treatment of Anglicans, somewhat -after a wretched fashion which had been set in former days. After the -Restoration, the resentment of Anglicans came once more into play, -and severe persecutions followed; yet efforts at _Comprehension_ -were made by healing spirits on both sides without effect. At the -Revolution, as I have largely shown, experiments with a view to reunion -were attempted with no better result, but a great and most beneficial -change was accomplished by the legalising of freedom in religious -thought and ecclesiastical action. The shield of the constitution -was extended over previously persecuted Englishmen, and the age of -_Toleration_, as it is termed, then began. Local interferences -with the liberty of worship continued to occur, but they were contrary -to law. The steps by which this consummation was accomplished I have -somewhat minutely traced, and the earlier causes of the Revolution -I have endeavoured to explore. The reign of William III. was the -beginning of a new era in English History, and its ecclesiastical -consequences can be ascertained only through a careful study of the -great religious movements of the eighteenth century. - - -Whether I shall ever be able to pursue my investigations into that -interesting subject depends on circumstances, which I must leave in the -hands of Him whom in all the labours of my life I desire to serve. - - - - - APPENDIX. - - - I.--P. 107. - -The following is a copy of the Bill after certain omissions and -additions had been made, and the subjoined paper will give an idea of -the extent of the latter:-- - - - _A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects. First - reading, March 11, 1688; second reading, March 14, 1688._ - -Whereas the peace of the State is highly concerned in the peace of -the Church, which therefore at all times, but especially in this -conjuncture, is most necessary to be preserved: In order therefore -to remove occasions of differences and dissatisfaccons which may -arise amongst Protestants, Be it Enacted by the King and Queen’s most -excellent Ma^{ties,} By and with the advice and consent of the Lords -Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliam^t -assembled, and by the authority of the same, That in order to y^e being -a Minister of this Church, or the taking, holding, and enjoying any -Ecclesiastical Benefice or promotion in the same, noe other subscripcon -or declaracons shall from henceforward be required of any person, but -onely the Declaracon menconed in a Statute made in the thirtieth year -of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second, Intituled, An Act -for the more effectual preserving the King’s person and Governm^t -by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliam^t, -and also the Declaration following, viz^t: I, A. B., doe submit to -the prnt Constitucon of the Church of Engl. I acknowledge that the -doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary to Salvation, and -I will conforme myself to the worship and the government thereof, as -established by Law; And I solemnly promise, in y^e exercise of my -Ministry, to Preach and practice according thereunto. - -And Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in order -to the being Collated or Instituted into any Benefice or promotion noe -more or other Oaths shall be required to be taken of any person than -onely the two Oaths menconed in the late Statute made in the first -year of the Reigne of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled, an Act -for removing and preventing all questions and disputes concerning the -assembling and sitting of this present Parliament, and alsoe the Oath -of Simony, and the Oath of Residence, any Statute or Canon to the -contrary notwithstanding. - -And Be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the Two -Declaracons aforesaid shall be made and subscribed in y^e said Oaths -menconed in the s^d Stat, made in the first yeare of the Reigne of -King William and Queene Mary, shall be taken in the presence of the -Bishop or his Chancellor, or the Guardian of the Spiritualities, by -every person that is to receive any Holy orders, or keepe any public -Schoole, and alsoe the p^r Oathes and Declaracon, together with the -said Oathes of Simony and residence by every person that is to have a -Lycence to preach any Lecture or that is to be Collated or Instituted -into any Benefice, or that is to be admitted into any Ecclesiastical -dignity or promotion before such his Ordination, Lycencing, Collation, -Institution, or Admission, respectively. - -And be it further Enacted, that every person that shall from -henceforward take any Degree in either of the Universities, or any -fellowship, headship, or professors place in the same, shall, before -his admission to that degree, or fellowship, or headship, or professors -place, subscribe the aforesaid Declaracons and take the said Oaths -mentioned in the said Statute, made in the first yeare of the Reigne -of King William and Queen Mary, in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor -or his Deputy. Provided that if any of the persons herein before -required to make and subscribe the said Declaracons be not in Holy -orders, such person shall not be obliged to make and subscribe all -the Declaracon hereinbefore expressed, but onely this part thereof, -viz.: I, A. B., doe submitt to the psent Constitucon of the Church of -Engld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it contains in it all things -necessary to Salvacon, and I will conforme myselfe to the worship and -the Governm^t thereof, as established by law, together with the other -Declaracon aforesaid menconed in said Statute, made in the Thirtieth -year of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second. - -And be it further Enacted, that the making and subscribing the said -Declaracons, and taking the said Oaths as aforesaid, shall be as -sufficient to all intents and purposes aforesaid as if the parties had -made all other Declaracons and subscripcons, and taken all other oaths -which they should have taken by vertue of any law, Statute, or Canon, -whatsoever. - -And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from -henceforth noe Minister shall be obliged to wear a surplice in the time -of reading prayers or performing any other Religious Office--Except -onely in the King and Queen’s Ma^{ties} Chappells, and in all Cathedral -or Collegiate Churches and Chappells of this Realme of England and -Dominion of Wales. Provided alsoe that every Minister that shall not -think fitt to wear a surplice as aforesaid shall nevertheless be -obliged to performe all y^e Publick Offices of his Ministry in the -Church in a Black Gowne, suitable to his Degree. And if it be in a -place where a Gowne is not the dayly constant habit of the Minister, in -every such parish the parish shall provide a Gowne for him, to be worne -by him dureing the time of his officiating in the Church. - -And be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no Minister -from henceforward shall be obliged to use the signe of the Crosse in -Baptisme, nor any parent obliged to have his Child Christned by the -Minister of the Parish if the said Minister will not use or omitt the -signe of the Cross, according to the desire of the parent, who in that -case may procure some other Minister of the Church of Engld to doe it. - -And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noe -Minister or Ecclesiastical person shall oblige any person to find -Godfathers or Godmothers for any child to be baptized, soe as the -parents or parent or other friend of such Child shall present the same -to be Baptized, and shall answer for such child in like manner as the -Godfathers and Godmothers are now required to doe. - -And be it further Enacted, by y^e authority aforesaid, that noe -Minister that shall officiate in the administracon of the Sacram^t of -the Lord’s Supper shall deny or refuse to any person that desires to -be admitted to the same, in a pew or seate in the Church, altho’ such -person shall not receive it kneeling. - -And whereas the Liturgie of y^e Church of England is capable of -seve^{ll} alteracons and additions, which may free it from exception, -and may conduce to y^e Glory of God and y^e better Edefication of -the people, And whereas the Book of Canons is fitt to be reviewed -and made suitable to the present state of the Church, And whereas -there are divers abuses and defects in y^e Ecclesiastical Courts -and Jurisdiction, and particularly for reformacon or removeing of -scandalous Ministers, And whereas it is very fitt and profitable that -Confirmacon be administred with such due preparacon and solemnity as is -directed in the late King Charles the Second’s Declaration concerning -Ecclesiastical affairs, issued in the yeare of our Lord 1660, And a -strict care be used in the Examinacon of such persons as desire to be -admitted into Holy Orders, both as to their learning and manners: - -Wee, your Ma^{ties} most dutifull and Loyall Subjects, the Lords -Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliam^t -assembled, doe most humbly beseech your Majesties to issue out a -Comission under yo^r Great Seale, directed to the Arch Bishops, and -such Bishops, and such others of the Clergy of the Church of England, -not exceeding the number of thirty in y^e whole, impowering and -requiring them, or any twelve of them, to meet from time to time, and -as often as shall be needfull, and to make such alteracons in the -Liturgie and reformacon of the Canons and Ecclesiastical Courts as may -conduce to the Establishm^t of the Church in peace and Tranquility, -and to present such alteracons and reformacons to the Convocation and -to the Parliam^t that the same may be approved and established in due -forme of Law. - - - ALTERATIONS MADE IN COMMITTEE. - -COMPREHENSION. - - 1 sh. 6 l.--For (of) Reade (in). - - „ 14 l.--Instead of (as containing) reade (w^{ch} I doe - acknowledge to containe), and before (promise) add - (solemnely). - - „ 18 l.--Before (Oathes) insert (two), and leave out (of - fidelity). - - „ 21 l.--After (Symony) Add (And the Oath of Residence). - - „ 24 l.--Leave out (of fidelitye), and add (mentioned in the s^d - Stat, made in the first yeare of the Raigne of King - William and Queene Mary shall be). - - 2 sh. 2 l.--After the first (or) insert (keepe any publiq schoole, - and alsoe the s^d oathes and declaracon, together - with the s^d oathes of Symony and Residence by every - pson). - - „ 4 l.--After (admission) add (respectively). - - „ 8 l.--Leave out (of fidelity) and reade (mentioned in the - s^d Stat made in the first yeare of the Raigne of - King William and Queene Mary). - - „ 9 l.--Leave out from (Deputy) to (Provided) in the 11^{th} l. - - „ 15 l.--For (as containing) reade (w^{ch} I doe acknowledge to - containe). - - 2 sh. 22 l.--Leave out from (And Bee it) inclusive to (And Bee it) - in the 5^{th} l. of the 3rd sheet. - - 3 sh. 11 l.--Leave out from (degree) to (And) in the 14th line. - - „ 18 l.--After (Ministers) add (of the Church of Engld). - - „ 1 l.--Leave out from (And) in the to (And) in 4th l. - - 4 sh. 4 l.--For (improvements) reade (additions). - - „ 5 l.--For (if) Reade (is). - - „ 5 l.--Before (edificacon) reade (better). - - „ 16 l.--For (twenty) reade (thirty). - - „ 20 l.--After (Reformacon) reade (to the Convocacon and). - - 1 sh. 14 l.--I, A. B., doe submit to the present Constitution of - the Church of England. I acknowledge that the - Doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary - to Salvation, and that I will conform my selfe to - the worship and the government thereof as - established by law. - And I solemnely pmise, in the exercise of my ministry, - to preach and practice according thereunto. - -Agreed to. - - 2 sh. 14^a 15 l.--Instead of the 14^{th} and 15^{th} l. reade (I, - A. B., doe submit to the prsent constitucon of - the Church of Engld. I acknowledge that the - doctrine of it contains in it all things - necessary for Salvacon, and I will conforme my - selfe to the worship and the government - thereof as established by Law). - - 4 sh. 3 l.--After (same) add (in a Pew or Seate in the Church). - - - II.--P. 114. - - _The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for Exempting their - Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of - England from the penalties of certain Laws._ - -[Sidenote: 1 Will. and Mary, cap. 18.] - -Forasmuch as some ease to scrupulous consciences, in the exercise of -Religion, may be an effectual means to unite their Majesty’s Protestant -subjects in interest and affection: - -[Sidenote: The several Laws against Dissenters repealed.] - -I.--Be it enacted by the King’s and Queen’s most excellent Majesties, -by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, -and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the -authority of the same, That neither the Statute made in the 23^{rd} -year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, [Sidenote: -23 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s Subjects -in their due obedience_; nor the Statute made in the 29^{th} year of -the said Queen, entituled, [Sidenote: 29 Eliz., cap. 6.] _An Act for -the more speedy and due execution of certain branches of the Statute -made in the 23^{rd} year of the Queen’s Majesty’s reign_, viz., the -aforesaid Act; nor that branch or clause of a Statute made in the -1^{st} year of the reign of the said Queen, entituled, [Sidenote: 29 -Eliz., cap. 2, f 14.] _An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and -service in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments_; whereby -all persons, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, are -required to resort to their Parish Church or Chapel, or some usual -place where the Common Prayer shall be used, upon pain of punishment by -the censures of the Church; and also, upon pain, that every person so -offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence. Nor the -Statute made in the 3^{rd} year of the reign of the late King James -the First, entituled, [Sidenote: 3 Jac. I., cap. 4.] _An Act for the -better discovering and repressing Popish recusants_. Nor that other -Statute, made in the same year, entituled, [Sidenote: 3 Jac. I., cap. -5.] _An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may grow by Popish -Recusants_. Nor any other Law or Statute of this realm made against -Papists or Popish recusants, [Sidenote: Exception.] except the Statute -made in the 25^{th} year of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: -25 Car. II., cap. 2.] _An Act for preventing dangers which may happen -from Popish recusants_. And except also the Statute made in the 30^{th} -year of the said King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 30 Car. II., -Stat. 2d, cap. 1.] _An Act for the more effectual preserving the King’s -person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in either -House of Parliament_, shall be construed to extend to any person or -persons dissenting from the Church of England, that shall take the -oaths mentioned in a Statute made this present Parliament, entituled, -[Sidenote: _Supra_, cap. 1.] _An Act for removing and preventing all -questions and disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this -present Parliament_, and shall make and subscribe the Declaration -mentioned in a Statute made in the 30^{th} year of the reign of King -Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.] _An -Act to prevent Papists from sitting in either House of Parliament_. -Which Oaths and Declaration the Justices of Peace, at the General -Sessions of the Peace to be held for the County or Place where such -person shall live, are hereby required to tender and administer to such -persons as shall offer themselves to [Sidenote: Taking Declaration to -be Registered.] take, make, and subscribe the same, and thereof to keep -a Register. [Sidenote: Fee for register and Certificate.] And likewise, -none of the persons aforesaid shall give or pay, as any fee or reward, -to any officer or officers belonging to the Court aforesaid, above -the sum of 6^d, nor that more than once, for his or their entry of his -taking the said oaths, and making and subscribing the said Declaration; -nor above the further sum of 6^d for any certificate of the same, to be -made out and signed by the Officer or officers of the said Court. - -[Sidenote: Persons convicted, &c. taking the oaths, &c. shall be -discharged.] - -II.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all -and every person and persons already convicted, or prosecuted in -order to conviction of Recusancy, by Indictment, Information, Action -of Debt, or otherwise grounded upon the aforesaid Statute; or any of -them that shall take the said Oaths mentioned in the said Statute, -made this present Parliament, and make and subscribe the Declaration -aforesaid in the Court of Exchequer, or Assizes, or General or Quarter -Sessions, to be held for the county where such person lives, and to be -thence respectively certified into the Exchequer, shall be thenceforth -exempted and discharged from all the Penalties, Seizures, Forfeitures, -Judgments, and Executions, incurred by force of any the aforesaid -Statutes, without any composition, fee, or further charge whatsoever. - -III.--And be it further enacted, by the Authority aforesaid, That all -and every person and persons that shall, as aforesaid, take the said -Oaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, shall not be -liable to any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, mentioned in an Act -made in the 35^{th} year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, -entituled, [Sidenote: 35 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An Act to retain the Queen’s -Majesty’s Subjects in their due obedience_. Nor in an Act made in the -22^{nd} year of the reign of the late King Charles II., entituled, -[Sidenote: 22 Car. II., cap. 1.] _An Act to prevent and suppress -seditious Conventicles_. [Sidenote: Ecclesiastical Court.] Nor shall -any of the said persons be prosecuted in any Ecclesiastical Court, for, -or by reason of, their Non-Conforming to the Church of England. - -IV.--Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, -[Sidenote: Private Meetings excluded.] That if any assembly of persons, -dissenting from the Church of England, shall be had in any place for -Religious worship, with the doors locked, barred, or bolted, during -any time of such meeting together, all and every person or persons -that shall come to, and be at such meeting, shall not receive any -benefit from this Law, but be liable to all the pains and penalties of -all the aforesaid Laws recited in this Act, for such their meeting, -notwithstanding his taking the Oaths, and his making and subscribing -the Declaration aforesaid. - -[Sidenote: Tithes saved.] - -V.--Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed -to exempt any of the persons aforesaid from paying of Tithes, or other -Parochial Duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister, nor -from any prosecution in any Ecclesiastical Court, or elsewhere, for the -same. - -[Sidenote: Officers scrupling Oaths, &c. allowed to act by Deputy.] - -VI.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if -any person dissenting from the Church of England, as aforesaid, shall -hereafter be chosen, or otherwise appointed to bear the office of -High-Constable, or Petit-Constable, Church-Warden, Overseer of the -Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, and such person shall -scruple to take upon him any of the said offices, in regard of the -Oaths, or any other matter or thing required by the law to be taken -or done, in respect of such office, every such person shall and may -execute such office or employment by a sufficient deputy, by him to -be provided, that shall comply with the laws on this behalf. Provided -always, the said deputy be allowed and approved by such person or -persons in such manner as such officer or officers respectively should -by law have been allowed and approved. - -[Sidenote: Persons in Orders, how exempted from 17 Car. II., cap. 2, -13, 14 Car. II., cap. 4.] - -VII.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That -no person dissenting from the Church of England in Holy Orders, or -pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any Preacher -or Teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shall -make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, and take the said Oaths, -at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for the -County, Town, Parts, or Division where such person lives, which Court -is hereby empowered to administer the same; and shall also declare his -approbation of, and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in -the Statute made in the 13^{th} year of the reign of the late Queen -Elizabeth, except the 34^{th}, 35^{th}, and 36^{th}, and these words -of the 20^{th} Article, viz. [Sidenote: 13 Eliz., cap. 12.] [_The -Church hath power to decree Rites or Ceremonies, and authority in -controversies of faith, and yet_] shall be liable to any of the pains -or penalties mentioned in an Act made in the 17^{th} year of the reign -of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 17 Car. II., cap. 2.] _An -Act for restraining Non-Conformists from inhabiting in Corporations_; -nor the penalties mentioned in the aforesaid Act, made in the 22^{nd} -year of his said late Majesty’s reign, for or by reason of such persons -preaching at any meeting for the exercise of Religion; nor to the -penalties of £100 mentioned in an Act made in the 13^{th} and 14^{th} -of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 4.] -_An Act for the Uniformity of public prayers, and administration of -Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies; and for establishing the -form of making, ordaining, and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and -Deacons, in the Church of England_, for officiating in any Congregation -for the exercise of religion permitted and allowed by this Act. - -[Sidenote: Taking the oaths, &c., to be registered.] - -VIII.--Provided always, that the making and subscribing the said -Declaration, and the taking the said Oaths, and making the Declaration -of approbation and subscription to the said Articles, in manner -as aforesaid, by every respective person or persons hereinbefore -mentioned, at such General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace as -aforesaid, shall be then and there entered of Record in the said Court, -for which 6^d shall be payed to the Clerk of the Peace, and no more. -Provided that such person shall not at any time preach in any place but -[Sidenote: Meeting doors to be unlocked.] with the doors not locked, -barred, or bolted, as aforesaid. - -[Sidenote: Anabaptism.] - -IX.--And whereas some Dissenting Protestants scruple the baptizing of -infants, be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every person -in pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, or Preacher -or Teacher, that shall subscribe the aforesaid Articles of Religion, -except before excepted; and also except part of the 27^{th} Article -teaching Infant baptism, and shall take the Oaths, and make and -subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, every such -person shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages, which -any other Dissenting Minister, as aforesaid, might have or enjoy by -virtue of this Act. - -[Sidenote: Teachers exempt from Offices.] - -X.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every -Teacher or Preacher in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, that is -a Minister, Preacher, or Teacher of a Congregation, that shall take -the Oaths herein required, and make and subscribe the Declaration -aforesaid; and also subscribe such of the aforesaid Articles of the -Church of England, as are required by this Act in manner aforesaid, -shall be thenceforth exempted from serving upon any Jury, or from being -chosen or appointed to bear the Office of Church-Warden, Overseer of -the Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, or other Office in any -Hundred of any Shire, City, Town, Parish, Division, or Wapentake. - -[Sidenote: Justices of Peace may tender the Oaths, &c.] - -XI.--And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That any -Justice of the Peace may at any time hereafter require any person that -goes to any meeting for exercise of Religion, to make and subscribe the -Declaration aforesaid, and also to take the said Oaths or Declaration -of fidelity hereinafter mentioned, in case such person scruples the -taking of an oath, and [Sidenote: Penalty for refusing.] upon refusal -thereof such Justice of the Peace is hereby required to commit such -person to prison without bail or mainprize, and to certify the name of -such person to the next General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be -held for that County, City, Town, Part, or Division, where such person -then resides; and if such person so committed, shall, upon a second -tender at the General or Quarter Sessions, refuse to make and subscribe -the Declaration aforesaid, such person refusing shall be then and there -recorded, and shall be taken thenceforth, to all intents and purposes, -for a Popish Recusant convict, and suffer accordingly, and incur all -the penalties and forfeitures of all the aforesaid laws. - -[Sidenote: Quakers, how exempted.] - -XII.--And whereas there are certain other persons, Dissenters from the -Church of England, who scruple the taking of any oath, be it enacted by -the authority aforesaid, [Sidenote: Altered as to Quakers by 8 Geo. I., -cap. 6.] That every such person shall make and subscribe the aforesaid -Declaration; and also this Declaration of Fidelity following: - -[Sidenote: Declaration of Fidelity.] - -_I, A. B., do sincerely promise, and solemnly declare, before God and -the world, that I will be true and faithful to King William and Queen -Mary; and I do solemnly profess and declare that I do from my heart -abhor, detest, and renounce, as impious and heretical, that damnable -Doctrine and Position, That Princes excommunicated, or deprived by the -Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murthered -by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no -foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to -have, any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority, -Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm._ - -And shall subscribe a Profession of their Christian Belief in these -words: - -[Sidenote: Profession.] - -_I, A. B., profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His -eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for -evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New -Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration._ - -Which Declaration and Subscription shall be made and entered of Record -at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, or -Place, where every such person shall then reside. And every such person -that shall make and subscribe the two Declarations and Profession -aforesaid, being thereunto required, shall be exempted from all the -pains and penalties of all and every the afore-mentioned Statutes -made against Popish Recusants, or Protestant Nonconformists; and also -from the penalties of an Act made in the 5^{th} year of the reign of -the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, [Sidenote: 5 Eliz., cap. 1.] _An -Act for the Assurance of the Queen’s Royal Power over all Estates and -Subjects within her Dominions_, for or by reason of such persons not -taking, or refusing to take, the Oath mentioned in the said Act; and -also from the penalties of an Act made in the 13^{th} and 14^{th} -years of the reign of King Charles II., entituled, [Sidenote: 13 and -14 Car. II., cap. 1.] _An Act for preventing mischiefs that may arise -by certain persons called Quakers refusing to take lawful oaths_, -and enjoy all the other Benefits, Privileges, and Advantages, under -the like Limitations, Provisions, and Conditions, which any other -Dissenters should or ought to enjoy by virtue of this Act. - -[Sidenote: How purged after Refusal of the Oaths.] - -XIII.--Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, -That in case any person shall refuse to take the said Oaths when -tendered to them, which every Justice of the Peace is hereby impowered -to do, such person shall not be admitted to make and subscribe the two -Declarations aforesaid, though required thereunto, either before any -Justice of the Peace, or at the General or Quarter Sessions, before or -after any conviction of Popish Recusancy, as aforesaid, unless such -person can, within thirty-one days after such tender of the Declaration -to him, produce two sufficient Protestant witnesses to testify upon -oath, that they believe him to be a Protestant Dissenter, or a -Certificate under the hands of four Protestants, who are conformable -to the Church of England, or have taken the oaths, and subscribed the -Declaration above mentioned, and shall produce a certificate under the -hands and seals of six or more sufficient men of the congregation to -which he belongs, owning him for one of them. - -XIV.--Provided also, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That -until such certificate, under the hands of six of his Congregation, as -aforesaid, be produced, and two Protestant witnesses come to attest his -being a Protestant Dissenter, or a certificate under the hands of four -Protestants, as aforesaid, be produced, the Justice of the Peace shall, -and hereby is required to take a Recognizance, with two Sureties, in -the penal sum of fifty pounds, to be levied of his goods, chattels, -lands, and tenements, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, -their heirs and successors, for his producing the same; and if he -cannot give such security, to commit him to prison, there to remain -until he has produced such certificates, or two witnesses, as aforesaid. - -[Sidenote: Laws for Divine Service in force.] - -XV.--Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this -Act, That all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of Divine -Service on the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still in -force, and executed against all persons that offend against the said -laws, except such persons come to some Congregation, or Assembly of -Religious Worship, allowed or permitted by this Act. - -[Sidenote: Papists, &c., excepted.] - -XVI.--Provided always, and be it further enacted by the Authority -aforesaid, that neither this Act, nor any Clause, Article, or thing, -herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give -any ease, benefit, or advantage, to any Papist or Popish Recusant -whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing -the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid -Articles of Religion. - -[Sidenote: Disturbers of Religious Worship.] - -XVII.--Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, -That if any person or persons, at any time or times, after the 10^{th} -day of June, do, [Sidenote: How punished. See 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, -cap. 5, f 4.] and shall willingly, and of purpose, maliciously, or -contemptuously, come into any Cathedral, or Parish Church, Chapel, or -other Congregation, permitted by this Act, and disquiet or disturb the -same; or misuse any Preacher or Teacher, such person or persons, upon -proof thereof, before any Justice of Peace, by two or more sufficient -witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizance in the -penal sum of fifty pounds, and in default of such sureties shall be -committed to prison, there to remain till the next General or Quarter -Session; and upon conviction of the said offence, at the said General -or Quarter Sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twenty -pounds, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, their Heirs and -Successors. - -[Sidenote: Place for Worship to be certified.] - -XVIII.--Provided always, That no Congregation or Assembly for religious -worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of -such meeting shall be certified to the Bishop of the Diocese, or to the -Archdeacon of that Archdeaconry, or to the Justices of the Peace, at -the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, or -Place, in which such meeting shall be held and registered in the said -Bishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court respectively, or recorded at the said -General or Quarter Sessions; the register or clerk of the Peace whereof -respectively is hereby required to register the same, and to give -certificate thereof to such person as shall demand the same, for which -there shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than the sum of sixpence. - - - III.--P. 229. - - _Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers._ - -To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, it may be proper to -remark that the extracts I have given from _Macpherson’s Original -Papers_, are intended simply to show what was reported and desired -by the Jacobite party. Many statements in the correspondence are -utterly untrustworthy. History has to do not only with what has been -actually accomplished or attempted, but with what has been thought -and said; for rumour and falsehood have been powerful factors in the -affairs of this world. - - - IV.--P. 263. - - _The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament._ - -Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain -and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, to the * * * * * Greeting. -Whereas by the advice and assent of our Council for certain arduous and -urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our said United -Kingdom and the Church, we have ordered a certain Parliament to be -holden at our City of Westminster on the * day of * next ensuing, and -there to treat and have conference with the Prelates, Great Men, and -Peers of our Realm. We strictly enjoining command you, upon the faith -and love by which you are bound to us, that the weightiness of the said -affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at -the said day and place personally present with us, and with the said -Prelates, Great Men, and Peers, to treat and give your counsel upon the -affairs aforesaid. And this, as you regard us and our honour, and the -safety and defence of the said United Kingdom and Church, and despatch -of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit. Forewarning the Dean and -Chapter of your Church of * * and the Archdeacons and all the Clergy of -your Diocese, that they the said Dean and Archdeacons, in their proper -persons, and the said Chapter by one, and the said Clergy by two, meet -Proctors severally, having full and sufficient authority from them, -the said Chapter and Clergy, at the said day and place, be personally -present to consent to those things which then and there by the Common -Council of our said United Kingdom (by the favour of the Divine -clemency) shall happen to be ordained. Witness ourself at Westminster, -the * of * in the * * year of our Reign. - -To the Right Reverend Father in God. - - * * -A writ of Summons to Parliament, to be holden the * day of * next. - - - - - INDEX. - - - Abney, Sir Thomas, 254, 431 - - Aikenhead, Thomas, 225, note - - Aldrich, Dean of Christchurch, 127, 128, 292 - - Alex or Allix, 114, note - - Allybone, Justice, 14 - - Alsop, Vincent, 71, 411, 425, 426 - - Anne, Princess, Daughter of James II., 46, 49, 57, 248, 253 - - Annesley, Dr. Samuel, 405, 410, 411 - Account of him, 443 - His Death, 444 - - Arundel, Archbishop, 275 - - Ashton, John, 167 - - Ashurst, Dr., 272 - - Atterbury, Francis, 250, 264, 269, 285, 310 - His Correspondence, 271, note, 274, 283, 287 - At Meetings of Convocation, 273, 290–293 - - - Baptists, their Hopes in William III., 10 - Their Views regarding Comprehension, 110 - Advocates of Toleration, 115, 116 - Protected by Toleration Act, 120 - Present an Address to William, 254 - Their Numbers Increase, 451 - Their Conferences, 451–453 - Their Ministers, 453 - Distinction between Particular and General, 454 - - Barclay, Robert, 456 - - Barrington, Sir Charles, 309, note - - Barrow, Dr. Isaac, 184, 193, note - - Bassett, Josiah, 415 - - Bates, Dr. William, 425, 426 - Favourable to Comprehension, 110 - Refuses to take Part in Calamy’s Ordination, 410 - His Death, 445 - - Baxter, Richard, 72, 152, 328, note, - Desires Comprehension, 110, - His Explication of the Doctrinal Articles, 178 - His Last Days, 179 - His Death, 180 - His Book on Witchcraft, 338 - Anecdote of, 403 - - Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, 312, note - - Benbow, Admiral, 366 - - Bennet, Joseph, 415 - - Bentinck, William, 3, 76 - - Bentley, Richard, 265 - His Boyle Lectures, 341–343 - - Beveridge, Archdeacon of Colchester, 277, 325 - Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 125, 128, 131, 132 - Preaches before Convocation, 140 - Declines the See of Bath and Wells, 172, 173 - At Meetings of Convocation, 288–292 - His Writings, 314 - - Beverley, John, 422 - - Biddle, John, his Tracts, 211, 220 - - Binckes, Dr., 263, note - - Bingham, Joseph, 215 - - Birch, Colonel, 74 - - Birch, Samuel, 415 - - Bishops, 9, 12 - Summoned by King James, 20 - First Meeting with the King, 21 - Second Meeting, 23 - Collects drawn up by them, 24 - Charges against them, 25 - Third Meeting, 29 - Fourth Meeting, 31–33 - Their Popularity, 33 - Their Interviews with Clarendon, 64 - Meetings at Lambeth, 68, 69 - Desire a Regency, 69, 75 - Their Reluctance to take the Oath of Allegiance, 96 - Some of them Support Toleration Bill, 116 - Ten appointed as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 125 - Nonjurors amongst them, 146 - Prayers for James II. ascribed to them, 157 - Some of them Ejected, 169 - An Assembly Convened by Tillotson for Drawing up Ecclesiastical - Regulations, 191, 203 - Tenison addresses Circular to them, 205 - Their Declaration, 233 - Responsibility of Nominating Dignitaries of the Church left to - them, 247 - At Meetings of Convocation, 271–276, 277–282 - Account of some of them, 298–314 - - Blackhall, 343 - - Blackhead, Stephen, 188, note - - Blackmore, Richard, 365 - - Blagge, Margaret, 83 - - Blount, Charles, 349 - - Bold, Samuel, 345 - - Bostaquet, Isaac Dumont de, 34, 36, 40 - - Bowdler, 388 - - Bowerman, Edmund, 324 - - Boyle, Charles, 265 - - Boyle, Robert, Lectures Founded by, 341, _et seq._ - - Boyne, Battle of the, 159, 161, 164 - - Bradford, Dr., 343 - - Brady, Nicholas, 325 - - Bray, Dr., his Interest in the S.P.C.K., 364 - And in Foreign Missions, 369, 370, 373 - - Broghill, Lord, 338 - - Brokesby, 388 - - Browne, Dr. Thomas, 350 - - Browne, Sir William, 303, note - - Bryan, Dr., 189 - - Bulkeley, Sir Richard, 369 - - Bull, George, Archdeacon of Llandaff, 279, 315, 397 - - Bunyan, John, Popularity as a Preacher, 175 - His Death, 176 - - Burden, George, 415 - - Burkett, William, 315 - - Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, 5, 51, 52, 57, 69, 70, 335 - At the Hague, 8 - William’s Declaration Revised by him, 27 - Comes over with William, 35, 37 - Preaches at Exeter, 40 - His Interview with Clarendon, 48 - Preaches before the Commons, 73 - Opposes the idea of making William sole King, 76 - Made Bishop of Salisbury, 84 - Preaches Coronation Sermon, 99 - A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 129–133 - At Meetings of Convocation, 139–143 - His Liberalism, 139 - His Dispute with Dr. Jane, 142 - Extols Tillotson, 192 - Preaches on Thanksgiving-Day, 243 - Preceptor to the Duke of Gloucester, 244, 249 - Supports the Bill against Popery, 245 - His _Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles_ censured by Lower House - of Convocation, 277–282 - His Quarrel with Woodward, 291 - His Impressions of William’s Character, 296 - His Writings, 298, 299 - His Influence, 308 - His Estimate of Compton’s Character, 309 - Anecdote of, 311 - Mourns over Inconsistency of the Clergy, 327 - Predicts the Speedy Decline of Nonconformity, 404 - - Bury, Dr., 213, note, 218, note - - Busby, Dr., 143 - - Busher, Leonard, 119 - - Button, Ralph, 416 - - - Caffin, Matthew, 455 - - Calamy, Dr., Edmund, junior, 136, 137, 174, 225, 256, 306 - A Student at Utrecht, 10 - His Reading, 408 - His Nonconformity, 408 - His Preaching, 409 - Accepts an Invitation to assist Sylvester, 410 - His Ordination, 411 - - Calvin, 215 - - Carey, Lady, 38, note - - Carstairs, 35, 37 - - Cartwright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester, 29, 30, 146, 308 - - Chadwick, 191 - - Chamberlayne, 371 - - Chandler, Benjamin, 439 - - Charles I., 203, 204, 333 - - Charles II., 204, 222 - - Charnock, Robert, 231 - - Cherry, Francis, his Hospitality, 387–390 - - Chicheley, Archbishop, 207, 208 - - Chorlton, John, 415 - - Clarendon, Henry Hyde, Earl of, 21, 22, 58, 63, 140 - Joins the Prince of Orange, 47 - His Private Conference with William, 48 - His Interviews with Burnet, _ib._ - Interviews with Bishops, 64, 65, 69 - His remark about Churchmen, 267 - - Clarges, Sir Thomas, 86, 106, note - - Clark, Samuel, 352 - - Clarkson, David, 181, 428 - - Clergy, - Present an Address to William III., 59 - Uphold the Cause of Hereditary Monarchy, 70 - Refuse to Read James II.’s. Declaration, 75 - Question of Requiring Oaths from the Clergy, 89 - Their manner of Taking the Oath, 97 - Many of them Oppose the Toleration Bill, 116 - Nonjurors who Voluntarily left their Cures, 151 - Accounts of some of the Clergy, 314–320 - Character of the, 325–328 - Their Circumstances, 328–331 - Costume, 331 - Preach on Behalf of Societies, 361 - - Cobham, Lord, 275 - - Cogan, Richard, 41 - - Colchester, Colonel Maynard, 364 - - Collier, Jeremy, a Nonjuror, 151, 152, 168 - Absolves Friend and Parkyns at Tyburn, 232 - Defends what he did, 233, 234 - - Collinges, Dr. John, 176 - - Commission, Ecclesiastical - Appointment of, 125 - Their Proceedings, 125 - Discussions concerning the Apocrypha, 125 - Prayer-book Version of Psalms, 126 - Liturgy, 128 - Manner of receiving the Sacrament, _ib._ - Godfathers, _ib._ - Calendar, 129 - Athanasian Creed, _ib._ - Ordination, 130 - Daily Prayer, 134 - Communion Service, 135 - Baptism, 135 - Catechism and Confirmation Service, _ib._ - Visitation of the Sick, _ib._ - Burial Service, 136 - Sittings of Commission Ends, 138 - Their Labour Lost, _ib._ - - Commons, House of, Assemble, 73 - Declare the Throne Vacant, 74 - Provisions for Securing Religious Liberty, 75 - Conference with the Lords, 76 - Declare William and Mary King and Queen, 78 - Their Comprehension and Toleration Bills, 105, 106, note - Appeal to the King to Suppress Books against the Trinity, 224 - Debate on the Bill for Fenwick’s Attainder, 239 - - Comprehension Bill, 101–109 - Difficulties of Comprehension, 112 - Tillotson’s Views on Comprehension, 122 - - Compton, Bishop of London, 12, 33, 75, 77, 270 - Summoned to Attend James II., 20 - Signs the Invitation to the Prince of Orange, 27 - At Interviews with James, 29–31 - Accompanies Princess Anne in her Flight, 46 - Presents an Address to William, 59 - Wishes Mary to be Queen Regent, 70 - Assists at the Coronation of William and Mary, 99 - Promotes Union, 107 - His Note to Strype, 115, note - A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 127, 128 - His Liberalism, 139 - His Discontent at not being made Primate, 140 - Preaches at Opening of St. Paul’s, 243 - Becomes a Tory, 283 - His Character, 309, 310 - His Interest in Foreign Missions, 369, 371 - - Con, Father, 56 - - Convention, The, 63, 65, 69, 73, 85 - - Convocation, 107 - Meets, 138 - Houses differ about the Address, 141 - Effect little, 143 - _Letter to a Convocation Man_, 261–264 - Little Resemblance between English Convocations and Early Synods, - 268 - Restored to its Sessional Rights, 269 - Contests between the Two Houses, 272 - Disagree about Prorogation, _ib._, 289 - Present an Address to William, 274 - Examine Toland’s Book, 275 - Prorogued, 276 - Reassembles, 277 - Lower House Censures Burnet’s Book, 277 - Incidents connected with Presentation of Censure to the Upper - House, 278–282 - Prorogued, 282 - Dissolved, _ib._ - Kennet’s Book on Convocation, 284 - Reassembles, 287 - Fresh Contentions, 288 - Illness and Death of Prolocutor, 292, 293 - Prorogued, 294 - Interest in Foreign Missions, 370 - - Cook, a Nonjuring Clergyman, 232, 233 - - Cornbury, Edward, Viscount, 46 - - Cranburne, Charles, 241 - - Cressey, a Nonjuror, 376 - - Crew, Nathaniel, Bishop of Durham, Present at Interview of Bishops - with James II., 29, 30 - His Character, 77, 312 - - Crisp, Dr. Tobias, His Works, 424–427 - - Cromwell, Richard, Visits Howe in his last Illness, 448 - - Crowther, Joseph, 319, note - - Cudworth, Dr., 181, 220, 341 - - Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, 303, 308 - - Currency, Debased State of, 209 - - - D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio, 56 - - Danby, Earl of, 12, 50, 86 - Appointed President of the Council, 82 - - Dartmouth, Lord, 21, note - - Davis, Richard, 423 - - De Foe, Daniel, 53, 54, 327, 417, 443 - _His Enquiry_, 431 - - Devonshire, Earl of, 10 - - De Witt, 2, 3, 158 - - Dodwell, Henry, a Nonjuror, 151, 152 - Advocates Nonjuring Cause, 380 - His Interest in the Colonies, 381 - His Correspondence with Tenison, 381, 382 - His Ecclesiastical Opinions, 389 - His Pupil Hearne, 390 - - Doolittle, Thomas, 416 - - Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury, 130, 131 - - Dunton, John, 310, 443 - - Dyer, 114, note - - - Edward I., 262, 285 - - Edwards, Dr. Jonathan, 427 - - Edwin, Sir Humphrey, 429, 430 - - Elizabeth, Queen, 11, 203, 204 - - Entwich, Sir Edward, 170 - - Evelyn, John, 73 - His Letter to Sancroft, 25 - Meets the Bishops at Lambeth, 69 - Boyle’s Trustee, 341 - Appoints Bentley as Lecturer, 341, 342 - - Evelyn, Thomas, 338 - - - Fairclough, 59, 72 - - Fenwick, Sir John, a Conspirator against William III., 231 - Arrested, 234 - His Disclosures, 235–238 - Bill of Attainder against, 239 - Attempts to Save his Life, 239, 240 - His Execution, 241 - - Ferguson, Robert, 35, 40, 41, note - - Firman, Thomas, 212 - - Flavel, John, 177 - - Fleetwood, 209 - - Fog, Dean of Chester, 361 - - Ford, Dr. Simon, 325 - - Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, 304, 308, 365 - - Fox, George, 456, 457 - - Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, 97, 308 - A Moderator Nonjuror, 149 - Ejected, 171 - - Frankland, Richard, 413 - - Freeman, Dean of Peterborough, 272, 274, 290 - - Friend, Sir John, 232 - - - Gailhard, John, 225 - - Gale, Theophilus, 415 - - Galmoy, Lord, 235 - - Gastrell, 343 - - George, Prince of Denmark, 46, 248 - - Gibbons, Grinling, 243 - - Gibbs, John, 321 - - Gilbert, 16, 17 - - Gleanes, Sir Peter, 336, note - - Gloucester, Duke of, Son of Princess Anne, 244 - Anecdote of His Childhood, 248 - His Education, _ib._ - His Death, 249 - Burial in Westminster Abbey, _ib._ - His Death Mourned by the Nation, 250 - - Goodall, Charles, 328, note - - Gooderick, Sir Henry, 49 - - Goodridge, Richard, 324 - - Goodwin, John, 119 - - Gordon, Patrick, 372 - - Grabe, Dr., 388 - - Grafton, 46 - - Griffith, 407 - - Grove, Dr., 132 - - Guildford, Lord, 364, 366 - - Gwyn, Nell, 195 - - - Hale, Sir Matthew, 302, 338 - - Halifax, Lord, 83, 86 - - Hall, John, Bishop of Bristol, 195, 306 - - Hall, Timothy, Bishop of Oxford, 18, 308 - - Hardwick, Lord Chancellor, 251 - - Harris, Dr., 343 - - Harrison, Michael, 413 - - Hearne, Thomas, 373 - - Henry V., 207 - - Henry VIII., 204, note - - Henry, Matthew, 71, 362 - Preaches at Opening of the Chapel at Chester, 403 - His Education, 416 - His _Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism_, 428 - His Ministry, 433–435, 436, note - - Henry, Philip, 71, 416 - Desires Comprehension, 109 - His Death, 442 - - Herbert, Admiral, 10, 28 - - Heywood, Oliver, takes part in Ordinations, 405–407 - His New Place of Worship, 413 - Preaches at Wakefield, 422 - His Death, 445, note - - Hickes, George, Dean of Worcester, a Nonjuror, his Character and - Writings, 151, 383, 389 - Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to Him, 158 - Protests against his Ejectment, 171 - Suspected of Treasonable Intrigues, 188 - His Visit to St. Germains, 374 - Nominated Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, 374 - His Friendship for Dr. Grabe, 388 - Attends Pepys in his Last Illness, 393 - A Spiritual Fanatic, 398 - - Hobbes, Thomas, 116, 304, 341 - - Holcroft, Francis, 181, 182 - - Holmes, a Nonjuror, 376 - - Holt, Sir John, 338 - - Hooper, Dr., Chaplain to Princess Mary, 5, 6, 148 - Prolocutor of Lower House of Convocation, 271–282 - - Hopkins, 324, 433 - - Horneck, Dr., 317, 356 - - Hough, John, Bishop of Oxford, Translated to Lichfield and - Coventry in 1699, 270, 306, 308 - - Horton, Lord, 50 - - Howard, John, 367 - - Howe, John, 184, 254, 404 - Accompanies Clergy to present an Address to William, 59, 72 - Desires Comprehension, 110 - His Conversation with the King on Indulgence and Comprehension - Bills, 113, note - Anxious for Union, 175 - Takes part in Trinitarian Controversy, 221 - Reproves Profane Swearers, 333 - Objects to take part in Calamy’s Ordination, 410 - Lecturer at Pinners’ Hall, 426 - His Answer to De Foe’s _Enquiry_, 432 - Laments the Change in Dissent, 441 - His Last Days, 445–448 - Richard Cromwell Visits him, 448 - His Death, 449 - - Hulton, 362 - - Humphreys, Humphrey, Bishop of Bangor, 279, 280, 282 - - Hussey, Joseph, 405 - - - Inch, 155 - - Independents, their Hopes in William III., 10 - Their Meeting with Presbyterians, 60 - Their Views regarding Comprehension, 110 - Advocate Toleration, 115, 116 - Protected by Toleration Act, 120 - Their Political Views, 258 - Their Places of Worship, 401 - Efforts at Union with Presbyterians, 420 - Difference between Presbyterians and Independents, 436 - Their Reception of a New Minister, 437 - Mode of Conducting Worship, 438 - - Ireland, James lands in, 144 - James’ Declaration to his Subjects in, 145 - Battle of the Boyne, 159, 164 - - Irish Night, The, 54, 55 - - - Jacobites, their Form of Prayer ascribed to Nonjuring Prelates, 157 - Their Conspiracy, 167 - Exult in Death of Mary, 201 - Trouble the Church, 206 - Their Hatred of Sherlock, 216 - Their Correspondence with the Court of St. Germains, 229 - Their Conspiracy against William, 231 - Executions of, 232 - Their Intrigues, 236–241, 387 - Some who had taken Oaths Retract, 393 - - James II., his Misgovernment, 9 - Birth of a Son, 9 - The Child is Baptized in the Romish Church, 10 - James Disbelieves in Rumours of Dutch Invasion, 13 - His Conduct after the Bishops’ Acquittal, 14 - His Proceedings in Reference to the Church, 18 - His Declaration, 20 - Summons the Bishops, _ib._ - Interviews with the Bishops, 21, 23, 29, 31–33 - His Concessions, 20, 23 - Approves of the Bishops’ Collects, 24 - Authorises Mew to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, 25 - His Alarm at William’s Declaration, 29 - Receives Loyal Addresses from Scotland, 43 - Goes to Salisbury, 43 - Advised to Treat with William, _ib._ - His Faith in the Bishops, 44 - Deserted by his Daughter Anne and many others, 46 - His Return to London, 47 - Issues New Proclamations, _ib._ - Flies to Sheerness, 53 - Returns to London, 56 - Forced to Surrender, 57 - Goes to Rochester, _ib._, - and to France, _ib._ - His Letter to Sancroft, 63 - Lands at Kinsale, 144 - Issues a Declaration to his Irish Subjects, 145 - Scheme for his Restoration, 167 - His Declaration, 227 - His Court at St. Germains, 228 - His Knowledge of Insurrection, and Assassination Plot, _ib._ - His Religious Sincerity, 252 - Last Words to his Son, 253 - Louis XIV. visits him, 253 - His Death, _ib._ - - James, Prince of Wales, 76, 251 - His Birth, 9 - Suspected to be Supposititious, 10, 63 - His Baptism, 10 - Proclaimed King of England by Louis XIV., 253 - - Jane, Dr. William, Dean of Gloucester, 271, note - Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 125, 127, 128 - Made Prolocutor, 140 - His Dispute with Burnet, 142 - - Jefford, or Gifford, Mayor of Exeter, 16, note - - Jeffreys, Sir George, 38, note, 47, 52 - Elected Chancellor of Oxford by James II., 18 - Falls into the Hands of the Mob, 54 - - Johnson, Dr., 303, note, 307 - His Anecdote of Burnet and Sprat, 311 - - Jollie, Timothy, 415 - - Jurieu, a French Theologian, 138 - - Juxon, 207 - - - Keach, Benjamin, 452–454 - - Keith, George, 367, 368 - - Ken, Thomas, Bishop of Bath and Wells, 23, 68, 379 - Chaplain to the Princess Mary, 6 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - Preserves his Allegiance to James, 42 - Refuses to take the Oath, 97, 147, 148 - A Moderate Nonjuror, 148 - Ejected, 171 - His Departure from Wells, _ib._ - A Letter finding Fault with Tenison ascribed to him, 200 - Troubled by the Abjuration Bill, 256 - Receives Half the Income from the See of Bath and Wells, from - Kidder, 305 - His Character, 308 - His Retirement at Longleat, 390 - - Kennet, White, 292, 294, 373 - His Book on Ecclesiastical Synods, 284–286 - - Kentish, Thomas, 410, 411 - - Kettlewell, John, a Nonjuror, 151 - His Character, 152, 383, 399 - Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to him, 158 - His Ecclesiastical Opinions, 377, 389 - His Benevolence, 378 - His Death, 379 - - Keyes, Thomas, 231 - - Kidder, Richard, 126, 384 - Made Bishop of Bath and Wells, 304 - His Character, 305, 308 - Boyle Lecturer, 343 - - Kiffin, William, 452 - - King, Lord Chief Justice, 326 - - - Lake, Bishop of Chichester, a Nonjuror, Summoned to Attend the - King, 20 - His Death, 146 - - Lamplugh, Thomas, Bishop of Exeter, 16, 17 - Created Archbishop of York by James II., 39 - - Landen, Battle of, 207 - - Laud, Archbishop, 204, 320 - - Lauderdale, Duke of, 338 - - Le Clerc, 117, 345, 417 - - Lee, Dr. Francis, 383 - - Leeds, Duke of, 208 - - Le Neve, 191 - - Leslie, Charles, a Nonjuror, 349, 388 - - Licensing Act, 201 - - Limborch, 117, 345 - - Litany, Alterations made in, by Ecclesiastical Commissioners, 134 - - Lloyd, William, Bishop of Norwich, a Nonjuror, 97, 147 - His Letters to Sancroft, 155, 165, 166, 169, 170, 189, 322 - Appointed Sancroft’s Vicar, 189, 374 - Assured of James’ Favour, 230 - A Non-Compounder, 239 - Discipline exercised by him, 321 - - Lloyd, William, Bishop of St. Asaph, calls on Patrick, 58 - At Meetings with Clarendon and Bishops, 64, 68, 69, 101 - Votes for a Regency, 75 - Takes part in the Coronation, 99 - A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, 127, 133 - Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry 1692; Translated to - Worcester, 307, 335 - Practical Joke played by him, 308, note - - Lobb, Stephen, 71, 426, 439 - - Locke, John, Advocates Toleration, 116 - His Writings, 344–348 - - Lords, House of, 63, 73 - Vote for a Protestant Succession, 75 - Dispute with the Commons about the Throne being Vacant, 76 - Declare William and Mary King and Queen, 77 - Prosecute Author and Printer of a Book on the Trinity, 221 - - Louis XIV., 2, 7, 9, 13, 144, 145 - Visits James on his Death-bed, 253 - Acknowledges Prince of Wales, King, _ib._ - - Lovelace, Lord, 45, 105 - - Lowick, Edward, 241 - - Lowth, Dr., 172 - - Lucy, Lady Theophila, 384 - - Lumley, Lord, 10 - - Luther, Martin, 215, 265, 275 - - - Macclesfield, 111, note - - Mackworth, Sir Humphrey, 364 - - Macpherson, 229 - - Magdalen College, 23, 25 - - Manlove, 412 - - Manningham, 365 - - Manton, Dr., 425, 443 - - Mapletop, 365 - - Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of, 46, 248 - - Mary, Princess, Daughter of Charles I., 1 - - Mary, Princess, Daughter of James II., 28, 66, 207, 247 - Her Marriage, 4 - Her Chaplains, 5, 6 - Her Low Church Principle’s, 7 - Burnet’s Counsels to, 8 - Her Affection for the Church of England, 9 - Proposals to make her Queen Regent, 69, 70 - Declared Queen by the Lords, 77, - and by the Commons, 78 - Proclaimed Queen, 81 - Sends to Sancroft for his Blessing, _ib._ - Her Coronation, 99 - Receives Tidings of William’s Wound, 159 - Highly esteems Tenison, 195 - Attacked by Small-Pox, 196 - Her Death, _ib._ - Her Last Hours, 196–199 - Her Funeral, 199 - General Sorrow, _ib._ - A Lock of her Hair found on William III. after his Death, 296 - - Mason, John, his Fanaticism, 317, 319 - - Mawburn, a Nonjuror, 376 - - May Fair, Riot in, 363 - - Maynard, Sir John, 83, 85 - - Mayo, 59, 72 - - Mead, Matthew, 410, 426 - - Meggot, Dean of Winchester, 125 - - Melmoth, William, 365, 371 - - Mew, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, 22, 23, 270 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - Authorised to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, 25 - His Letters to Sancroft, 45, 56 - - Middleton, Charles, Earl of, 5 - Takes part in Jacobite Intrigues, 236 - At the Death-bed of James II., 254, note - - Mill, Dr. John, 139 - - Milner, a Nonjuror, 375 - - Milton, John, 397 - - Monmouth, James, Duke of, 38, note - - Montague, 320 - - Moore, John, Bishop of Norwich, 308 - His Extensive Library, 303 - - Mordaunt, Lord, 105, 111, note - - More, Henry, 300 - - Morley, Bishop of Worcester, 21, note - - Morton, Charles, 415 - - - Namur Besieged by William, 207 - - Nelson, Robert, a Nonjuror, 239, 332 - His Writings, 356, 385, 397 - Abandons Nonjuring Party, 358 - His Character and Appearance, 384 - A Guest at Shottesbrook, 388 - - Newcome, Henry, 362 - - Newton, Sir Isaac, 156 - His _Principia_, 342 - - Nicholson, Bishop of Carlisle, 392 - - Niebuhr, 349 - - Noncompounders, 238, 239 - - Nonconformists, 18, 73, 101, 106, 137, 358 - Present Addresses to William, 59, 60, 254 - Their Opinions concerning the Revolution, 70–72 - Failure of Efforts in their Favour made in Parliament, 93 - Differences of Opinion with regard to Comprehension, 109 - Toleration Act passed for their Relief, 114–121 - Thankful for the Revolution, 174 - Deaths amongst their Ministers, 175–183 - Preach Sermons on Behalf of Societies, 361 - Their Places of Worship, 400 - Ordinations, 405 - Ministers, 408 - Seminaries, 413 - Attempt at Union amongst them, 420 - Antinomian Controversy, 422 - Their Worship, 433 - The Fund Board, 439 - Trotman’s Trust, 439 - Sundays at Home, 440 - Deaths among them, 442–449 - Their Social Separation from Churchmen, 450 - - Nonjurors, their Objection to taking the Oaths, 89, _et. seq._ - Their Disaffection, 146 - Prelates, 146 - Clergy, 151 - Their Numbers, 154 - Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to them, 157 - In Ireland, 166 - Their Sympathy with Jacobite Conspirators, 167 - Treated with Consideration, 169 - At last Ejected, _ib._ - Find Fault with Tenison’s Funeral Sermon, 200 - Trouble the Church, 206 - Join in a Conspiracy against William, 232 - Divisions among them, 238 - Their Political Views, 259, 395 - Their Judgment of Ministers who took the Oaths, 325, 326 - Appoint Bishops, 374 - Circumstances of Clergy among, 375 - Eminent Divines among, 377–384 - Laymen, 384 - Centres of Influence, 387 - Deaths of Prelates, 391 - Religious Spirit, 396 - Modes of Worship, 398 - - Norfolk, Duke of, 50 - - Norris, John, his Writings, 315, 333, 350 - His Mysticism, 458 - - North, 190 - - Nottingham, Earl of, 102 - Appointed Secretary of State, 83 - Moves Toleration Bill, 107 - - - Oath of Allegiance, 80, 88–97 - Coronation Oath, 97 - - Oglethorpe, Sir Theophilus, 231 - - Oldfield, Joshua, 415 - - Oldfield, Nathaniel, 410 - - Overall, Bishop, his _Convocation Book_, 162 - - Owen, James, 429 - - Oxford University, Supports the Prince of Orange, 50 - William’s Visit to, 209 - Condemns the Doctrines of Sherlock and Bingham on the Trinity, - 222 - Presents an Address to William, 243 - - - Palmer, 415, 416 - - Paman, Dr., 59 - - Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 302, 308 - - Parkyns, Sir William, a Jacobite Conspirator, his Execution, 232, - 233 - - Parliament, Debates on Oaths of Allegiance, 88 - Bill for Repealing Corporation Act, 92 - Coronation Oath, 97 - Comprehension Bill, 101–107 - Requests William to Summon Convocation, 107 - Comprehension Bill dropped, 107 - Passes Toleration Act, 114 - Excitement at Election of New Parliament, 156 - In 1698 passes Act against anyone Denying the Doctrine of the - Trinity, 225 - Repealed in 1813, 226 - Passes Bill against Roman Catholics, 245 - Succession Bill, 250 - Abjuration Bill, 256 - - Patrick, Dr. Simon, receives Tidings of William’s Intention to come - to England, 13 - Visited by Tenison and Lloyd, 58 - An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 127, 128 - Made Bishop of Chichester, 300 - Translated to Ely, 300 - His Writings, 301 - His Character, 308 - Discipline Exercised by, 322 - His _Century of Select Psalms_, 324 - Deplores Carelessness in Religion, 333 - His Letter to the Rector of Dodington, 418, note - - Payne, William, 439 - - Pelham, Sir Nicholas, 160 - - Penn, William, 71, 114, 457 - - Pepys, Samuel, 392, 393 - - Petiver, 309 - - Phillips, Sir John, 367 - - Plunkenet, 309 - - Pool, his _Annotations_, 176 - - Portland, Earl of, 122, 295 - - Powle, 74 - - Prayers for King James ascribed to Nonjurors, 157 - Authorship Denied by them, 158 - Attributed to Hickes, Kettlewell, or Sherlock, _ib._ - - Presbyterians, their Hopes in William III., 10 - Their Meeting with Independents, 60 - Advocates of Comprehension, 110 - Present an Address of Condolence to William on the Death of Mary, - 200 - Their Political Views, 257 - Their Places of Worship, 401 - Ordinations, 405 - Synods, 407 - Attempts at Union with Independents, 420 - Lord Mayors, 429–431 - Difference between Independents and Presbyterians, 436 - - Preston, Richard Graham, Viscount, Head of the Jacobite Conspiracy, - 167 - Tried and Convicted, _ib._ - Pardoned, 167 - - Psalms, Prayer-book Version, 126 - Other Versions, 324, 325 - - Pullin, 234 - - - Quakers, 114, 398 - Advocates of Toleration, 116 - Protected by Toleration Act, 120 - Special Provision for their Relief, 121 - Their Political Views, 258 - Attempts to Convert them, 368 - Benefited by the Revolution, 456 - Their Leaders, 456 - Self-government, 457 - Mysticism, 458 - - - Rapin-Thoyras, 35–36 - - Ray, 309 - - Reresby, Sir John, 97 - - Richard I., 206, 207 - - Robartes, Francis, 30, note - - Rochester, Earl of, 140 - - Roman Catholics, Bill against them, 245 - Their Political Views, 259 - Attempts to Convert them, 368 - - Rooke, Sir George, 366 - - Rookwood, 241 - - Rosse, a Nonjuror, 376 - - Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, 145 - - Russell, Lady Rachel, 186 - - Russell, Lord William, 152, 252 - - Ryswick, Peace of, 242, 244 - - - Sacheverel, 107, note - - Sackville, Major-General, 231 - - Saint Germains, 57 - James’ Court at, 228, 229 - - St. Paul’s Cathedral, 243, 352 - - St. Vincent de Paul, 356 - - Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, 5, 25, 42, 59, 63, 204, 229 - Trelawny’s Letter to him, 16 - Admonitions to his Clergy, 18 - His Scheme of Comprehension, 19 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - Excuses himself, 21 - Signs Paper of Advice, 23 - His Interviews with the King, 30, 31–33 - Denies Signing Invitation to William, 30, 31, note - Mew’s Letters to him, 45, 56 - His Discourse with Clarendon and Tenison, 65 - Favours a Regency, 66–68, 82, 91 - Refuses to Attend the Convention, 69 - Reprimands his Chaplain for Praying for William and Mary, 2 - Objects to Burnet being made Bishop of Salisbury, 85 - Refuses to take Oath of Allegiance, 97 - Favours Comprehension, 101, 108 - Shuts himself up at Lambeth, 147 - Lloyd’s Letters to him, 155, 165, 166, 169, 170, 189, 322 - Ejected from Lambeth, 171 - Retires to Freshingfield, 187 - Suspected of Intrigues against William, 188 - His Hatred against the Establishment, 189 - Appoints Lloyd his Vicar in Ecclesiastical Matters, 189, 374 - Last Days, 190 - His Character, 191, 192, 308 - A Tory, 195 - - Sanderson, 348, note - - Sawyer, Sir Robert, 156 - - Schomberg, Count of, 34 - - Scot, Dr., 132, 133 - - Scotland, 28 - Scotch Bishops Send an Address to James II., 43 - Constitutions for the Church of, 204, note - - Searle, 39, note - - Seymour, Sir Edward, 39, note, 64 - - Sharpe, Dean of Norwich, 101, 414 - Proposes Tillotson as Prolocutor, 140 - Made Archbishop of York, 306, 308 - Objects to Religious Societies, 357, 362 - - Sheldon, Gilbert, 302 - - Sherlock, Dr. William, 68, 70, 158 - A Nonjuror, 161 - Change in his Opinions, _ib._ - Takes the Oaths, 162 - Outcries against him, 163 - Takes part in the Trinitarian Controversy, 214–222 - - Shorter, Sir John, 429 - - Shower, Sir Bartholomew, 263, note - - Shower, John, 410 - - Shrewsbury, Duke of, 10, 83, 208, 363 - His Letters to William III., 234, 237, 248 - Fenwick’s Accusations against him, 235, 236 - - Shute, 365 - - Slingsbie, Sir Henry, 376 - - Smith, John, 300 - - Smithies, 356 - - Snatt, a Nonjuring Clergyman, 232, 233 - - Societies for Religious Purposes, their Origin and Development, - 354–357 - Advocated from the Pulpit, 361 - S.P.C.K., 364 - S.P.G., 369 - - Somers, Lord, 208, 363 - - Sophia, Princess, 250, 251 - - South, Dr. Robert, 160, 194, 223, note - Joins in the Trinitarian Controversy, 216–221 - - Speke, 52, 54 - - Spinoza, 341 - - Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, 23, 77, 270 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - Present at the Interview of the Bishops with the King, 31 - Extract from his Account, 32, note - Takes Part in Coronation, 99 - An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 126–128 - Arrested on Charge of Conspiracy, 188 - Exposes Falsehood of his Accusers, 189 - His Want of Principle, 284 - His Popularity as a Preacher, 310, 311 - - Stamford, Earl of, 105 - - Stancliffe, 59, 72 - - Standish, 392 - - Stanhope, Dr., 344 - - Sternhold, 324 - - Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul’s, 101, 122, 427 - An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 125, note, 131, 132 - Bishop of Worcester, 195, 299, 308 - His Writings, 299, 302 - Bentley’s Patron, 342 - - Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop of Chester, 306, 308, 361 - - Stretton, Richard, 411 - - Strutwick, 176 - - Strype, John, 115, note, 316, 324, 365 - - Sunderland, Earl of, 20, note - - Swift, 265 - - Sylvester, Matthew, 179, 180, 410, 411 - - Symms, a Nonjuror, 376 - - Symons, 366 - - Synods, 268, 269, 285 - - - Tallard, the French Ambassador, 244, note - - Tallents, Francis, 415 - - Tate, Nahum, 325 - - Taunton, Maids of, 38, note - - Taylor, Jeremy, Advocates Toleration, 116 - - Taylor, Nathaniel, 410 - - Temple, Sir William, 4, 265 - - Tenison, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, 68, 101, 261, 381 - His Interviews with Patrick, 13, 58 - His Discourse with Sancroft and Clarendon at Lambeth, 65 - His Library, 143 - Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 195 - His Funeral Sermon for Queen Mary, 196–199 - Censured in a Letter supposed to have been Written by Ken, 200 - Defended in another Letter, 201 - Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204 - His Circular to his Bishops, 205 - Appointed one of the Lords Justices, 206, 208 - Urged to Plead with William for Fenwick’s Life, 239 - His Pastoral Letter, 246 - At Meetings of Convocation, 271, 277–281, 287–295 - Presents an Address to William, 274 - Prorogues Convocation, 276, 294 - Attends William on his Death-bed, 295 - His Character, 298, 308 - One of Boyle’s Trustees, 341 - His Interest in Foreign Missions, 369, 371 - - Test Act, 94 - - Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, 97, 128, 146, 308 - - Thomond, Earl of, 148, note - - Thoresby, Ralph, 322, 411, 412 - - Thorpe, Edmund, 415 - - Tillotson, John, 19, 101, 159, 181, 261, 353, 357 - His Views on Comprehension, 122 - His Committee, 124 - An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 129, 132, 133 - Proposed as Prolocutor, 140 - Rejected, _ib._ - Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 162, 186 - Account of him, 184–187 - Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204 - His Archiepiscopal Career, 191, 203, 204 - His Death and Character, 192, 382 - His Writings, 193–195 - A Latitudinarian, 192, 384 - His Influence, 308 - His Wig, 332 - - Toland, John, his _Christianity not Mysterious_ Examined by - Convocation, 275, 277 - His Works, 348, note, 350–352 - - Toleration Bill, 105, 114, 211 - Locke’s Letters on Toleration, 116 - Advocates of, _ib._ - Causes of the Bill being Passed, 118 - What it Accomplished, 119, 120 - - Tong, William, 428 - - Tories, 93, 96, 110, note, 156 - Their Discussions with Whigs, 251 - - Trapp, Dr., 303, note - - Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, Translated from Bristol, 52, 75, 270 - His Letter to Sancroft, 16, 17 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - Denies that the Bishops Invited the Prince of Orange, 30, note, - 283 - His Character, 310 - - Trenchard, Secretary, 41, note - - Trinitarian Controversy, 211–226, 327, 333 - - Trotman’s Trust, 439, 440 - - Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, 23, 53, 63, 64, 69, 76, 97 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - His Interview with the King, 21 - His Letter to Trelawny, 52 - Holds a Meeting at Ely House, 68 - A Nonjuror, 148 - Accused of Joining in the Jacobite Conspiracy, 168 - His Death, 392 - - - Unitarians - Join in Trinitarian Controversy, 211, 220 - Their Doctrines Condemned by the House of Lords, 221 - William urged to Deprive them of the Liberty of the Press, 225 - - Upton, Dr., 410 - - - Veal, Edward, 415 - - Vernon, Secretary of State, 362 - - Vincent, Nathaniel, 444 - - Vincent, Thomas, 416 - - Voltaire, 349 - - - Wagstaffe, Thomas, a Nonjuror, 169, 171, 374 - - Wake, Dr., 19, 285 - His Answer to _Letter to a Convocation Man_, 264, 266 - - Walgrave, Lady, 235 - - Wallis, Dr., his Pamphlet on the Trinity, 213, 218 - - Walter, Hubert, Archbishop, 207, 208 - - Ward, Seth, 84 - - Warren, Matthew, 415 - - Warton, 303, note - - Watson, Bishop of St. David’s, 30, 31 - His Trial and Deprivation, 312 - His Death, 314, note - - Watts, Dr., Isaac, 439, 440 - - Wesley, John, 330 - - Wesley, Samuel, 87, 307, 365, 439, 443 - His Eulogy on Queen Mary, 200, note - His _Athenian Oracle_, 325–331 - His Domestic Life, 328 - Anecdotes of, 330, 334, note - Enters himself as a Servitor at Exeter College, 415 - - Weymouth, Lord, 390 - - Wharton, Henry, 316 - - Wharton, Lord, 46, 63, 94 - - Wheeler, 365 - - Whigs, 73, 93, 96, 110, note, 156 - Invite William to come to England, 11 - Recover Power, 208 - Their Discussions with Tories, 251 - Pleased with the King’s Speech, 255 - - Whiston, 307, 326 - - White, Bishop of Peterborough, a Nonjuror, 23, 53, 68, 69, 240, 308 - Summoned to Attend the King, 20 - At Interview with the King, 31 - Refuses to take the Oath, 97 - Ejected, 171 - Attends Fenwick on the Scaffold, 241 - His Death and Funeral, 391, 392 - - Wickart, Dean of Winchester, 292 - - William III. - His Early Days, 1–3 - His Character, 3 - Marriage, 4 - Religious Opinions, 4 - His Protestantism, 6, 7 - His Interest in England, 8, 9 - Invited to England, 11 - His Diplomatic Negotiations Abroad, 12 - Military Preparations at Home, 13 - His Declaration, 27 - Appeals to the Army, 28 - Sets Sail, 34 - Lands at Torbay, 36 - Marches with his Army to Exeter, 38 - At Wells, 42 - Takes Possession of Salisbury, 47 - His Private Conference with Clarendon, 48 - His Popularity, 49 - False Declaration in his Cause, 50–51 - Deputation waits upon him, 54 - Forces James to Surrender, 57 - Clergy Present him with an Address, 59 - Sancroft’s Proposal to make him Regent, 67, 68 - He Summons a Meeting, 72 - Entrusted with Administration of Affairs, 73 - Declared King by the Lords, 77 - By the Commons, 78 - His Speech at Whitehall, 80 - Proclaimed King, 81 - His Appointments to Office, 82 - Nominates Burnet to the Bishopric of Salisbury, 84 - Desires Alteration in Test Act, 94 - His Coronation, 99 - Requested by Parliament to Summon Convocation, 107 - His Conversation with John Howe, 113, note - An Advocate of Liberty, 118 - Appoints the Ecclesiastical Commission, 125 - Desires to make Tillotson Archbishop of Canterbury, 140, 186 - His Message to Convocation, 141 - His Answer to their Address, 143 - Disgusted with his Position, 156 - Resolves to go to Ireland, 156 - Assembles a New Parliament, 156 - Wounded at the Battle of the Boyne, 159 - His Esteem for Tillotson, 191 - Sympathy with him on the Death of his Queen, 199 - Articles Published in his Name for Ecclesiastical Reform, 203, 209 - His Frequent Absence from England, 206 - Appoints Lords Justices, 206 - Administers Foreign Affairs, 208 - His Return to England after Surrender of the Castle of Namur, 208 - His Injunctions Relative to the Trinitarian Controversy, 209, - 210, 223 - His Inconsistency, 224 - Conspiracy against him, 231 - His Perilous Position in England, 236 - Recognised as a Constitutional King by the Peace of Ryswick, 242 - His Entry into London, 242, 243 - Obliged to give up his Dutch Guards, 244 - Devolves Part of Responsibility of Bestowing Church Preferment on - others, 247 - Provides for Education of the Duke of Gloucester, 248, 249 - Anxious about the Succession, 250 - His Speech on Opening Parliament, 254 - His Declining Health, 256 - Instability of his Throne, 259 - His Death, 295 - Character, 296 - Objects to Touching for King’s Evil, 339 - - Williams, Solicitor-General, 14 - - Williams, Daniel, 411, 425–427 - - Williams, Bishop of Chichester, 125, note - - Willis, Dr., 296 - - Willoughby, Lord, 50 - - Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man, 331 - - Winchester, Marquis of, 103, 105 - - Winshup, a Nonjuror, 376 - - Witchcraft, 335–339 - - Woodhouse, John, 415 - - Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, 288, 289, 292 - - Wren, Sir Christopher, 287 - - - Yorke, a Nonjuror, 375 - - Young, Robert, 188, note - - - Zulestein, Count of, 6, note - - - - - CORRIGENDA. - - - Page 144, line 13, _for_ Kingsale _read_ Kinsale. - „ 222, „ 1, _for_ Unitariam _read_ Unitarian. - „ 343, „ 30, _for_ Blackall _read_ Blackhall. - - - UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND CHILWORTH. - - - FOOTNOTES: - -[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see _The Life of -William III._ 8vo., Lond., 1703; _The Hist. of King William -III._, 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; _The Life of William, Prince of -Orange_, 8vo., Lond., 1688. - -[2] _Own Times_, ii. 305, i. 689. - -[3] _Own Times_, i. 691. - -[4] Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of a -Churchman as possible. - -[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS. _Life of Hooper_, by -Prouse. See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 101–3. - -[6] _Hawkins’ Life of Ken_, 7. In the _Life of Ken, by a -Layman_, 105, we are told that William was much offended at the -marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced--which -marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s -displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with -Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that -one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused -to marry her. Which is right? - -[7] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 183. - -[8] _Clarendon Correspondence_, ii. 484. - -[9] _Calamy’s Hist. Account_, i. 147. He describes the prophetic -dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, in his -_Hist. of the Quakers_, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic letter -(containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a Quaker -at London to his friend, as a forgery. - -[10] _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. part i. 228. - -[11] _Ibid._, 238. - -[12] See curious correspondence in _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. i. -240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.” - -[13] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. (autobiography) 513. - -[14] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 510. - -[15] _Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa_, i. 393–397. - -[16] My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I find the -Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, as it -is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a dyer. -In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order of the -Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to surrender -their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and well-beloved,’ -commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. Snell) and other -members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit ‘our well-beloved -Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of November, 1687. Jenkins, -our local historian, says, ‘that not only the Mayor, but the other -members of the newly-created Chamber, were Presbyterians. When the -Corporation sent up an address to the King, congratulating him on -the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the honour of knighthood. -When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, one of the fruits -of his repentance was the restoration of their charters to corporate -towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from his corporate -dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I have not been -able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the Mayor was a -Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s allusion to -the Conventicle.” - -[17] Aug. 16, 1688. _Bodleian, Tanner MSS._, xxviii. - -[18] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 113, printed in _Gutch’s Collectanea_, i. 404. - -[19] July 27, 1688. _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 618. - -[20] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 326–8. I am very sceptical -about this report. - -[21] _London Gazette_, 2384. - -[22] Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) to the -Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman for an -impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in fear, -yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery. -Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so -careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the -“foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation, -he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his -Episcopal income being desperately poor. _Facsimiles of National -MSS._, iv. 92. - -[23] _Clarendon Correspondence._ Lord Dartmouth says, “Not long -before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his chamber), -my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not above -twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the Duke, -and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that if -ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find -himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though -there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to -contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My -father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s -last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer -was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.” -_Dalrymple_, iii. appen. 289. - -[24] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 317. - -[25] _Clarendon Correspondence._ - -[26] _Gazette_, 2386. - -[27] _Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 339–344. - -[28] _D’Oyley_, i. 345. - -[29] - -_For the King._ - -O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble -supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in -this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give -Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health -and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels; -prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good -success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his -people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true -allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together -to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in -their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy -most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed -to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. _Amen._ - - -_For Repentance._ - -Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here -humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least -of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our -souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders -of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have -hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our -amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed; -for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast -hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to -repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly -sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; -that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest -rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of -Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. _Amen._ - -There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His -Majesty to be printed. - -[30] Macpherson (_Hist._ i. 518) succinctly and completely refutes -the assertion. - -[31] _Gutch_, i. 414. - -[32] _Tanner MSS._, vol. xxviii. 153. There is another letter on -the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5. - -[33] _Dalrymple_, i. 210. - -[34] _Ibid._, i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with James, -remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the -commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince -comes only to maintain the Protestant religion--he will do no harm to -England.’” p. 358. - -[35] _D’Oyley_, i. 355. - -[36] Compton’s own account. _Gulch_, i. 443. - -[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written by Trelawny, -Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these Bishops was -afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with bringing William -over to England:--“Having in a discourse with Mr. Francis Robartes, a -little time after the coronation of King William, resented to him the -impudence of the person, whoever he was, that insinuated in the Prince -of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had invited him to come -over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly false; he replied, ‘I -took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord about the particular, and -asked him whether it was true; his answer was, No, damn ’em, they were -not so honest, but I caus’d it to be put in, to raise a jealousy and -hatred on both sides, that the King, believing it, might never forgive -them, and they, fearing that he did believe, might be push’d for their -own safety to wish and help on his ruin.’”--_First Report of the -Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, 52. - -There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated -25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the -Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester -to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c., -‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”--See -same _Report_. - -[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced by Sancroft -of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper is in -existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there hath -been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince of -_Orange_ hath an _intention_ to invade this kingdom in hostile manner; -and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his attempt, that he hath -been thereunto invited by several _English_ Lords, both temporal and -spiritual; _I William_, Archbishop of _Cant._, do for my own discharge -profess and declare That I never gave him any such invitation by word -or writing or otherwise, nor do I know, nor can believe, that any of my -reverend brethren, the Bishops, have in any such wise invited him. And -all this I aver upon my word, and in confirmation [for which word in -MS. _attestation_ is substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here -at Lambeth, this 3rd day of November, 1688, W. C.” _Gutch_, ii. 366. - -[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in the -original document: “Here also something was added which I (the Bp. of -Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this effect, -that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves might be a -thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and properties of the -subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we begged His Majesty -would require no more of us in particular, but would rest contented -with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” _Tanner -MSS._ - -[40] _Gutch_, i. 426–440. - -[41] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 232. - -[42] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256. - -[43] _Rapin_, iii. 285. - -[44] _Macaulay_, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I have quoted, -refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. _State Papers, Lectures -on the Church of Scotland_, 116. - -[45] _Burnet_, i. 789. - -[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is said to -have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and locket, are -still preserved in the family.” - -“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who -assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden -from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they -could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having -an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent -to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some -time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed -when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night, -and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house -stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.” - -[47] _Harl. Miscell._, i. 449. - -“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of -their provision; and instead of ‘_Votre serviteur, Monsieur_,’ -they were entertained with ‘_Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken_,’ upon -which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old -servants.” - -[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under the -Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his -grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to -state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over -ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his -master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of -apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves. - -“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first -person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however -believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly -gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the -borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known -as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council. -The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired -spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to -Newton.” _MS. Information._ - -[49] _Le Neve’s Archbishops_, 269. - -[50] Quoted in _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256. - -[51] I give this story as it is found in the _Harleian Miscellany_, -and _Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches_. Ferguson was first -a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for some time he acted as -assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the authority of Burnet, -gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in _Palmer’s Nonconf. -Memorial_, and by Wilson in his _Dissenting Churches_, i. 284. - -It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a -different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may -be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and -violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after -the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own -extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a -full account of it. - -[52] _Dalrymple_, i. 225. - -[53] Note in _Wilson’s Life of Defoe_, i. 110. - -[54] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688. - -[55] _Ken’s Life, by a Layman_, 324. - -[56] See _Gazette_, Nov. - -[57] _Life of James II._, ii. 209–212. - -[58] _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_, 62. Macpherson mentions a -meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince of Orange, -at which Compton was present. _Hist. of Great Britain_, i. 530. -_Original Papers_, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an authority, -but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary. - -[59] Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. - -[60] _Ralph_, i. 1073. - -[61] _Gazettes_ under dates. - -[62] _Clarendon’s Diary_, Dec. 3; ii. 214. - -[63] _Ibid._, Dec. 5, 6. - -[64] _Reresby_, 363, 364. - -[65] _Burnet_, i. 793. - -[66] _Life of William III._, 1703. - -[67] _Ralph_, i. 1051. - -[68] _Burnet_, i. 793. - -[69] See _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_. - -[70] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 159. - -[71] _Tour through Great Britain_, ii. 64–70. The excitement -extended into Essex. - -“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and -in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish -soldiers that were coming, they said.” _Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals -of Coggeshall_, 269. - -[72] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 188–191. - -[73] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 506. - -[74] These notes are preserved amongst the _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. -285, 286. - -[75] _Dalrymple_, i. 248. _Memoirs of James II._, ii. 270. - -[76] Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, _Works_, ix. 514. The -Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have been the -18th. - -[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is called the -_Historical Register Entering Book_, vol. ii. 383. _Morice -MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library. - -[78] _Ralph_, i. 1073. - -[79] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 235. - -[80] _Ibid._, ii. 234. - -[81] _Stuart Papers_, quoted in _D’Oyley_, i. 410. - -[82] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 237. - -[83] _Ibid._, ii. 238. - -[84] _Diary and Correspondence_, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. 240. - -[85] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 415. - -[86] “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there were -meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before and -after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they were -even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision, -were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.” -_Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll._, 987, 151. - -[87] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 424. - -[88] _Diary_, Jan. 15, 1689. - -[89] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 247. - -[90] _Patrick’s Life. Works_, ix. 515. - -[91] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 358. - -[92] _Life of Philip Henry_, 187. - -[93] _Parl. Hist._, v. 24. - -[94] _Ralph_, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, Rochester, -Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, -Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph. - -[95] Quoted in _Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation_, 317. - -[96] _Journals of Lords._ Compare _Clarendon’s Diary and -Correspondence_, ii. 257. - -[97] _Parl. Hist._, v. 51. - -[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged -them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which -they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and -arbitrary power.” _Gutch_, i. 447. - -[99] _Parl. Hist._, v. 59. - -[100] _Dalrymple_, i. 267. - -[101] _Parl. Hist._, v. 75. - -[102] _Burnet_, i. 818. - -[103] _Dalrymple_, i. 269. - -[104] _Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 256. - -[105] It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the -Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following -passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it is gratifying -to all Englishmen and Americans:--“I call restorative the Government -of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these -great, good men have established society on respect for right, and -have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is to -say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the contrary, -anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary _régime_, whether it -be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more dangerous -the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it disposes at -its pleasure.” - -[106] _Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France._ -_Works_, v. 103. - -[107] _Parl. Hist._, v. iii. - -[108] _Parl. Hist._, v. 111–113. - -[109] _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 42. - -[110] _Burnet_, i. 803. - -[111] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 8. - -[112] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 330. - -[113] _Parl. Hist._, v. 129–131. Feb. 20. - -[114] _Ralph_, ii. 63. - -[115] _Memoirs of Sir John Reresby_, 398. It must be remembered -that his sympathies were with James. - -[116] _Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family_, i. 320. - -[117] See _Commons’ Journals_, March 7, April 1, and _Parl. -Hist._, v. 137. - -[118] _Lords’ Journals_, March 16. - -[119] _Journals_, March 23. - -[120] _Burnet_, ii. 9, 10. - -[121] _Commons’ Journals_, April 13. - -[122] _Reresby_, 401. March 28. - -[123] _Life of Kettlewell_, 217, 218. - -[124] _Parl. Hist._, v. 199–206. - -[125] _Macaulay_, iv. 121. _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster -Abbey_, &c., 94, and _Bufton’s Diary_ in _Dale’s Annals of -Coggleshall_, 270. - -[126] See _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 145. - -[127] _Autobiography_, 516. - -[128] _Somer’s Tracts_ (old edition), i. 380. There is a scheme of -Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways amongst the -_Tanner MSS._, 290, 242, without date. Also another for indulgence -that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration that their -Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in no way through -crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the peace of Church -or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are openly profane, -the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in the judgment of -charity, they may be comprehended within the number of conscientious -Dissenters. _Tanner MSS._, 80, 108. - -[129] March 23. _MSS. Journal_ (_Historical Register, Entering -Book_, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library. - -[130] _Burnet_, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist -reports (_Entering Book_, ii. 511) a “variety of debates in the -House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln -would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had -established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon -the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The Archbishop -of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, for they -refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the -Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and -other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not -to be comprehended or indulged.” - -[131] See _Lords’ Journal_. - -[132] _Entering Book_, April 13. The following entry appears on -the 20th:--“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant -subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of -their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving -indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons’ Bill -for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a -second time this day fortnight.” - -[133] April 13. _Parl. Hist._, v. 217. The following passage -occurs in the _Entering Book_, 217, Wednesday, May 15:--“Commons -proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The -anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas -Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence seemed very -grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content -it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ own Indulgence -Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed, -they might take anything that was good out of their own Bill and insert -it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel.” It is -added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not -in the Lords’ Bill, _i.e._ it repeals all the penal statutes -against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill does only -suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but -leaves them in force upon all other accounts.” - -[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant subjects -will be printed in the Appendix. - -[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed against the -Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their -apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the -Earl of Nottingham.”--_Birch’s Tillotson_, 178. - -[136] _Reresby_, 390. - -[137] _Burnet_, ii. 11. - -[138] _Somerville’s Political Transactions_, 275: _Smith’s -remarks--Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 158. - -[139] _Ralph_, ii. 73. - -[140] _Life, by Matthew Henry_, 181. - -[141] There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but they looked -with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. “The truth of -the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House of Parliament -was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the State. And the -House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred voices to reform -things amiss in the State than in the Church, and therefore, in such -a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and weak friends to -Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or giving impunity -to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be prostituted -and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to be by -those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so to -do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting of -Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better -opportunity.”--April, 1689. _Entering Book_, 534. - -[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth -insertion:--“Although in history the causes of events should be -pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary -method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of -these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous -in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the -State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament, -returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to -protect the Church from the invasion--as they called it--which was -making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in -defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived -connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies -with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both -were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords, -particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their -speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her -treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the -Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of -religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour -of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion -to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters -themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should -weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest; -and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of -honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain, -and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in -Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that -the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as -the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition -and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions -should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the -State itself.”--_Dalrymple_, i. 318. - -[143] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 200. - -[144] The following entries in the _Hist. Register, Williams’ -MSS._, relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the -subject:--Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had -some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was -pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose: -‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe -answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty -their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should -do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good -affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned -in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His -Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might -also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be -of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty, -‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst -others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as -is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never -concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides, -in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by -Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good -suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they -did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this -kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”--Saturday, June -22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill -for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the -Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr. -John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the -son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of -what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he -fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen. -They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till -1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then, -and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat -unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside, -or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows -himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should -pass, so as to make those concerned easy.” - -[145] _Parl. Hist._, v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the -debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost, -and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some -cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed. -Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer, -was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting -their proceedings. - -[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in -the _Entering Book_, May 25:--“I do not understand the mystery of -it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and -Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops -passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in -the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the -imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think -there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass -it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did -promote the passing of it. _Nota._--And its as certain, that they -do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed -they would stop it.” - -Amongst the Camb. MSS. (_Strype Cor._, iii. 191) I find this note -addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that -I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of -this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act -of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and -he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and -brother, - - “H. LONDON. -“_June 19, 1689._” - -[147] _Life_, by _Lord King_, 341. Preface to _Letters on -Toleration_, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689, -“You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length -established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as -you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire; -but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I -trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the -Church of Christ was at first established.”--_Familiar Letters_, -330. - -[148] _Ralph_, ii. 225. - -[149] _Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers_, iii. 232–235. - -Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks -respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers -acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”--_Hist._, -ii. 357. - -[150] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 182–184. - -[151] _Ibid._, 180. - -[152] Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from -attending by a fit of the gout. _Life of Stillingfleet_, 75. - -Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of -the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a _Copy of the -Alterations_, is printed in a _Parliamentary Return_, 1854. To -this _Return_ I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers -printed in it had long been desired by historical students. - -[153] Spelt Aldridge in the _Parliamentary Return_. - -[154] _Return_, 98. - -[155] _Return_, 15. It would be beside the mark to enter upon a -discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would call attention to -a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend Professor Swainson, -and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer to the _Fourth -Report of the Ritual Commission_. The theological part of the Creed -I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but how any charitable -Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me inexplicable. - -[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; Friday, Nov. 8. - -[157] So in _Return_, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet. - -[158] _De Trinitate_, l. 15. c. 27. - -[159] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 448. The alterations cover 90 pages, -and amount to 598 in number. - -[160] _See Letter to a friend containing some queries_, and also -_Vox Cleri_. - -The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational -rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any -change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says -Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better -times.”--_Triennial Visitation Charges_, 1704. - -[161] This is noticed by _Macaulay_, v. 112. - -[162] _Tillotson’s Life_, 202. Jane, it should be recollected, -was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached at his -consecration. - -[163] _Cardwell’s Conferences_, 434, 451. _Synodalia_, -692–700. - -[164] _Kennet Hist._, iii. 552. - -[165] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to Sancroft, March -31, 1689. - -[166] _Dalrymple_, i. 322. - -[167] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 630. - -[168] _Oldmixon_, iii. 18. - -[169] _House of Commons’ Journals._ Amongst the _Tanner -MSS._, xxvii. 161, is a _Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s -College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating -the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government_. - -[170] _Salmon’s Lives_, 388. - -[171] _Life of Kettlewell_, 199. - -[172] _Life of Kettlewell_, 203. - -The original declaration is in the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 77. The -signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand. - -_Witnesses._ - - Thos. Greene, D.D., the Bishop’s Chaplain. - G. Hickes, D.D. - R. Jenkyn, Precentor. - Nat. Powell, Not. Pub. - John Wilson, Not. Pub. - -MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one -in my possession. - -[173] _Tanner MSS._, 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April 23, 1689. - -[174] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 365. - -[175] _Ibid._, 366. The following extracts respecting Turner are -curious: - -He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial -of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower, -when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual -recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a -wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian -Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed, -and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived -that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was -Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon -was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond -sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He -asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one -Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr. -Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England, -and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when -certainly he knew him very well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, -987, 138. - -[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the same collection, -987, 310. - -[177] _An examination of the case of the suspended Bishops._ 1690, -p. 12. - -[178] _Life of Kettlewell._ Appendix, Nos. ii., iii. - -The following note to the Archbishop is among the _Tanner MSS._, -xxvii. 101:-- - -“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned -lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January, -reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion--2d -Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby--who, referring to a record -in Edward the Second’s time in which the word _menses_ occurs, -says, ‘_Qui menses in Calendario computantur_.’ - -“27 December, 1689. W. NORW.” - -[179] _Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 85. - -[180] It occurs in the _Life of Kennet_, 47. - -[181] _Dunton’s Life and Errors_, 370. - -[182] _Life of Kettlewell_, 152. - -[183] _Ibid._, 98. - -[184] _Life of Kettlewell_, 134. - -[185] 19th February, 1689–90. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 91, 92. - -[186] _Burnet_, ii. 39. - -[187] _State Tracts_, ii. 95. - -[188] _A Modest Enquiry_, printed in _State Tracts_, vol. ii. - -[189] See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 370–376. Compare _Life of -Kettlewell_, 255–263. - -[190] _Dalrymple_, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132. - -[191] Macaulay has graphically described all this. - -[192] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 306. - -[193] _Life_, Patrick’s _Works_, ix. 529. - -[194] _Convocation Book_, b. i. c. 28. Edition in _Library of -Anglo Cathe. Theology_, 50, 51. - -[195] _Case of Allegiance_, Preface. - -[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of the -Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had -spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.” - -[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet entitled -_Sherlock against Sherlock_, a long extract as given by Ralph (ii. -270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a specimen of the -attacks on the Master of the Temple. - -Amongst the _Baker MSS._, 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is -an undated letter written by - -“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,-- - -“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of -Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it -as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it, -the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that -we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the -throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal -rights.” - -After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his -argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying: -“I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for -my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to -me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as -serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more -than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile -the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission -and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly -settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.” - -[198] There is in the British Museum (_Cole MSS._, xxx. 168) a -curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to some one -who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he had been -brought up. - -[199] 5th August, 1690. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 176. - -[200] 9th February, 1691. _Ibid._, 247. - -[201] _Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland_, ii. Preface. - -[202] January 20, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 236. - -[203] _Ken’s Life_, 381. - -D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i. -461. And the author of _Ken’s Life_ describes Turner as engaging -“in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380. - -[204] 9th of May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvi. 84. - -[205] From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, -xxvi. 59. - -[206] _Life_, 391. - -[207] Camb. Univ. Library. _Baker MSS._, 40, 90. - -[208] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 197. _Calamy’s Life_, i. 300. - -[209] _Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists_, iii. 230. - -[210] _Humble Requests, &c._, inserted in _Calamy’s -Abridgment_, i. 497. - -[211] _Memoir by Offer._ Bunyan’s _Works_, iii. lxxiii. - -[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told of Flavel -the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good evidence, -of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious resemblance -in the words of the two narratives.” (_Kingdom of Christ_, ii. -344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian in his honesty -and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of Flavel to prove -anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find it--a remarkable -psychological fact. - -[213] _Palmer_, i. 354. - -[214] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 469–475. - -[215] _Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c._, by D. Burgess, 1691. - -[216] _Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, iii. 188. -_Birch’s Tillotson_ [2nd Edition], 18, 387. - -[217] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 23. The text was 2 Cor. v. -10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson, _Church of the -Commonwealth_, 327. - -[218] _Life of Tillotson_, 223. - -[219] _Life of Tillotson_, 340, 341. - -[220] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 4, 16. - -[221] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 25. - -[222] See “A relation of the late wicked contrivance of Stephen -Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of several persons by -forging an association under their hands, written by the Bishop of -Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relation of what -passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by a Committee -of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an account of -the two above-mentioned authors of the forgery.” In the Savoy, -1692.--_Harleian Missal_ (4to.) vi. 198. - -Blackhead and Young seem to have been thorough-paced villains. - -[223] These letters, dated March, 1692, are amongst the _Tanner -MSS._ - -[224] _Life of Sancroft_, ii. 20. - -[225] The instrument, which is very curious, is given by -_D’Oyley_, ii. 31. - -[226] _D’Oyley_, ii. 43, 58, 62, 64. - -[227] _Lives of the Bishops_, 234. - -[228] _Own Time_, ii. 135. - -[229] “He was, in those years, a very good scholar, an acute logician -and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. He spoke Latin -exceedingly well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll._, 949, 114. - -[230] Milman has well brought out this point in his _Annals of St. -Paul’s_. I quite agree with that distinguished critic in placing -Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should also assign a -higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literary obligations to -Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A. Taine. - -[231] In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikes me as -much more interesting than the second. - -[232] _Birch’s Tillotson_, 348. - -[233] _Memoirs of the Life and Times of Tenison_, 20. - -[234] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 27–31. - -[235] _Stanley’s Westminster Abbey_, 182. - -[236] _Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge_, iv. 28. _Thoresby’s Diary -and Correspondence_, iii. 197. - -Amongst the wilder eulogists was Samuel Wesley, who thus refers to her -celestial happiness:-- - - “How was Heaven moved at her arrival there! - With how much more than usual art and care, - The angels, who so oft to earth had gone, - And borne her incense to the Eternal’s throne, - For her new coronation now prepare! - How welcome! how caressed! - Among the blest! - And first mankind’s great mother rose-- - ‘Give way, ye crowding souls,’ said she, - ‘That I the second of my race may see!’” - -In his _Life of Christ_ he couples the Queen with the Virgin -Mary.--_Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 192–194. - -[237] See _Memoirs of Tenison_, 32. and _Life of Ken_, 418. - -Tenison, in a letter to Evelyn, speaks of his funeral sermon, adding, -“There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop -Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and -less malice.”--_Evelyn’s Diary and Corresp._, iii. 345. - -[238] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 509, 520. - -[239] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 42–47. - -[240] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 480. - -[241] _Ibid._, 577. - -[242] _Ibid._, 582. But constitutions for the Church of Scotland -of a similar kind to those of William were issued by Charles -II.--_Ibid._, 590. There are also several documents in the King’s -name respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affect -the point now before us. - -[243] _Ibid._, 612. - -[244] I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to the Clergy of -the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeed _unicus dominus et -supremus_, as we confess him in the Church daily: it were _nimis -absurdum_ for us to be called _Caput Ecclesiæ, representans Corpus -Christi mysticum_.” And I am prepared to admit that the theory of -the National Church is that the Sovereign is simply supreme ruler in -_temporal_ things; but certainly in practice Sovereigns have gone -beyond this, especially in the case now before us. - -[245] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 54–59. This circular letter is not in -_Wilkins_. - -[246] The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seems to have -been the ruling power. - -[247] _London Gazette_. - -[248] _Macaulay_, vii. 253 (_note_). - -[249] This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to his -_Antitrinitarian Biography_, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes from -a publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any set -Meeting-house for the propagating of their doctrines.” - -[250] _Tayler’s Religious Life in England_, 229. - -[251] It is impossible to notice these publications in detail. They are -very numerous. A large collection of them may be found in Dr. Williams’ -Library, and an account of some of them in the elaborate introduction -to _Wallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography_, vol. i. - -[252] _The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius._ - -[253] The Book is entitled, _The Naked Gospel_. The writer, Dr. -Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have most corrupted -the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, by Trelawny, -Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College. - -[254] _Journals_, January 3, 1694. The book so treated was the -_Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity_. -The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to give bail for good -behaviour for the next three years, and to make a public recantation. - -[255] The pamphlet is entitled, _The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, -Briefly Explained in a Letter to a Friend_, 4to. - -[256] _Vindication_, &c., sect. iv. - -[257] _Bingham’s Works_, viii. 292, 319, 320. - -[258] _Bingham’s Memoir_, i. 6. _Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person -of Christ_, Div. ii. vol. iii. 355. - -[259] _Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book_, 69. - -[260] He says that God had taken the matter into His own hands, “and -made this scornful man eat his own words (the hardest diet, certainly, -that a proud person can be put to), and after all the black dirt thrown -by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it off again with his -own tongue,” p. 381. - -[261] _South’s Animadversions_, 240, and _Considerations on the -Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c., written to a Person -of Quality_. 1693. Another example of the same kind occurs in _The -Doctrine of the Trinity placed in its due Light_. “We have seen two -men that were made one Admiral by a joint Commission; and we see every -day many men incorporate into one political body by patent, whereby -they are one person in law. And in this known sense are the Godhead -and manhood joined together in one Person, whereof comes one Christ, -and very God, and very man.” The author was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on -p. 213, who was deprived of his University preferment by the Bishop of -Exeter. - -[262] On the controversy, see _The Distinction between Real and -Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet_. -1696. - -[263] _Works_, v. 111. - -[264] See on this subject _Roger’s Life of Howe_, 419. Sherlock -differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it. Howe -defended himself in _A Letter to a Friend_, and _A View of the -late Considerations_, &c. _Works_, v. - -[265] _Lords’ Journal._ - -[266] _Ben Mordecai’s Letters_, i. 70, quoted in _Toulmin_, -182. - -[267] _Tenison’s Life_, 51. In this dispute, and the proceedings -which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse were employed. -Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgar ballads, -and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associated with what -is ridiculous and absurd. See _The Battle Royal, South’s Posthumous -Works_. _Memoirs_, 128–130. - -[268] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 577. - -[269] That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shall deny in -his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is -declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion,” _i.e._ the XXXIX. -Articles. - -[270] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1172. February 9, 1698. - -[271] There is a full account of this horrible affair in _Arnot’s -State Trials_, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period remarked, -respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas Aikenhead, “I -do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he lived; but -the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, spoke and -preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was published in England -in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, _The Blasphemous Heresy -Disproved_, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, by God’s -express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land.” - -[272] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 302. - -[273] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 561. - -[274] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 304. _Wallace_, i. 388. - -[275] _Mazure_, quoted in _Macaulay_, vii. 15. - -[276] _An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiracies against -William III._, p. 90. - -[277] 1693, October 16. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452. - -[278] 1693, October 16. _Ibid_, 455. - -[279] 1693, close of the year. _Ibid._, 459. - -[280] 1693, December. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, 467. - -[281] 1694, January. _Ibid._, 474. - -[282] 1694, May. _Ibid._, 484. - -[283] 1694, August. _Ibid._, 493. Some correspondents were more -faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestants would support -him (p. 490). - -[284] _Lathbury’s Hist. of Nonjurors_, 169. - -[285] _Collier’s Defence._ - -[286] _Wilkins_, iv. 627. - -[287] _Answer to Animadversions_, 10. - -[288] _State Papers_: Letter from Shrewsbury to William III., -Whitehall, July 28, 1696. - -[289] See _Macpherson’s Orig. Papers_, i. 514, 595. - -[290] _Burnet_, i. 683. - -[291] It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that he had said -Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “by the -operation and consent of King James.”--_Parl. Hist._, v. 1051. - -[292] _State Papers_: Shrewsbury to William III., Whitehall, Sept. -8, 1696. - -In _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 481, Captain Floyd, a -Jacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to his -mother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Prince of -Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectually hereafter.” - -[293] The substance of his discoveries is given in _Tindal’s -History_. - -[294] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1127–1130. - -[295] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 62. - -[296] _Ibid._, 63. - -[297] _Burnet_, ii. 193. - -[298] Lathbury (_Hist. of Nonjurors_, 178), on the authority of -the _State Tracts_, ii. 561, states that Fenwick was permitted to -seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken the oaths, or any of -the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that on his refusal of the -offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors were mentioned, but they -declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might be tendered. Macaulay -(vii. 404), however, says White was with him at the last. - -[299] _Impartial Hist. of Plots_, 176. - -[300] Evelyn notices, “16 Nov., the King’s entry very pompous, but is -nothing approaching that of King Charles II.” - -[301] _Evelyn’s Diary_, Dec. 2nd. - -[302] _Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s_, 427. Evelyn says, “5th -December was the first Sunday that St. Paul’s had had service performed -in it since it was burnt in 1666.” - -[303] _Kennet’s Hist. of England_, iii. 777. - -[304] Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says the Catholic -religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in the time -of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of England has -determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure his own.” - -“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here they -get into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”--_Vernon -Cor._, ii. 193. - -[305] _Burnet_, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c. 4. - -“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture as -eluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances of -a loss of property under this law.” (_Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. -333.) The Act was repealed in 1779. - -[306] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 65–73. - -[307] _Le Neve’s Lives_, part i. 247–254. - -[308] Letter from Shrewsbury to Mr. Secretary Vernon (_State -Papers_), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letter -offering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads his -many defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessary -for him to seek a warmer climate. - - Shrewsbury to William III. - - “_Whitehall, 1st Sept., 1696._ - - “I have not this long while been sensible of so real a joy as I - was to find, by your Majesty’s letter of the 24th August, that - you were satisfied with my endeavours to serve you. I wish I - could please myself better with the effects and that I were not - obliged to attribute this opinion of your Majesty’s to your own - natural indulgence and my Lord Portland’s kind representation - rather than to any merit of mine, beyond sincere intention to - promote yours and the kingdom’s interest to the utmost of my - power, without being able to contribute much to either.” - -In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in the _First Report of the -Historical MSS. Commission_, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke of -Shrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health would -permit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laborious -diversion of fox-hunting should agree so well with his Grace.” - -[309] _Burnet_, ii. 211. - -[310] _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey; Supplement_, 136. - -[311] Mr. Shippen. - -[312] _Ralph_, ii. 908. - -[313] _Stanhope’s Queen Anne_, 19. - -[314] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 606. - -[315] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 590–594. - -[316] _Life of James II._, ii. 598, 599. _Memoir of Louis -XIV._, ii. 184. - -The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicism -by this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wrought -by the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believe -that, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have been -canonized.--_Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 595–597. - -[317] _Correspondence of Lord Clarendon_, ii. 389. - -[318] _Life of Calamy_, i. 437. - -[319] _Crosby_, iii. 357. - -[320] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1331. - -[321] Edmund Burke. - -[322] _Whiston’s Memoirs_, 32. - -[323] _Lords’ Journals_, February 24, 1702. - -[324] _Life_, i. 440. - -[325] 1702, January. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 602. - -[326] _English Hist. Library_, 133. - -[327] See in Appendix the form of writ now issued. - -[328] The letter has been attributed, on the authority of the -editor of the _Somers’ Tracts_ (last edit., xi. 363), to Sir -Bartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor of _Atterbury’s -Correspondence_ (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar of -Leamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannot -ascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds. - -[329] _The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical -Synods_, 1697. - -[330] See _Farrer’s Critical History of Free Thought_, 186. - -[331] See _Hallam_, ii. 396. - -[332] Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in his _Norman -Conquest_ (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an Ecclesiastical Synod in -1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the general Gemotes; and, -again (360), noticing that the King held his Court for five days, and -then the Archbishop held his Synod for three days more. “Here are -the beginnings of the anomalous position of the two Convocations in -England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estates of the Realm--each -character hindering the effectual working of the other.” - -[333] Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase of its -history, the results of which deserve careful study. - -[334] _Burnet_, ii. 280. - -[335] _Atterbury’s Corresp._, iii. 10. - -[336] _Ibid._, 11, 13, 17. - -An address was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Clergy -of the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that they -were advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtue -of the _præmunientes_ clause.--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 1. - -But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the elected -Proctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop, -and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of the -Church on earth.” - -At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper was -introduced advocating the view of the _præmunientes_ clause taken -by Atterbury.--_Gibson_, vi. 3. - -[337] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on -the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humble submission -wish there might be no license for business this first session, for -if there should be, it will be thought the effect of Mr. A.’s book, -and they will not greatly regard the strength of any answer while -they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected they will -vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as often as -the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shall -precede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meet -with more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business, -and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for their -meeting.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, 933, 41. - -[338] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 22. He says, writing -to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon our -adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made an -admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our -affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour -than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state -of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was -extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of -them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were -addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my -Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26). - -[339] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, 31. - -[340] _Letter to a Clergyman in the Country_, p. 1. _Answer to -the Letter_, p. 4. - -[341] _The New Danger of Presbytery_, 3. - -[342] These extracts are given in _Lathbury’s History of -Convocation_, 351. - -[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocation are given -by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have used, besides -Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the _Memoirs of Tenison_, -_The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, &c._, from -Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn up by order of -the House; _A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, &c._, and -_The History of the Convocation_, drawn up from the _Journal of -the Upper House, &c._ _The Narrative_ gives the High Church -view; _The History_ the Lower. It is ascribed to Kennet. A -number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I have also -consulted. - -[344] See Letters described in _First Report of Hist. MSS. Com._, -52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before. - -[345] _Burnet_, ii. 285. - -[346] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 99–149, 245. - -[347] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 299. - -[348] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 53. - -[349] _Ibid._ 57. - -[350] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363. - -[351] See _Gibson’s Synodus Anglicana_, 21. - -[352] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363–365. - -[353] “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it very -convenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on the -floor.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson Papers_, vi. 8. - -[354] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 9, 10. - -[355] _Present State of Convocation_, 5. - -[356] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11. - -[357] _Faithful account of some transactions in the three last -sessions of the present Convocation._ Attributed to Atterbury. - -[358] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 18. - -[359] _Faithful account, &c._ - -[360] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11. - -[361] _Burnet_, ii. 303. - -[362] _Hist. of King William III_, 513. - -[363] Dr. Willis, William’s Military Chaplain, who became Bishop of -Gloucester in 1714, was an extempore preacher. To this he “was at -first led, no doubt, by the temper of his master, King William, who -was accustomed to hear such kind of preaching in Holland, and could -scarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of the -pulpit at the congregation.”--_Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_, -ii. 243. - -[364] _Own Time_, ii. 305. - -[365] It would look as if the conduct of William in reference to -patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “We cannot -serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom we commend to -him, purely because they have deserved well of him, and have no friends -to make their worth known but we alone.” _Patrick’s Works_, ix. -621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701. - -[366] _The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises_ appeared in 1695. - -[367] See _Life and Character of Stillingfleet_, 93, 104, 111, -119, and _Twelve Sermons preached on several occasions_, between -1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopal charges is -the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on the report of the -biographer. - -For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, see _Church of -the Restoration_, vol. ii. - -[368] _A Discourse about Tradition. Works_, vol. vi.; i. 30–34; -vii. 294. - -[369] Burnet, Evelyn and Dunton bear witness to Patrick’s preaching -power. - -[370] _Patrick’s Works_, vi. 156. - -[371] Preface to sixth edition. - -[372] _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 294. - -[373] This gave origin to the well-known epigram (attributed by some -to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in the poetry -professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’s sending at -the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress some disturbances -that had happened there. - - The King observing, with judicious eyes, - The state of both his Universities, - To one he sends a regiment; For why? - That _learned_ body wanted _loyalty_. - To th’ other books he gave, as well discerning, - How much that _loyal_ body wanted _learning_. - -It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the best -thing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician; -and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of a -Cambridge man. - - “The King to Oxford sent his troop of horse, - For Tories own no _argument_ but _force_. - With equal care, to Cambridge books he sent, - For Whigs allow no _force_ but _argument_.” - -_Noble’s continuation of Granger_ ii. 89. - -[374] _Observer._ The following note by Onslow occurs in the -Oxford edition of Burnet’s _Hist. of his own Time_. “I have -heard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man, -the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in a -newspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131. - -[375] _Noble’s continuation_, ii. 88. - -[376] _Ibid._, 87. - -In the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 356, it is said Fowler -“had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitions -and witches.” - -[377] _Noble_, ii. 101. _Kidder’s Autobiography_ is printed -in _Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells_. - -[378] A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford for kindness, -courteousness, and charity in _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, -304. - -[379] This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen in _Le -Neve’s Archbishops_, part ii. 286. - -[380] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 224. - -[381] _Tyerman’s Life of S. Wesley_, 385. - -[382] _Memoirs of Whiston_, 31. - -[383] _Noble’s Continuation_, ii. 82. - -Anthony Wood, in his strange _Autobiography_, relates a practical -joke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a London -citizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people, -including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “It -was a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that had -a mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, and -it made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamed -of it.”--_Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, ii. 132. - -[384] The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimated in -_Tracts for the Times_, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great loss -of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellion -of 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrine -of Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low tone -of morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the great -Christian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been much -forgotten.” - -[385] - - “Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701. - -“Sir,--I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it is -my opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nation -depend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election, -and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for us -of the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now I -confess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, in -my judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our common -good, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorous -ourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. It -will be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we be -unanimous.--H. LONDON.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 219. Cambridge. -Other letters of the same kind are preserved. - -[386] _Visitation Charges_, 1693–4. - -[387] _Hist. of his own Time_, ii. 630. - -[388] _Grainger_, iv. 293. - -[389] “Captain Crisp assures, that the Bishop of Exeter is entirely in -the King’s (James’) interest.” January, 1694. _Macpherson’s Original -Papers_, i. 474. - -[390] _Life and Errors_, ii. 668. - -[391] _Johnson’s Lives of the Poets._ - -[392] _Discourse made by the Lord Bishop of Rochester at his -Visitation_, 1695. - -[393] There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Library from Dr. -Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of his life--of his -service in the army--his promotion in the Church--the poverty of his -See--and an interview he had with the Archbishop, at Lambeth, in order -to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through the hall up the -stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place of reception in -the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than he came himself -to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When he told me, -almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford would die; no, -my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, the sooner for -that.”--_Gibson Papers_, ii. 49. - -[394] This is entitled, “_A Large Review of the Articles exhibited -against the Bishop of St. David’s_.” There is a MS. book, containing -minutes of the charges, in the Cambridge University Library (MSS. -757). For the trial, see _Lord Raymond’s Reports_, i. 447; and -_Howel’s State Trials_, xiv. 447. The deed of deprivation is in -the Lambeth Library, 951, 6. - -[395] In the _Cole MSS._ (Brit. Mus.), xxx. 149, it is stated -that Bishop Watson died June 3rd, 1717, at Great Wilbraham, and was -put in the ground the night following in the Chancel, under the south -wall, _sans_ service, being excommunicated by the Archbishop of -Canterbury, whose officers’ fees he would not pay. On his coffin was -put, T. W. B., St. D. Aged 80, died the 3rd of June, 1717. - -[396] Compare for example Sermons iv. and xiv. _Works_, vol. ii. - -[397] My acquaintance with Norris’s writings commenced nearly forty -years ago, through a recommendation from that quarter. Dunton speaks of -him in extravagant terms.--_Life and Errors_, ii. 671. - -[398] _Diary_, Nov. 10, 1695. - -[399] “I had quite forgot to desire one to preach upon the subject of -our Conference. I beseech you try if you can get any of our brethren to -give us a quarter of an hour’s discourse upon that subject.--H. LONDON. -I preached myself June 23rd, 1689.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 192. - -[400] _Strype Correspondence_, ii. 52. - -[401] _The Life of Dr. Horneck_, by Bishop Kidder, 9, 10. - -[402] He is noticed in _Evelyn’s Diary_, April 24th, 1694. - -[403] _An impartial account of Mr. John Mason_, p. 8. - -[404] The following account of an eccentric clergyman, who died -just after the Revolution, occurs in the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet -Coll._, 987, 116. The person referred to is Joseph Crowther, of whom -Walker gives some account in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, and -Wood in his _Athenæ Oxonienses_. - -“I remember him esteemed at Oxford a very severe disputant, and very -tenacious of the rules of logic. He would often moderate in the public -disputation in his own hall; but so fierce and passionate, that if the -opponent made a false syllogism, or the respondent a wrong answer, -he bid the next that sat by them kick their shins, and it became a -proverb, ‘kick shins Crowther.’ He was extremely hated at Tredington -(Diocese of Worcester), for his stiff contending with the people; they -obliged him to keep a boar--he got a black one to spite them. The black -pigs were called Crowthers.” - -[405] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 248, 274. - -[406] _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 11, 78. - -[407] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. 546. - -[408] 1696, April 7. _Baumgartner Papers, Strype Correspondence_, -iii. 45. - -[409] _Gibson Papers_, v. 9. 1692, Dec. 17. - -[410] The very injudicious _Defence of the Old Singing Psalms_ may -be found in the first volume of _Beveridge’s Works_, collected by -Horne. - -[411] _Life of Kettlewell_, 213, 214. - -[412] _Memoirs_, 30. - -[413] _Whiston’s Life_, 162. - -[414] _Own Time_, ii. 215. - -[415] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 292. - -[416] The following extract indicates the feeling cherished towards -Richard Baxter and his admirers:--“His writings furnish great part of -the libraries of the young fanatic divines, who have sucked in all the -venom and poison of his unhappy writings, in order to propagate them -in this city and country.”--From Chas. Goodall to Mr. Strype, June 12, -1701. Brit. Mus. Addl. MSS., 5853, p. 35. - -[417] _Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_, i. 207. - -[418] See _Kirk’s Mother of the Wesleys_, 186, and _Tyerman’s -Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 251. - -[419] See _Ecton’s Liber Valorum_. - -[420] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 542, probably written by Samuel -Wesley, and drawn from his own experience. - -[421] _Keble’s Life of Wilson_, 61. The memory of Wilson is still -cherished at Knowsley. - -[422] _Planche’s Hist. of British Costume_, 395. - -[423] Preface to _Companion for Fasts and Festivals_. - -[424] Preface to the _Practice of True Devotion_, 1698. - -[425] _Thoresby_, iii. 153. - -[426] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 211. - -[427] _Works_, viii. 451. - -[428] _Reason and Faith._ Introduction. - -[429] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 262. - -[430] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 337, 309. An anecdote in the life -of Samuel Wesley illustrates the same fact. He met with a profane -officer, and so reproved him as to break for ever his habit of -swearing.--_Life of S. Wesley_, by Tyerman, 134. - -[431] Richard Dunning’s _Bread for the Poor_. - -[432] _History of his Own Time_, ii. 101. See note by Lord -Dartmouth in the Oxford edition. - -[433] _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III._, by -Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 302. I find amongst the _Tanner -MSS._, xxviii. 162, “Case of Sir Peter Gleanes’ daughter, supposed -to be suffering from witchcraft, Aug. 17, 1688.” - -[434] This information is gathered chiefly from _Hutchinson’s -Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_. - -[435] Not “your,” as often quoted. - -[436] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 153. - -[437] _Hutchinson_, 62. Hume says, in his _Commentaries on -the Laws of Scotland_, ii. 556, that among the many trials for -witchcraft, he had not observed “one which proceeds upon the notion -of a vain, cheating art, falsely used by an impostor to deceive the -weak and credulous.” It is not until faith in witchcraft expires that -such a notion obtains. The Scotch were more superstitious than the -English. English believers in witchcraft regarded the witch as the -slave; the Scotch regarded her as the mistress, of the evil power. See -_Burton’s Criminal Trials in Scotland_, i. 240. Dugald Stuart, -in his _Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical and Ethical -Philosophy_, notices Malbranche’s scepticism as to sorcery, and -gives an interesting extract on the subject, p. 75. - -[438] _Hutchinson_, 58, 108. - -[439] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 34. - -[440] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 37. - -[441] _Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes_, vi. 453. - -[442] Life prefixed to _Works_, i. xii. - -[443] These passages occur in the 18th and 19th chapters of the fourth -book of the _Essay_. - -[444] _Second Vindication._ _Works_, ii. 656. - -Since this volume was sent to the press, I have been reading the -interesting _Letters, Lectures, and Reviews_ of Dean Mansell. -From p. 306 to 316, he dwells on the tendency of Locke’s philosophy in -the direction of theological scepticism, though at the same time he -does justice to Locke’s character, and remarks that “when challenged -on account of the relation of his premises to Toland’s conclusions, -he expressly repudiated the connection, and declared his own sincere -belief in those mysteries of the Christian faith which Toland had -assailed.” The Dean maintains that in Locke’s philosophy “there is -no room for a distinction between the inconceivable or mysterious, -and the absurd and contradictory;” and he further goes on to say, -after quoting a passage from _Sanderson’s Works_, i. 233, that -“Sanderson’s distinction between the τὸ ὅτι, _that it is_, and -the τὸ πῶς, _how it is_, indicates the exact point which Locke -overlooked and which Toland denied.” He also remarks that Locke wrote -his great work without reference to theology, and probably without -any distinct thought of its theological bearings. But the Dean takes -no notice of the passages quoted in the text from Locke’s _Essay on -the Understanding_, in which he distinctly notices the theological -bearings of his speculation, and makes a distinction between the -inconceivable and absurd, in other words, what is above reason and -contrary to it; and virtually recognizes the truth of what Sanderson -says about the τὸ ὅτι and the τὸ πῶς, the fact of existence and the -mode. - -[445] It will be found instructive to compare chap. ii. with -_Newman’s Grammar of Assent_. - -[446] Numerous illustrations are afforded in _Secretan’s Life of -Nelson_, 174. - -[447] See Woodward’s _Account of the Rise and Progress of Religious -Societies, &c., and of their Endeavours for Reformation of Manners; Dr. -Horneck’s Life; Toulmin_, 415; _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 91. - -[448] _Vernon Cor._, ii. 128–130. - -[449] _Streets of London_, 8. - -[450] _Strype’s Stowe_, ii. 578. - -[451] This account is founded upon numerous extracts from the early -minutes of the S.P.C.K., kindly furnished me by the Secretary, and -upon information supplied in _Anderson’s Colonial Church_, and -_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_. - -[452] Much of this account, like the former, rests upon the minutes of -the S.P.C.K. - -[453] _Colonial Church Chronicle_, v. 121. There are several -papers in this volume on the early proceedings of the Propagation -Society, but they chiefly relate to a period later than that contained -in the present work. The authorities for the rest of my account are the -same as in the case of the S.P.C.K. - -[454] _Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, Oxford, 1772, vol. i. -_Life of Hearne_, 8–10. - -[455] _Mason’s Defence_, by Lindsay. Preface. - -[456] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452. - -[457] It is written by Hen. Wilkinson, and dated October 25, 1690. -(_Baker MSS._, 40, 91, Cambridge University Library.) There is -also a list of the Nonjurors in the Diocese of Ely and University of -Cambridge, 1689–1690. (Brit. Mus., Additional MSS. 5813 f. 119 b.) - -[458] _Kettlewell’s Works_, ii. 635–638. - -[459] _Life of Kettlewell_, 291. - -[460] _Life of Kettlewell_, 317. - -[461] _Ibid._, 322. - -[462] _Kettlewell’s Works_, i., Appendix. - -[463] _Miscellaneous Papers of Dr. Birch_, Brit. Mus., 4297. -_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 52. - -[464] Dodwell to Ken. _Baker MSS._, 40, 82, _et seq._ - -[465] Dodwell to Sherlock. _Baker MSS._, 86, _et seq._ - -[466] Lambeth Library. _Gibson Papers_, ii. 38–41. - -[467] _Life of Ken by a Layman_, 409. - -[468] _Life of Kettlewell_, 471. - -[469] His works were published in two volumes (1752), under the title -of Ἀπολειπόμενα, or _Dissertations Theological, Mathematical, and -Physical_. - -[470] _Scintilla Altaris. Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts -of the Church of England_, by Ed. Sparkes, D.D, 1652. _The Holy -Feasts and Fasts of the Church_, by W. Brough, D.D., 1657. It is -curious that these should have been published under the Commonwealth. - -[471] Dated Oct. 22, 1698. _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of -William III._, by James Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 203. - -[472] For several particulars in this account I am indebted to -_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_. - -[473] _Nelson’s Life of Bull._ - -[474] _Life of Kettlewell_, 316, 317. - -[475] _Life of Hearne_, p. 3 in _Lives of Eminent -Antiquaries_, vol. i. - -[476] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 398. - -[477] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 414. - -[478] June 6, 1698: letter from John Mandeville. See also _Evelyn’s -Diary_, June 5. - -[479] _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 68. - -[480] _Life of Kettlewell_, 368, _et seq._ - -[481] _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_, iii. 105. - -[482] _Jowett’s Dialogues of Plato_, ii. Introduction, 150. I have -changed the word “statesman” for “politician.” - -[483] _Nelson’s Christian Sacrifice._ - -[484] In the _Vernon Correspondence_, vol. ii. 55, allusions occur -to “one of the Prebends of Durham” a Nonjuror in heart, suspected of -Jacobitism. “By what I have now heard,” says Vernon to the Duke of -Shrewsbury, “there never was so true a pharisee; he was affectedly -devout in outward show, using all the ceremonies both of the Greek and -Western Churches; his practice was to pray and sing psalms while he and -his friends were travelling in his coach.” - -[485] _Wilson’s Hist. of Dissenting Churches_, iv. 188, 192, iii. -277. - -[486] At Salter’s Hall. _Wilson_, ii. 1. - -[487] _Ibid._, ii. 303. - -[488] _Murch’s History of Churches in West of England_, 139, 157, -89. “I have seen,” says Mr. Murch, “a curious account by a Mr. Butler, -of the disbursements to every labourer, and for all the materials used -in the erection of the meeting-house at Warminster.” The new chapel was -opened in 1704; previously the Dissenters of Warminster worshipped in a -barn. The Rev. H. Gunn, in his interesting _History of Nonconformity -in Warminster_, gives full particulars derived from this account, -and adds that William Penn once preached in the barn. He also notes -that the ministers regularly officiating received 12s. 6d. for two -services, equivalent to £1 17s. 6d. in the present day. - -[489] There was no contractor for the building; materials were -purchased and labour procured as necessity required. The entire cost -of timber was £30; glass and lead for the windows, £8 19s. 1d.; the -painter’s bill was £4. 9s.; bricks were 11s. per 1,000; eight deal -boards for the pulpit were charged 14s. 8d., and the making of it -is put down at £1 10s. Church Documents, Castlegate Chapel.--See -_Historical Account_, by the Rev. S. M’All. - -[490] A remarkable instance of an Independent trust, couched in -general terms, occurs in the History of the Independent Church at -Beccles.--_Rix’s East Anglican Nonconformity_, 161. - -[491] The certificate, drawn up and signed on the occasion, is worth -preserving: “We, whose names are under written, do testify concerning -Mr. Joseph Hussey, that upon our personal knowledge he is an ordained -minister of the Gospel, whose natural parts, acquired learning, and -soundness in the faith, holiness of life, and all ministerial abilities -are so considerable that we groundedly hope for God’s blessing upon his -ministry, both for the conversion and edification of souls wherever -God shall employ him.” Upon this testimonial there are signs of the -furtiveness in which the business had been accomplished. Five signed -their names; _Domino Anonymo_ is the signature of the sixth, with -this appendage: “He was shie because of the cloudiness of the times, -and would neither subscribe nor be known to me.”--MS. by Wilson, Dr. -William’s Library. - -[492] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 229. - -[493] “Mr. Griffith,” an Independent, “tells me he takes it for granted -the meeting at Newbury was in the nature of a provincial synod, which -he has found the Presbyterian ministers very fond of late, and blames -them for it. This passion of theirs has appeared more barefaced in -Ireland, where they have had such an assembly at Antrim, and published -the sermon preached upon the occasion, maintaining it was their right -and duty to meet with or without the allowance of the laws, or the -consent of the supreme magistrate.” - -“The Episcopal Clergy intend to remonstrate to the Government there -against this liberty. I know not how soon we may expect the like to -be done in England, and if it break into an open contest about Church -discipline, the moderate man will have a fine time of it.” August 23, -1698.--_Vernon Correspondence_, ii. 156. - -[494] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 224–264. - -[495] _Defence of Moderate Nonconformity_, part i. 213. - -[496] _Life of Calamy_, i. 301. - -[497] _Ibid._, 304–309. - -[498] _Life of Calamy_, i. 313–318. - -[499] _Life of Calamy_, i. 348–350, June 22, 1694. - -[500] _Thoresby_, i. 246. - -[501] _Ibid._, i. 246–253. - -[502] This was in 1699, but the change began in 1694. _Diary_, -284–329. - -[503] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 301. “When Mr. Harrison removed to -Pury, a Mr. John Warr, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood of -Caversfield, came with him to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. And -connected with this circumstance is another, which will show something -of the spirit of the times. When Mr. Harrison came to Pury he brought -a pulpit with him, which he deemed it necessary to conceal; therefore, -to prevent it being known, Mr. Warr, being a shoemaker, contrived -to fill it with shoe-pegs, and brought it among his own goods in -a waggon from Bicester.”--_Memorials of Independent Churches in -Northamptonshire_, by T. Coleman, 276. - -[504] _Thoresby_, i. 256. April, 1694. - -[505] See correspondence in _Thoresby_, iii. 177. - -[506] _Present State of Parties_, 319. - -[507] The whole of the above account is rendered necessary by -controversies respecting these academies. I have examined what is said -by Samuel Wesley, Palmer, De Foe, and other contemporaries, and have -consulted the opinions of modern writers who have gone over the whole -ground. My notice of the course of study is taken from Palmer. Further -particulars may be found in _Nonconformity in Cheshire_, 491, and -_Milner’s Life of Watts_. - -[508] An example of this occurs in the following letter by Bishop -Patrick, addressed to Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington:-- - -“You have done very worthily and prudently in stopping the progress of -the Anabaptist faction, by applying yourself to the Justices, to call -their unlicensed schoolmasters to account; who, you tell me, and I am -glad to hear it, have bound him over to appear at the next sessions. I -think you need not fear his procuring a license from the Archbishop’s -Court, for I had the like attempt here at Littleport, where I refused -to licence a fellow whom a party set up against one, who had a long -time taught school there with good acceptance. Whereupon they pretended -to have not only applied themselves above, but actually procured the -Archbishop’s licence, and showed an instrument with a seal to it to the -ignorant people. But I soon found it was a cheat; the Archbishop having -granted none, and having given a strict charge in his office that none -should be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting the -Bishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will write -to his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectaries -pretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revoke -it if any have been granted, which I think you need not fear; for after -a great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they said -they had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come to -me, but ran the country.”--Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector of -Dodington. _Cole MSS._ (British Museum), xxx. 148. - -[509] _Heads of Agreement._ - -[510] _Ibid._ - -[511] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 210. _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, -374. - -[512] Extracts from the Church-Book in _Memorials_, by T. Coleman. - -[513] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 327. - -[514] This account is drawn up from Williams’ collected pieces in two -volumes, _Crispianism Unmasked_, _Crisp’s Christ made Sin_; -pamphlets by Lorimer, _Calamy’s Abridgment_, _Life of Bull_, -and _Toulmin’s Hist. of Dissent_. - -[515] _Nichols’ Apparat. ad Defens. Eccl. Ang._ - -[516] _Hist. Account of my Own Life_, i. 401. - -[517] _Howe’s Works_, v. See passages, pp. 263–290. - -[518] James Hamilton. - -[519] _Life of Matt. Henry_, by Sir J. B. Williams, prefixed to -_Commentary_, 60. - -[520] _Ibid._, 61, 62. - -[521] Ordinations often occurred at these meetings. The following -extract from Henry’s _Diary_ furnishes an instance:--“The 24th -was kept as a fast-day in Broad Oak Meeting-House, a competent number -present. Mr. Latham prayed; Mr. Lawrence gave an account of the -business we met about, prayed and sung a psalm; Mr. Doughty prayed; I -preached from Isaiah vi. 8: ‘Here am I, send me,’ and prayed. Mr. Owen, -as Moderator, demanded a confession of his faith and ordination vows, -which he made abundantly to our satisfaction. We then proceeded to set -him apart. Mr. Owen concluded with the exhortation. We have reason to -say it was a good day, and the Lord was among us.” - -[522] _Hist. of Congregational Church at Cockermouth_, 58. I have -adopted the language on the Church-Book. Confirmed is explained to mean -establishment as to right of membership, by being admitted to the table -of the Lord. - -[523] _Ibid._, 97. - -[524] _Guestwick Church-Books._ - -[525] _Hist. of Church at Cockermouth_, 94. - -[526] _Ibid._, 90, 98, 99, 100. - -[527] Palmer, in his _Vindication of Dissenters_, 1705, says, p. -99, “In all our churches we administer the Sacrament twelve times, at -least, in a year.” From the records of Castle Gate Church, Nottingham, -it appears the Lord’s Supper was there celebrated once in six weeks. - -[528] These particulars are taken from the records of the Trust, of -which I have the honour to be a Trustee. - -[529] De Foe says of him-- - - “His native candour and familiar style, - Which did so oft his hearers’ hours beguile, - Charmed us with godliness; and while he spake - We loved the doctrines for the teacher’s sake; - While he informed us what those doctrines meant - By dint of practice more than argument.” - - -[530] _Dr. Williams’ Life of Annesley_, p. 134, published by -Dunton, 1697. - -[531] _Williams’ Life of Annesley_, and _Kirk’s Mother of the -Wesleys_. - -[532] _Toulmin_, 522. - -[533] _Palmer_, i. 103. - -[534] _Howe’s Works_, vol. vi. 306. - -Oliver Heywood’s death occurred in May, 1702. No particular account -of it is given by Mr. Hunter in his biography. Thoresby notes down, -“May 7: Rode with Mr. Peters to Northowram, to the funeral of good -old Mr. O. Heywood. He was interred with great lamentations in the -parish church at Halifax; was surprised at the following Arvill, or -treat of cold possets, stewed prunes, cake and cheese, prepared for -the company, where had several Con. and Noncon. ministers and old -acquaintance.”--_Diary_, i. 362. - -[535] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 357, 316. “I well remember that -he himself once informed me,” says Calamy, “of some very private -conversation he had with that Prince (William III.) not long before his -death. Among other things the King asked him a great many questions -about his old master Oliver, as he called him, and seemed not a little -pleased with the answers that were returned to some of his questions.” -Those answers would throw some additional light on the popular question -of Oliver’s character. - -[536] _Crosby’s Hist. of Baptists_, iii. 246–258. - -[537] _Crosby_, iii. 259, 264–270. - -[538] _Crosby_, iv. 298–301. - -[539] _Ibid._, Appendix No. 1. - -[540] _Crosby_, iv. 330. - -[541] _Sewell_, ii. 370, 448. The early meeting has been since -fixed for the month of May. - -[542] “Forasmuch,” it is recorded in the minutes of Quaker Meetings -in Worcester (1695), “as it hath been the good advice of our friends -of the yearly meeting that friends shall in all plainness so habit -themselves as truth requires, and to lay aside those flowered and -striped stuffs, with the changeable fashions of this world, it is -thought meet by this meeting, that what in us lies it may be put for -the future into practice, and that none do wear them or sell them, -when those by them are disposed of; also that friends take care to -train up their children in the fear of the Lord, and bring them up not -only in plainness of habit, but take care to bring them up in plain -language also, that there may be no good Nehemiah grieved to hear -half Hebrew and half Ashdod spoken.” Complaint is made of sleeping at -public meeting. Those so overtaken were informed, “they must be openly -dealt with, if a more private admonition will not do.”--Extracted from -records preserved by the Society of Friends at Worcester. - -[543] _Miscellanies._ Compare pp. 326 and 340 with 334. - - -Transcriber’s Notes: - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been -corrected silently. - -2. The words Yeomansee Indians could be a error for Yamassee or -Yemassee. - -3. Italics are shown as _xxx_. - -4. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g. -D^r. or X^{xx}. - -5. Bold text is shown as =xxx=. - -6. The corrigenda have been silently corrected. - -7. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have -been retained as in the original. - - -*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF -ENGLAND *** - -Updated editions will replace the previous one--the old editions will -be renamed. - -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the -United States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG-tm -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away--you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. - -START: FULL LICENSE - -THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK - -To protect the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg"), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg-tm License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. - -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the -person or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph -1.E.8. - -1.B. "Project Gutenberg" is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. - -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation ("the -Foundation" or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg-tm mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg-tm -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg-tm name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg-tm License when -you share it without charge with others. - -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg-tm work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. - -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: - -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg-tm License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg-tm work (any work -on which the phrase "Project Gutenberg" appears, or with which the -phrase "Project Gutenberg" is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: - - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and - most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no - restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it - under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License included with this - eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the - United States, you will have to check the laws of the country where - you are located before using this eBook. - -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase "Project -Gutenberg" associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg-tm -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg-tm electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg-tm License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. - -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg-tm -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg-tm. - -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg-tm License. - -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg-tm work in a format -other than "Plain Vanilla ASCII" or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg-tm website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original "Plain -Vanilla ASCII" or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg-tm License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. - -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg-tm works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. - -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works -provided that: - -* You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg-tm works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, "Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation." - -* You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg-tm - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg-tm - works. - -* You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - -* You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm works. - -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg-tm trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. - -1.F. - -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg-tm collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain "Defects," such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. - -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the "Right -of Replacement or Refund" described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg-tm trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg-tm electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. - -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. - -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you 'AS-IS', WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. - -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. - -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg-tm -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg-tm work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg-tm work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. - -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg-tm - -Project Gutenberg-tm is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. - -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg-tm's -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg-tm collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg-tm and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at -www.gutenberg.org - -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation - -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation's EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state's laws. - -The Foundation's business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation's website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact - -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg -Literary Archive Foundation - -Project Gutenberg-tm depends upon and cannot survive without -widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. - -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular -state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate - -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. - -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. - -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate - -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg-tm electronic works - -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg-tm concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. - -Project Gutenberg-tm eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. - -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: www.gutenberg.org - -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg-tm, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. diff --git a/old/67727-0.zip b/old/67727-0.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 356efb1..0000000 --- a/old/67727-0.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67727-h.zip b/old/67727-h.zip Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 93a91fb..0000000 --- a/old/67727-h.zip +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67727-h/67727-h.htm b/old/67727-h/67727-h.htm deleted file mode 100644 index 51adacb..0000000 --- a/old/67727-h/67727-h.htm +++ /dev/null @@ -1,23115 +0,0 @@ -<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" - "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> -<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en" lang="en"> - <head> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;charset=utf-8" /> - <meta http-equiv="Content-Style-Type" content="text/css" /> - <title> - Ecclesiastical History of England, by John Stoughton—A Project Gutenberg eBook - </title> - <link rel="coverpage" href="images/cover.jpg" /> - <style type="text/css"> - -body { - margin-left: 10%; - margin-right: 10%; -} - - h1,h2,h3,h4 { - text-align: center; /* all headings centered */ - clear: both; - font-weight: normal; -} - -h1 {line-height: 2em; } - -h2 {font-size: 130%; } - -h3 {font-size: 100%; } - -h4 {font-size: 80%; } - -p { - margin-top: .51em; - text-align: justify; - margin-bottom: .49em; - text-indent: 1.2em; -} - -.p-left {text-indent: 0em; } - -.p-min {margin-top: -.5em;} - -.p2 {margin-top: 2em;} -.p4 {margin-top: 4em;} -.p6 {margin-top: 6em;} - -hr { - width: 33%; - margin-top: 2em; - margin-bottom: 2em; - margin-left: 33.5%; - margin-right: 33.5%; - clear: both; -} - -hr.tb {width: 45%; margin-left: 27.5%; margin-right: 27.5%;} -hr.chap {width: 65%; margin-left: 17.5%; margin-right: 17.5%;} -@media print { hr.chap {display: none; visibility: hidden;} } - -div.chapter {page-break-before: always;} - -ul { list-style-type: none; } -li.i1 {text-indent: 1em;} -li.i2 {text-indent: 2em;} - -.hangingindent1 { - padding-left: 3em ; - text-indent: -2em ;} - -table { -margin: auto; -width:auto; -border: 0; -border-spacing: 0; -border-collapse: collapse; } - -td { -padding: .05em .2em .2em 2.5em; -border: .1em none white; -text-align: left; -text-indent: -2em; } - -th.pag { -font-weight: normal; -font-size: x-small; -text-align: right; -padding-left: 6em; } - -td.header { -padding: 1.5em .2em .2em .2em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em; -font-size: 100%; } - -td.header1 { -padding: .5em .2em .2em .2em; -text-align: center; -text-indent: 0em; -font-size: 100%; } - -td.chn { -text-align: right; -vertical-align: top; -padding-right: 1em; } - -td.cht { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 1em; -text-indent: -1em;} - -td.cht1 { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 2.5em; -text-indent: -1em;} - -td.cht2 { -text-align: left; -vertical-align: top; -padding-left: 2em; -text-indent: -1em;} - - td.ctr { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em; - vertical-align: top; - white-space: nowrap; } - - td.ctr1 { - text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em; - vertical-align: top; - padding-left: 1em; } - - td.right { - text-align: right; - text-indent: 0em; - padding-left: 0em; - vertical-align: top; - white-space: nowrap; } - - td.right1 { - text-align: right; - text-indent: 0em; - padding-left: 1em; - vertical-align: top; } - - -td.pag { -text-align: right; -vertical-align: bottom; -padding-left: 2em;} - -.pagenum { /* uncomment the next line for invisible page numbers */ - /* visibility: hidden; */ - position: absolute; - left: 92%; - font-size: smaller; - text-align: right; - font-style: normal; - font-weight: normal; - font-variant: normal; -} /* page numbers */ - -.blockquot { - margin-left: 5%; - margin-right: 10%; - font-size: 90%; -} - -#half-title { text-align: center; - font-size: 150%; } - -p.drop-cap { -text-indent: 0em; } - -p.drop-cap:first-letter -{ -float: left; -margin: 0em 0em 0em 0em; -font-size: 250%; -line-height:0.85em; -} -@media handheld -{ - p.drop-cap:first-letter - { - float: none; - margin: 0; - font-size: 100%; - } -} - - -.sidenote, .sni { - width: 32%; - padding-bottom: .5em; - padding-top: .5em; - padding-left: .5em; - padding-right: .5em; - margin-left: 1em; - float: right; - clear: right; - margin-top: 1em; - font-size: smaller; - color: black; - background: #eeeeee; - border: 1px dashed; -} - -.sni {text-indent: -.5em;} - -.sidenote hr {margin: 0 0 .2em 0; visibility: hidden;} - -.x-ebookmaker .sidenote {float: right;} - -.hangingindent { - padding-left: 2em ; - text-indent: -2em ;} - -.hangingindent1 { - padding-left: 3em ; - text-indent: -2em ;} - -.xs { font-size: x-small;} - -.sm { font-size: small;} - -.xl { font-size: x-large;} - -.center {text-align: center; - text-indent: 0em;} - -.r1 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 1em;} - -.r2 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 2em;} - -.r4 {text-align: right; - margin-right: 4em;} - -.right {text-align: right;} - -.left {text-align: left; - text-indent: 3em;} - -.smcap {font-variant: small-caps;} - -.allsmcap {font-variant: small-caps; text-transform: lowercase;} - - -/* Images */ - -img { - max-width: 100%; - height: auto; -} - -.figcenter { - margin: auto; - text-align: center; - page-break-inside: avoid; - max-width: 100%; -} - - -/* Footnotes */ -.footnotes {border: 1px dashed;} - -.footnote {margin-left: 10%; margin-right: 10%; font-size: 0.9em;} - -.footnote .label {position: absolute; right: 84%; text-align: right;} - -.fnanchor { - vertical-align: super; - font-size: .8em; - text-decoration: - none; -} - -.poetry-container -{ -text-align: center; -font-size: 90%; -} - -.poetry -{ -display: inline-block; -text-align: left; -margin-left: 2.5em; -line-height: 100%; -} - -.poetry .stanza -{ -margin: 1em 0em 1em 1em; -} - -.poetry .ileft {margin-left: -.4em;} -.poetry .i1 {margin-left: 1em;} -.poetry .i2 {margin-left: 2em;} - -@media print { .poetry {display: block;} } -.x-ebookmaker .poetry {display: block;} - -/* Transcriber's notes */ -.transnote {background-color: #E6E6FA; - color: black; - font-size:smaller; - padding:0.5em; - margin-bottom:5em; - font-family:sans-serif, serif; } - - </style> - </head> -<body> -<p style='text-align:center; font-size:1.2em; font-weight:bold'>The Project Gutenberg eBook of Ecclesiastical History of England, by John Stoughton</p> -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and -most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions -whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms -of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online -at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you -are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws of the -country where you are located before using this eBook. -</div> - -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Title: Ecclesiastical History of England</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-left:2em; text-indent:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:1em;'>The Church of the Revolution</p> -<p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em'>Author: John Stoughton</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Release Date: March 28, 2022 [eBook #67727]</p> -<p style='display:block; text-indent:0; margin:1em 0'>Language: English</p> - <p style='display:block; margin-top:1em; margin-bottom:0; margin-left:2em; text-indent:-2em; text-align:left'>Produced by: Emmanuel Ackerman, Karin Spence and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was produced from images generously made available by The Internet Archive)</p> -<div style='margin-top:2em; margin-bottom:4em'>*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND ***</div> - -<h1><span class="xl">ECCLESIASTICAL</span><br /> - -HISTORY OF ENGLAND.</h1> - - -<p class="center p2"><b>The Church of the Revolution.</b></p> - - -<p class="center p4 xs">BY</p> - - -<p class="center">JOHN STOUGHTON, D.D.</p> - - <div class="figcenter" id="i003" > - <img - class="p4" - src="images/i003.jpg" - alt="" /> - </div> - -<p class="center p2 sm"><b>London:</b></p> - -<p class="center p-min">HODDER AND STOUGHTON,</p> - -<p class="center p-min sm">27 & 31, PATERNOSTER ROW, E.C.</p> - -<p class="center p-min xs">MDCCCLXXIV.</p> - - <div class="figcenter" id="i004" > - <img - class="p4" - src="images/i004.jpg" - alt="" /> - </div> - -<p class="center p6 xs">UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS.</p> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_v">[v]</span></p> - -<h2>ADVERTISEMENT.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">It will be found that in this Volume I have assigned a large space to -the attempt at Comprehension in the year 1689—as it is a subject of -present interest, and because the proceedings connected with it have -been but inadequately described. An examination of the Bill introduced -for the purpose to the House of Lords—a comparison of the Journals -of both Houses, whence it appears that another Bill of the same kind -was contemporaneously proposed in the House of Commons—the report of -the proceedings of the Commissioners in 1689, published by order of -the House of Commons in 1854—and a curious Diary preserved in Dr. -Williams’ Library—together with other original sources of information, -have enabled me to present a fuller, and, I hope, more accurate, -account of that important but ineffective transaction than has hitherto -appeared. As I believe the Lords’ Bill has never been printed, I have -arranged for its insertion in the Appendix.</p> - -<p>A large collection of Tracts in Dr. Williams’ Library, besides -those in the British Museum and University Libraries—the Tanner -MSS. at Oxford—the Strype and other collections belonging to the -Sister University—and the Gibson Papers at Lambeth, have also -afforded a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_vi">[vi]</span> number of new, if not important, illustrations touching -the Nonjurors—the proceedings of Convocation—the Trinitarian -controversies—the social life of the Clergy—and the character of the -Nonconformist ministers.</p> - -<p>I may add that in tracing the origin and progress of Religious -Societies during the reign of William III., I have received most -valuable assistance from the respected Secretaries of the Society for -Promoting Christian Knowledge, and the Society for the Propagation of -the Gospel, who have favoured me with interesting extracts from their -earliest records.</p> - -<p>My best thanks are also due to the Right Reverend the Bishop of Chester -for a copy of the writ summoning Spiritual peers to Parliament. -Sir John G. S. Lefevre, Clerk of the Parliaments, to whose usual -courtesy I am indebted for a copy of the Comprehension Bill—Mr. -Thoms, the Librarian of the House of Lords—the Librarians at Oxford, -Cambridge, and Lambeth—the Rev. T. Hunter, librarian of Dr. Williams’ -Library—and the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, have also laid me under -obligations which I gratefully acknowledge.</p> - -<p>I venture to add, that in this, as in my former volumes, I have -endeavoured to maintain an honest impartiality in the estimate of -characters and incidents, together with a firm attachment to my own -religious and ecclesiastical principles. My aim throughout has been to -promote the cause of truth and charity among Christian Englishmen.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_vii">[vii]</span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS.</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="contents"> - <tr> - <td class="header1" colspan="2">CHAPTER I.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Early Days of William</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_1">1</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Marriage with the Princess Mary</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_4">4</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">William and Mary in Holland</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_5">5</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Preparations for Revolution</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_9">9</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Infatuated Conduct of King James</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_13">13</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER II.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">William’s Declaration</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_27">27</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">James gives Audience to the Bishops</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_29">29</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">William sets Sail</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_34">34</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Landing of the Prince</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_36">36</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">James goes to Salisbury</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_43">43</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">William’s Popularity</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_49">49</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Flight of James to Sheerness</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_53">53</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Return of James to London</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_56">56</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Arrival of William at St. James’s</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_57">57</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER III.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Character of the Revolution</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_61">61</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Holy Jacobite Club</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_68">68</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">State of Feeling</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_69">69</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Meeting of Convention</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_73">73</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Declaration of Right</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_78">78</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Arrival of Mary in England</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_80">80</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Accession of William and Mary</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_81">81</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Appointment of Officers of State</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_82">82</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER IV.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Oath of Allegiance</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_88">88</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Corporation Act</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_92">92</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Test Act</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_94">94</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Coronation Oath</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_97">97</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">The Coronation</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_99">99</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Comprehension</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_101">101</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Toleration</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_114">114</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ecclesiastical Commission</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_124">124</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Convocation</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_138">138</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_viii">[viii]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER V.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">James in Ireland</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_144">144</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nonjurors: Cartwright—Thomas—Lake</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_146">146</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Sancroft—Lloyd—Ken</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_147">147</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Turner</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_148">148</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Frampton</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_149">149</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Hickes—Dodwell</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_151">151</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Kettlewell</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_152">152</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Whigs and Tories</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_156">156</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Irish Campaign</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_157">157</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER VI.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Battle of the Boyne</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_159">159</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Sherlock</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_161">161</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Lloyd</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_164">164</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Scheme for Restoration of James</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_167">167</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ejectment of Nonjurors</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_169">169</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER VII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nonconformists</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_174">174</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Bunyan</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_175">175</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Collinges</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_176">176</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Flavel</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_177">177</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Baxter</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_178">178</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Holcroft</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_181">181</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER VIII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Tillotson as Primate</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_186">186</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Sancroft in Retirement</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_187">187</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Tenison succeeds Tillotson in the Primacy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_195">195</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Death of Queen Mary</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Tenison’s Funeral Sermon</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_196">196</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Licensing of the Press</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_201">201</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER IX.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ecclesiastical Regulations</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_203">203</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Lords Justices</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_206">206</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Trinitarian Controversy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_210">210</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Dr. Wallis</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_213">213</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Sherlock’s Vindication</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_214">214</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">South’s Reply</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_216">216</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Howe’s Views</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_221">221</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">William’s Injunctions</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_223">223</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER X.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">James II. at St. Germains</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_228">228</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Jacobites</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_229">229</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Conspiracy against William</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_231">231</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Execution of Sir John Friend and Sir William Parkyns</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_232">232</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Collier</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_232">232</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Sir John Fenwick</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_236">236</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XI.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Peace of Ryswick</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_242">242</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">New Parliament</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_243">243</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Bill against Papists</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_245">245</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Church Preferments</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_247">247</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Duke of Gloucester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_248">248</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Succession Act</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_250">250</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Death of James II.</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_253">253</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Abjuration Bill</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_256">256</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">State of Parties</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_257">257</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_ix">[ix]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Letter to a Convocation Man</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_261">261</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Dr. Wake’s Reply</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_264">264</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Francis Atterbury</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_264">264</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Convocation Meets</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_270">270</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Lower House resists the Archbishop’s Prorogation</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_272">272</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Censures Toland’s Book</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_275">275</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Burnet’s Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_277">277</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Dissolution of Convocation</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_282">282</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">White Kennet</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_284">284</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">New Convocation</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_287">287</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Death of the Prolocutor</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_293">293</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Death of William III.</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_295">295</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XIII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Bishops—Burnet</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_298">298</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Stillingfleet</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_299">299</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Patrick</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_300">300</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Moore and Cumberland</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_303">303</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Fowler and Kidder</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_304">304</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Hall—Stratford—Sharpe</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_306">306</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Lloyd</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_307">307</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Compton</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_309">309</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Trelawny</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_310">310</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Burnet and Sprat</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_311">311</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Crew—Watson</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_312">312</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Clergy—Beveridge</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_314">314</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Bull, Norris, Burkett</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_315">315</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Strype—Wharton</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_316">316</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Horneck</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_317">317</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Fanaticism—Mason</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_317">317</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XIV.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ecclesiastical Discipline</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_321">321</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Manner of Worship</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_323">323</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Psalmody of the Church</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_324">324</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Character of the Clergy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_325">325</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Condition of the Clergy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_328">328</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Clerical Costume</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_331">331</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">State of Society</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_332">332</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Intemperance</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_334">334</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Superstition</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_335">335</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XV.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Boyle Lectures</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_341">341</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Bentley</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_341">341</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Locke’s Reasonableness of Christianity</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_344">344</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Essay on the Human Understanding</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_346">346</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Leslie—Blount</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_349">349</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Toland and Norris</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_350">350</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Literary Style</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_352">352</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XVI.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Rise of Religious Societies</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_354">354</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Young Men’s Associations</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_356">356</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Society for Reformation of Manners</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_358">358</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Societies Advocated from the Pulpit</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_361">361</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Christian Knowledge Society</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_364">364</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Society for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_369">369</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_x">[x]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XVII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Circumstances of the Nonjurors</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_375">375</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Kettlewell</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_377">377</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Dodwell</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_380">380</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Hickes</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_382">382</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Lee</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_383">383</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nelson</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_384">384</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nonjurors in London</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_387">387</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Social Gatherings at Shottesbrook Park</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_387">387</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ken’s Retirement at Longleat</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_390">390</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Deaths of Nonjurors—</td> - <td class="pag"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">White</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_391">391</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Turner</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_392">392</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Samuel Pepys</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_393">393</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Political Views of Nonjurors</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_395">395</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Religious Spirit</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_396">396</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Modes of Worship</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_398">398</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XVIII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nonconformist Places of Worship in London</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_400">400</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Nonconformists in Nottingham and Chester</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_402">402</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">In Northamptonshire</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_403">403</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Presbyterians</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_404">404</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ordinations</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_405">405</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Edmund Calamy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_408">408</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Seminaries for Dissenters</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_413">413</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XIX.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Presbyterians and Independents</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_420">420</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Antinomian Controversy</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_422">422</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Richard Davis</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_423">423</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Crisp</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_424">424</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Daniel Williams</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_425">425</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Stephen Lobb</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_426">426</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XX.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Matthew Henry</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_428">428</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Presbyterian Lord Mayors</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_429">429</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Daniel De Foe</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_431">431</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Manner of Worship</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_433">433</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Independents</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_436">436</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Ministerial Support</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_439">439</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XXI.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Deaths of Nonconformists—</td> - <td class="pag"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Philip Henry</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_442">442</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Samuel Annesley</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_443">443</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Vincent</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_444">444</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht1">Bates—Howe</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_445">445</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="header" colspan="2">CHAPTER XXII.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Baptists</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_451">451</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Kiffin and Keach</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_453">453</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Caffin</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_455">455</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Quakers: Fox and Barclay</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_456">456</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Penn</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_457">457</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Mysticism</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_458">458</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="cht">Norris</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_459">459</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_xi">[xi]</span></p> - -<h2>CONTENTS OF APPENDIX.</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="appendix"> - <tr> - <td class="chn">I.</td> - <td class="cht">A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_461">461</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="chn">II.</td> - <td class="cht">The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for exempting their Majesties’ -Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England -from the penalties of certain Laws</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_465">465</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="chn">III.</td> - <td class="cht">Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_472">472</a></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="chn">IV.</td> - <td class="cht">The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament</td> - <td class="pag"><a href="#Page_473">473</a></td> - </tr> -</table> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_1">[1]</span></p> -<h2>CHAPTER I.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">William Henry, Prince of Orange, was a member of the House of -Nassau—the antiquity of which is traced by some historians as far -back as the days of Julius Cæsar. Others are content to stop at Count -Otho, in the 12th century, whom they regard as founder of the family, -because, through his wife, he obtained large possessions in the Low -Countries. The immediate ancestors of William Henry are renowned as -fathers of the Dutch Republic, and from them he inherited patriotic -virtues.</p> - -<p>He was born in Holland on the 14th of November, 1650—the posthumous -son of William II., who had in 1641 married Mary, the eldest daughter -of Charles I. of England. He created the fondest hopes, and medals were -struck to commemorate his auspicious birth. “Though the orange-tree -be fallen down,” so ran the Dutch legend in allusion to his father’s -death, “this noble sprig has been preserved, by Divine care, in the -bosom of Mary. Thus the father arises after his death like a phenix -in his son. May he grow, may he flourish, and in virtue excel the -greatest princes, to the glory and safety of his country.” At the age -of ten, the youth lost his mother, who died within her native shores -in 1660, when on a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_2">[2]</span> visit to her brother Charles. The affectionate -care of his grandmother could not make up for these bereavements, and -this child of sorrow had the further misfortune to be deprived of the -hereditary Stadtholdership bestowed on his ancestors by the States -General. With the death of his mother came the loss, for a time, of the -Principality of Orange, which was unscrupulously seized by Louis XIV., -who demolished the fortifications of the town.</p> - -<p>William’s education fell into the hands of the Barneveldt party, headed -by the two De Witts, who sought to break down his spirit, and refused -him a range of education befitting his rank. Having been brought up in -the Stadtholder’s Palace at the Hague—which then, as now, uniquely -combined, in streams and woods, the quiet rusticity of a village, with -the bustle and magnificence of a metropolis—he received a notice to -quit his ancestral abode in his seventeenth year, and only retained the -favourite residence, by declaring that nothing but force should tear -him from its hearthstone.</p> - -<p>First made Captain and Admiral-General, and then forced by public -acclamation into the position of Chief Magistrate when he was but -twenty-two—at a time of tremendous peril—he had to bear the yoke in -his youth. Nothing indeed could have saved his dominions just then but -the magnanimity inspired by memories of his country’s heroic struggles -with Spain: that magnanimity he expressed in the well-known words, -“There is one method which will save me from the sight of my country’s -ruin: I will die in the last ditch.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">EARLY DAYS OF WILLIAM</div> - -<p>The man whom I have thus described had from infancy suffered from -bad health. Asthma and consumption—likely to be increased by the -damp atmosphere and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_3">[3]</span> the unhealthy fogs which float about the Dutch -dykes—rendered it necessary for him to be propped up in bed, when -cruel headaches did not make repose impossible; and soon after -reaching manhood, he had to endure a severe attack of that virulent -disease—small-pox. Such circumstances did not improve a melancholy -temperament. Not naturally unamiable, William, like his countrymen, -was grave and taciturn; and amongst his original endowments we -notice a judgment unaccompanied by imagination, but with a quick -perception and a keen forecast, which made him sensitively alive to -the responsibilities and issues of his own career. He saw himself -entering a thorny road, which might conduct to prosperity or end in -defeat; at any rate, he resolved it should not lead to disgrace. In -such circumstances and with such a character, we are not surprised to -find him pronounced cold, reserved, and phlegmatic. His lofty forehead, -piercing eyes, aquiline nose, and compressed lips, indicated energy of -mind and force of will; but attenuated features, delicate limbs, and -feeble gait, betrayed the frailty of the framework which encased his -soul.</p> - -<p>People of his disposition at times reveal the existence of tender -sensibilities. They form friendships limited in extent, but intense -in degree. Nor do sallies of humour fail to sparkle in their sombre -lives. William’s almost romantic love for Bentinck, who watched him -in illness, is generally known. Less noticed is the Prince’s power of -repartee. One day as he walked in the pleasant gardens of the Hague, -the Grand Pensionary praised one of the parterres. “Yes,” replied His -Highness, “this garden is very fine, but there is too much <i>white</i> -in it.” The lilies were abundant, but the Pensionary—whose name, De -Witt, meant white—perceived at once that William was thinking more -of him and of his influence<span class="pagenum" id="Page_4">[4]</span> than of the flowers smiling at his feet. -Averse to fashionable amusements, he dearly loved the chase. He was, -according to Sir William Temple, always in bed and asleep by ten -o’clock; and he preferred a “tumbler of cold ale” to a glass of the -choicest wine.<a id="FNanchor_1" href="#Footnote_1" class="fnanchor">[1]</a></p> - -<p>The Prince paid a second visit to England in 1678, when he married his -cousin, the Princess Mary—a match which, though suggested by State -policy, turned out one of pure affection. It prepared the way for the -part he was to play in the Revolution, and on account of that event, -which, in its ecclesiastical consequences, forms a prominent subject in -this volume, a glance at his early life has been deemed essential.</p> - -<p>What most concerns us is not his military and political character, not -his career as a soldier or a statesman, but his religious opinions, -sympathies, and policy, and the bearing of these upon the changes -wrought during his reign in the ecclesiastical affairs of our country.</p> - -<p>William was a staunch Calvinist. “He was much possessed with the belief -of absolute decrees,” and said to Burnet he adhered to them “because -he did not see how the belief of Providence could be maintained upon -any other supposition.”<a id="FNanchor_2" href="#Footnote_2" class="fnanchor">[2]</a> Such convictions in such a man became -elements of heroism, but it was thought, not perhaps without reason, -that more care had been taken to impress his mind with the doctrine of -Predestination, than to guard him against abuses incident to such an -opinion. Yet there appears nothing fanatical in William’s religion, -and whatever might be his moral conduct, it did not seem to have -been connected with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_5">[5]</span> Antinomian prejudices, or with any doubt of the -obligations of Christian virtue. It is remarkable, that though in -Holland, at the time of the Synod of Dort, Calvinism appeared in union -with intolerance, William had no sympathy in that feeling. Toleration -was a ruling idea in his mind; and he blamed the English Church for -alienating itself from other communions, and for claiming infallibility -in practice, though eschewing it in theory.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.</div> - -<p>He had been brought up a Presbyterian, but he appears to have regarded -Church government of secondary importance, and, as events proved, he -could conform to Episcopacy. Indeed, it is said by Burnet—who claimed -to know him well—that he, on the whole, preferred the English to the -Dutch type of ecclesiastical rule.<a id="FNanchor_3" href="#Footnote_3" class="fnanchor">[3]</a> The Prince had no reverence -for antiquity, no æsthetic taste, no sensibility under the touch of -elaborate ceremonies, or amidst the flow of harmonious music. He -preferred an unritualistic worship, and distinctly disapproved of the -surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing to the altar; yet, again, we -are assured that he highly esteemed the worship, as well as the polity, -of the Church of England.<a id="FNanchor_4" href="#Footnote_4" class="fnanchor">[4]</a></p> - -<p>After his marriage with the Princess Mary, he formed an acquaintance -with English Divines. Dr. Hooper became chaplain to the Princess, on -the recommendation of Archbishop Sancroft; and he remained in office a -year and a half. The chaplain found Her Royal Highness reading works -favourable to Dissenters; to counteract their tendency, he recommended -works of another description. One day the Prince observed his wife with -the pages of Eusebius and Hooker open on her table, when<span class="pagenum" id="Page_6">[6]</span> he exclaimed, -“I suppose Dr. Hooker persuades you to read these books?” She had at -first no chapel of her own for Divine worship; at the Doctor’s request, -a room was fitted up, with a communion-table elevated on steps. The -Prince, as he saw them being made, rudely kicked at them, asking what -they meant. Informed on the point, he answered “with a hum.” After the -chapel had been fitted up, he never attended Divine service there; and -as this chaplain talked about the Popish Plot and the indulgence of -Dissenters in terms less favourable to the latter than His Highness -liked, he bluntly said, “Well, Dr. Hooper, you will never be a Bishop;” -and on another occasion remarked if he had ever “anything to do with -England, Dr. Hooper should be Dr. Hooper still.”<a id="FNanchor_5" href="#Footnote_5" class="fnanchor">[5]</a></p> - -<p>Ken succeeded Hooper in 1679; we have no particulars of his relations -with William, but those relations do not seem to have been very -cordial. Each of the clergymen now mentioned belonged to the High -Church party, and William could not agree with either, so that the end -of Ken’s connection with the Dutch Court produced satisfaction on both -sides. Yet the conduct of this excellent man “gained him entire credit -and high esteem with the Princess, whom to his death he distinguished -by the title of his Mistress.”<a id="FNanchor_6" href="#Footnote_6" class="fnanchor">[6]</a></p> - -<p>The sincerity and strength of William’s Protestantism was unmistakable. -Protestantism had the approval of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_7">[7]</span> his intellect, and it penetrated -his soul. In him, cold as he was, it existed not merely as an opinion, -but as a passion. It accompanied him into the Cabinet and the field, -tincturing all his views; it pervaded all his purposes, shaped all his -policy. Protestantism for Holland was his first thought, Protestantism -for Europe his second; and he saw dependent upon Protestantism the -political, commercial, and social prosperity of nations, scarcely less -than the spiritual well-being of individuals. Roman Catholicism to his -mind was identical with a violation of the law of God and an invasion -of the rights of man; yet his large views of toleration embraced Roman -Catholics; he would not rob any man of the liberty of conscience, but -the ascendency of the Romanist system, and the tendency of its spirit, -he thoroughly abhorred as one of the worst foes to the welfare of -the race. France at that moment showed herself to be more violently -Roman Catholic than the Pope himself, and was seeking to establish -control over Europe. Therefore towards France William turned a gaze -of defiance, prepared to shed the last drop of his blood in resisting -her ambition. Louis XIV. stood forth as William’s personal enemy, but -William’s history shows how much more he himself was swayed in this -respect by reason than by resentment. At the same time he regarded -Holland as one of the last defences of liberty, and desired to see -England united with that country in the resistance of a common foe.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">PRINCESS MARY IN HOLLAND.</div> - -<p>Mary responded to her husband’s sentiments. Although nurtured in a -Roman Catholic atmosphere, she proved herself entirely free from -Roman Catholic predilections, and indicated a preference for Low -Church principles. A woman of reading, she turned her attention to the -controversies of the day, and not only resisted the attempts of her -father to convert her to Popery, but,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_8">[8]</span> with all her respect for Ken, -kept herself free from the ecclesiastical views which that devout man -resolutely upheld.</p> - -<p>In 1686, Gilbert Burnet accepted an invitation to the Hague, and -availed himself of opportunities to support the Low Church opinions -of the Prince and his Consort. The historian of his <i>Own Times</i> -has taken posterity into his confidence, and he relates, with -characteristic vanity, how he advised his illustrious friends in -matters of the highest importance. But whatever may be thought of -Burnet’s foibles, he appears to have judiciously counselled both -husband and wife, especially the latter, and to have done much towards -a wise settlement of the Crown at the Revolution. His counsels were -in favour of constitutional government and of toleration; and he -inculcated upon Mary that whenever she might inherit her father’s -throne, she should use her influence to obtain for her husband real and -permanent authority. Such advice laid the Prince, and the country of -his adoption, under lasting obligations to the busy Whig Churchman.</p> - -<p>As the peculiar relation in which this noble couple stood to this -kingdom could not but interest them in English affairs, neither could -it fail to attract towards them the attention of the English people. -English Protestants sympathized with William in his continental -policy. They disliked France almost as much as he did. The Huguenots -driven to our shores were memorials before their eyes of Roman -Catholic intolerance; and besides this, they knew that their own -fellow countrymen naturalized in France had to suffer from the repeal -of the Edict of Nantes, and that the wives and children of those so -naturalized had to suffer in the same way. Moreover, they learned that -dragoons were quartered upon English merchants residing in France, to -prevent their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_9">[9]</span> passing the frontiers, and to compel them to change -their religion.<a id="FNanchor_7" href="#Footnote_7" class="fnanchor">[7]</a> These circumstances, backed by the humiliating -fact, that the Stuarts were hirelings of Louis, brought the feelings -of Protestant Englishmen into sympathy with those of the Netherland -Stadtholder. He, in his turn, looked with anxiety towards this country -whilst suffering under the misgovernment of James II. What James was -doing for Dissenters by a stretch of prerogative, William wished -to see done by constitutional law. Mary took a still more lively, -because a patriotic, interest in these subjects, and disapproved of -her father’s despotism and Popery. For the Church of England she had -a strong affection, which she expressed to Archbishop Sancroft, when -congratulating him upon the firmness of the clergy in their religion as -well as their loyalty.<a id="FNanchor_8" href="#Footnote_8" class="fnanchor">[8]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Matters in England were brought to a crisis in the month of June. Upon -Trinity Sunday, the 10th of the month—two days after the imprisonment -of the seven Bishops—London was thrown into frantic excitement by a -report that James’s Queen had presented him with a son and heir. A -Popish successor would bring upon the country those calamities of which -the prospect for two reigns had filled men with dismay. The bulk of the -people could not believe the fact. They declared that the Queen had not -been confined at all—that she for some time had worn a cushion under -her dress—that her pretended son had been conveyed into her chamber in -a silver warming-pan on a Sunday morning, when Whig lords and ladies, -who otherwise might have detected the cheat, were lying in bed or were -gone to prayers. Stories the most absurd and disgusting were believed. -At that moment anything seemed more credible than the simple<span class="pagenum" id="Page_10">[10]</span> event -which had really occurred. The news of this assumed Royal conspiracy -flew over to Holland, and it created the utmost consternation, William -and Mary sincerely believing what they were confidently told. At all -events, the child—of whose supposititious character the idea vanished -afterwards from all but the most fanatical minds—was publicly baptized -in the Church of Rome, the Pope’s Nuncio standing sponsor. This added -to the national exasperation, and the Whig and Protestant party -immediately began to think of seeking succour from Holland, and putting -an end at all hazards to the existing state of things.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>William had before this become the head of the English opposition. -Old Republicans and old Royalists, Anglican Churchmen who hated Rome, -Latitudinarian Churchmen who loved liberty, and Evangelical Churchmen -who believed in Calvinism—Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists, -the first anxious for comprehension, the second and third wishing -only for freedom of worship—all had been turning their thoughts for -some time to the Prince of Orange as the star of their hopes. English -soldiers, English sailors, and English Divines, had publicly presented -themselves in the old Gothic <i>Binnenhof</i> of the Hague, or held -private interviews with the Dutch Governor. The Earl of Devonshire, -Lord Shrewsbury, Admiral Herbert, Lord Lumley, and others, had written -to His Highness, more or less explicitly, offering to devote to him -their fortunes and their lives.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>This went on in the spring of 1688, amidst excitements produced by -the Declaration of Indulgence. Holland at the same period felt deep -sympathy with England.</p> - -<p>Dr. Edmund Calamy, grandson of the well-known Puritan, in the early -part of 1688 lived as a student at<span class="pagenum" id="Page_11">[11]</span> Utrecht, and he says there -prevailed in the States a conviction that their own, and the Protestant -interest in general, could be preserved only by a revolution in -England, since nothing else could prevent Europe from being ingulfed -in France; he adds, the Dutch were disposed to assist in making head -against King James, and in relieving the people, who cried to them for -succour, as they, a century before, had appealed for help to Queen -Elizabeth.<a id="FNanchor_9" href="#Footnote_9" class="fnanchor">[9]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>A decided but perilous step was taken in England on the 30th of June, -the day of the Bishops’ acquittal. By a letter written amidst the -excitement of that event, which shook not the English throne but him -who sat on it, seven members of the Whig party invited the Prince of -Orange to come over. They informed him of the prevalent dissatisfaction -of the people with the Government, and of their willingness to rise in -defence of their liberties, if His Highness would land with sufficient -strength to put himself at the head of the Protestant party. They -stated that the soldiers unequivocally manifested an aversion to the -Popish religion; that they certainly would desert the Royal standard in -great numbers; and that not one out of ten in the navy could be trusted -in case of an invasion. They promised to attend on His Highness as soon -as he should land; and they commissioned a confidential messenger to -consult with him about artillery and ammunition. This act of daring -treason, or of triumphant patriotism—whichever the issue might -determine it to be—decidedly turned the scales which quivered between -further<span class="pagenum" id="Page_12">[12]</span> delay and immediate action. The “immortal seven,” as they -have been called, who signed in cypher, were Shrewsbury, Devonshire, -Danby, Lumley, Russel, Sydney, and Compton, Bishop of London.<a id="FNanchor_10" href="#Footnote_10" class="fnanchor">[10]</a> The -conspirators—perfect in number like the Bishops, now at the moment -of their acquittal and ovation—thus cast the die which <i>might</i> -bring death, which <i>did</i> bring freedom. The adhesion of Compton -to this scheme is what most concerns us, as it indicates the early -infusion of an ecclesiastical element into this undertaking—an element -which became deeper, wider, stronger, as time rolled on. In less than -a month afterwards the same dignitary replied to a letter from the -Prince concerning the trial of the seven Bishops, and informed him how -sensible he and others were of the advantage of having so powerful a -friend; that they would make no ill use of it; and that they were so -well satisfied of the justness of their cause, that they would lay down -their lives rather than forsake it.<a id="FNanchor_11" href="#Footnote_11" class="fnanchor">[11]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>William must for some time have been expecting overtures. They would -not find a man of so much forecast unprepared; yet not a little -remained to be done that the proposed descent might prove a success. -The remainder of summer and the early part of autumn were spent -in secret military preparations at home, in secret diplomatical -negotiations abroad. He even decoyed the Pope into his toils, by baits -which did more credit to his statesmanship than to his honesty. He -persuaded His Holiness to advance money for an attack, as he thought, -upon France, in reality upon England. Rome, ever trying to over-reach -others, was herself over-reached; and help, supposed to be rendered for -the humiliation of a power then inimical to the Papal Court, came to be -applied<span class="pagenum" id="Page_13">[13]</span> to the overthrow of a Popish Sovereign and the strengthening -of the cause of European Protestantism.<a id="FNanchor_12" href="#Footnote_12" class="fnanchor">[12]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>When the military movements in Holland became generally known, they -were given out to be intended for a campaign against France, in which -the Prince was to receive support from the Imperial army on the -Rhine; yet, whatever dust might be thrown in men’s eyes, the real -truth appeared to many. Even as early as the 7th of August, news of -the Prince’s intention to come over with an army reached the quiet -cloisters of Westminster Abbey; and Dr. Patrick, at four o’clock in the -afternoon, received at his prebendal residence tidings of the important -secret through his friend, Dr. Tenison, who came “to have some private -conversation.”<a id="FNanchor_13" href="#Footnote_13" class="fnanchor">[13]</a> But almost up to the last hour James remained in the -dark, partly through his own obtuseness, partly—and much more—through -the selfish designs of France, through the treachery of courtiers, and -through denials made by the Dutch Ambassador. No doubt a clear-headed -man, with a sharp eye, would have caught signs of the true direction of -the brewing storm; but a man like James, narrow-minded and prejudiced, -might easily be duped by diplomatic arts and courtierly deceit. He -persuaded himself into the belief that the rumours of a Dutch invasion -of England were raised by the Court of France to promote his political -interests and to bring him into closer alliance with Louis<a id="FNanchor_14" href="#Footnote_14" class="fnanchor">[14]</a>—a -policy at that moment appearing to him most perilous, because it would -be sure to increase his unpopularity with his subjects.</p> - -<p>His conduct after the acquittal of the Bishops proves<span class="pagenum" id="Page_14">[14]</span> that he had -not learnt wisdom from that significant event. His treatment of -the lawyers, in the face of public opinion, seems incredible. He -honoured with a baronetcy Williams, the Solicitor-General, who led the -prosecution, and Holloway and Powell, who gave it as their opinion -that the Bishops’ petition did not amount to a libel, he punished by -dismissal from the Bench.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>To the Judges who went their circuits in the summer, Royal instructions -were communicated to the effect, that they should persuade the people -to assist in supporting the unpopular Declaration for liberty of -conscience, telling them that a Parliament would speedily be called to -make the Sovereign’s favour statute law. Churchmen were to be assured -of the fulfilment of His Majesty’s promises; and persons of all classes -were to be reminded what a gracious Prince they had upon the throne. -Liberty of conscience, they were to be informed, had advanced the -trade, and would prove the means of increasing the population of the -country. The tone was fair—the phraseology specious; but the friends -of freedom were not to be hoodwinked after this fashion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Justice Allybone, a reputed Papist, sought, at the Croydon Assizes, -to give effect to these instructions, by the charge which he then -delivered to the Grand Jury. After dealing in a few commonplaces as to -the desirableness of living in love, and the blessings of religious -liberty, and after maintaining that the King wished every one to be as -free in his conscience as in his thoughts, immediately applied what -he had advanced to the Sacramental Test. “Why,” he asked, “because I -cannot take the Test, must I be hindered of an employment in the world? -This, gentlemen, pincheth sore with them in liberal education. It is -said, ‘Upon this Rock will I build my Church.’ Was this meant of the -Church of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_15">[15]</span> England?—it was but of yesterday’s standing. So, gentlemen, -’tis but a flourish. Gentlemen, the end of the Test is not religion, -but preferment; if any one therefore should be hindered upon just -pretences for religion, then religion is not at the bottom of it. This, -gentlemen, is a matter of great importance. It is in the Catechism -that Christ is really in the Lord’s Supper; nor hath it been objected -against the Church of Rome, by the Church of England, that He was not -really, but by way of presentation, and that is a great reproach. -Christ Himself told us He was there; now, be you not more strict than -Christ Himself. I am not arguing what my sense is, but I am only -showing, that as the Church of England would impose, that Christ was by -way of presentation, is it not equally difficult that we shall believe -thus and thus? Is not the like liberty to be had and taken of one side, -as well as the other? Gentlemen, I only argue this for the incoherence -of the thing.” The meaning which the Croydon Grand Jury might gather -from this wretched rabble of words would be, that the Judge put in a -plea for the toleration of Catholics—a plea which, however just, wore -at that crisis a suspicious aspect, and could find no favour with the -Surrey squires. Allybone finished by remarking that he would not have -the world mistaken about the Bishops’ trial—it was not for religion -they were tried, “they were tried for acting against the Government, -for publishing a libel which tended to sedition. The King,” he said, -“commands them with the advice of his Council for to publish his -Declaration; they would not do it. <i>If the King had been Turk or -Jew, it had been all one—for the subject ought to obey.</i>”<a id="FNanchor_15" href="#Footnote_15" class="fnanchor">[15]</a> The -infatuation of the Judge equalled the infatuation of the King.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_16">[16]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>Of course the effect was to identify the Judges with unconstitutional -indulgence. Where it had been successful, they were welcomed—where it -had created alarm, they were rebuffed.</p> - -<p>Down in the West, the Declaration had been published by some—by -others denounced. The wearers of the ermine were treated accordingly. -Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, wrote to Sancroft, at the time of -the Assizes, a letter which gives us some idea of what was going on at -Bristol and Exeter:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="left">“May it please your Grace,</p> - -<p class="p-min">“Mr. Gilbert, the bearer, going for London, and being desirous -of paying his duty to your Grace, I gave him this opportunity, -as well to receive your blessing as to present you with the -present state of the West. He is the laborious minister of -Plymouth, who, by his courage, life, and doctrine, hath done a -great deal of good in that town. I wish his Lordship the Bishop -of Exeter had as fixt and steady resolutions, but his Lordship, -acting according to a settled maxim of his own, <i>I will be -safe</i>, had given order for the publishing the Declaration, -notwithstanding the Bishop of Bath and Wells, and my letter -to him; and was at last brought to recall them by the Dean’s -sending him word, that if he would betray the Church, he should -not the Cathedral; for he would rather be hanged at the doors -of it, than that the Declaration should be read there, or in -any part of his jurisdiction, which is large in the county. The -gentry and clergy complained to me very much of the Bishop’s -giving a church to the Mayor<a id="FNanchor_16" href="#Footnote_16" class="fnanchor">[16]</a> for his Conventicle (in which -the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_17">[17]</span> Declaration was read), and for his great respects to Mr. -Beare, the last sessions, which gave great offence. Who this -Mr. Beare is, Mr. Gilbert can give your Grace a full account. -I had a long and warm argument with the Bishop, to divert him -from waiting on the Judges and treating them,—setting at large -before him what a malicious, wicked instrument Justice Bolduck -was in our business; but all I said was to no purpose. However, -the Dean and Chapter assured me, they would withdraw their -civility, and not receive them either at the church or at an -entertainment, as hath been customary. I hope I shall do some -good with the gentry of Devonshire and Cornwall. I humbly beg -your blessing, and remain,</p> - -<p class="r2 p-min">“Yours Grace’s most obedient, humble servant,</p> - -<p class=" r1 smcap p-min">“J. Bristol.”<a id="FNanchor_17" href="#Footnote_17" class="fnanchor">[17]</a></p> -</div> - - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>The Bishop of Exeter was Dr. Lamplugh, and how he was rewarded for his -devotion to the measures of the Court will presently appear.</p> - -<p>James’s proceedings in reference to the Church at this time were in -keeping with the rest of his conduct. He<span class="pagenum" id="Page_18">[18]</span> issued an order, requiring -Chancellors of Dioceses and Archdeacons to report to the High -Commission the names of those who had not published the Declaration. -This went too far even for his friends. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, -immediately resigned his seat, and the rest of the Commissioners -becoming alarmed, as well they might, hesitated to proceed with -the odious investigation. In the same month of July, James sent a -mandate to Oxford for the election of Jeffreys to the Chancellorship; -a disgrace which the authorities of the Universities prevented by -stealing a march on the Monarch, and electing a Chancellor before -the mandate arrived. On the 13th of August the King exercised anew -his dispensing power, by charging the Wardens and Fellows of All -Souls, Oxford, to admit John Cartwright to the Vicarage of Barking, -notwithstanding any custom or constitution to the contrary.<a id="FNanchor_18" href="#Footnote_18" class="fnanchor">[18]</a> Next, -on the 23rd, he nominated to the Bishopric of Oxford, Timothy Hall, who -had gained notoriety by reading the Declaration. Such persistency in -an unpopular course increased national indignation; all classes became -more and more weary of this galling despotism, and were goaded on to -hasten the King’s downfall.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Whilst such were the proceedings of the temporal head of the Church, -what was the course pursued by the Primate? Sancroft despatched -admonitions to the clergy of his province, exhorting them to the -zealous discharge of their duties, and concluding his appeal by -recommending them to show a friendly spirit towards Nonconformists, -by visiting them and receiving them kindly at their own homes, with -a view to persuade them “to a full compliance with our Church.” They -were to insist upon two points: that the Bishops were irreconcilable -enemies to Rome, and that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_19">[19]</span> jealousies to the contrary were altogether -groundless. Finally, clergymen were invited to pray for the union of -all Reformed Churches, both at home and abroad, against their common -foe, and that all who confessed the name of our dear Lord, might meet -in one communion and live in godly love.<a id="FNanchor_19" href="#Footnote_19" class="fnanchor">[19]</a> Next—and more surprising, -when we think of the Archbishop’s High Church views—he is said to -have engaged in a scheme of comprehension, the design being, so far as -it can be gathered from a speech made long afterwards by Dr. Wake, to -amend and improve the discipline of the Church; to review and enlarge -the Liturgy, by correcting some things, by adding others; and, it is -stated, that he proposed, if advised by authority, to have the matter -considered first in Convocation, then in Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_20" href="#Footnote_20" class="fnanchor">[20]</a> This would -have been to walk in steps taken by Low Churchmen some years before, -and to anticipate the endeavours of the same class of Churchmen some -months afterwards. When efforts had been made in that direction -by Tillotson and others, the Archbishop had not showed the least -disposition to help them; and on the whole it appears to me that so -cautious and conservative a man as Sancroft could never have intended -to go the length which the reports just noticed might indicate to -ecclesiastical reformers. Indeed, Wake, when he repeated the story, -took care to add that the intended changes related “to things of more -ordinary composition,” whilst the doctrine, government, and worship of -the Church were to remain entire. Probably the alterations contemplated -by Sancroft were very slight indeed, and certainly they were conceded -only in consequence of the excitement of the times.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_20">[20]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>Before the end of September, the King, being unable any longer to -resist, altered his policy; he and the Archbishop came together, -the former beginning at last to be frightened; the latter anxious -to do what he could to save his master. On the 21st of September, a -Declaration appeared, to the effect that it was the Royal purpose to -provide a legal security for universal liberty of conscience, yet -to preserve the Church of England in particular, and to secure the -Protestant religion in general; at the same time it was indicated -that Roman Catholics were to remain incapable of being members of -Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_21" href="#Footnote_21" class="fnanchor">[21]</a> Upon the 24th, Sancroft received a summons to attend -the Royal presence, and a like command was sent to Compton, Bishop of -London; Mew, of Winchester; Turner, of Ely; Lake, of Chichester; Ken, -of Bath and Wells; White, of Peterborough; Trelawny, of Bristol; and -Sprat, of Rochester. They were men of different mark: Compton had gone -beyond any of his brethren in bold resistance of James’s policy; Mew -had been a Royalist in the days of Charles I., and had fought as a -soldier in his master’s service; Trelawny had won popularity by being -one of the imprisoned seven, but, like other men in Church and State, -he had shown a time-serving spirit.<a id="FNanchor_22" href="#Footnote_22" class="fnanchor">[22]</a> Sprat distinguished himself as -an accommodating mortal; the rest were High Churchmen, and supporters -of the divine right of Kings.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_21">[21]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>On the day of dispatching the summons, James told Clarendon that the -Dutch were coming in earnest to invade England. “And now, my Lord,” he -added, “I shall see what the Church of England men will do.”<a id="FNanchor_23" href="#Footnote_23" class="fnanchor">[23]</a> On -the 26th, the King saw Turner, Bishop of Ely, who reported that the -conversation which arose was only of a general kind. Whatever liberal -sentiments might have dawned on the Royal mind, all seemed dark on the -27th, when the Lord Chancellor informed Clarendon that some rogues had -changed the King’s purposes, that he would yield in nothing to the -Bishops, “that the Virgin Mary was to do all.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>The first meeting between the King and the Bishops took place on -Friday, September the 28th. All invited were present, except Sancroft, -who excused himself on the ground of being unwell, and Compton and -Trelawny, who did not reach town in time. Their brethren, however, who, -like them, were in the country when the command arrived, managed to be -there. The Prelates came prepared honestly to give advice; but James, -no doubt under the influence mentioned by Clarendon, was very reserved, -on the one hand declaring his goodwill to the Church of England, and on -the other, reminding<span class="pagenum" id="Page_22">[22]</span> his spiritual advisers of their duty to be loyal -to the Crown. Ken plainly expressed his disappointment, observing that -“His Majesty’s inclinations towards the Church, and their duty to him, -were sufficiently understood and declared before, and would have been -equally so if they had not stirred one foot out of their dioceses.”<a id="FNanchor_24" href="#Footnote_24" class="fnanchor">[24]</a> -As the Prelates issued from the Royal presence, the courtiers loitering -about the closet door, full of curiosity as to this much-talked-of -interview, inquired, “How things went?” The Bishop of Winchester—“poor -man,” as Clarendon calls, him—answered, “<i>Omnia bene</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_25" href="#Footnote_25" class="fnanchor">[25]</a> James -wished to make capital for himself out of what had taken place, and -immediately announced to his subjects, through the <i>Gazette</i>, -that several of the Bishops having attended, he was pleased, amongst -other gracious expressions, to let them know that he would signify -his pleasure for taking off the suspension of the Bishop of London, -which was done accordingly. That any such communication was made could -scarcely have been gathered from the account of the audience given by -others.</p> - -<p>The same <i>Gazette</i> contained a Proclamation, dated September the -28th, stating, that undoubted advice had been received of a projected -invasion from Holland, under false pretences relating to liberty, -property, and religion, but really aiming at the conquest of the -kingdom. The King declared his purpose to resist this attempt, to -venture his life for the honour of the nation; and deferring at present -the meeting of Parliament, he called upon his subjects to resist their -enemies, and prohibited any assistance being given them on pain of high -treason.<a id="FNanchor_26" href="#Footnote_26" class="fnanchor">[26]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_23">[23]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>The Bishops were dissatisfied with the interview of the 28th, and -requested the Archbishop to procure another audience. One was -appointed for Tuesday, the 2nd of October; then it was postponed until -the following day. The Prelates occupied the interval in careful -deliberation, and drew up a paper, in which they advised, that the -management of affairs in the counties should be entrusted to qualified -persons amongst the nobility and gentry; that the Ecclesiastical -Commission should be annulled, dispensations terminated, the President -and Fellows of Magdalen restored, licenses to Papists recalled, -the Vicars Apostolical inhibited, vacant Bishoprics filled, <i>Quo -Warrantos</i> superseded, charters restored, a Parliament called, in -which, with due regard to the security of the Established Religion, -liberty of conscience should be granted; and, finally, permission -vouchsafed to the Bishops to attempt the re-conversion of His Majesty -to the Protestant faith.</p> - -<p>The paper containing this advice was signed by the Archbishop of -Canterbury, and the Bishops of London, Winchester, Asaph, Ely, -Chichester, Rochester, Bath and Wells, and Peterborough.<a id="FNanchor_27" href="#Footnote_27" class="fnanchor">[27]</a></p> - -<p>Before the Bishops were admitted to the conference, James made -another concession to popular excitement, by declaring in Council -to the Aldermen of London, his intention to restore to the City the -much-prized charter of which it had been deprived.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>On the 3rd of October the second meeting of the Bishops with the King -occurred. They presented their paper, and whatever the immediate -effect of their last request might have been, they now received the -assurance of a gracious consideration being given to their requests.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_24">[24]</span> -The King almost immediately afterwards extinguished the Commission, and -signified his purpose of rectifying corporate abuses.<a id="FNanchor_28" href="#Footnote_28" class="fnanchor">[28]</a></p> - -<p>Within a few days, collects were drawn up by the Bishops, to be used in -all cathedral, collegiate, and parochial churches and chapels within -the kingdom during this time of public danger. They received His -Majesty’s approval, and were printed for general use. It is curious to -observe that they are so framed as to lay all the blame of existing -calamities on the shoulders of the people, and to breathe a spirit of -intense loyalty to His Majesty’s person.<a id="FNanchor_29" href="#Footnote_29" class="fnanchor">[29]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_25">[25]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">PREPARATIONS FOR REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Upon the 12th of October, the King authorized the Bishop of Winchester -to settle the troubles at Magdalen College; but so suspicious had -the public become in reference to the Royal sincerity, that it was -currently and falsely reported immediately afterwards, that he had -altered his mind, and withdrawn the order.<a id="FNanchor_30" href="#Footnote_30" class="fnanchor">[30]</a></p> - -<p>Repeated Royal conferences could not be held without attracting -attention. They became the subject of common talk, and the suspicious -temper of people appeared in a rumour, that the right reverend fathers -were being hoodwinked by a Popish Sovereign and his Popish Councillors. -Evelyn wrote to Sancroft on the 10th of October, telling him that -the calling of His Grace and the Bishops to Court, and what had -been required of them, was only calculated to create jealousies and -suspicions amongst well-meaning people—the whole of the plan being -the work of Jesuits. He also complained that in all the Declarations -published in pretended favour of the Church of England, there was not -once any mention made of the Reformed or Protestant religion.<a id="FNanchor_31" href="#Footnote_31" class="fnanchor">[31]</a></p> - -<p>In another letter, the contents of which were intended to be -communicated to His Grace, serious charges are alluded to as brought -against the Bishops.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>“Knowing your interest in my Lord’s Grace of Canterbury,” says the -writer, “you are desired to let him know that it was my fortune this -week to have the sight of a most malicious libel against the most -eminent Bishops of the Church of England; the extent and substance of -it is to show how the Bishops mind only popularity, and to make a noise -in the world. For that the Bishops themselves do dispense with the laws -and canons of the Church,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_26">[26]</span> as well as the King hath done by virtue of -his prerogative. This was lent me to peruse one evening, so that I -could not read it fully, but the chief thing they aim at is to show -that the Bishops do dispense with non-residence, contrary to the canons -of the Church and the Statute of the land, made 21 Henry VIII. 13. -Some things are frivolous, and some very sharp, and I fear too true; -so that I wrote out the heads on the chapter of non-residence, which -is very virulent, and filled with near 300 instances of prebends and -clergymen that are non-resident, contrary to the law in all counties -of England; for they have a perfect account from all counties, except -about eight or ten, which are promised against this term; and had not -this juncture of affairs hindered, it had been fully printed in a few -weeks.” After transcribing the heads, the writer proceeds: ”All these -heads have several scandalous instances (that lack reformation) in -many counties, and it would be happy if my good Lord of Canterbury -did require a speedy reformation, and make all Ecclesiastical Judges -inquire into the truth hereof, and give him a speedy account, and so -prevent these just scandals, which will otherwise fall upon the Bishops -of the Church of England.”<a id="FNanchor_32" href="#Footnote_32" class="fnanchor">[32]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_27">[27]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER II.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The invitation to the Prince of Orange had been signed by the Bishop -of London on the 30th of June. On the 2nd of November, a Declaration, -bearing date the 10th of October, began to be circulated in England, -the space between June and October having been spent by His Highness in -making preparations for his enterprise. The document, drawn up by the -Grand Pensionary of Holland, had been revised and translated by Burnet, -who sat by the Prince’s elbow, and came to be described as “Champion in -ordinary of the Revolution, and ready to enter the lists against all -comers.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>The Declaration gave the utmost prominence to the religious question. -An ecclesiastical and unconstitutional Court had been revived, -which had misapplied the Church’s property, invaded her dignity, -and persecuted her members. A plan had been carried out for the -re-establishment of Popery in Protestant England. Monasteries, -convents, Popish churches, and Jesuit colleges had sprung up in all -directions, and at the Council Board one of the hated order had taken -his seat. Political liberties had been violated, charters withdrawn, -Parliamentary government suspended, Judges displaced for their -conscientiousness, and the right of petition denied even to spiritual -Lords; Ireland had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_28">[28]</span> given over to Papists, Scotland had been -shorn of her freedom, and to crown all, the public had been deceived -by the announcement of the birth of a pretended Prince. Hence the -rights of the Princess of Orange had been invaded, and His Highness -had undertaken an expedition “with no other view than to get a free -Parliament assembled which might remedy those grievances, inquire into -that birth, and secure national religion and liberty under a just and -legal government for the future.” He further stated that he had been -earnestly solicited by many Lords, both spiritual and temporal, by many -gentlemen, and by other subjects of all ranks, to interpose.<a id="FNanchor_33" href="#Footnote_33" class="fnanchor">[33]</a></p> - -<p>After James had made his concessions, a postscript to the Declaration -was received from William. The concessions, he urged, went to prove the -truth of the charges made; they arose from a consciousness of guilt; -no dependence could be placed upon them; and only a Parliament could -re-establish the rights of the English people.</p> - -<p>Other documents of the same kind followed. The Prince boldly appealed -to the military, reminding them how Protestant soldiers had been -cashiered in Ireland, and Popish soldiers forced upon England. It would -be the crime of the army, if the nation lost its liberty; the glory of -the army, if the liberty of the nation was saved. Herbert wrote to the -seamen, telling them their fate would be infamy, if the Prince failed -of success; dismission from the service, if he succeeded.<a id="FNanchor_34" href="#Footnote_34" class="fnanchor">[34]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_29">[29]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>William’s Declaration alarmed James; at last he became undeceived. The -webs woven by Dutch diplomacy were blown away. His confusion increased -at finding he had reason to suspect Bishops as being amongst the -Prince’s allies. He sent in haste to Sancroft on the 16th of October, -and told him of the intention to invade England. He added, it would -be a fitting thing for the Bishops to draw up a paper expressing -their abhorrence of the attempt. The Primate plausibly pleaded that -the Bishops had left London, and strangely declared, that he could -not believe the Prince of Orange had any such design as was supposed. -Matters were allowed to rest until the 31st of October, and then the -King sent for Compton, Bishop of London.<a id="FNanchor_35" href="#Footnote_35" class="fnanchor">[35]</a> He came the next day. The -King referred to William’s Declaration, and read the paragraph stating -that spiritual Lords had invited the Prince to come over. Compton, -with a cunning which in a Papist he would have pronounced Jesuitical, -replied, “I am confident the rest of the Bishops would as readily -answer in the negative as myself.”<a id="FNanchor_36" href="#Footnote_36" class="fnanchor">[36]</a> This skilfully-contrived evasion -was a lie to all intents and purposes; but it took effect, for James -admitted that he believed the Bishops were innocent. When he proceeded -to urge a request that they should publicly disown any implication -in this matter, his Lordship answered that the request should be -considered. The King rejoined, that every one must answer for himself, -and that he would send for the Archbishop to bring his brethren -together.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>A third important meeting followed next day, the 2nd of November, -when the Bishop of London, with Crew, of Durham, and Cartwright, of -Chester—both considered<span class="pagenum" id="Page_30">[30]</span> half Papists—and Watson, of St. David’s, -a thorough courtier,<a id="FNanchor_37" href="#Footnote_37" class="fnanchor">[37]</a> were brought together at Whitehall, and the -Archbishop following them there, conducted them into the Royal closet. -The Archbishop explicitly denied having signed the invitation. The -Bishop of London artfully said he had given his answer the day before. -The Bishop of Durham declared, “I am sure I am none of them.” “Nor I.” -“Nor I,” cried the other two. James proceeded to insist that they and -their brethren on the Bench should publicly vindicate themselves, and -express abhorrence of William’s design.</p> - -<p>The next day, November the 3rd, the Bishops of London and Rochester -went to Lambeth to dine with His Grace, but finding their brethren of -Chester and St. David’s present, though uninvited, they proceeded to -a friend’s house in the neighbourhood, and returned, between two and -three o’clock, to the Palace, after the other two had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_31">[31]</span> left. Then they -conferred with Sancroft as to what should be done.<a id="FNanchor_38" href="#Footnote_38" class="fnanchor">[38]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>The fourth important meeting of this kind took place on November the -6th, when the Archbishop, and the Bishops of London, Rochester, and -Peterborough, made their appearance in the Sovereign’s presence; -the Bishop of St. David’s—throughout an object of -suspicion—“waiting for them in the Guard-chamber, ready to thrust -in with them to the King.” The Primate, taking Lord Preston aside, -requested him to procure for them a private audience; upon which the -King, through his Lordship, ordered the obnoxious and forward Prelate -to withdraw. The rest told James they had done all they could, and that -if he were satisfied, they did not care for other people’s opinions; -but when he talked to them of such a paper as he had required, they -fell back on the ground they had occupied before, that scarcely one -in five hundred believed in the genuineness of the document published -in the Prince’s name. The Archbishop did not touch the question of -the paper so much wished for by James, although one had been drawn -up, and signed by himself; most probably the reason of this omission -was, that he could not carry his brethren with him in the matter, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_32">[32]</span> -he felt it would not do for him to make a solitary disavowal on the -subject. Presently the dispute wandered into a confused maze, and the -Archbishop could not help adverting to the treatment which he and his -six brethren had received at the Royal hands. The King was annoyed, but -the Primate persevered; the rest supported him, and His Majesty stood -like a stag at bay. James retorted that if they complained, he had a -right to complain too, and the quarrel became unseemly in the extreme. -Indeed, His Majesty was now beginning to find that whatsoever a man -soweth that shall he also reap, and as he had by his lawyers bearded -the Bishops in his own Court at Westminster, the Bishops in return -were bearding him in his own Palace of Whitehall. The conversation -came round to the old point. James wanted them to sign a paper. They -would not. “I am your King,” he said; “I am judge what is best for me. -I will go my own way; I desire your assistance in it.” Go his own way -he might, but they would not go with him. Whatever their high notions -of Royal prerogatives, and the obligations of subjects, might have -been once, the recent trial had wonderfully opened the eyes of their -understanding. They would not take on themselves the responsibility of -publishing any disclaimer. His Majesty might publish to the world what -they had said, if he liked.<a id="FNanchor_39" href="#Footnote_39" class="fnanchor">[39]</a> “No,” said he; “if I should publish -it, the people would not believe me.” Not believe him? The confession -was most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_33">[33]</span> humiliating. “Sir,” said the right reverend father, “the -word of a King is sacred—it ought to be believed.” “They that could -believe me guilty of a false son, what will they not believe of me?” -was the bitter rejoinder. James’ credit had sunk as low as it could. -Further talking was useless. “I will urge you no further,” said he, -in conclusion. “If you will not assist me as I desire, I must stand -upon my own legs, and trust to myself and my own arms.” So they were -dismissed.<a id="FNanchor_40" href="#Footnote_40" class="fnanchor">[40]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>One of the Bishops, writing on the 14th of October, had remarked, -“All people’s mouths are now full of praises for our order, to whom -they say they shall ever owe the preservation of our religion,”—a -statement which should be considered in connection with what I have -said as to letters of a different purport addressed to Sancroft. The -fact seems to have been, that whilst some Churchmen were dissatisfied -with irregularities in the Establishment which they blamed the -Bishops for not correcting, others—a far larger number—looking -chiefly at that moment to the religious and political liberties of -the country, regarded certain of the Bishops as making a noble stand -against the designs of James. The Bishops’ popularity increased the -following month, and although Compton’s Jesuitical answer to the -King must be condemned by everybody, and the doubts expressed by the -Bishops present at the interview on the 6th, as to the genuineness -of William’s Declaration, will appear to most people as reflecting -either upon their judgment or their straightforwardness, still their -determination not to submit to James’ dictation was in harmony with -the spirit which had made the seven so popular. Their firmness in this -respect—in connection with the resistance offered to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_34">[34]</span> James by other -Prelates not present on this last occasion, and responsible neither for -Compton’s equivocation or their brethren’s remarks about the Orange -documents—certainly operated in favour of the approaching Revolution, -the full nature of which, however, they did not foresee.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>The day before this 6th of November a momentous event had occurred, of -which at the time they knew nothing.</p> - -<p>William had set sail from Holland on the 16th of October, with a flag -floating over the quaint, high-built frigate, bearing an inscription, -of which the first three words formed the motto of the House of Orange, -“<i>I will maintain</i>—the liberties of England and the Protestant -religion.” As it fluttered on the staff, the wind changed, the fleet -had to put back; but the Declaration of the 10th, sent before him, -announced his coming, and people, as they awaited the visitation, -looked out to sea, and prayed for a “Protestant east wind” to waft -over the desired Deliverer. Whilst James was talking to the Bishops on -the 2nd of November, the ship had left Helvoetsluys, and after sailing -northward, had tacked about a second time, and with a fair wind was -making for the British Channel.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>In the fleet with the Prince was Frederic, Count of Schomberg, -who, though he had been in the service of Louis XIV., remained a -staunch member of the Reformed Church, and entered heartily into the -design of the Protestant Champion, whom he attended in the capacity -of Lieutenant. Another distinguished officer was Isaac Dumont de -Bostaquet—a Huguenot soldier who had suffered for his religion, -and had been driven from his paternal chateau of La Fontelaye, in -France, by the intolerant policy of his infatuated Sovereign. Narrowly -escaping with his life,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_35">[35]</span> after a number of romantic adventures, he -found refuge in Holland, and now placed his sword at the command of -the Prince, with all the zeal which could be kindled in the cause of -liberty by memories of tyranny and oppression. In William’s dragoon -regiments of red and blue were fifty French officers, all more or less -inspired by similar feelings. Two companies of French infantry were -commanded by Captains de Chauvernay and Rapin-Thoyras, afterwards the -historian of England. Perhaps the equipment of these soldiers—dusty, -worn, and tattered—appeared to disadvantage when compared with the -brilliant uniforms of the Dutch, the German, the Swedes, the Swiss, -and the English, who crowded within the wooden walls; but they deserve -more notice than they have received, and more gratitude than was ever -paid them.<a id="FNanchor_41" href="#Footnote_41" class="fnanchor">[41]</a> Whilst England afforded a sanctuary to the Huguenots -oppressed by Popery, in their own country,—Huguenots helped England to -keep off the yoke of a like oppression. There were other noteworthy men -amongst William’s followers.</p> - -<p>Gilbert Burnet was there, full of Dutch memories, full of English -hopes, picking up knowledge from the sailors, and musing upon the -issue of his patron’s enterprise, not without side glances at his own -fortunes. Not far off stood Carstairs, a catholic-spirited Scotch -Presbyterian, who had manifested the utmost fortitude under torture, -and who, when his own cause rose to the ascendant, did what is rare, -for he signally manifested the virtue of moderation. Beside him was a -different character, Robert Ferguson, implicated in the Rye-house Plot, -and a ringleader in Monmouth’s rebellion.</p> - -<p>The fleet presented a magnificent spectacle. “Nothing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_36">[36]</span> could be more -beautiful,” says Dumont de Bostaquet, “than the evolution of the -immense flotilla which now took place under a glorious sky;”<a id="FNanchor_42" href="#Footnote_42" class="fnanchor">[42]</a> and -Rapin, recording his own impressions of the moment, observes, “What a -glorious show the fleet made! Five or six hundred ships in so narrow a -channel, and both the English and French shores covered with numberless -spectators is no common sight. For my part, who was then on board the -fleet, it struck me extremely.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>Such a fleet, known to be conveying an army to the coast, watched on -its way with imperfect information and with mingled fear and hope, -must have been to Englishmen a spectacle full of excitement, to which -history records scarcely a parallel.</p> - -<p>The 4th of November being Sunday, and also the Prince’s birthday, -he spent in devotion. Intending to land at Torbay, he found himself -carried beyond his destination by the violence of the wind, or the -unskilfulness of the pilot; and some measure of agitation,—such as -thrilled the multitudes straining their eyes on the Dover Cliffs, -whilst the quaintly-built vessels passed by,—must have moved the -inhabitants of the towns and villages on both sides the sweep of water -at the mouth of the Ex: as we imagine, on the red sand hills, groups -gathered here and there, peering through windy weather in search of -the ships about to rest under the headland of Devonshire Tor. The next -day, the Dutch reached the desired spot, and “the forces were landed -with such diligence and tranquillity, that the whole army was on shore -before night.”<a id="FNanchor_43" href="#Footnote_43" class="fnanchor">[43]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>The associations of the year and the day were propitious. Just a -century before, God had scattered the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_37">[37]</span> Spanish Armada; and on the 5th -of November, 1605, the three Estates of England had been delivered from -the Gunpowder Plot. The Calvinist William took the Arminian Burnet -by the hand, asking, “Will you not believe in predestination?” “I -will never forget,” the chaplain cautiously replied, “that providence -of God which has appeared so signally on this occasion.” Public -worship followed the landing. Carstairs was the first, “Scotsman and -Presbyterian as he was,” to call down the blessings of Heaven on the -expedition; and after his prayer, “the troops all along the beach, at -his instance, joined in the 118th Psalm,” and this act of devotion -produced a sensible effect on the troops.<a id="FNanchor_44" href="#Footnote_44" class="fnanchor">[44]</a> The Prince for awhile -seemed elated, yet soon relapsed into his habitual gravity; but Burnet -only interpreted the general feeling of the moment when he says, “We -saw new and unthought-of characters of a favourable providence of God -watching over us.”<a id="FNanchor_45" href="#Footnote_45" class="fnanchor">[45]</a></p> - -<p>Tidings of what had happened rapidly spread, and excited all sorts -of people, especially such as had religious sympathies with the new -visitors. Devonshire traditions afford an idea of what was felt and -done by Dissenters. A lady, worshipping in a meeting-house at Totnes, -in commemoration of the discovery of Gunpowder Plot, when she learnt -that the Prince had reached the neighbouring bay, immediately hastened, -in company with another like-spirited matron, to meet His Highness at -Brixham, who “shook hands with them, and gave them a parcel of his -Proclamations to distribute, which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_38">[38]</span> they did so industriously that not -one was left in the family as a memorial of their adventure.”<a id="FNanchor_46" href="#Footnote_46" class="fnanchor">[46]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>A story is also told that Roman Catholics were at the time eagerly -expecting assistance from the French, and a priest with his friends, -stationed on a watch-tower, having descried white flags on the men -of war as they hove in sight, prepared an entertainment for the -earnestly-desired guests, and proceeded to chant a <i>Te Deum</i>, in -gratitude for their arrival. They were soon undeceived, and the fare -provided for the French was enjoyed by the Dutch.<a id="FNanchor_47" href="#Footnote_47" class="fnanchor">[47]</a></p> - -<p>The army next day marched on to Exeter, the officers, like the -soldiers, wet to the skin, having neither change of raiment, nor food, -nor horses, nor servants, nor beds—the baggage still remaining in -the ships. But expressions of sympathy, perhaps timorously conveyed, -cheered them somewhat on this dreary day; and stories are still -circulated amongst the Nonconformist families of the neighbourhood, of -ancestors who watched the landing, and spoke of “seeing the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_39">[39]</span> country -people rolling apples down the hill-side to the soldiers.”<a id="FNanchor_48" href="#Footnote_48" class="fnanchor">[48]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>The progress was slow, and the stay at the Western capital long. Thomas -Lamplugh, the Bishop who had approved of the Declaration and of the -conduct of His Majesty’s servile Judges, showed his fidelity to James -by rushing up to London, where he was rewarded with the Archiepiscopal -throne of York. York had been left vacant for more than two years and -a half, with the design, it was said, of being ultimately occupied by -a Roman Catholic. A Popish Bishop had been settled there, with a title -<i>in partibus infidelium</i>, whose crosier and utensils were seized -after the landing of the Prince of Orange.<a id="FNanchor_49" href="#Footnote_49" class="fnanchor">[49]</a></p> - -<p>The Dean of Exeter also fled in alarm, and His Highness took up his -abode in the deserted Deanery. The Prebendaries refused to meet him, -or to occupy their stalls, when he marched in military state through -the western portal, well studded with statues of saints and kings; -and proceeding up the nave, with its exquisite minstrels’ gallery, -ascended the steps of the choir, passed under the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_40">[40]</span> beautiful screen, -and took his seat on the Episcopal throne,—the ornamentation of which -in ebonlike oak, without a single nail in the curious structure, so -admirably contrasts with the pale arches and the vaulted roof. As soon -as the chanting of the <i>Te Deum</i> had ceased, Burnet read His -Highness’s Declaration, which proved a signal for such of the clergy -and choristers as had ventured on being present, to quit the edifice. -At the end of the reading the Doctor cried, “God save the Prince of -Orange!” to which some of the congregation responded with a hearty Amen.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>De Bostaquet, the French Huguenot, accustomed to the extreme and rigid -simplicity of Protestant worship in his own country, was scandalized -at what he witnessed at Exeter. He regarded the English service as -retaining nearly all the externals of Popery—for such he counted the -altar, and the great candles on each side, and the basin of silver-gilt -between, and the Canons, in surplices and stoles, ranged in stalls on -each side the nave, and the choir of little boys singing with charming -voices. He was touched somewhat with the beauty of the music, but the -sturdy and ultra-Reformer declared it was all opposed to the simplicity -of the French reformed religion, and he confessed he was by no means -edified with it.<a id="FNanchor_50" href="#Footnote_50" class="fnanchor">[50]</a></p> - -<p>Burnet delivered a sermon on the following Sunday; and on the same day, -Robert Ferguson, being refused by the Presbyterians the keys of the -meeting-house in St. James Street, exclaimed, “I will take the kingdom -of heaven by violence!” and calling for a hammer, broke open the door. -Sword in hand he mounted the pulpit, and preached against the Papists -from the 16th verse of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_41">[41]</span> 94th Psalm: “Who will rise up for me -against the evil doers?”<a id="FNanchor_51" href="#Footnote_51" class="fnanchor">[51]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>At first the Prince’s affairs wore an unfavourable appearance—people -of influence did not join him; but before long the tide turned, -“and every man mistaking his neighbour’s courage for his own, all -rushed to the camp or to the stations which had been assigned them, -with a violence proportioned to their late fears.”<a id="FNanchor_52" href="#Footnote_52" class="fnanchor">[52]</a> A hearty -welcome awaited His Highness in many places through which he marched, -the Dissenters in particular hailing his approach. One of them, a -country gentleman, living at Coaxden Hall, rich in rookeries, between -Axminster and Chard, had tables spread with provisions under an avenue -of trees leading up to the house. The gentleman was Richard Cogan, -whose wife Elizabeth, before her marriage, concealed him under a -feather-bed, after the Monmouth rebellion, and so saved his life and -won his affections. His mother had been a Royalist; and amongst many -stories told of Charles’s adventures after his defeat at Worcester, -it is related that this lady covered him with the skirts of her -enormously-hooped petticoats.<a id="FNanchor_53" href="#Footnote_53" class="fnanchor">[53]</a> The clergy of Dorset found themselves -in an awkward position after William had triumphantly passed through -the country. They had<span class="pagenum" id="Page_42">[42]</span> received an order of Council, sent by the -Bishop, prescribing prayers for the Prince of Wales and the Royal -family. But now, although some persevered in using the prayers, others -laid them aside. There still exists a letter to the Archbishop of -Canterbury from the incumbent of Wimborne, asking what he should do -under the circumstances.<a id="FNanchor_54" href="#Footnote_54" class="fnanchor">[54]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>When Ken heard that the Dutch were coming to Wells, he immediately left -the city, and in obedience to His Majesty’s general commands, took -all his coach horses with him, and as many of his saddle horses as he -could; seeking shelter in a village near Devizes, intending to wait -on James, should he come into that neighbourhood. Ken was awkwardly -situated, having been chaplain to the Princess of Orange, and knowing -many of the Dutch officers; therefore, to prevent suspicion, he left -his diocese, determined to preserve his allegiance to a Monarch -who still occupied the throne.<a id="FNanchor_55" href="#Footnote_55" class="fnanchor">[55]</a> William found himself in the -neighbourhood where the unfortunate Duke of Monmouth had a few years -earlier unfurled his flag, to which certain Nonconformists had been -drawn, who paid a terrible penalty for their rashness. Many retained -keen recollections of Sedgmoor fight and Taunton Assizes, and could -scarcely calculate upon the success of this new attempt; yet they -sympathized intensely in William’s designs, as is manifest from some -of their Church records containing narratives of the Deliverer’s march -through the west of England. The Declaration said little in favour -of Nonconformists, and only by implication gave hopes to them of -legal security. But the documents received an interpretation from the -knowledge that William believed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_43">[43]</span> conscience to be God’s province, and -that toleration is as politic as it is righteous.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>Three days before the landing of the Prince, James admonished -his subjects, upon peril of being prosecuted, not to publish the -treasonable Proclamations; and on the day after the landing, he -denounced the act as aiming at the immediate possession of the Crown. -Between those two dates, the Scottish Bishops, whose feudal-like -loyalty mastered their patriotism, and placed them in opposition to -their Episcopal brethren of the South, sent an address to the falling -Monarch, in which they denounced the invasion, and professed unshaken -allegiance to be part of their religion; not doubting that God, who -had often delivered His Majesty, would now give him the hearts of his -subjects and the necks of his enemies.<a id="FNanchor_56" href="#Footnote_56" class="fnanchor">[56]</a> Another Scotch address, -breathing the utmost devotion, followed, in significant opposition to -the ominous silence maintained by Englishmen. This flash of enthusiasm, -however, on the other side the Tweed, did nothing for the salvation -of the House of Stuart,—the current of opinion throughout the realm, -amongst high and low, having set in the opposite direction.</p> - -<p>At this critical moment, amidst the confusion which reigned at -Whitehall, and as selfish courtiers were waiting to see how they could -promote their own interests, the misguided Sovereign commanded his army -to march towards Salisbury. The night before he himself started for -that city, a few noblemen and Bishops waited upon him with a proposal -to assemble Parliament, and treat with the Prince of Orange; when, -according to his own account, he told the Prelates that it would much -better become men of their calling to instruct the people in their<span class="pagenum" id="Page_44">[44]</span> -duty to God and the King, rather than foment a rebellions temper, by -presenting such petitions at the very moment the enemy stood at the -door. He says he regarded them as making religion a cloak of rebellion, -and was at last convinced that the Church’s doctrine of passive -obedience formed too sandy a foundation for a Prince’s hope.<a id="FNanchor_57" href="#Footnote_57" class="fnanchor">[57]</a> His -answer to the request for a Parliament, according to the report of the -Bishop of Rochester, ran in these words: “What you ask of me, I most -passionately desire, and I promise you upon the faith of a king, that I -will have a Parliament, and such an one as you ask for, as soon as ever -the Prince of Orange has quitted this realm. For how is it possible a -Parliament should be free in all its circumstances, as you petition -for, whilst an enemy is in the kingdom, and can make return of near a -hundred voices?”<a id="FNanchor_58" href="#Footnote_58" class="fnanchor">[58]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>James reached Salisbury on the 19th of November, and took up his -abode in the Episcopal Palace,—under the shadow of the noble spire -which rises so gracefully out of the midst of a pleasant landscape of -quaint-looking houses, near the confluence of two rivers, bordered by -gardens and orchards, by green meadows and brown fields. There he had -reason enough to be alarmed by the progress of events, and to reflect -on the instability of worldly greatness; yet he did not despair.</p> - -<p>He was wonderfully slow in giving up all hope of help from Bishops. To -the last he seemed to cling to that order with the tenacity of a sailor -who has seized on a plank from a foundered vessel. From Salisbury he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_45">[45]</span> -sent for the Bishop of Winchester, who had cautiously remained at his -princely castle during these troublous times. The Bishop wrote to -the Archbishop of Canterbury the following account of this fruitless -visit:—</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="left">“May it please your Grace,</p> - -<p class="p-min">“His Majesty’s intimation to me, that he thought my presence -would, if occasion required, very much influence his army, I -could not take it for less than a command, and accordingly -posted to Sarum, where I pressed him, with all imaginable -arguments, to call a Parliament, as the most visible way to put -a stop to those confusions which threatened the Government; -and I left him in a far more inclinable disposition to it than -I found him, and engaged several persons near him to second -what I had attempted. The next day, which was Friday, I found -that several of the troops were commanded towards London, and, -waiting upon His Majesty, he told me he would be with me as -to-morrow; so that, in order to his reception, I came yesterday -from Sarum, which is a long journey of above forty miles, and I -now understand that His Majesty comes not this way. This account -of myself I thought proper to give your Grace, that I may -receive the commands, which shall, with all duty, be obeyed by -your son and servant.”<a id="FNanchor_59" href="#Footnote_59" class="fnanchor">[59]</a></p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>A spirit of disaffection soon showed itself in the upper ranks. Lord -Lovelace had been deeply involved in intrigues preparatory to the -Revolution; and in a crypt under his Elizabethan mansion, called -Lady-place, at Hurley, so well known to all pilgrims to picturesque -spots, on the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_46">[46]</span> banks of the Thames, he had held midnight conferences -whilst all the Whigs were longing for a Protestant wind. He now quitted -his home, at the head of seventy followers, and galloped westward to -join the Prince. Colchester, Wharton, Russel, and Abingdon proceeded -in the same direction; but, what foreboded more mischief, defection -broke out in the ranks of Royalism. Cornbury, eldest son of Lord -Clarendon, and nephew of James’ first wife, at the head of three -regiments, deserted the camp at Salisbury, and joined the Prince—most -of his soldiers, more faithful than himself, deserting him, when they -discovered his treachery. Still worse defections followed. Prince -George of Denmark—the husband of the Princess Anne, James’ daughter, -a person who, with all her weakness of mind, had acquired a reputation -for Protestant zeal—went next. In company with the Duke of Ormond, -he rode off from Andover, having the previous night supped at his -father-in-law’s table. The Churchills—great favourites with James, -great supporters of his cause—soon fell into the stream. The destined -hero of Blenheim, accompanied by Grafton, pushed on his way to worship -the rising sun. A story is told, I do not know on what authority, that -William, on seeing these unexpected visitors, exclaimed, “If ye be come -peaceably to me to help me, mine heart shall be knit unto you, but if -ye be come to betray me to mine enemies (seeing that there is no wrong -in my hands), the God of your fathers rebuke it.” One of them replied, -“Thine are we, David, and on thy side, thou son of Jesse. Peace, peace -be unto thee, and peace be to thy helpers, for thy God helpeth thee.” -The Princess Anne, imitating her husband’s example, disappeared from -Whitehall, and in a carriage—preceded by Compton, Bishop of London, -who wore a purple velvet coat and jack boots, with pistols in his -holsters and a sword in his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_47">[47]</span> hand<a id="FNanchor_60" href="#Footnote_60" class="fnanchor">[60]</a>—was driving off at the top of -her horses’ speed to the town of Nottingham.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>The desertions at Salisbury drove James back to London; there the last -drop was added to the cup of his domestic sorrow, when he learned -that his daughter Anne had abandoned his cause. Further calamities -befell him. Rochester, Godolphin, even Jeffreys, meeting their master -in Council, recommended the calling of a Parliament; and at the same -time Clarendon blamed James for leaving Salisbury without fighting a -battle. Eventually, after having bewailed his son Cornbury’s apostacy, -the great courtier thought it the safest course to imitate that son’s -example.</p> - -<p>James was now reduced to extremities, and on the 22nd of November he -issued a Proclamation, in which he recalled his revolted subjects to -allegiance with the promise of a free and gracious pardon, and tempted -the soldiers of the Dutch army to come over to the Royal standard with -the promise of liberal entertainment, or of safe dismissal to their own -country. On the 30th, appeared another Proclamation, for the speedy -calling of a Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_61" href="#Footnote_61" class="fnanchor">[61]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>Matters were proceeding favourably on the other side. Crossing -Salisbury Plain, marching past Stonehenge, William and his army, with -great military display, took possession of Salisbury, after which -the Prince occupied a house in the neighbouring village of Berwick. -Clarendon, on reaching the Episcopal city, which had become the head -quarters of the Revolution, alighted at the George Inn, where he found -the Dutch Ambassador; and the next morning waited on the Prince, who -took him into his bedchamber, and talked with him for half an hour, -telling him how glad he felt to see him, and how seasonable the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_48">[48]</span> -accession of his son had proved. The Earl, hearing Burnet was in the -house, went to see that important person. “What,” asked the latter, -“can be the meaning of the King’s sending these Commissioners?” “To -adjust matters for the safe and easy meeting of the Parliament,” -replied Clarendon. “How,” rejoined the other, “can a Parliament meet, -now the kingdom is in this confusion—all the West being possessed -by the Prince’s forces, and all the North being in arms for him?” -Clarendon urged that if the design was to settle things, they might -hope “for a composure.” The Doctor, with his usual warmth, answered, -“It is impossible: there can be no Parliament: there must be no -Parliament. It is impossible!”<a id="FNanchor_62" href="#Footnote_62" class="fnanchor">[62]</a></p> - -<p>Clarendon made his way to Berwick—the house used by the Prince at -the time was in the possession of one of Clarendon’s relatives—there -he had a private conference with His Highness, and was received “very -obligingly.” The Earl wished that the opposing parties might come to -terms, and talked with Burnet, who, walking up and down the room, in -wonderful warmth exclaimed, “What treaty? How can there be a treaty? -The sword is drawn. There is a supposititious child, which must be -inquired into.” Clarendon was puzzled at Burnet’s conduct, and asked -him why the day before, at prayers in the Cathedral, he had behaved -so as to make the congregation stare; for when the usual collect -for the Sovereign was being repeated, he sat down in his stall and -made an “ugly noise.” Burnet replied, he could not join in the usual -supplications for James as King of England.<a id="FNanchor_63" href="#Footnote_63" class="fnanchor">[63]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>As William rode on horseback from Berwick to Salisbury,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_49">[49]</span> the people -flocked to see and bless him. He acknowledged their affectionate -salutations by taking off his hat, saying, “Thank you, good people. I -am come to secure the Protestant religion, and to free you from Popery.”</p> - -<p>William’s popularity advanced with hasty strides from the south to -the north and east of England, obtaining marked manifestation in -certain towns and cities, connected with other and somewhat similar -struggles. The nobility and gentry of the northern midland counties -met at Derby—where, a little more than half a century later, the -Pretender Charles Edward lodged for a few days, flushed with the hope -of recovering his grandfather’s crown—and there they declared it to be -their duty to endeavour the healing of present distractions, as they -apprehended the consequences which might arise from the landing of an -army. They wished there should be the calling of a free Parliament, -to which the Prince of Orange was willing to submit his pretensions. -At Nottingham, the refuge of the Princess Anne—where Charles I. had -raised his standard, and Colonel Hutchinson had held the Castle—many -of the upper and middle classes assembled, to enumerate grievances -under which the nation groaned. The laws, as they said, had become a -nose of wax, and being sensible of the influence of Jesuitical councils -in the Government, they avowed their determination not to deliver -posterity over to Rome and slavery, but to join with the Prince in -recovering their almost ruined laws, liberties, and religion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>At York—so closely connected with the Civil Wars—Sir Henry Gooderick, -in the Common Hall, addressed a hundred gentlemen to this effect, -“that there having been great endeavours made by the Government of -late years to bring Popery into the kingdom, and by many<span class="pagenum" id="Page_50">[50]</span> devices -to set at nought the laws of the land,” there could be no proper -redress of grievances “but by a free Parliament; that now was the -only time to prefer a petition of the sort; and that they could not -imitate a better pattern than had been set before them by several -Lords, spiritual and temporal.” Alarmed by flying reports of what -the Papists were about to do, the Earl of Danby, Lord Horton, Lord -Willoughby, and others, scoured the streets of the city at the head of -a troop, shouting, “A free Parliament, the Protestant religion, and no -Popery!”<a id="FNanchor_64" href="#Footnote_64" class="fnanchor">[64]</a> At Newcastle and at Hull—ground covered by Commonwealth -memories—demonstrations occurred in favour of a free Parliament. -In the fine old Market-place of Norwich, abounding in Puritan -associations, the Duke of Norfolk addressed the Mayor and citizens, -and talked of securing law, liberty, and the Protestant religion. Just -afterwards, the townsmen of King’s Lynn—where one meets with the -shades of Oliver Cromwell and the Earl of Manchester—responded to the -Duke in a strain like his own. Berwick-on-Tweed followed in the wake -of other towns. Even the heads of Houses at Oxford sent to the Prince -an assurance of support, and an invitation to visit them, telling him -that their plate, if needful, should be at his service.<a id="FNanchor_65" href="#Footnote_65" class="fnanchor">[65]</a> In short, -a flame of enthusiasm in favour of the Dutch deliverer spread from one -end of the land to the other.<a id="FNanchor_66" href="#Footnote_66" class="fnanchor">[66]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>I have shown that treachery weakened the cause of James; I am sorry to -say, that falsehood was employed in support of William. Two genuine -Declarations were published in his cause; a third appeared, of the -most violent description. It stated as his resolution, that all -Papists found with arms on their persons or<span class="pagenum" id="Page_51">[51]</span> in their houses, should -be treated as freebooters and banditti, be incapable of quarter, -and be delivered up to the discretion of his soldiers; all persons -assisting them were to be looked upon as partakers of their crimes. -It stated, also, that numerous Papists had of late resorted to London -and Westminster; that there was reason to suspect they did so, not for -their own security, but in order to make a desperate attempt upon those -places; and that French troops, procured by the interest and power of -the Jesuits, would, if possible, land in England, in “pursuance of -the engagements which, at the instigation of that pestilent Society, -His most Christian Majesty, with one of his neighbouring Princes of -the same communion, had entered into, for the utter extirpation of -the Protestant religion out of Europe.”<a id="FNanchor_67" href="#Footnote_67" class="fnanchor">[67]</a> Burnet, who was in the -secrets of the Prince’s Court, observes, “No doubt was made that it -was truly the Prince’s Declaration; but he knew nothing of it; and -it was never known who was the author of so bold a thing. No person -ever claimed the merit of it, for though it had an amazing effect, -yet, it seems he that contrived it apprehended that the Prince would -not be well pleased with the author of such an imposture in his name. -The King was under such a consternation, that he neither knew what -to resolve on, nor whom to trust.”<a id="FNanchor_68" href="#Footnote_68" class="fnanchor">[68]</a> It has been said<a id="FNanchor_69" href="#Footnote_69" class="fnanchor">[69]</a> that -the Declaration was not made public until after the Prince had left -Sherborne. William did not issue any counter Declaration nor publish -any repudiation of the document, but left it to produce its effect. -Such a want of straightforwardness contradicts his general character, -but most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_52">[52]</span> likely those about him, seeing how effective the Declaration -proved, prevented its being cancelled; still, if the main blame rests -with them, their master remains responsible for having at least winked -at the maxim of doing evil that good might come. Years afterwards -one Speke—who had been in the Prince’s army, and who was goaded by -revenge for his brother’s death under Judge Jeffreys—avowed himself -the fabricator of the infamous device, and said that he gave it to -the Prince with his own hand at Sherborne Castle; that His Highness -seemed somewhat surprised at first, but that when he had considered -it, he and those about him were not displeased. No credit can be given -to a man who played the part which Speke confessed he had done. Part -of his statement is improbable, and is contradicted by the relation -of circumstances given by Bishop Burnet. At all events, the effect of -the forgery was terrible, and soon afterwards this same man contrived -another and still more diabolical scheme. In the meanwhile, attempts at -negotiation went on. James had appointed Commissioners to meet William, -but things now reached a point rendering conferences utterly idle. The -Palace was thrown into confusion by the escape of the Royal family, and -the consternation of the Court is reflected in a much damaged letter, -brought under the notice of historical students by the Historical -MSS. Commission. “Your lordship,” says Turner, Bishop of Ely, under -date December 11, 1688, to Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol, both numbered -amongst the seven, “has heard by [this time that on] Sunday night, -the Queen and Prince of Wales [left] about 2 in the morning. They -went [in a boat with] oars to Lambeth, and so, without guards, in [a -coach] towards Gravesend, where a yacht lay for [them]. Many of quality -slink away daily. ’Tis believed [the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_53">[53]</span> Ki]ng will follow very suddenly. -<i>How are the mighty fallen.</i> [My] Lord, these are sad and strange -revolutions for our general [and grie]vous national sins, which God -Almighty forgive and relieve us. This minute I receive an advice from -the Earl of Rochester that the King is secretly withdrawn this morning. -God preserve him and direct us.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>James fled to Sheerness, having burnt the unissued Parliamentary writs, -and thrown into the Thames the Great Seal of the realm. Arrived at -Sheerness, he fell into the hands of the rabble, upon which, as De Foe -relates, “he applied himself to a clergyman in words to this effect: -‘Sir, ’tis men of your cloth have reduced me to this condition: I -desire you will use your endeavour to still and quiet the people, and -disperse them, that I may be freed from this tumult.’ The gentleman’s -answer was cold and insignificant, and going down to the people, he -returned no more to the King.”<a id="FNanchor_70" href="#Footnote_70" class="fnanchor">[70]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>What was to be done? Amidst consternation indescribable, some of the -Peers resolved to hold a meeting in Guildhall, the walls of which -had often echoed with popular cries of all sorts. At this meeting, -held December the 10th, amidst the temporal Lords there appeared the -Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the Bishops of Winchester, -Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough. The Archbishop of Canterbury -presided, and a sub-committee of three or four drew up a Declaration, -in which they promised to assist the Prince of Orange in obtaining a -Parliament for the welfare of England, the security of the Church, and -the freedom of Dissenters. This was signed by the two Archbishops, the -Bishops of Winchester, St. Asaph, Ely, Rochester, and Peterborough,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_54">[54]</span> -and by several Peers. A deputation of four, including the Bishop of -Ely, was appointed to wait upon His Highness. Riots followed. “No -Popery” became the general cry. Roman Catholic chapels were stripped -of furniture, in some instances the buildings were demolished. -Oranges—symbolic of the Deliverer—were stuck on the ends of spikes -and staves, and waved in triumph. The Embassies of Roman Catholic -countries were no longer safe, and the mansion of the Spanish Minister -was sacked. One act of vengeance will surprise no one who has read the -story of the previous reign: Jeffreys, disguised as a sailor, fell -into the hands of the mob, and narrowly escaped with life. Speke, not -satisfied with the fictitious Declaration, invented terrific stories -about massacres, which he said were already begun by the Irish. All -kinds of atrocities were to be perpetrated by the disbanded army. De -Foe repeated that, “the Irish dragoons which had fled from Reading, -rallied at Twyford, and having lost not many of their number—for -there were not above twelve men killed—marched on for Maidenhead, -swearing and cursing, after a most soldierly manner, that they would -burn all the towns wherever they came, and cut the throats of the -people.” He adds, that as he himself rode to Maidenhead, he learnt at -Slough that Maidenhead had been burnt, also Uxbridge and Reading. When -he came to Reading, he was assured Maidenhead and Oakingham were in -flames.<a id="FNanchor_71" href="#Footnote_71" class="fnanchor">[71]</a> Imagination invented all kinds of horrors. In consequence -of Speke’s letters came the <i>Irish night</i>, as it is called, -when the citizens of London, in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_55">[55]</span> utmost terror at the thought of -insurgents entering their gates and murdering them in their beds, sat -up till morning,—drums beating to arms, women screaming in agony, -lights blazing at windows, streets lined with soldiers, and the doors -of houses barricaded against the fancied foe. The panic could not be -confined to the Metropolis. It spread to the North; it reached Leeds. -Stories were told of Papists at Nottingham burning and slaying all -before them; whereupon, the people of Leeds mended their fire-arms and -fixed scythes on poles, kept watch and ward, and sent for the military, -who came in such strong force that they amounted to seven thousand -horse and foot. This pacified the inhabitants, until in the middle -of the night there rose a cry, “Horse and arms! horse and arms!—the -enemy are upon us! Beeston is actually burnt, and only some escaped -to bring the doleful tidings!” The bells were rung backwards, women -shrieked, candles were placed in the windows, armed horsemen rode -in the direction where the destroyers were expected; and men with -their wives and children, leaving all behind, even money and plate -upon the tables, ran for shelter to barns and haystacks. The terror -was so great that nothing like it had occurred since the Civil Wars; -but the immediate cause of it all turned out to be the shouting of -a few drunken people. Again came the cry of “Fire! fire! Horse and -arms! for God’s sake!”—simply because beacons were burning over the -town of Halifax. Whether deluded, or wishing to keep up an excitement -for political purposes, military expresses brought pretended advice -“that the Irish were broken into parties and dispersed.” The whole -was managed so artfully, that one who inquired into the matter could -not learn who contrived it.<a id="FNanchor_72" href="#Footnote_72" class="fnanchor">[72]</a> Hatred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_56">[56]</span> against the Roman Catholics, -kindled by atrocious falsehoods, contributed to strengthen a desire -for the expatriation of all priests; but other causes, according to -the confession of Jesuits themselves, helped to bring on the downfall -of Popery. Father Con, an active Jesuit in London, wrote a letter to -the provincial of his order at Rome, telling a story, in which he -ascribes a considerable share in the catastrophe, to his own party, and -especially to D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio. The mischief, he said, came -from their own avarice and ambition. The King had “made use of fools, -knaves, and blockheads,” and the favoured agent, instead of being a -“moderate, discreet, and sagacious minister,” was a “mere boy, a fine, -showy fop, to make love to the ladies.”<a id="FNanchor_73" href="#Footnote_73" class="fnanchor">[73]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>James, after a short detention at Sheerness, returned to London. Lord -Middleton heard of his coming, and hurriedly scrawled a note in these -words: “The King will be at Rochester this night, and intends to be -at Whitehall to-morrow; has ordered his coaches to meet him at his -lodgings.” Immediately from Westminster, under date “Dec. 15, 1688, 7 -at night,” the Bishop of Winchester wrote to Sancroft, “May it please -your Grace—and I am sure it will—His Majesty will be here to-morrow, -and his coaches and guard are to meet him at Dartford. This account and -orders came from my Lord Middleton.”<a id="FNanchor_74" href="#Footnote_74" class="fnanchor">[74]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>The discarded Monarch came, as Middleton said, and a gleam of loyalty -burst out once more, amidst bells and bonfires. The poor man almost -thought he should gain a new lease of power, and the frightened Papists -came out of holes and corners to welcome their regal friend.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_57">[57]</span> He even -ventured to assume a rather haughty tone, but in vain. The die was -cast. The Dutch Ambassador informed him that the Prince would allow no -Royal guards, but such as were under his own command. This amounted to -a demand of surrender. William was in a position to insist upon it. -Three Dutch battalions reached Whitehall at 10 o’clock on the night -of December the 17th. Before the morning a message arrived from the -Prince, requiring James to proceed to Ham, near Richmond. James said he -should prefer Rochester. It mattered little where he went. The party -in the ascendant only wished to get rid of him. He went to Rochester. -There we need not follow him. It is enough to notice that several -Bishops concurred in entreating him not to leave the country.<a id="FNanchor_75" href="#Footnote_75" class="fnanchor">[75]</a> From -Rochester he stole away to France. Next we find him at St. Germains.</p> - -<p>As the rejected King slipped down the Thames on the morning of December -the 18th, his destined successor was preparing to take up his quarters -at St. James’s Palace. He disappointed the people, who waited in -the rain to welcome him, by driving through the park. Attended by a -brilliant train of courtiers and officers, he reached the gateway -of the Royal residence late in the afternoon. The Princess Anne, -accompanied by Lady Churchill, both covered with orange ribbons, went -that night to the theatre in her father’s coach.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>William had ordered Burnet to secure the Papists from violence, -thinking perhaps of the probable consequences of the third Declaration. -He renewed the order after he had entered London; in consequence of it, -passports were granted to priests wishing to leave the country; and two -being imprisoned in Newgate, the busy ecclesiastical<span class="pagenum" id="Page_58">[58]</span> Minister of His -Highness paid them a visit, and took upon himself to provide for their -comfort. A little incident, recorded by Dr. Patrick, brings before -us vividly the excitement amongst Churchmen at that critical period. -“It was a very rainy night when Dr. Tenison and I being together, and -discoursing in my parlour, in the little cloisters in Westminster, -one knocked hard at the door. It being opened, in came the Bishop of -St. Asaph; to whom I said, ‘What makes your Lordship come abroad in -such weather, when the rain pours down as if heaven and earth would -come together?’ To which he answered, ‘He had been at Lambeth, and was -sent by the Bishops to wait upon the Prince, and know when they might -all come and pay their duty to him.’ I asked if my Lord of Canterbury -had agreed to it, together with the rest. He said, ‘Yea, he made some -difficulty at the first, but consented at the last, and ordered him to -go with that message.’”<a id="FNanchor_76" href="#Footnote_76" class="fnanchor">[76]</a></p> - -<p>Whitehall, which, up to the flight of James, had been crowded by -friends or time-servers, now became a desert; and St. James’s, which -had been a desert, now became a rendezvous for courtiers of every kind. -Those who held staves, keys, or other badges of office, laid them down; -and the whole herd of seekers, expectants, and claimants jostled one -another on the threshold of the house where the new master of England -had taken up his abode. Clarendon went to Court instantly, but could -not get near His Highness for the crowd of people.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE CRISIS.</div> - -<p>A clerical address appears to have been amongst the first, if not the -very first, presented to him on his arrival. At noon, after the rainy -night when the Bishop of St.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_59">[59]</span> Asaph knocked at a door in the little -cloisters at Westminster, Dr. Paman, a domestic of the Archbishop of -Canterbury, called on Dr. Patrick to inform him that the Prince had -appointed three o’clock in the afternoon to receive the Bishops. “Will -my Lord of Canterbury be with them?” asked Patrick. “Yes, yes,” was -the reply. Whether an interview between the Prince and any Bishops did -take place that day, or the messenger had mistaken the time, or the -appointment had been altered, certain it is that the Archbishop did not -go, and we have no particular account of the presentation of an address -before the 21st.</p> - -<p>On that occasion, Compton, Bishop of London, took the lead. Two days -before, he and some of his clergy met to agree upon an address. There -were present persons who desired the insertion of a passage to the -effect that the Prince should “have respect to the King, and preserve -the Church established by law;” and “one of considerable note refused -to go, because these clauses were not inserted.” Certain Nonconformists -heard what was going on, and requested they might unite with their -Episcopal brethren. Compton complied, and on Friday morning, the -21st, when the address was to be presented, sixteen early risers left -their homes and threaded their way through the dusky streets. “No -more could be got together in due time that morning, for the Bishop -was to make the address about 9 or 10 o’clock that day.” They deputed -Howe, Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo “to go with the conformable -clergy (who numbered about 99) and the Bishop of London to attend the -Prince.” Admitted to His Highness’s presence, the Bishop—a perfect -courtier—conducted the interview with becoming grace, addressing -him <i>viva voce</i>, and gratifying the Nonconformists by a special -reference to them as brethren who differed on some<span class="pagenum" id="Page_60">[60]</span> minor matters, -but in nothing substantial, and who fully concurred in the address -presented, “at which words, the Prince took particular notice of the -four Nonconformist ministers”—an incident which no doubt would give -rise to some talk that memorable Christmas-time.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>A large meeting of Presbyterian and Independent brethren was held -just afterwards, to depute four of their number to wait on Compton, -to thank him for his courtesy, and whilst they were considering this -matter, “there were divers bundles of the King’s letters, containing -the reasons of his withdrawing, delivered or thrown in amongst them -by a stranger. Some bundles had particular directions on them.” The -circumstance indicates the activity of James’ agents, and their idea -that he had special claims on the Dissenters, who had taken advantage -of his Indulgences. But, says the person who records the incident, -“they are the more fortified hereby in their purpose, that they may -cast off the imputation cast upon them by their enemies, as betrayers -of the religion and laws of the kingdom, by complying with the -Court.”<a id="FNanchor_77" href="#Footnote_77" class="fnanchor">[77]</a> Other Nonconformists, who did not hear of the Bishops’ -audience in sufficient time, presented a distinct address a few days -afterwards, promising “the utmost endeavour, which in their stations -they were capable of affording, for the promoting the excellent and -most desirable ends for which His Highness had declared.”<a id="FNanchor_78" href="#Footnote_78" class="fnanchor">[78]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_61">[61]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER III.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">England was now in the midst of a revolution. What was its character? -Its ecclesiastical aspects alone demand our attention, but these are so -closely connected with others, that we shall be compelled to look at -them all together. Politics and religion were inextricably interwoven. -They had been so in earlier changes. Changes mainly religious were also -political; changes mainly political were also religious. Lollardism -wrought a vast religious revolution, but though it principally aimed at -purifying the Church, it sought, as a means to that end, the amendment -of the State. The Reformation was pre-eminently an ecclesiastical -movement, but its political entanglements are obvious to everybody. -The Civil Wars were struggles for civil liberty—for the rights of the -people against the oppression of the Crown; but the religious spirit, -at first hidden in the heart of those conflicts, was so strong, and -soon burst out in other forms so conspicuously, that the Commonwealth -of England and the Protectorate of Cromwell became entangled with -ecclesiastical and theological controversies. The Revolution of 1688 -came in the wake of the Puritan movement.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688.</div> - -<p>The union between Church and State, which runs back through English -history to its earliest days, rendered this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_62">[62]</span> intermingling of interests -an unavoidable necessity. Great movements in the Church affected the -Government; great changes in the Government affected the Church. Whilst -this union is obviously a cause of additional complexity, no thoughtful -person can fail to discover in even the simplest principles of polity -and doctrine, forces which are sure to touch society in its temporal -interests, and render inevitable political developments of religion and -religious developments of politics. If the Church were separated from -the State to-morrow, a connexion between religion and politics would -remain.</p> - -<p>The two great political Revolutions of England in the 17th century -sprung from religious feeling, from religious antipathies, from -religious aspirations. Fiery impulses, kindled by faith, did more to -scorch and destroy civil despotism than any constitutional traditions, -any maxims of secular policy. Religion was the prime mover in the -events of 1688. Not only did ministers of religion take part in it, but -religion itself entered deeply into the political question. When moving -in one direction the Popery of James prompted him to play the despot, -and when moving in another direction the Protestantism of his subjects -impelled them to fight for their liberties—the two forces came in -contact, and issued in a crash, bringing about the King’s downfall and -the Prince’s elevation. The same influences led to a settlement of the -long-debated question of prerogative—they consolidated the power of -Parliament, they created the Bill of Rights; without such religious -enthusiasm as then existed, it may be doubted whether such a Revolution -would have been possible; and as it sprung from religious causes, so -the Revolution produced religious results. It checked the progress of -Popery, it inaugurated a new form of Protestant ascendency,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_63">[63]</span> which has -lasted down to our own time; it altered the position of the Church -Establishment; it materially modified the Act of Uniformity; and it -legally secured toleration. These subjects will claim attention as we -proceed, and a fuller estimate of the character of the Revolution had -better be deferred for the present.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>The Peers met in their own House on the 22nd of December. Nothing of -moment passed. The day before Christmas-day they met again, and we find -Clarendon, with a lingering regard for the Stuart family, asking for -an inquiry into the birth of the Prince of Wales, when Lord Wharton, -an old Puritan, indignantly replied, “My Lords, I did not expect, at -this time of day, to hear anybody mention that child, who was called -the Prince of Wales; indeed I did not, and I hope we shall hear no more -of him.” It was at last decided that an address should be presented to -the Prince of Orange to take on him the Administration of affairs, and -to issue circular-letters to the counties, cities, universities, and -cinque-ports, to send Representatives to a Convention at Westminster on -the 22nd of January following.<a id="FNanchor_79" href="#Footnote_79" class="fnanchor">[79]</a></p> - -<p>The Archbishop did not attend. Clarendon and the Bishop of Ely sent for -him, “but the King’s being gone had cast such a damp upon him that he -would not come.”<a id="FNanchor_80" href="#Footnote_80" class="fnanchor">[80]</a> James, soon after his flight, had written to the -Primate, informing him that, but for his hasty departure, he should -have explained the reasons of his becoming a Roman Catholic; that -although he had not thought proper to do this on a former occasion, -when his re-conversion had been attempted, yet he never refused -speaking freely with Protestants, especially with His Grace, “whom -he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_64">[64]</span> always considered to be his friend, and for whom he had a great -esteem.” His own “conversion had taken place in his riper years, and -on the full conviction of his mind as to the controverted points.”<a id="FNanchor_81" href="#Footnote_81" class="fnanchor">[81]</a> -Sancroft, with all his weakness, narrowness, and obstinacy, had a -kindness of heart, which, in spite of the treatment received from -the fallen Monarch, inspired compassion for him in a season of deep -adversity.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Clarendon busied himself in interviews with the Prelates, and we find -that on the 29th of December, he and the Bishops of St. Asaph and Ely -were together reading over the King’s reasons for leaving Rochester. -Different opinions of his conduct appear, together with Clarendon’s -predilections in favour of his old master, in the following passage of -his Diary—a Diary which sheds much light on that changeful time:—“The -Bishop of Ely and I were moved, but the Bishop of St. Asaph took -the paper, and began to comment upon it, saying it was a Jesuitical -masterpiece. I think I never heard more malicious inferences than he -drew from the King’s expression in that paper. Good God! where is -loyalty and Christian charity.”<a id="FNanchor_82" href="#Footnote_82" class="fnanchor">[82]</a> On New Year’s-day, 1689, amidst a -hard frost, Clarendon’s lingering loyalty to James did not prevent his -paying court to William; and afterwards visiting Sir Edward Seymour, -he heard him say, amongst other things, the countenance shown by the -Prince to Dissenters “gave too much cause of jealousy to the Church of -England,” and if that Church were not supported, England would “run -into a Commonwealth, and all would be ruined.”<a id="FNanchor_83" href="#Footnote_83" class="fnanchor">[83]</a></p> - -<p>Another interesting peep into ecclesiastical secrets<span class="pagenum" id="Page_65">[65]</span> is afforded -by Clarendon, whose report, for the sake of accuracy, had better be -preserved in his own words:—</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>“I went to dinner at Lambeth: Dr. Tenison with me. We went over the -bridge, by reason the river was so full of ice, that boats could not -pass. After dinner I spoke to the Archbishop (as I had done several -times before) of going to the Prince of Orange, or sending some message -to him by some of the Bishops: for he had yet taken no notice at all of -him: but he was positive not to do it, for the reasons he formerly gave -me. We then spoke to him of the approaching Convention, and whether -he would not think of preparing something against that time in behalf -of the Dissenters. Dr. Tenison added, it would be expected something -should be offered in pursuance of the petition which the seven Bishops -had given to the King: for which they had been put into the Tower. -The Archbishop said, he knew well what was in their petition; and he -believed every Bishop in England intended to make it good, when there -was an opportunity of debating those matters in Convocation; but till -then, or without a commission from the King, it was highly penal to -enter upon Church matters; but, however, he would have it in his mind, -and would be willing to discourse any of the Bishops or other Clergy -thereupon, if they came to him; though he believed the Dissenters -would never agree among themselves with what concessions they would -be satisfied. To which Dr. Tenison replied, he believed so too; that -he had not discoursed with any of them upon this subject; and the way -to do good was, not to discourse with them, but for the Bishops to -endeavour to get such concessions settled in Parliament, the granting -whereof (whether accepted or not by the Dissenters) should be good for -the Church. The Archbishop answered, that when there was a Convocation, -those<span class="pagenum" id="Page_66">[66]</span> matters would be considered of; and in the meantime, he knew -not what to say, but that he would think of what had been offered by -us.”<a id="FNanchor_84" href="#Footnote_84" class="fnanchor">[84]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>What the thoughts of the Archbishop were just then with regard to -Dissenters, it is impossible to say. It is otherwise respecting his -opinion upon another point.</p> - -<p>All Protestants, high and low, had united for some months in one -thing—the desire for a Revolution which should put a stop to the -reign of prerogative, and place the liberties of the country upon a -legal basis. But what exactly was the Revolution to be? Who was to -be Ruler in the room of James? As to this pressing subject, opinions -ran in divergent lines. The Archbishop, suffering from ill-health, -worried by distractions around him, shut himself up in his Palace that -cold Christmas-time, and covered closely, with his own neat hand, -twenty-five pages of paper, from which we learn how he looked at the -politics of the hour. Gazing at the engravings taken from his portrait -in Lambeth Palace, we see him—with his simple, honest face, and a -close black cap, such as gives the wearer a Puritan look, but for a -pair of lawn sleeves sometimes worn—industriously putting down the -<i>pros</i> and <i>cons</i> of the puzzle.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>The King is gone. The Government is without a pilot. The captain of -a foreign force is at the head of affairs. How is the Government to -be settled legally and securely? Shall the commander of the foreign -force be declared King, and solemnly crowned? Shall the next heir—the -Princess Mary (the Prince of Wales is not mentioned)—be Queen, her -husband acquiring an interest in the government through her right? -or shall the King be declared incapable of personal government, the -commander<span class="pagenum" id="Page_67">[67]</span> being made <i>Custos Regni</i>, who shall administer affairs -in the King’s name? “I am clearly of opinion,” writes the perplexed -critic, “that the last way is the best, and that a settlement cannot be -made so justifiable and lasting any other way.”<a id="FNanchor_85" href="#Footnote_85" class="fnanchor">[85]</a> We cannot proceed -through the prolix dissertation in which Sancroft endeavours to support -his conclusion. Every word proves his simplicity and conscientiousness, -but a weaker set of reasons, and a set of reasons more pedantically -expressed, one rarely meets with. Both the moral and intellectual -sides of the man’s character are apparent throughout. But for the -theory of the divine right of kings, and the subject’s duty of passive -obedience, which acted as a spell upon his mind, it would be impossible -to conceive how a person of ordinary intelligence could advocate such -a scheme as he did. Before long it must have been found unmanageable, -leading to a second Revolution. While professedly concocted for the -purpose of maintaining James’ kingly rights, it stripped him of all -power; and curiously enough, as appears on a moment’s reflection, it -is open to precisely the objections which had been brought against the -Puritan Commonwealth’s-men, who administered government against the -King in the King’s own name. To call James sovereign, with William as -<i>Custos Regni</i>, was to use words in the way Pym and Hampden and -Cromwell had done. What makes Sancroft’s conduct the more inconsistent -is, that he and his party supported the Act of Uniformity, which -required the Clergy to abhor that traitorous position of taking arms -by the King’s authority against the King’s person, or against those -commissioned by him. Must not William have done this, if Sancroft’s -advice had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_68">[68]</span> adopted? Must he not have defended his Regency by -force against the nominal Monarch, who would have regarded that Regency -as a flagrant usurpation?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Archbishop anxiously consulted with some of the Bishops of his -province touching this subject, and when the meetings became publicly -known, they received the name of the Lambeth, or Holy Jacobite -Club.<a id="FNanchor_86" href="#Footnote_86" class="fnanchor">[86]</a> They did not all agree. Four of them went home one day from -Lambeth, in the coach of Turner, Bishop of Ely, deploring they should -disagree in anything, and especially in such a thing as that which all -the world must needs observe. Turner wrote immediately afterwards to -the Primate, asking him to draw up propositions against deposition and -election, or anything else which would break the succession, because -he was better versed than his brethren in canons and statutes, out of -which the propositions ought to be drawn. Ken, he said, had left a -draft with him, which might facilitate a completion of the task. The -afternoon of the same day, Turner was to hold a meeting in Ely House, -at which Patrick, Tenison, Sherlock, Scott, and Burnet were to be -present, as well as two Bishops—St. Asaph and Peterborough. These men -were of diverse opinions; how they got on together we do not know, but -it appears some underhand work occurred in reference to James on the -part of the Bishop of Ely. He enclosed, in his letter to Lambeth, a -paper to be kept very private, of which he says, it “may be published -one day, to show we have not been wanting<span class="pagenum" id="Page_69">[69]</span> faithfully to serve a hard -master in his extremity; and for the present it will be proof enough -to your Grace, that although I have made some steps, which you could -not, towards our new masters, I did it purely to serve our old one, -and preserve the public.”<a id="FNanchor_87" href="#Footnote_87" class="fnanchor">[87]</a> At any rate, Sancroft appears more -straightforward in this business than some of his brethren.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Clarendon and Evelyn met at Lambeth Palace the Bishops of St. Asaph, -Ely, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, and Chichester. They prayed, dined, -and discoursed together. Outside, some persons were disposed to have -the Princess proclaimed Queen without hesitation; others inclined to a -Regency; a Tory party wished to invite the King back upon conditions; -Republicans preferred to have the Prince of Orange constituted an -English Stadtholder; and the Popish party simply aimed at throwing the -whole country into confusion, with the hope of something springing out -of it to serve their ends. Evelyn records that he saw nothing of this -variety of objects in the assembly of Bishops, who were unanimous for a -Regency, and for suffering public matters to proceed in the name of the -King.<a id="FNanchor_88" href="#Footnote_88" class="fnanchor">[88]</a> Such perfect unanimity, however, as Evelyn supposed, could -not have existed if Clarendon be right, who says he feared the Bishop -of St. Asaph had been wheedled by Burnet into supporting the transfer -of the Crown, and would be induced to make the King’s going away a -<i>cession</i>—a word Burnet fondly used.<a id="FNanchor_89" href="#Footnote_89" class="fnanchor">[89]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The presence of the Primate at the Convention about to be held was of -the first importance, and Clarendon earnestly urged his attendance; -but the obstinacy of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_70">[70]</span> one equalled the importunity of the other. -Sancroft would not go, nor would he visit His Highness. “Would you have -me kill myself?” he petulantly asked his noble friend; “do you not see -what a cold I have?” “No,” said the Earl; “but it would do well if you -would excuse your not waiting on the Prince, by letting him know what a -cold you have, and that you will wait on him when it is gone.” All the -reply he could get was, “I will consider of it.”<a id="FNanchor_90" href="#Footnote_90" class="fnanchor">[90]</a></p> - -<p>Whatever might be the opinions of the Lambeth party, the Bishop of -London shared neither in their counsels nor in their sympathy. He -wished to see the Princess Mary Queen Regent, leaving her at liberty, -if she liked, to bestow upon her husband, by consent of Parliament, the -title of King. Nor did the prevalent desire of the councillors of the -Archbishop, for a Regent who should rule in the King’s name, satisfy -all James’ Anglican adherents. Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had at -his back a large number of Divines, and he contended for inviting James -back to Whitehall, with such stipulations as would secure the safety -and peace of the realm—an utterly Utopian idea. Burnet, on the other -hand, talked of William’s having acquired a right to the Crown based -on conquest—a notion scouted by most Englishmen. Nine-tenths of the -Clergy were for upholding the cause of hereditary monarchy; but this -large majority broke up into several sections, nor did the remaining -tenth part entirely agree.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Neither were Nonconformists of one mind. Some were so engrossed in -the discharge of spiritual duties that they paid surprisingly little -attention to the questions of the day. The biographer of Oliver -Heywood<span class="pagenum" id="Page_71">[71]</span> informs us that little remains in his papers to show what he -thought of the Revolution, politically regarded. His mind rested on -one point—the liberty of preaching, and it seemed indifferent to him -whether it came by a Royal Declaration or by an Act of Parliament.<a id="FNanchor_91" href="#Footnote_91" class="fnanchor">[91]</a> -Matthew Henry states that it was not without fear and trembling his -father Philip received the tidings of the Prince’s landing, “as being -somewhat in the dark concerning the clearness of his call, and dreading -what might be the consequence of it,”—that he used to say, “Give peace -in our time, O Lord,” was a prayer to which he could add his Amen; -but he stopped there. However, when the Revolution was accomplished, -he rejoiced in the consequences, and joined in the national -thanksgiving.<a id="FNanchor_92" href="#Footnote_92" class="fnanchor">[92]</a></p> - -<p>Another class of Nonconformists were in an awkward position. Their -fault had been that they identified themselves with men and measures -out of all harmony with their own principles. William Penn, Vincent -Alsop, Stephen Lobb, and others had signed obsequious addresses to -James. They had blindly credited him with a love for religious liberty, -and had really, though not intentionally, upheld his despotism. But in -this emergency they presented no word of condolence to the man whom -they had helped to befool, nor did they attempt anything to save him -from his impending fate. A double inconsistency marked their conduct: -first, they contradicted their profession of liberal principles; next, -they contradicted their profession of personal regard. They were galled -by the reproach of enemies, also they must have felt reproaches of -conscience.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Another class of Nonconformists had, without any compromise, availed -themselves of the liberty offered<span class="pagenum" id="Page_72">[72]</span> them, though disliking the -unconstitutional quarter whence it came. When the Revolution took -place, most of these, and others who survived to witness it, were -delighted and thankful. What John Howe did appears from what I have -said already, and shall have to say hereafter. Baxter had become -too old and infirm to take any active part in public business. -Fairclough, Stancliffe, and Mayo, as we have seen, joined Howe in the -clerical address to William on the 21st of December; others presented -congratulations afterwards.</p> - -<p>If Protestant Nonconformists formed a twentieth part of the population, -the community to that extent may be reckoned as rejoicing in the -downfall of James; probably by far the larger part supported the claims -of William; yet a few old Republicans—Independent and Baptist—would, -I apprehend, have preferred to see a Commonwealth, with the Prince of -Orange in a presidential chair, such as the Lord Protector Cromwell had -occupied.</p> - -<p>It is no part of my task to describe minutely the method by which -the new settlement was effected: an outline is sufficient. A meeting -had been summoned by His Highness for the 26th of December, 1688, to -consist, first, of all such persons as had been Knights or Burgesses -in any of the Parliaments of Charles II.; and next, of the Lord Mayor -and Aldermen of the City of London, with fifty of the Common Council -chosen by the whole body. This mode of proceeding appears remarkably -conservative, and so far was in harmony with all the great changes -wrought in the political government of this country.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>When those who formed this meeting mooted the question, “What authority -they had to assemble,” they agreed, “that the request of His Highness -the Prince was a sufficient warrant,” and proceeded to entrust him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_73">[73]</span> -with the administration of public affairs until a Convention should be -held, which he was to call by writs addressed to the Lords temporal -and spiritual, being Protestants, and to the counties, universities, -cities, and boroughs of England.<a id="FNanchor_93" href="#Footnote_93" class="fnanchor">[93]</a></p> - -<p>A Convention being elected, the members met on the 22nd of January, -1689. It was composed of Protestants alone. These Protestants being -chiefly Whigs, and those Whigs numbering an immense majority of -Episcopalians, perhaps not more than twenty Nonconformists were -returned—a fact which ought to be carefully borne in mind.</p> - -<p>The day on which the Commons assembled, the Lords also appeared, to -the number of about ninety, of whom sixteen were spiritual Peers. No -prayers were read; the first thing done, after a short letter from the -Prince had been laid on the table, was the appointment of a day of -solemn thanksgiving.</p> - -<p>Eleven Bishops were selected to draw up a form for the purpose, -and it does not appear that any of them scrupled to undertake this -service.<a id="FNanchor_94" href="#Footnote_94" class="fnanchor">[94]</a> The 30th of January fell on a Sunday; and in such a case -it had been arranged that the office for Charles’ martyrdom should be -used on that day, and the observances of the fast transferred to the -next. On the 30th, however, Evelyn notices that “in all the public -offices and pulpit prayers, the collects and litany for the King and -Queen were curtailed and mutilated.” On the 31st the thanksgiving set -aside the fast. Burnet preached before the Commons, saying, “You feel -a great deal, and promise a great deal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_74">[74]</span> more; and your are now in the -right way to it, when you come with the solemnities of thanksgiving to -offer up your acknowledgments to that Fountain of Life to whom you owe -this new lease of your own.”<a id="FNanchor_95" href="#Footnote_95" class="fnanchor">[95]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Bishop of St. Asaph, whose political sympathies have been -indicated, was appointed to preach before the Lords at Westminster -Abbey on the 31st, but according to Clarendon, Mr. Gee took his -place.<a id="FNanchor_96" href="#Footnote_96" class="fnanchor">[96]</a></p> - -<p>The House of Commons, after the customary formalities, and the election -of Mr. Powle as Speaker, and an expression of concurrence in the Lords’ -order respecting a day of thanksgiving, proceeded, on the 28th, to -debate on the state of the nation. Amidst multifarious topics, Popery, -the Church, and the divine right of kings were prominent; and the next -day Colonel Birch, the Puritan, gave his view of past and present -struggles by saying, “These forty years we have been scrambling for -our religion, and have saved but little of it. We have been striving -against Antichrist, Popery, and Tyranny.”<a id="FNanchor_97" href="#Footnote_97" class="fnanchor">[97]</a></p> - -<p>The House voted that King James II., having endeavoured to subvert the -constitution of this kingdom by breaking the original contract between -King and people, and, by advice of Jesuits and other wicked persons, -having violated the fundamental laws, and withdrawn himself out of -the Kingdom, had abdicated the government, and that the throne was -thereby vacant. The next day it was resolved that it had been found -by experience to be inconsistent with the safety and welfare of this -Protestant Kingdom to be governed by a Popish Prince.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_75">[75]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Thanks were given to the clergymen who had assailed Popery, and had -refused to read the King’s Declaration.<a id="FNanchor_98" href="#Footnote_98" class="fnanchor">[98]</a> Things deemed necessary -for better securing religious liberty and law were reported from a -Committee, who particularly specified, “effectual provision to be made -for the liberty of Protestants in the exercise of their religion, and -for uniting all Protestants in the matter of public worship as far as -may be”—in which provision, are found germs of the Toleration and -Comprehension Bills.</p> - -<p>The Lords at once agreed with the Commons in their vote for a -Protestant succession; but about the vote declaring the throne vacant, -much discussion arose. Without formally admitting that the throne was -vacant—only for the present supposing it to be so—they wished to -determine, first, whether supreme power for the present ought to be -devolved on a Regent or on a King. This point had been keenly debated -by Sancroft and his brethren. He was not present now, but they were; -and in the minority of 49 for a Regency against 51 for a King, occur -the names of thirteen Prelates, including the Bishop of St. Asaph, -who in this matter had not been “wheedled” by Burnet, as Clarendon -surmised. Indeed, the prejudice conceived against a deposing power, as -a Popish art, had so impressed the minds of the Clergy, that no Bishop -approved of filling the throne anew, except the Bishops of London -and Bristol.<a id="FNanchor_99" href="#Footnote_99" class="fnanchor">[99]</a> The question raised in an abstract form—whether or -no there was an original contract between King and people—involved -a controversy touching divine right, which most of the Bishops had -maintained. For the principle of a social<span class="pagenum" id="Page_76">[76]</span> compact, 53 Peers voted -against 46, the Bishops being included amongst the latter. The idea of -a contract being adopted, nobody could dispute that James had broken -it; but the Peers decided to substitute the words, “<i>deserted</i> -the Government,” for the Commons’ phrase, “<i>abdicated</i> the -Government;” nor would the majority allow the word <i>vacant</i> to -stand, inasmuch as, by a constitutional fiction, the King never dies; -and in the present case, so some contended, the Crown legitimately -devolved upon the Princess of Orange—the claim of the infant Prince -of Wales being given up by all parties. The two Houses were thus at -issue on a fundamental point; and the London citizens became alarmed. -The dispute found its way into the coffee-houses, into groups walking -and lounging in the parks, and into private families, Whigs and -Tories debating the problem as a vital one. The people assembled at -the doors of the Convention to present petitions for the accession -of William and Mary to the throne; they loaded with curses members -crossing the threshold, or showered upon them benedictions, according -as they believed them to stand affected towards the momentous matter in -dispute.<a id="FNanchor_100" href="#Footnote_100" class="fnanchor">[100]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>A conference ensued between the Houses. The Bishop of Ely strenuously -argued against using the word <i>abdication</i>, or regarding the -throne as vacant; he hoped that Lords and Commons would agree in -this, not to break the line of succession, not to make the Crown -elective.<a id="FNanchor_101" href="#Footnote_101" class="fnanchor">[101]</a> He wished to save the divine right. By some persons -the idea was entertained of making William sole King—an idea which -Burnet resisted, heart and soul, in a conversation held with Bentinck, -the Prince’s principal friend.<a id="FNanchor_102" href="#Footnote_102" class="fnanchor">[102]</a> Amidst the heats of this debate, -the Prince thought it time for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_77">[77]</span> him to express his sentiments. It had -been proposed, he said, to settle the Government in the hands of a -Regent;—that might be a wise project. It had also been suggested that -the Princess should succeed to the throne, and that he, by courtesy, -might share in her power. Her rights he would not oppose, her virtues -he respected. But for himself, he would accept no dignity dependent -upon the life of another, or on the will of a woman. Should either of -the schemes be adopted, he would return to Holland, satisfied with -the consciousness of having endeavoured to serve England, though in -vain.<a id="FNanchor_103" href="#Footnote_103" class="fnanchor">[103]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>William’s decision took effect, and the conference ended in dropping -what was theoretical, and in coming to a practical resolution—that the -Prince and Princess of Orange should be declared King and Queen. The -Lords carried this by 62 against 47. Forty of the latter protested, -amongst whom were twelve out of the seventeen Bishops present. The five -who went with the majority were Compton, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Sprat, -Hall, and Crew.<a id="FNanchor_104" href="#Footnote_104" class="fnanchor">[104]</a> Crew, the time-serving Bishop of Durham, had -supported James in his obnoxious measures, had fled at the outbreak -of the Revolution, had been lurking on the coast for a vessel to -convey him abroad, and had returned in time to secure the advantage of -supporting the new Sovereign. It has often been said that the Bishops -accomplished the Revolution. No doubt the seven imprisoned in the -Tower brought on the crisis which terminated in the new settlement, -and so far were the authors of the change. Certain of the brethren -contributed, in the way I have described, to terminate the despotism -of James II., but all the seven decidedly disapproved of the Prince of -Orange being constituted King, and two-thirds<span class="pagenum" id="Page_78">[78]</span> of the other Bishops -agreed with them in this respect.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Commons would not unite in the settlement approved by the Lords -until they had carefully asserted the fundamental principles upon which -they based the Revolution. The Declaration of Right, embodying these -principles, having recited the unconstitutional acts of James—his -endeavours to extirpate the Protestant religion, and to subvert the -laws and liberties of the kingdom—goes on to state that the Prince of -Orange had summoned the Convention, which Convention did now specify -the ancient liberties of the English people. Amongst them appear the -right of petition, freedom of Parliamentary debate, and the duty of -the Crown frequently to call together the representatives of the -people.<a id="FNanchor_105" href="#Footnote_105" class="fnanchor">[105]</a> William and Mary are then solemnly declared to be King and -Queen; the succession is determined to be in the issue of the latter; -in default of such issue, in Anne of Denmark and her heirs; in default -of her issue, then in the heirs of the King.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>In this Parliamentary transaction two things appear, which have been -ever kept in sight under Anglo-Saxon and Anglo-Norman dynasties, -namely, hereditary right and popular election. That the crown should -pass from a Monarch to one of his own blood had been a fundamental<span class="pagenum" id="Page_79">[79]</span> law -from the beginning, modified by a choice of the people in any great -crisis, when the interests of the nation have been seen to depend upon -the succession of one Royal personage rather than another. In 1688, -respect was paid to the ancient tradition. In the Bill of Rights the -hereditary claim is distinctly set forth. “It is curious to observe -with what address this temporary solution of continuity is kept from -the eye, whilst all that could be found in this act of necessity to -countenance the idea of an hereditary succession is brought forward -and fostered and made the most of.” “The Lords and Commons fall to a -pious, legislative ejaculation, and declare that they consider it ‘as -a marvellous providence, and merciful goodness of God to this nation, -to preserve their said Majesties’ royal persons, most happily to reign -over us on the throne of their ancestors, for which, from the bottom of -their hearts, they return their humblest thanks and praises.’”<a id="FNanchor_106" href="#Footnote_106" class="fnanchor">[106]</a></p> - -<p>But the election of William and Mary, though veiled under a reference -to the throne of their ancestors, is really the point upon which their -accession hinged. Mary’s accession might, by those who disbelieved -that the Prince of Wales was James’ son, be made to depend entirely on -natural descent, but the accession of William could not rest on that -ground; his election was essential to the legitimacy of his rights. -Yet there was no setting aside of any divine laws, no contempt for -the teaching of Scripture, as was pretended by nonjurors. When we are -told “the powers that be are ordained of God,” those words invest with -divine authority all constitutional governments, whether Monarchical -or Republican, whether entirely by descent or wholly by election, or -partly by one<span class="pagenum" id="Page_80">[80]</span> and partly by the other; they do not apply alone to -Kings and their eldest sons. To plead nonjuring interpretations of -Scripture in England at the Revolution tended to make men slaves, even -as to plead them now in America would make men rebels.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The oaths of allegiance prescribed, as they led to momentous -consequences, ought to be given. “I, A. B., do sincerely promise and -swear, That I will be faithful, and bear true allegiance to their -Majesties King William and Queen Mary. So help me God.” “I, A. B., do -swear, That I do from my heart abhor, detest, and abjure, as impious -and heretical, this damnable doctrine and position, That Princes -excommunicated or deprived by the Pope, or any authority of the See -of Rome, may be deposed or murdered by their subjects, or any other -whatsoever. And I do declare, That no foreign prince, person, prelate, -state or potentate, hath, or ought to have, any jurisdiction, power, -superiority, pre-eminence, or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, -within this realm. So help me God.”<a id="FNanchor_107" href="#Footnote_107" class="fnanchor">[107]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Before the completion of this Parliamentary manifesto, the Princess -Mary had come to England; and upon the 13th of February she took her -place beside her husband in the Banqueting-house at Whitehall under -a canopy of State, when the two Speakers, followed by the Lords and -Commons respectively, were conducted into their presence by the -Usher of the Black Rod, to offer the Crown upon conditions implied -in the Declaration of Rights. When the document had been read, the -Prince replied, “This is certainly the greatest proof of the trust -you have in us that can be given, which is the thing which makes us -value it the more; and we thankfully accept<span class="pagenum" id="Page_81">[81]</span> what you have offered -to us. And as I had no other intention in coming hither, than to -preserve your religion, laws, and liberties, so you may be sure that -I shall endeavour to support them, and shall be willing to concur in -anything that shall be for the good of the kingdom; and to do all -that is in my power to advance the welfare and glory of the nation.” -The day on which this tender was accepted, saw once more the gorgeous -ceremonial by which Kings and Queens in England had been proclaimed. -A long line of coaches passed from Westminster to the City, with a -brilliant array of marshals’ men, trumpeters, and heralds. A pause -at Temple Bar at the Gates, and then a formal opening took place in -due order. The Lord Mayor in a coach, and the Aldermen, Sheriffs, and -Recorder on horseback, conducted the Peers and Commons to the middle of -Cheapside—the train bands lining the way. Then, after declaring that -God had vouchsafed a miraculous deliverance from Popery and arbitrary -power through His Highness the Prince of Orange, and after referring -to the great and eminent virtue of Her Highness the Princess, whose -zeal for the Protestant religion was sure to bring a blessing upon this -nation—the heralds proclaimed William and Mary “King and Queen of -England, France, and Ireland, with all the dominions and territories -thereunto belonging.”<a id="FNanchor_108" href="#Footnote_108" class="fnanchor">[108]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>That evening, the Queen sent two of her Chaplains to the Archbishop of -Canterbury to beg his blessing; and, by a suspicious combination of -two errands, desired them to attend the service in Lambeth Chapel, and -notice whether prayers were offered for the Sovereigns. The Chaplain -being alarmed, asked His Grace what should be done: he replied, “I -have no new instructions to give.”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_82">[82]</span> The Chaplain interpreted this as -entrusting him with a discretionary power, and, wishing to keep the -Primate out of difficulty, prayed for the King and Queen who had just -been proclaimed. The act provoked Sancroft, who sent for the Chaplain, -and commanded him either to desist from such petitions, or to cease -from officiating in Lambeth; for so long as King James lived, no other -person could be Sovereign of England. Sancroft’s conviction that a -Regency was the right thing seems to have deepened, when in the opinion -of everybody else it passed utterly out of the question; for the -Primate had a temper which increased in obstinacy in proportion as the -object pursued became unattainable.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The appointment of officers of State immediately followed the accession -to the throne. The reader will bear in mind what has been said in -former volumes respecting the mode of administering affairs in the -Stuart reigns. No Ministry, in our sense of the term, existed then, -men of different political opinions being employed as functionaries of -Government. This usage survived the Revolution; and William surrounded -himself with Whigs and Tories. Reserving to himself the Ministry of -Foreign Affairs, he appointed as President of the Council the Earl of -Danby, although that nobleman differed from him in many opinions. Danby -had countenanced encroachments by the Royal prerogatives; he had even -maintained the doctrine of passive obedience. That doctrine he was now, -through the necessities of the times, forced to abandon, and by serving -under a Monarch whose throne rested on the Declaration of Rights, he -virtually repudiated his earlier opinions. He had also persecuted -Dissenters—a policy now professedly abandoned. Yet there remained in -Lord Danby a strong attachment to high ecclesiastical views, and he -was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_83">[83]</span> zealous for the old connection between Church and Crown as the -best method of preserving both. Halifax, described as the Trimmer,<a id="FNanchor_109" href="#Footnote_109" class="fnanchor">[109]</a> -had become more of a Liberal, and to him was entrusted the Privy Seal -and the Speakership of the Upper House. The Earl of Nottingham—another -deserter from the Tory ranks—professed that although his principles -did not allow him to take part in making William King, they bound him, -now that the deed was done, to pay His Majesty a more strict obedience -than he could expect from those who had made him Sovereign. He accepted -the office of a Secretary of State—an act which, like that of Danby, -served to give weight to the new administration in the eyes of Tories -and High Churchmen. Shrewsbury, a popular Whig, and a young man of -twenty-eight, was the other Secretary. The Great Seal came into the -hands of Commissioners, the chief of whom was Sir John Maynard, who -had upheld the Petition of Rights in 1628, had voted with the country -party in the struggles preceding the Civil Wars, had subscribed the -League and Covenant, and had advised Cromwell to accept the Crown. He -was ninety years of age, and when presented to William at Whitehall the -Prince remarked, he must have survived all the lawyers of his time. He -replied, “he had like to have outlived the law itself, if His Highness -had not come over.”<a id="FNanchor_110" href="#Footnote_110" class="fnanchor">[110]</a> The Treasury fell into the hands of Whigs, -amongst whom was Godolphin, the husband of Margaret Blagge, a man of -practical ability, but of no fixed principle, a staunch Churchman, yet -one of a class that could live amongst Jesuits under King James, and -could keep on terms with Presbyterians under King William.</p> - -<p>This administration—a Joseph’s coat of many colours—proceeded<span class="pagenum" id="Page_84">[84]</span> from -a compromise which under existing circumstances seemed unavoidable. -Intended to please different parties, it actually displeased them—a -fact soon manifested. But no political appointment aroused so much -criticism as the nomination of Burnet to the See of Salisbury. That See -had become vacant through the death of Seth Ward; and it was the first -piece of ecclesiastical preferment of which William had to dispose -after his accession to the throne. The nomination of Bishops in our -own time has occasionally provoked immense discussion, but perhaps -nobody ever stepped up to the Episcopal Bench amidst such showers of -abuse as Gilbert Burnet. To select a High Churchman would have been -inconsistent and disastrous; and amongst eligible Low Churchmen, no one -had such strong claims upon William as the friend whom he and his wife -had consulted at the Hague, the Chaplain who had come with his Fleet, -the Secretary who had drawn up his Declarations, and the clergyman who -had advocated his cause from the pulpit. But the very grounds upon -which rested Burnet’s claims made him the more objectionable to many. -These grounds were decidedly political, yet though many a Bishop has -been appointed for political reasons, the services now enumerated -were not exactly such as to indicate qualification for the office of -a spiritual overseership. At the same time it is unfair to Burnet’s -memory not to say, that he was a man of piety, Protestant zeal, varied -learning, large experience, and indefatigable industry. At a later -period, after time had worn down the asperities of the controversy, -a mitre could with much propriety have been given him; but it was -scarcely in accordance with William’s policy in political appointments -to bestow it at once upon one who had obtrusively acted as a partisan, -and inspired so much dislike in the opposite party. It<span class="pagenum" id="Page_85">[85]</span> should be -further stated that many Churchmen were deeply offended at Burnet’s -elevation, because they had a strong aversion to what they call his -Latitudinarian and Low Church views. Consequently, when it came to the -point of sanctioning by consecration the Royal nominee, a difficulty -arose. The Dean and Chapter of Salisbury were as prompt to elect as the -King to propose; but the Archbishop of Canterbury no sooner heard of -the <i>congé d’élire</i>, than he refused to engage in the requisite -solemnity. Burnet himself goes so far as to say that Sancroft refused -even to see him on the subject.<a id="FNanchor_111" href="#Footnote_111" class="fnanchor">[111]</a> No friendly influence could induce -the Primate to swerve from his determination; but by an evasion, such -as unfortunately too often commends itself to clerical judgments, -he resolved to grant a commission for others to do what he declined -to do himself. The Vicar-General appeared, produced the commission, -and through his officers received the usual fees. To make the matter -worse, when the Archbishop’s conduct was complained of by his own -party, either he, or some one in his name, contrived to abstract the -document from the Registrar’s office; and it could not be recovered -until after Sancroft’s death, when Burnet threatened to commence legal -proceedings for obtaining what was necessary to prove the validity of -his consecration and his right to the Bishopric.<a id="FNanchor_112" href="#Footnote_112" class="fnanchor">[112]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Some Churchmen soon manifested their dissatisfaction with the turn -affairs had taken; and Maynard, the first Commissioner of the Great -Seal, remarked, in a debate upon making the Convention a Parliament, -“There is a great danger in sending out writs at this time, if you -consider what a ferment the nation is in; and I think the Clergy are -out of their wits, and I believe, if the Clergy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_86">[86]</span> should have their -wills, few or none of us should be here again.” The remark brought up -Sir Thomas Clarges, who defended the Ministers in the Metropolis, and -praised the Church as a bulwark during the late trials. “Clarges speaks -honestly,” replied Maynard, “as I believe he thinks. As for the Clergy, -I have much honour for High and Low of them; but I must say they are -in a ferment—there are pluralists among them, and when they should -preach the Gospel, they preach against the Parliament and the law of -England.”<a id="FNanchor_113" href="#Footnote_113" class="fnanchor">[113]</a> At a moment when some showed dissatisfaction towards -William, and the highest legal officer of the Crown thus talked about -Churchmen, Lord Danby complained to His Majesty that he did all he -could to encourage Presbyterians, and to dishearten Episcopalians—a -circumstance which, he said, could not fail to be prejudicial to his -Government and to himself.<a id="FNanchor_114" href="#Footnote_114" class="fnanchor">[114]</a> It is certain that no sooner had -William as King of England grasped the reins, than intrigues became -rife; thoughts arose of bringing back James, and men in office began to -express a want of confidence in the New Settlement. Halifax muttered -something to the effect that if the exiled King were a Protestant, he -could not be kept out four months; and Danby, that if the exile would -but give satisfaction as to Religion, “it would be very hard to make -head against him.”<a id="FNanchor_115" href="#Footnote_115" class="fnanchor">[115]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE REVOLUTION.</div> - -<p>Still, however, a large number of Clergymen not only accepted the new -order of things, but heartily espoused the cause of the new dynasty. -Besides those dignitaries who assisted in raising William and Mary to -the throne, many in the lower ranks, by exhortations from the pulpit, -arguments from the press, and the exercise of private<span class="pagenum" id="Page_87">[87]</span> influence, -sought to gather up popular affection, and weave it around the chosen -occupants of the throne. It may be worth while to mention that Samuel -Wesley, Rector of Epworth, the father of John, founder of Methodism, -states that he wrote and printed the first publication which appeared -in defence of the Government; and he also composed “many little pieces -more, both in prose and verse, with the same view.”<a id="FNanchor_116" href="#Footnote_116" class="fnanchor">[116]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_88">[88]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER IV.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">In the laws respecting oaths at the period of the Revolution, certain -changes took place, which from their religions aspect demand our notice.</p> - -<p>The new Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Declaration of Rights -differed from the old Oaths of Allegiance imposed by statute law. -To make this change perfectly constitutional, and to secure entire -uniformity in the expression of loyal obedience, it was necessary to -pass an Act abolishing ancient forms, and determining the circumstances -under which a new one should be enforced. Leave having been granted -in the House of Commons upon the 25th of February to bring in such -a measure, upon the 16th of March the Solicitor-General reported -amendments made in the Bill, and upon the 18th of the same month the -Bill passed the House. Being sent up to the Lords, it was read by them -a second time only, attention becoming absorbed by another Bill for the -same purpose, originating in their own House, and on the 25th sent down -to the Commons, by whom it was immediately read, and committed on the -28th. The Journals of the two Houses for the month of April abound in -notices of debates, amendments, protests, reports, and conferences in -reference to this question. Its religious bearings were twofold.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_89">[89]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken by -all persons holding office in the Church of England and the two -Universities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or perform -the duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or minister -in a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possess -a fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promise -and swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William -and Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative character -of Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical preferments -on the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; and -at the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to the -Government, there appears the same reason for enacting a declaration -of loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To have -excepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have been -to make an invidious distinction between classes of the community -bound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to the -interpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraid -of the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths—if -they afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, they -certainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforced -upon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to be -disaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed by -disaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly on -two grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to King -James could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside those -vows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, their -case was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though no -appeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs, -or the captain of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_90">[90]</span> a regiment, might very well feel the same scruples -as troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; and -if exceptions of this sort were once begun, where were they to end? -What could not at the time fail to be noticed, and now must strike -every reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness with -respect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very same -persons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who had -treated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part of -Presbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required now -cannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. An -Episcopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the persons -who occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on the -subject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been required -to swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, but -had been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful; -and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despotic -king is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciation -of former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practical -relinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. The -law of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrine -of resistance—the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he must -denounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier era -a political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office; -at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience is -sacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swear -allegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness of -their scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings, -it is hard to discern<span class="pagenum" id="Page_91">[91]</span> any plausible ground for refusing to transfer -allegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold the -Divine right of Kings—and therefore preferred a Regency to a change in -the succession, as was the case with Sancroft—still it appears that -they might, consistently with their abstract principle, have sworn -to obey a <i>de facto</i> potentate. At any rate, their difficulties -were less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethren -seven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains as -molehills,—now they magnified molehills into mountains.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.</div> - -<p>The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness of -clerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherence -to the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except in -the case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princes -entwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notion -that Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itself -with a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of human -law.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither could -Clergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that now -enacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, even -impious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughout -this reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divine -community, is independent of human governments. The pastors and -teachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in the -hands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritual -office and character the Civil power is not competent to denude any -servant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongst -chief officers of State, when Bishops<span class="pagenum" id="Page_92">[92]</span> are Peers, and Clergymen have -legally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalities -are from first to last the creations of secular government; and the -authority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business to -alter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right to -impose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to the -character of Ministers that of political legislators and officers of -a nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant under -Charles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived and -to be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, under -William III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastian -enough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restless -and to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries in -practice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries in -principle. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independence -came more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness to -its consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased in -earnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.</div> - -<p>A further religious complication of the measure under review arose -in connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons, -and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House of -Lords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day when -leave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave was -also given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. The -Corporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation of -the doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League and -Covenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualification -for municipal office. It had been a blow<span class="pagenum" id="Page_93">[93]</span> aimed at Nonconformists; now -that the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged by -the Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should be -extinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Bills -originated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as much -intrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned the -Sacrament; another—who said he had been educated for the Church, and -would live and die in it—advocated the repeal of the Act; but a third -contended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holding -of a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance, -instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended in -nothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through party -complications, set aside on a question of adjournment;<a id="FNanchor_117" href="#Footnote_117" class="fnanchor">[117]</a> and the -inconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution, -and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principle -destructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, was -associated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealous -in its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve the -Corporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low Church -Whigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keep -Nonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of an -engine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.</div> - -<p>Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the Lower -House, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, in -a speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommended -Parliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_94">[94]</span> -admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve.”<a id="FNanchor_118" href="#Footnote_118" class="fnanchor">[118]</a> -In these words he showed his desire for the alteration of the Test Act. -The Test Act had been passed to exclude Papists from holding civil -office; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformists -had supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There were -members in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes. -They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve the -State; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supported -the introduction of a clause for abolishing the sacramental test. -But the Tory Lords were too numerous to allow of its being passed; -and some Whig Peers, including the puritan Lord Wharton, recorded a -protest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for these -reasons—Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greater -security than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacrament -operated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it prevented -a thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required of -members of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates for -office. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed another -clause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’s -Supper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to its -celebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed; -and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Wharton -being again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify what -they had said before, and introduce this additional reason—that His -Majesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all his -Protestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_95">[95]</span> the same. -The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partial -repeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority of -the Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.<a id="FNanchor_119" href="#Footnote_119" class="fnanchor">[119]</a> -But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support from -a majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desired -to treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make as -much allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding so -much to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to those -concessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted to -Nonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but he -easily secured the former. The policy of the Lords, both Whig and Tory, -both Low Church and High Church, was to discountenance Nonconformity, -and to maintain the Episcopalian Establishment; the policy of the High -Church Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathized -in Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure of -the new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was to -conciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, just -exalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration, -advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to his -scrupulous brethren.<a id="FNanchor_120" href="#Footnote_120" class="fnanchor">[120]</a> It followed that the Bill left the Lords with -a provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his benefice -without taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for putting -his loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower House -differed from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clause -rendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment to -take the oath by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_96">[96]</span> 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediate -suspension—by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of final -deprivation.<a id="FNanchor_121" href="#Footnote_121" class="fnanchor">[121]</a> With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went back -to the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferences -were held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports were -made: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against the -Commons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter became -the law of the land.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Whig majority in the House of Commons were as zealous as the Tory -majority in the House of Lords in maintaining the Church of England, -but they were utterly averse to the secular and ecclesiastical politics -of that party, which the project of William, supported by the Peers, -sought to win over by conciliation. They could not forget the support -that party had rendered to the Stuart despotism, their opposition -to the Exclusion Bill, their intolerant despotism, and their steady -opposition to the Whig Commons. They could not favour High Church -views, they had no notion of the Church being independent of the -State. If the Clergy received honours and emoluments from the Civil -power, then to the Civil power they must, like other subjects, yield -obedience. The spirit of the House was Erastian; and no doubt passion -mingled with principle—resentment with the maintenance of supremacy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.</div> - -<p>The Oaths of Allegiance had at an early period been readily taken by -the Commons, only two of them refusing to swear. In the other House -a vast majority of the lay and spiritual Lords had complied with the -law, but certain Bishops had been incapacitated, or were reluctant in -compliance; others altogether refused to submit to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_97">[97]</span> authority. In the -Journal of the Lords for the 18th of March, amongst notices of absence, -we find the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield described as “ill of the -strangury and the stone;” the Bishop of Worcester as “weak in body,” -and very aged; and the Bishop of St. David’s as writing a letter of -excuse, not at all satisfactory. This last Prelate, who had for some -time been mistrusted by his brethren, consulted Sir John Reresby, who -told him to fall back on his own conscience. The next day the Bishop -took the oath.<a id="FNanchor_122" href="#Footnote_122" class="fnanchor">[122]</a> But the Primate Sancroft, Lake of Chichester, -Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Ken of Bath and Wells, Frampton of -Gloucester, White of Peterborough, and Thomas of Worcester, steadily -refused, and came forward as vanguard to that body of which we shall -have more to say hereafter.</p> - -<p>The oath was taken by the Clergy in various ways. Some, who objected -to its being imposed, felt they could adopt it conscientiously. Some -questioned the lawfulness of it, and did not blame the Nonjurors, but -themselves took the benefit of the doubt. Some swore with a certain -reserve, expressing the sense in which they explained the obligation -with “an implicit relaxation” of the meaning of the words. Others, at -a loss to determine the point, yielded to the opinions of lawyers and -divines.<a id="FNanchor_123" href="#Footnote_123" class="fnanchor">[123]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Coronation Oath came under consideration at the same time as the -Oath of Allegiance, and, like it, occasioned great discussion. The oath -pledged the Sovereign to preserve the Church “as it is now established -by law;” and the Commons were thereby led to inquire into the exact -meaning of the words, whether they affected in any way the question -of introducing changes, such as many most earnestly desired. Some, -who longed for an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_98">[98]</span> alteration in the formularies, were anxious that, -instead of the words “Church as it is now established by law,” should -be the words, “Church as it is, or <i>shall be</i>, established by -law,” thus expressly providing for new arrangements. It was contended -that the Church doors ought to be made wider, that it might be easily -done, and that in anticipation of this, the proposed alteration in -the oath should be accomplished. Before—some argued—it did not much -matter how the Coronation Oath ran, but it did now that a King occupied -the throne, who might say, “I do not understand what is meant by law.” -They urged no wish for any change in doctrines, but only for change in -ceremonies, and they felt unwilling that the Coronation Oath should -preclude the latter. Moreover, they desired to prevent any taunt from -foreign Protestants of the following kind—“Your Parliament has limited -you to a Church unalterable, and will let in nobody.” Some of those -who objected to the additional words replied, that their omission -would not be any bar to reform; that Parliament had power to alter -laws; that, consistently with the maintenance of Protestant doctrine, -there might be the relaxation of certain forms; that essentials being -preserved, non-essentials could be removed; and that tender consciences -could be brought in at a door without pulling down the rafters to let -them through the roof. Though a rider to the effect, that no clause in -the Act should prevent the Sovereign from giving assent to a Bill for -Church Reform was not formally adopted, yet it was at length clearly -understood that the oath did not fetter the Sovereign in any act of -legislative concurrence, but only bound him in his executive capacity; -the original words therefore were sanctioned by a majority of 188 -against 149.<a id="FNanchor_124" href="#Footnote_124" class="fnanchor">[124]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_99">[99]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CORONATION.</div> - -<p>The Coronation, for which this oath prepared, took place on the 11th of -April, when both political parties in unequal proportions participated -in the solemnities. Tory and Jacobite Lords, who had voted for a -Regency, increased the magnificence—one carrying the crown of the -King, another the crown of the Queen, and a third the sword of Justice; -whilst a fourth rode up the middle of Westminster Hall, as champion -for William and Mary against all comers. Noble damsels of both classes -appeared in large numbers and dazzling splendour to swell the retinue, -or to watch the movements of the Regnant Queen; and amongst them walked -the pretty little Lady Henrietta, daughter of the Earl of Rochester, -who had persistently opposed the idea that the throne was vacated by -the departure of James. The nonjuring Prelates would take no part in -the ceremonies; the absence of the Primate was a serious circumstance, -but, by a clause in the Coronation Act, the King had authority to chose -some other Bishop for the principal ceremony of the day. Accordingly he -chose Compton, Bishop of London, to place the crown upon his head. This -Low Churchman and staunch Revolutionist was accompanied by Prelates of -different characters: Lloyd of St. Asaph, one of the seven who had been -sent to the Tower, walked on the one hand, holding the paten; Sprat -of Rochester, who had been a member of the High Commission, walked -on the other, carrying the chalice; and Burnet of Salisbury ascended -the pulpit to deliver a sermon, of which the peroration, imploring -the blessing of Heaven on the King and Queen in this life, and the -bestowment upon them in the life to come of crowns more enduring than -those on the altar, excited a hum of applause from the Commons, who -were seated behind it. For the first time the Coronation occurred<span class="pagenum" id="Page_100">[100]</span> -neither on a Sunday nor a holiday; and for the first time really in -accordance with a precedent set at Cromwell’s installation, a Bible -was presented to the Sovereigns as “the most valuable thing that this -world contains;” and it would appear that the identical volume still -exists, for one of the treasures of the Royal Library at the Hague is a -Bible, inscribed with these words: “This Book was given the King and I -at our Coronation. Marie R.” The event was celebrated in the provinces; -garlands adorned with oranges were carried about the streets of country -towns, amidst the beating of drums, the pealing of bells, and the -huzzas of the people, followed at night by the blazing of bonfires.<a id="FNanchor_125" href="#Footnote_125" class="fnanchor">[125]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>As the great Revolution under William I. was perfected by the -Coronation at Westminster on Christmas-day, 1066, so the great -Revolution under William III. was perfected by the Coronation in -the same place on the 11th of April, 1689. In both cases certain -religious rites were necessary to the completeness of the new Monarch’s -inauguration, but in both cases they were celebrated only as a solemn -ratification of a choice made by the national voice. It is curious to -notice, that in addition to the coincidence of names in the case of -the authors of the two most momentous revolutionary successions to the -English crown, there is a further coincidence: each arrived on the -southern shores of England as an invader, and then became the choice of -the people; and neither of them rested on the right of conquest as the -basis of power.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>At the time when the Allegiance and Coronation Oaths were under -discussion, two other important subjects, immediately<span class="pagenum" id="Page_101">[101]</span> connected with -Ecclesiastical History, occupied Parliamentary attention. The one was -the widening of admission into the Church, the other was the concession -to Dissenters of liberty to worship according to conviction: both -measures had been repeatedly taken up and repeatedly laid down during -the reign of Charles II.</p> - -<p>The steps in reference to Comprehension may be conveniently considered -first.</p> - -<p>The Primate Sancroft, it is alleged,<a id="FNanchor_126" href="#Footnote_126" class="fnanchor">[126]</a> looked favourably in that -direction, amidst the excitement to liberal feeling, which sprung up on -the eve of the Revolution: certainly at the beginning of the year 1689, -Lloyd, the Bishop of St. Asaph, Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, Sharp, -Dean of Norwich, and Dr. Tenison, met at the house of Stillingfleet, -Dean of St. Paul’s, as we are informed by Patrick, Prebendary of -Westminster—who was present on the occasion—to consult about such -concessions as might bring in Dissenters to communion, “for which,” -Patrick says, “the Bishop of St. Asaph told us, he had the Archbishop -of Canterbury’s leave. We agreed that a Bill should be prepared, to -be offered by the Bishops, and we drew up the matter of it in ten or -eleven heads.”<a id="FNanchor_127" href="#Footnote_127" class="fnanchor">[127]</a> Coincident with the time when such proposals were -sufficiently matured to be laid before Parliament, but not coincident -with the particular purpose and method which these and other Divines -had in view, was the publication of a draft, by some irresponsible -person, for the universal accommodation of Dissenters, and the bringing -of all parties into communion with the Established Church. This scheme, -which bore the title of an amicable reconciliation, soon dropped into -the limbo of quixotic<span class="pagenum" id="Page_102">[102]</span> plans, but it made some noise at the time, and -is sufficiently curious to be worth a few words.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Amidst existing religious differences the principle is laid down that -as there is one Catholic Church under Christ, so there must be many -local Churches framed after some type of political organization. The -Church of England is of the latter kind, placed under the government -of King and Bishops. This Church requires a change. It wants -comprehensiveness. Now, a distinction exists between tolerable and -intolerable religions. Intolerable religions are set aside, but all -tolerable religions, it is affirmed, ought not only to be legalized, -but incorporated in the Establishment. Bishops should be King’s -officers, to act <i>circa sacra</i>; and those now called Dissenters -should be eligible for such an office, with power to supervise all -parties, in order to the keeping of them in harmony with their own -principles, so as not to disturb the peace of others.<a id="FNanchor_128" href="#Footnote_128" class="fnanchor">[128]</a> This scheme -included a provision that Ecclesiastical laws should be enacted by a -Convocation, including non-episcopal members, or by the two Houses of -Parliament.</p> - -<p>A Bill “for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects” was -introduced in the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham on the 11th -of March, and that day received its first reading. Upon the 14th it was -read a second time and committed; and at the same sitting there was -introduced<span class="pagenum" id="Page_103">[103]</span> by the same nobleman, and entrusted to the same Committee, -another Bill, entitled “An Act for exempting their Majesties’ -Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the -penalties of certain laws.” Two measures, intimately connected with -each other, and embodying opinions and wishes long cherished, were thus -launched side by side, destined to meet different fates. Debated by the -Lords with considerable sharpness, the Bill for uniting Protestants -was narrowly watched by people outside, of different sentiments; and -when no regular system existed for reporting speeches, fragments of -senatorial oratory were casually picked up and preserved from oblivion -by diarists and others; a person who looked at the subject from a -dissenting point of view thus recorded what he learnt:</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>The Bill was thought by some not “large enough to comprehend the sober -sort of Dissenters, for it did not grant to them some of the great -points they had always and still did insist upon; and if it were -thought the true interest of the Church and State to comprehend them, -they must enlarge that Bill.”</p> - -<p>The Bishop of Lincoln considered ordination by Presbyters to be good -and sufficient, and in order to the taking of them in, it was not -necessary there should be the imposition of Episcopal hands.</p> - -<p>The Marquis of Winchester, fervent for Comprehension, as conducive to -the interest of the Church, was unconcerned for the Bill of Indulgence, -since “that would but nourish Church snakes and vipers in the bosom of -the Church.”<a id="FNanchor_129" href="#Footnote_129" class="fnanchor">[129]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Early in the month of April we find the Lords busy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_104">[104]</span> with the -Comprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question, -“Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause about -the indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?” The -votes being equal, the Journal records, “Then, according to the ancient -rule in the like case, <i>semper præsumitur pro negante</i>,” that -is to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided in -the negative, and therefore the clause remained. “There was a proviso -likewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament and -being baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conference -on those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as to -the lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehement -debate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissenters -had, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them to -come into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, and -I declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged that -the posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how ill -grounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave the -matter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature.”<a id="FNanchor_130" href="#Footnote_130" class="fnanchor">[130]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It was -proposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymen -as well as clergymen, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_105">[105]</span> prepare some plan for healing divisions, -correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of the -Church. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to please -opponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouring -their prejudice—a policy of which he afterwards repented—argued -against the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put, -strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same rule -as before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition, -the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace entered -their protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistent -with Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely to -create jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance the -dangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. The -Earl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, that -to refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutes -of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which -empowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law.</p> - -<p>The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the House -of Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House of -Commons.<a id="FNanchor_131" href="#Footnote_131" class="fnanchor">[131]</a></p> - -<p>Strange again—the fact has been overlooked by our principal modern -historians—before the Lords’ Bill reached the Commons, the Commons -were engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon a -Toleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading the -former of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading a -similar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave to -bring in another<span class="pagenum" id="Page_106">[106]</span> Bill, as the phrase went, for “easing of Protestant -Dissenters.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to row -against wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might be -adjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday. -Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measure -by mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, who -had objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to be -Papists in disguise.<a id="FNanchor_132" href="#Footnote_132" class="fnanchor">[132]</a></p> - -<p>Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons’ table, -the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing -gratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Church -of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the -preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he -would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of -the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is our -intention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration of -giving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”<a id="FNanchor_133" href="#Footnote_133" class="fnanchor">[133]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_107">[107]</span> The reference here is to -what is called the Toleration Bill.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon -Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons -foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to -Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates -on the point dropped in both Houses.<a id="FNanchor_134" href="#Footnote_134" class="fnanchor">[134]</a></p> - -<p>At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular -attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility -must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of -the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject. -The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment -of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in -many respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of those -who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as -Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union; -but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,<a id="FNanchor_135" href="#Footnote_135" class="fnanchor">[135]</a> who -introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman, -must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its -provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand<span class="pagenum" id="Page_108">[108]</span> the conduct of -certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House, -moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of -Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it. -Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more -from fear than inclination;<a id="FNanchor_136" href="#Footnote_136" class="fnanchor">[136]</a> and Burnet declares, “those who had -moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a -very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves -by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and -such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as -the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”<a id="FNanchor_137" href="#Footnote_137" class="fnanchor">[137]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would -not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any -encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for -dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced -afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.<a id="FNanchor_138" href="#Footnote_138" class="fnanchor">[138]</a> The whole -atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the -measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of -the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the -nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child -perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity, -excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest -partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.<a id="FNanchor_139" href="#Footnote_139" class="fnanchor">[139]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not -to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have -been made to it by the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_109">[109]</span> Commons. They had appeared at first friendly -enough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they did -so under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which might -efficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not from -violence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, but -from want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it.</p> - -<p>The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when we -remember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times: -as we have seen, but few Nonconformists—not more than twenty or thirty -Presbyterians—could be counted among the members. The vast majority -were Churchmen—some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye upon -the whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree, -but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for the -Episcopalian Establishment than for what was called the Protestant -Religion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentiments -of the Nonconformists; they were unable to enter into their scruples; -they were afraid that concession might endanger their own community; -and they looked with apprehension upon the nonjuring movement. Much -mischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterations -be made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment under -William and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such an -idea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might be -expected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no small -honour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Another -circumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in the -Lower House.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>Dissenters were not of one mind. Philip Henry earnestly desired -Comprehension, “for never,” says his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_110">[110]</span> son, “was any more averse to -that which looked like a separation than he was, if he could possibly -have helped it—<i>salvâ conscientiâ</i>. His prayers were constant, -and his endeavours, as he had opportunity, that there might be some -healing methods found out and agreed upon.”<a id="FNanchor_140" href="#Footnote_140" class="fnanchor">[140]</a> It would also have -delighted Richard Baxter in his last days to see the door opened as -wide as he had long before desired it should be. Bates would have -been much pleased. The same may be said of Howe. But many were of a -different mind.<a id="FNanchor_141" href="#Footnote_141" class="fnanchor">[141]</a> The Nonconformist advocates of Comprehension -belonged chiefly to the Presbyterian Church. Almost all Independents -and Baptists felt it impossible for any alterations to be made such as -could allow of their becoming parochial incumbents. More than a few had -long been voluntaries, numbers were beginning to look in a direction -opposite to that of an Establishment.<a id="FNanchor_142" href="#Footnote_142" class="fnanchor">[142]</a> Selfishness has been -assigned as a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_111">[111]</span> motive. “Some few pastors of wealthy congregations might -be tempted to desire a continuance of the distance between Dissenters -and Churchmen.” Yet Churchmen entertained “more charitable thoughts -of sincere Dissenters.” The balance of temporal advantages certainly -inclined on the side of a nationally-endowed Church, rich in tithes -and other revenues, richer still in rank and prestige. However, it is -unfair to suppose that, except in very rare instances indeed, an eye to -income retained men in Nonconformist positions. Beyond all doubt, had -Dissenting ministers been generally zealous in supporting the measure, -they would have been charged by their neighbours with looking after the -loaves and fishes. Where, however, no love of this world influenced the -decision, the decision might be influenced by prejudice and suspicion; -for persons must have been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_112">[112]</span> more or less than human, who, after such -treatment as they had received for thirty years, could be free from -all passionate emotion in estimating the conduct of those who had -been either bitter persecutors or unconcerned witnesses of wrong. The -motives of Churchmen at the Revolution would not always be fairly -weighed by Dissenters. Suspicion, where it could not be justified, may -still be condoned, looking at the antecedents of the case; and where -there was not sufficient ground for imputing dishonourable motives to -Churchmen, there might be enough to lead Nonconformists to suspect, -that no warm welcome would be afforded them within the Establishment, -even should the iron gates unfold. When reports of Comprehension were -rife at an earlier period, an old story had been told to this effect: -Sancho the Third, King of Spain, put aside his brother’s children that -he might ascend the throne. A lady who was the representative and heir -of the dispossessed line of Princes married the Duke of Medina Celi, -who assumed the rights of his wife. He and his descendants accordingly -presented a petition to the Sovereign that he would restore the -crown—a petition to which he gave the reply, “<i>No es lugar</i>,” -“There is no room.” This story had been applied by Presbyterians to the -abeyance in which their claims to Church readmission had been held for -more than a quarter of a century. “So our just liberty is talked of,” -says Newcome, of Manchester, “by fits in course; and in course doft off -with <i>No es lugar</i>, There is no room.”<a id="FNanchor_143" href="#Footnote_143" class="fnanchor">[143]</a> It was thought the -story remained as applicable after the Revolution as before.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>This fact should be remembered. Comprehension became to all parties -more and more difficult, and to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_113">[113]</span> some parties less and less desirable, -as time rolled on. However hard it might be to effect a reconciliation, -looking at the temper of Churchmen in 1662, it became harder in 1689, -looking at the position of Dissenters. They had increased in numbers, -had formed themselves into distinct Churches, had obtained their own -ordained ministers, and had begun to create an ecclesiastical history, -and to cherish in their separate capacity something of an <i>esprit de -corps</i>. The opportunity of reclaiming the wanderers, once possessed -by the Church party, had slipped away beyond recall. Overtures, which -would have been eagerly grasped before, were coldly looked at now.<a id="FNanchor_144" href="#Footnote_144" class="fnanchor">[144]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_114">[114]</span></p> - -<p>The history of the measures for <i>easing</i> or <i>indulging</i> -Dissenters presents a marked contrast to the history of the measure -for uniting them to the Establishment. The Bill ordered on the 8th of -April by the House of Commons to be drawn up for the former purpose, -was read on the 15th. The Bill from the Lords’ House, where it had -smoothly passed, was received on the 18th, and first read on the 20th -of the same month. Both Bills were committed on the 15th of May. What -little of the debate has been preserved shows it to have been brief, -desultory, and superficial—not dealing with any great principles, but -only discussing details, with an outburst now and then of ill-temper. -One speaker would not give indulgence to Quakers, because they would -not take an oath. Another identified them with Penn, and looked upon -them as Papists in disguise. Yet all the speakers supported more or -less the principle of the Bill, although some were of opinion that it -should be adopted as an experiment for seven years.<a id="FNanchor_145" href="#Footnote_145" class="fnanchor">[145]</a> It speedily -passed without any such limitation, and received the Royal assent on -the 24th of May.<a id="FNanchor_146" href="#Footnote_146" class="fnanchor">[146]</a></p> - - -<div class="sidenote">1689.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_115">[115]</span></div> - -<div class="sidenote">TOLERATION.</div> - -<p>The cause of this great and successful measure lay in a deeper region -than that of political intrigue and party faction. Powerful and telling -arguments had long been pressed upon the abettors of intolerance; and -the impiety, the injustice, the absurdity, and the uselessness of -attempting to coerce the conscience, had been demonstrated hundreds of -times on grounds of Religion, Reason, and History. No class of writers -had performed this important service so fully as certain Baptists and -Independents, whom we have had occasion to notice. They had contended -against intolerant laws, not in the spirit of indifference, not because -religion was to them a matter of trivial or secondary importance, but -because it was to them all in all, and they shuddered to see its name -tainted by an alliance with despotic principles. Although their pleas -and appeals did not perhaps to any appreciable extent directly affect -public opinion, yet they secretly leavened the minds of religious -people, and prepared for the coming change.</p> - -<p>The doctrine of Toleration has of late been described as the offspring -of scepticism. What kind of scepticism?<span class="pagenum" id="Page_116">[116]</span> If it mean scepticism or -unbelief as to the obligation to punish men for opinions, or as to the -moral criminality of errors purely intellectual, or as to the wisdom -of vesting political power in ecclesiastical persons, to say that -this lies at the basis of Toleration is simply to repeat an identical -proposition. But if it mean doubt or disbelief as to religion in -general, or Christianity in particular, then to say Toleration arose -from that cause in this country is simply untrue. Herbert and Hobbes, -according to such a theory, ought to have been the apostles of freedom; -but they were not. Baptists, Independents, and Quakers, according to -such a theory, ought not to have been the apostles of freedom; yet -they were. The same thing may be said of Jeremy Taylor and John Locke. -Whilst, however, the chief advocates of Toleration were religious men, -it is not to be denied that the measure when carried was the work of -the State rather than of the Church. The Liberal Bishops supported it; -but the great body of Churchmen were averse to its provisions. With -regard to a number of the clergy and the laity, the State came forward -as a constable to keep the peace between them and their Nonconformist -fellow-citizens, whose rights they had violated.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Books and pamphlets were not the only nor the main agencies which -brought about the Religious Revolution of 1689. It is remarkable, -that the first of Locke’s famous letters on Toleration was printed -in Holland, in the Latin language, in the year 1689, and was not -translated into English and circulated in this country time enough to -assist in the passing of the Toleration Bill. It threw into form, and -it made plain to the common sense of humanity, those sentiments which -were almost universal amongst the Dutch, and were beginning to be -common amongst the English. It rather justified<span class="pagenum" id="Page_117">[117]</span> what was being done at -the time by the Legislature, than prompted or supported the Legislature -in its career. It formulated the reasons of a conclusion at the moment -practically reached; it expounded principles just being embodied in an -Act of Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TOLERATION.</div> - -<p>John Locke brought out the philosophy of Toleration. Toleration had -become the genius of his character. Men whose minds have many sides, -and who, from large human sympathies, tolerate those who differ from -them, are made what they are by wide intercourse with the world. Born -of Puritan parents, educated at Oxford under Dr. Owen, attached to the -preaching of Whitecote, intimate with Cudworth’s family, connected -with Lord Shaftesbury, friendly with Le Clerc, Limborch, and other -Divines of the Remonstrant school, Locke caught and, in the advocacy of -Toleration, reflected influences emanating from diversified sources. -Reduced to a simple formula, the basis of his scheme was this: The -State and the Church are essentially distinct. The Law recognized a -Jewish commonwealth; the Gospel recognizes no Christian commonwealth. -He repudiated all connection between the State and the Church; but he -did not repudiate all connection between the State and Religion, for -he excluded Atheists from Toleration. He also excluded Papists, not -however on religious, but on political grounds.</p> - -<p>Locke’s principle, followed out, would have made him a Dissenter; -and it is a fact that he wrote a defence of Nonconformity, which he -never published. Though nominally in communion with the Establishment -to the day of his death, he generally attended the ministry of a lay -preacher.<a id="FNanchor_147" href="#Footnote_147" class="fnanchor">[147]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_118">[118]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>A paper by John Howe—in which he stated the case of Protestant -Dissenters—came nearest, in point of time, to the position of a -manifesto in advance, clearing ground for the new law. His paper was -drawn up in the beginning of 1689, yet it may be doubted whether it had -any wide influence in consummating the change.</p> - -<p>Amongst the immediate causes of the Bill being passed must be numbered -old promises made to Dissenters by men in power, again and again; -the pledges of political parties of all sorts, Whigs and Tories, Low -Churchmen and High Churchmen, given amidst struggles against Popery -in the preceding summer, all originating in religious impulses; and -especially the influences of William, who honestly advocated liberty -on a wide scale. Beyond this, and more effectual still, there existed -a state of public feeling which, although most reasonable, had not -been produced by reasoning and, though it could be victoriously -defended by argument, had not really been reached by logical formulas. -It is only one of a number of instances in which a change comes over -the legislative enactments of a nation through a change wrought in -the minds of rulers, wrought also in the minds of a people,—the -<i>Zeit-Geist</i>, or spirit of the age,—produced by the discipline -of circumstances, and by sympathetic impulses, in which pious men -recognize the finger of Providence. What the Earl of Nottingham said -in defence of his measure when he laid his Bill upon the table, I do -not know; but I apprehend that, as a High Churchman he must have found -it difficult to show how<span class="pagenum" id="Page_119">[119]</span> his advocacy could be reconciled with his -antecedents. He might have been unable to explain how, by reasoning, he -had passed from his former to his present position. He and others might -be fairly charged with inconsistency; a suspicion of it might even -now and then cross their own minds. But, like all mankind, they were -the subjects of influences more powerful than syllogisms, they bent -beneath a force mightier than logic. Sophistical theories ingeniously -spun, fondly watched, and for a time vigilantly guarded, get blown to -the winds by the breath of inexorable facts, and of the spirit which -throbs at the heart of them. False systems and ideas are found to be -impracticable; as such they are given up by everybody. It is of no -use to preserve them; they must be thrown away. So with the doctrine -of religious intolerance. Englishmen could endure it in its old form -no longer. A new spirit had taken possession of the age, and ancient -restrictions must at last be sacrificed. But for such facts, men like -Leonard Busher and John Goodwin might have gone on arguing for ever in -vain.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TOLERATION.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>In estimating the worth of what was done at this period, it betrays -a narrow philosophy to harp upon the word “Toleration” as being an -offensive term, and to ask, Has any man a right to talk of tolerating -another man in the worship which his conscience bids him render to the -infinitely glorious Creator? It is a curious fact that the word was -not used in the Bill from beginning to end. It is entitled, “An Act -for exempting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from -the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws.” Why dwell -upon what the measure was popularly called—the question is, What did -it accomplish? Its provisions confessedly are imperfect. Restrictions -inconsistent with its principle were left, reminding us, how much -more, certain feelings connected<span class="pagenum" id="Page_120">[120]</span> with certain events have to do with -producing them than any abstract conceptions whatever. But the Act did -this, it afforded to all Protestants, with few exceptions, a legal -protection in carrying out their systems of doctrine, worship, and -discipline. It not only granted, but it guarded liberty of conscience. -It threw the shield of law over every religious assembly within open -doors. To interrupt the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, in the -service of God, became a criminal offence. The amount of relief thus -afforded can be appreciated only by those who are familiar with the -harassing persecutions of the preceding reigns. By shielding Dissent, -the law, though of course not endowing it, might be said, in a certain -sense, to establish it. It placed Dissent upon a legal footing, and -protected it side by side with the Endowed Church. It confined national -emoluments to Episcopalians; but it secured as much religious freedom -to other denominations as to them. Nay, it secured more—a consequence -necessarily resulting from the difference in relation to the State, -between voluntary Churches and one nationally endowed. By the change -which the Act effected in the legal position of Nonconformity, it -produced a relative change in the legal position of the Establishment. -From the moment that William gave his assent to the Act, that Church -ceased to be national in the sense in which it had been so before. The -theory of its constitution underwent a revolution. It could no longer -assume the attitude it had done, could no longer claim all Englishmen, -as by sovereign right, worshippers within its pale; it gave legalized -scope for differences of action,—for their growth, and advancement, -and for the increase of their supporters in point of numbers, -character, and influence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TOLERATION.</div> - -<p>The restrictions of the Act pressed upon two classes of religionists. -It distinctly provided that the law should<span class="pagenum" id="Page_121">[121]</span> not be construed as giving -any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist, or Popish recusant, -whatever. It therefore left in full operation the old laws pointed -at the adherents of Rome,—laws with which James had dispensed, laws -which, with most mistaken views, at that period almost all Protestants -maintained. But not satisfied with a prohibition of Roman worship, -the Government caused to be issued Royal proclamations requiring -all reputed Papists to depart out of London and Westminster, and -confining all Popish recusants within five miles of their respective -dwellings.<a id="FNanchor_148" href="#Footnote_148" class="fnanchor">[148]</a> In connexion with this fact it should be noticed, that -in the month of July, the Royal assent was given to an Act which vested -in the two Universities, the presentations of benefices belonging to -Papists.</p> - -<p>The other class of persons to whom liberty of worship was refused, -consisted of such as denied, in preaching or writing, the doctrine -of the Blessed Trinity declared in the Articles of the Church of -England,—a stipulation which indicated zeal for orthodoxy on the part -of a large majority of the House, and which ought to be noted amidst -the strong rationalistic tendencies of the age. Zeal of this kind we -shall find manifesting itself again and again during William’s reign.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Special provision was made for the relief of Quakers. Instead of being -required to take any oath, they were allowed to make a declaration, -first, in common with others, of their abhorrence of Papal supremacy, -and next, of their orthodoxy. The latter declaration ran in these -words: “I, A. B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ -His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed -for evermore; and do acknowledge<span class="pagenum" id="Page_122">[122]</span> the Holy Scriptures of the Old and -New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” It would appear that -this declaration was altered from the original one to satisfy the -Quakers, who, represented by four of their number during the passing -of the Bill, objected to the expression “coequal with the Father and -the Son” as applied to the Holy Spirit, and to another expression, “the -revealed will and word of God” as applied to the Scriptures. These -expressions were accordingly struck out. A Quaker historian observes, -“That as a profession of faith is required of this Society only, it -evinces the truth of the conjecture, that this profession of faith -was started with a view to exclude the people called Quakers from a -participation in the benefits of the Act.” If the remark be true in -reference to the original form of the declaration—but of this I find -no proof—it certainly is not true of the revised declaration, which -received the sanction of Friends, before it was introduced into the -Bill, and was affirmed by them after it became law.<a id="FNanchor_149" href="#Footnote_149" class="fnanchor">[149]</a></p> - -<p>Comprehension fared differently from Toleration; but Tillotson would -not let the former drop. Nobody was more sincere and earnest about it, -and the view he took of the grounds on which Christians of different -opinions might be brought together, appears from a paper copied into -his commonplace book under the title of “Concessions, which will -probably be made by the Church of England for the union of Protestants, -which I sent to the Earl of Portland by Dr. Stillingfleet, September -13, 1689.</p> - -<p>“I. That the ceremonies injoined or recommended in the Liturgy or -Canons be left indifferent.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_123">[123]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>“II. That the Liturgy be carefully reviewed, and such alterations and -changes therein made, as may supply the defects, and remove, as much as -is possible, all ground of exception to any part of it, by leaving out -the Apocryphal lessons, and correcting the translation of the psalms, -used in the public service, where there is need of it; and in many -other particulars.</p> - -<p>“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to be -made by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted to -the exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribe -one general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that we -do submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of -England, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach and -practice accordingly.</p> - -<p>“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularly -with a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation of -manners both in ministers and people.</p> - -<p>“V. That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, -to remedy the great abuses and inconveniences, which by degrees, and -length of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the power -of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, and -placed in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, but -upon great and weighty occasions.</p> - -<p>“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of the -foreign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, to -render them capable of preferment in this Church.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiastical -benefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordained -in England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_124">[124]</span> -ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their -former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the -validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and -is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive -ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: <i>If thou art not -already ordained, I ordain thee</i>, &c., as in case a doubt be made of -any one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized -in this form, <i>If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee</i>, &c.”<a id="FNanchor_150" href="#Footnote_150" class="fnanchor">[150]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust -Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin; -Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought -to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered -for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was -accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however, -considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission -should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to -digest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”<a id="FNanchor_151" href="#Footnote_151" class="fnanchor">[151]</a> His object -was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for -what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to -an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was -to renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeat -the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation -between Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definite -than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of -an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers. -Though Burnet had in April predicted the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_125">[125]</span> failure of the scheme, he -in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced -by the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the -13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops -and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners -on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber—that old -theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare. -Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners -present.<a id="FNanchor_152" href="#Footnote_152" class="fnanchor">[152]</a> After listening to the Commission, they discussed the -question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church. -Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the -old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported -by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing -up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and -damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha, -yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other -hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable, -but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons -from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of -Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer -their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was -replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be -referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon<span class="pagenum" id="Page_126">[126]</span> which -the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when -Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority -on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his -opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing -weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly -to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation -differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew. -Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o’clock.</p> - -<p>At the next sitting (October the 16th), a serious discussion arose -as to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop of -Rochester—then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to the -Jerusalem Chamber—had been an active member of James’ High Commission, -and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commission -appointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former had -been the reverse, for <i>this</i> amounted to no more than a committee -of advice, whereas <i>that</i> claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprat -either overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talked -of the danger of incurring a <i>premunire</i> by venturing to proceed -with business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he had -been deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some of -the Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with the -Commission under which they were now brought together, unless the whole -Judicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about the -altered official position of some Commissioners, and the small number -left at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistency -of touching formularies to which they had given their assent and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_127">[127]</span> -consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; and -the probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions. -Sprat found a supporter in Jane—“a double-faced Janus,” as people -called him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, he -had conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University to -coin its plate in the Deliverer’s service; and next, disappointed of -a mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberal -opinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a more -congenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Another of Sprat’s allies was Dr. Aldrich,<a id="FNanchor_153" href="#Footnote_153" class="fnanchor">[153]</a> Dean of Christchurch, -a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the Peckwater -Quadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic, -a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. But -Patrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwelling -upon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging the -high legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop of -London—still zealous on the liberal side—told his brethren that -what they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that if -they did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the hands -of the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now would -facilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committees -helped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverend -and right reverend Commissioners were sitting on barrels of gunpowder; -presently the first explosion occurred, when Lloyd, Bishop of St. -Asaph, one of the most zealous advocates of Comprehension,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_128">[128]</span> hastily -rose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commission -were at liberty to withdraw. This offended Sprat, Aldrich, and Jane; -the last rose in a pet to leave the room, but was persuaded to remain, -and it was prudently advised “that all things that happened at that -time might be kept secret.” The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon, -when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retired -to the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister, -and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Two -days afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon the -consideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich and -Jane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained came -to the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, “it should be -in some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place in -the church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to the -rails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-day -before come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel with -a good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishop -of Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be written -down, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from the -whole.”<a id="FNanchor_154" href="#Footnote_154" class="fnanchor">[154]</a></p> - -<p>At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridge -contending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancient -practice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom often -became a mere matter of interest, and even went so far as to assert, -“that it was hard to find an instance of a child baptized before St. -Cyprian’s time.”</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_129">[129]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>The calendar underwent revision, and several Saints’ days were struck -out of the list. Respecting the Athanasian Creed, much was said. -Its use, its theological meaning, especially its damnatory clauses, -had become in an age of rational inquiry, religious toleration, and -latitudinarian sentiment, momentous moot-points. The atmosphere -of theological thought existing at the time, indicated by the -controversies on the Trinity, to be hereafter described, could not -but fix attention on a formulary, which, viewed either as a creed or -as a hymn, not only embodies definite opinion on the most abstruse -of mysteries, but declares that those who do not keep it whole and -undefiled must “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Burnet and -Tillotson were willing to drop the so-called creed out of the service -altogether; so was Fowler—the first of these Divines urging that the -Church of England received the four first General Councils; that the -Ephesian Council condemns all new symbols; that the Athanasian Creed -is <i>not very ancient</i>; and that it condemns the Greek Church, -which, said the Bishop, “we defend.” The utmost amount of change -finally recommended as to this formula was its less frequent use and -an explanation of its damnatory clauses. Its repetition was to be -discontinued on the Epiphany, and the Feasts of St. Matthias, St. John -the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. -Jude, and St. Andrew; but its use on All Saints’ Day was recommended. -The word <i>sung</i> was struck out of the rubric, leaving the creed to -be <i>said</i>; and the following came at the end:—“The Articles of -which (creed) ought to be received and believed as being agreeable to -the Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to be understood -as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the -Christian faith [according to the 18th Article of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_130">[130]</span> this Church].” These -last words were afterwards cancelled.<a id="FNanchor_155" href="#Footnote_155" class="fnanchor">[155]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successive -meetings.<a id="FNanchor_156" href="#Footnote_156" class="fnanchor">[156]</a> Questions were discussed—first in reference to those -who had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard to -new candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders. -The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on the -first of these points, contending—that there was room to challenge the -orders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without imposition -of hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they are -remitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention—that -the Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches in -the case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury—that Presbyterians -had been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without being -first ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, being -present at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes, -after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As to -Dissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validity -of Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessity -for the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative side -objected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, the -Bishop of London<span class="pagenum" id="Page_131">[131]</span> admitting that no question arose about the validity -of Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidence -as to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as in -others, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showed -that if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they might -be by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of Du -Moulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where no -cure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmed -that he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries. -Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they were -Episcopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present any -resemblance to Nonconformists.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>Two passages in the report of the proceedings are well worthy of -attention.</p> - -<p>“It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to the -Dissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:<a id="FNanchor_157" href="#Footnote_157" class="fnanchor">[157]</a> We sat there to make -such alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there no -Dissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.”</p> - -<p>“It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformists -desired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to be -allowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouth -than they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice, -there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that they -might consult if there be occasion.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>In answer to the suggestion of the old compromise of a hypothetical -reference to the invalidity of any former ordination, Beveridge -remarked that it looked like equivocation on the part both of ordainer -and ordained; the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_132">[132]</span> first believing the second not ordained before, -contrary to the belief of the second, who did not doubt his former -orders. Burnet replied, there could be no ground for this objection, -if a statement were annexed to the effect that each reserved his own -opinion. Dr. Grove suggested that the former rite might be esteemed, -not as wholly invalid, but as merely imperfect, and that the Bishop’s -laying on of hands would complete what had been previously commenced. -“But to this the Dean of St. Paul’s (Stillingfleet) replied, that in -this point we were to respect two things—first, the preservation of -the Church’s principle about the necessity of Episcopal ordination, -when it might be had; and secondly, the case of the Dissenters,” in -reference to whom he relates, or supposes, a most extraordinary and -indeed unintelligible story, “that it was much like the marrying of the -man, and the woman refusing; but after a term of years she consenting -to go on, the woman was then married alone, without beginning again -with the man.” What that means I leave the reader to find out. The -study of the whole Report is dreary work.</p> - -<p>Yet Tillotson, rich in common sense, must have been amused with these -debates. He simply asked why might not the Church of England admit -other orders, as it had been proposed its own should be admitted by the -Church of Rome, when Queen Mary wrote to Gardiner, saying, “<i>Quod -illis deerat, supplebit Episcopus</i>.” The Bishop’s supplement was -alone sufficient for the <i>potestas sacrificandi</i>, without any -invalidation of what had been previously accomplished. At last the -Commissioners resolved upon adopting the hypothetical scheme—Beveridge -and Scot alone dissenting from that conclusion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>The subject of exercising care relative to candidates occasioned -no controversy; it was proposed that a month<span class="pagenum" id="Page_133">[133]</span> before ordination, -testimonials should be sent to the Bishop; and that candidates should -be tested by being required to compose some short discourse in writing -“upon some point or article.” Burnet, not much to the satisfaction of -some of his brethren, who eschewed all ecclesiastical precedents taken -from the north of the Tweed, reported the Scotch method of requiring -the composition of a doctrinal and practical discourse, and the -examination of the candidate in the original Scriptures and in sacred -chronology.</p> - -<p>In the Ordination Service the use of the words “receive the Holy -Ghost” gave rise to much discussion, as a command to receive involves -the possession on the speaker’s part of a power to bestow; and Burnet -contended that such a use could not be traced back above 400 years, it -having been introduced in the Middle Ages for the purpose of exalting -the priesthood. The form was originally, that of a humble prayer, -not of an absolute bestowment. Thus it appeared in the Apostolical -Constitutions, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the -Canons of the Councils of Carthage—the alteration being the fruit -of Hildebrand’s time. The Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot, however, -vindicated the Church of England in her employment of the Saviour’s -words, and asserted that if they be not retained, “there is no form of -ordination authoritatively,”—a very unfortunate ground of defence, -for, as it was justly said, if so, then, the words not being used in -the absolute form until within the previous four centuries, no valid -ordinations had previously taken place. Tillotson selected a quotation -from St. Augustine,<a id="FNanchor_158" href="#Footnote_158" class="fnanchor">[158]</a> proving Christ to be God, because He bestowed -the Holy Ghost; thus suggesting the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_134">[134]</span> argument that the Church could not -authoritatively confer the celestial gift, but only pray that it might -be conferred by the Divine Being. The rest of the time was spent in -revising the Daily Prayer, the Communion and Confirmation Services, the -Catechism, and other formularies, and in preparing new Collects.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The second paragraph of the general rubric at the beginning of the -order for Morning and Evening Prayer was struck out, and the following -passage was inserted instead:—“Whereas the surplice is appointed to -be used by all ministers in performing divine offices, it is hereby -declared, that it is continued only as being an ancient and decent -habit. But yet, if any minister shall come and declare to his Bishop -that he cannot satisfy his conscience in the use of the surplice in -divine service, in that case the Bishop shall dispense with his not -using it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall appoint a curate -to officiate in a surplice.” The new paragraph was afterwards scored -down the side, the following memorandum being appended:—“This rubric -was suggested but not agreed to, but left to further consideration.” -Another memorandum followed in these words, “A Canon to specify the -vestments.”</p> - -<p>Numerous verbal alterations were introduced into the Litany,—“sudden -death” being altered into “dying suddenly and unprepared;” and new -versicles and responses were inserted, “From all infidelity and -error, from all impiety and profaneness, from all superstition and -idolatry,—Good Lord deliver us.” With the Litany it was proposed to -connect the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, and the response, “Lord, -have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>To the Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions were added two -new forms: one a prayer to be said<span class="pagenum" id="Page_135">[135]</span> before receiving the Communion, -another a prayer for any time of calamity. Forty-two new Collects were -composed; and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, after the Ten -Commandments, came the insertion of the Beatitudes, with this petition -after each of them, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and make us partakers -of this blessing.” Here, and throughout the whole Prayer-Book, for the -title <i>priest</i> is substituted that of <i>minister</i>. In the -office for Baptism of Infants, the presentation of children for that -purpose by godfathers and godmothers is acknowledged as an ancient -custom to be continued; it is added, that if any person comes to the -Minister, and tells him he cannot conveniently procure godfathers and -godmothers for his child, and that he desires the child may be baptized -upon the engagement of the parent or parents only, in that case the -Minister, after discourse with him, if he persists, shall be obliged -to baptize such child, or children, upon the suretiship of the parent, -or parents, or some other near relation or friends. If any Minister -objected at his institution to use the sign of the cross, the Bishop -might dispense with that particular, and name a Curate to act for him. -In reference to the doctrine of Regeneration, the form of Baptism -remained the same as before.</p> - -<p>Large additions were made to the Catechism and to the Confirmation -Service, the prayers after the last answer being considerably modified; -and a new prayer and exhortation prepared for the confirmed, who were -required to stay and listen to it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The “Solemnization of Matrimony,” with several verbal changes, remains -substantially unaltered; but in “the Order for the Visitation of the -Sick,” together with fresh interrogatories, there is this important -change in the words of absolution: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who<span class="pagenum" id="Page_136">[136]</span> hath -left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and -believe in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; and -upon thy true faith and repentance, by His authority committed to me, I -pronounce thee absolved from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, -and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”</p> - -<p>In the Burial Service the word “dear” before the word “brother” is -struck out; so are the words “as our hope is this our brother doth.” -“Through any temptations” is substituted in place of the expression -“for any pains of death;” and the last prayer but one is so altered -that the latter portion becomes quite different. It runs thus: “We give -Thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to instruct us in this -heavenly knowledge, beseeching Thee so to affect our hearts therewith, -that seeing we believe such a happy estate hereafter, we may live here -in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto -the coming of the day of God; that being then found of Thee in peace -without spot and blameless, we may have our perfect consummation and -bliss, both in body and soul, in Thy eternal and everlasting glory, -through Jesus Christ our Lord.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">COMPREHENSION.</div> - -<p>No one who takes the trouble to read through the report of these -tedious proceedings but must be astonished at the extent of the -proposed alterations. They prove that some of the Episcopalian Divines -who took part in the revision of 1689 must have been a very different -class of men from the Episcopalian Divines who took part in the -revision of 1662. Calamy became acquainted with the alterations, and -said he thought if the scheme had been carried out, it would “have -brought in two-thirds of the Dissenters.”<a id="FNanchor_159" href="#Footnote_159" class="fnanchor">[159]</a> No doubt a considerable<span class="pagenum" id="Page_137">[137]</span> -number might have been satisfied, but I consider Calamy to have been -too sanguine in his expectation; his expectation resting mainly on -what he knew of Presbyterians, who were much more disposed to return -to the Establishment than were brethren of other denominations. -But in addition to circumstances already mentioned unfavourable to -Comprehension, the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, which -involved the abolition of Prelacy in that country, produced in -Prelatists a great deal of bad feeling, and stood in the way of the -present attempt; this obstacle was greatly increased by Nonconformist -attacks at the time upon the use of Liturgies, and by a constantly -augmenting number of Nonconformist ordinations. Besides, although -extensive alterations came under discussion, very few Episcopalians -were disposed to go to such lengths as were proposed; some who were -active in the affair were also cautious, and an immense majority -outside the Committee utterly disliked the whole business, and were -opposed to any alteration whatever in the formularies.<a id="FNanchor_160" href="#Footnote_160" class="fnanchor">[160]</a></p> - -<p>The changes proposed did not touch any articles of faith, and -therefore exhibit the English Latitudinarian party in a very different -position from that of the foreign Latitudinarians, who threw down -all the barriers of orthodoxy, and opened the doors of the Church to -Unitarians. D’Huisseau, a distinguished professor and pastor at Saumur, -proposed the reunion of Christendom on the broadest doctrinal basis, -and received support from several Calvinistic Divines of considerable -note.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_138">[138]</span> The English Episcopalians, who moved in the matter as just -described, rather resembled Jurieu, an eminent French theologian, -ordained by an Anglican Bishop, yet officiating as a Presbyterian -clergyman in France and in Holland. He advocated Comprehension on an -orthodox basis, and treated Church organization and forms of worship as -of minor importance.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The sittings of the Commission ended on November the 18th. Convocation -had assembled on the 6th of the same month.</p> - -<p>The labour of the Commissioners was labour in vain. It came to nothing. -All that remains of it is a royal octavo pamphlet in blue paper covers, -published some years ago by order of the House of Commons.</p> - -<p>History records many a lost opportunity, which students of the past, -looking at events, each from his own point of view, must needs -lament. To the Catholic—the old Catholic of the Döllinger type—the -Reformation appears a lost opportunity for removing abuses and uniting -European Christendom. It comes before him as a crisis, which, if the -Catholic party had been wise, they would have used for the purpose of -purifying the Church and conciliating opponents, and so retaining them -within the same fold. By the Puritan, freeing himself from party bias, -I should think, the era of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth -must be regarded as a lost opportunity for treating Episcopalians -(their inveterate persecutors) in the spirit of Christian justice and -charity, by granting admirers of the Prayer-Book a freedom of worship -which admirers of the Prayer-Book had never granted to the Puritans; -thus returning good for evil, and so reading with emphasis a priceless -lesson to the whole world. In like manner, surely, the liberal -Churchman of the present day, whatever he may think of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_139">[139]</span> Tillotson’s -Commission, must mourn over the Revolution as a lost opportunity -for enlarging the boundaries of her communion, of recovering -Dissenters—not to the extent Calamy supposed, yet in considerable -numbers—and of removing from the Church of England many incumbrances, -which have ever since been points of attack and sources of weakness.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Much excitement had been manifested during the clerical elections in -the year 1661, but there was far greater excitement during the election -of 1689. Canvassing for members of Parliament was an old custom, -but canvassing for members of Convocation was a new one, and at the -time it was noticed as a sign of party spirit then so rife. The fact -is remarkable, that whilst the official members of the Lower House -included many distinguished men, nobody of any mark was <i>elected</i>, -except Dr. John Mill, the eminent Greek scholar, who edited a new -version of the text of the New Testament.<a id="FNanchor_161" href="#Footnote_161" class="fnanchor">[161]</a> By far the majority -was composed of persons who had long been Tories in politics, and now -showed themselves to be High Churchmen in religion; but the Upper -House,—thinned, by refusal to attend, of those nonjuring Prelates who -still survived, two of them having died,—contained decidedly liberal -politicians and divines in the persons of Compton, Lloyd, Burnet, and -Patrick, the last of whom had in September been raised to the Bishopric -of Chichester. These Bishops took the lead in the proceedings of that -assembly, and imparted to them a liberal spirit. The difference between -the temper of the two Houses soon appeared.</p> - -<p>Convocation had formerly met first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at -Westminster. Now that the new Cathedral<span class="pagenum" id="Page_140">[140]</span> of London, though nearly -completed, had not been consecrated, Convocation assembled at once -within the walls of Henry VII.’s Chapel, when a Latin sermon was -preached by Beveridge.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>As soon as the Lower House proceeded to business, the choice of a -Prolocutor was the first step. On the 21st of November, Sharp—who -had in the Deanery of Canterbury succeeded Tillotson, now made Dean -of St. Paul’s—proposed as Prolocutor his distinguished predecessor, -who was a friend of the King, a favourite at Court, a man of prudence -and moderation, and a promoter of the scheme of Comprehension. But -Tillotson was rejected by two to one in favour of Jane. Nobody could -mistake the significancy of the choice. It would appear that personal -feeling had some influence in it. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochester -are accused of having intrigued against Tillotson from resentment -towards his patrons, the King and Queen—the latter of them, although -their near relative, not having raised them to any high employments in -the State. Moreover, it had become known, that Tillotson was intended -by William to be Sancroft’s successor, as soon as Sancroft’s deposition -could be legally accomplished. This circumstance stung the mind of -Compton, who, on account of his former relation to the Queen as her -tutor, and the signal service he had rendered at the Revolution, not -to mention his noble rank, considered he had a claim superior to -that of the Dean. Unworthy motives are often attributed to men upon -insufficient grounds, and I am unable to discover the reasons for -Tillotson’s unfavourable opinion of Compton; but as Tillotson was -not likely to have adopted suspicions without reason, it is probable -that Compton had something to do with the rejection of Tillotson as a -candidate for the Prolocutorship. Knowing what human<span class="pagenum" id="Page_141">[141]</span> nature is, one -does not wonder that Compton was annoyed at Tillotson being preferred -to him; yet it should be remembered that if Compton was mortified by -the Royal preference for Tillotson, it did not at present induce him to -abandon the Liberal party. When Jane the Prolocutor was presented to -Compton as President of the Upper Chamber, in the room of the absent -Primate, he finished a speech upon the perfection of the Church, and -the mischief of any change in it, with the words, “<i>Nolumus leges -Angliæ mutari</i>,” in allusion, it is inferred, to Compton’s having -adopted that motto for the colours of his regiment, when he had -played the part of a colonel. The Bishop, in his answer, indicated -his adherence to the opinions and measures he had before proposed, by -saying to the Clergy, that “they ought to endeavour a temper in those -things that are not essential in religion, thereby to open the door of -salvation to a multitude of straying Christians; that it must needs be -their duty to show the same indulgence and charity to the Dissenters -under King William, which some of the Bishops and Clergy had promised -to them in their addresses to King James.”<a id="FNanchor_162" href="#Footnote_162" class="fnanchor">[162]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>After the Royal Commission—a commission which spoke of rites and -ceremonies as “indifferent and alterable”—authorizing the Convocation -to proceed to business had been read, and after the delivery of a -Royal message full of gracious expressions, conveyed by the Earl of -Nottingham, the Bishops prepared an address. In this address they -thanked His Majesty for the zeal he had shown “for the Protestant -religion in general, and the Church of England in particular.”<a id="FNanchor_163" href="#Footnote_163" class="fnanchor">[163]</a> To -these words a strong objection was taken by the Lower House. First,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_142">[142]</span> -they claimed a right to present an address of their own, which being -disallowed, they claimed a right to offer amendments. They wished the -address to be confined to what concerned the Church of England, and no -mention to be made of the Protestant religion in general. An amendment -being carried to that effect, there followed a conference between the -two Houses—Burnet representing the Upper, Jane the Lower. The Lower -House desired the words “Established Church” to be employed, which led -to a dispute between the Bishop and the Prolocutor. The Bishop argued, -that the Church of England as established was only distinguished from -other Churches by its hierarchy and revenues, and that if Popery were -restored there would still be an Established Church of England. The -Prolocutor replied, that the Church was distinguished by its Articles, -Liturgy, and Homilies.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The discussion between these two Divines resembled that between the -two knights who could not agree about the device on a shield, because -the first looked at it on one side and the second on the other. The -fact is, that the disputants were thinking of different things. Burnet -was thinking only of the circumstance of an Establishment—of that -which is a mere incident to any Church connected with the State; so -considering the question, no doubt he was right. Jane, on the other -hand, was thinking of the Church itself, and not the establishment -of it. Consequently he was wrong in saying what he did of the Church -as established, though he would have been right had Burnet used the -disputed words in the sense in which Jane was employing them. The -logomachy terminated in a compromise; and the two Houses concurred in -thanking William for the zeal he had expressed concerning the honour, -peace, advantage, and establishment of the English Church, whereby they -doubted not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_143">[143]</span> the interest of the Protestant religion, which in all -other Protestant Churches was dear to them, would be the better secured.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>The King, in reply, assured the Bishops, that they might depend on his -former promises, and he gave a new assurance that he would improve all -occasions and opportunities for serving the Church of England. There -also occurred in this Convocation, debates about proxies, complaints -respecting the custody of Convocation records, and charges brought -against the publication of books on the Athanasian Creed, contrary -to the Canons. We are informed that a reverend person made a useless -speech on behalf of the Bishops under suspension, wishing that -something could be done to qualify them for sitting in Convocation -without endangering the constitution of the Assembly; and Burnet tells -us that the majority in Convocation refused to consider any compromise -with the Dissenters, one argument being that it was derogatory to the -Church to make overtures to them until they expressed a desire for -reconciliation, and either offered proposals themselves, or showed a -willingness to consider proposals made by others.<a id="FNanchor_164" href="#Footnote_164" class="fnanchor">[164]</a></p> - -<p>Committee meetings were held in Dr. Busby’s chamber, and in Dr. -Tenison’s library there was an inspection of old books belonging to -Convocation, but nothing important was effected in any way. Convocation -adjourned on the 16th of December through successive prorogations, and -remained inoperative for ten years.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_144">[144]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER V.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The periods prescribed by the Act which altered the Oaths of -Allegiance—first for the suspension, and next for the ejectment of -those who refused to swear—were the 1st of August, 1689, and the 1st -of February, 1690.</p> - -<p>In the early part of the year events occurred which increased the -importance of exacting the prescribed oaths.</p> - -<p>James left France in the month of March, 1689. Rumour ran that he had -reached England, that he was in London, that he was secretly lodged in -the house of Lloyd, the Nonjuror.<a id="FNanchor_165" href="#Footnote_165" class="fnanchor">[165]</a> This proved to be a mistake. He -landed at Kinsale in Ireland, trusting to his friends, and saying, “I -will recover my own dominions with my own subjects, or perish in the -attempt.” The French King speeded the parting guest with the equivocal -compliment, “The best wish I can form for your service is, that I may -never see you again.”<a id="FNanchor_166" href="#Footnote_166" class="fnanchor">[166]</a> But with the people of Ireland James found -little favour—the Protestants disliking him as a Papist, the Papists -suspecting him because they considered his policy towards Protestants -too lenient.<a id="FNanchor_167" href="#Footnote_167" class="fnanchor">[167]</a> In support<span class="pagenum" id="Page_145">[145]</span> of his attempt to recover the crown, his -army laid siege to Londonderry, and the French navy skirmished with an -English squadron in Bantry Bay. This occurred in April. A Parliament, -at his summons, met in Dublin the following month, and from the Castle, -where he took up his residence, he issued a Declaration to his Irish -subjects, exhorting them to support his claims.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, who after the revocation of the -Edict of Nantes had witnessed the demolition of his church, and had -dared one night, at the request of his congregation, to preach amidst -the ruins, was for the offence sentenced to be broken on the wheel. -Having effected his escape from France, he happened, at the time of -James’ arrival in Ireland, to be an exile there. One of the first -things done by this Royal friend of religious liberty was to deliver -the refugee to the Ambassador of Louis, who had him conveyed home to -undergo his sentence.<a id="FNanchor_168" href="#Footnote_168" class="fnanchor">[168]</a></p> - -<p>Copies of James’ Declaration were circulated in England, and found -their way to Cambridge. One Thomas Fowler, from the University, stood -at the bar of the House of Commons on the 20th of June, to state -that the documents came down in boxes, directed to the Masters of -Queen’s and St. John’s; and one of the Burgesses for the University -acquainted the House that the boxes were in the custody of the -Vice-Chancellor.<a id="FNanchor_169" href="#Footnote_169" class="fnanchor">[169]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Government in England, with their elected Sovereign, was challenged -to submit to the cashiered King, or to hold their own by force of -arms. The gauntlet being<span class="pagenum" id="Page_146">[146]</span> thrown down before the world, no alternative -remained but for William to return to Holland, or to fight out the -contest as best he could. The position in which these circumstances -placed him in reference to the Nonjurors is obvious. Personally he had -no disposition to come to extremities with them; he had given proof of -a desire to treat them with the utmost leniency; but the exigencies of -his position rendered it indispensable that at this moment he should -be unyielding towards all justly suspected of disaffection. Of the -disaffection of the Nonjurors there could be no doubt. They refused to -take the new oath on the very ground that, by virtue of the old one, -their allegiance belonged to James. James was their anointed King, -their King by Divine right; William was esteemed by them as no better -than a usurper.</p> - -<p>Three nonjuring Prelates died in the course of the spring and summer. -Cartwright, the semi-Popish Bishop of Chester, after joining James at -St. Germains, accompanied him to Ireland, where on the 15th of April -he expired, having received on his death-bed the sacrament and the -absolution of the Church of England, instead of conforming to Rome, -as at the time he was reported to have done.<a id="FNanchor_170" href="#Footnote_170" class="fnanchor">[170]</a> Thomas, Bishop of -Worcester, died June the 25th, solemnly declaring on his death-bed -that, if his heart did not deceive him, and the grace of God failed -him not, he thought he could burn at a stake before he would take -the new oath.<a id="FNanchor_171" href="#Footnote_171" class="fnanchor">[171]</a> Lake, Bishop of Chichester, followed Thomas to -the grave in the month of August, expressing satisfaction with the -course which he had pursued, and declaring his conviction that the -oaths were inconsistent with the doctrine of passive obedience, which -he maintained to be<span class="pagenum" id="Page_147">[147]</span> a doctrine of the English Church.<a id="FNanchor_172" href="#Footnote_172" class="fnanchor">[172]</a> These -testimonies, hallowed by the solemnity of death, were heirlooms for -the Nonjurors, who preserved them with care, and exhibited them with -reverence, not without considerable effect in promoting their cause.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>The Prelates who had not sworn, persistently continued to refuse the -oaths; the Primate being reproached with his inconsistency for the part -he had taken in the Revolution. He was insolently told by a Jacobite -correspondent in Holland, “Your Grace has forfeited your neck already -in signing that traitorous Declaration at Guildhall, wherein you cast -off your allegiance to your lawful Sovereign, and applied yourself to -the Prince of Orange.”<a id="FNanchor_173" href="#Footnote_173" class="fnanchor">[173]</a> Free to discharge their functions up to the -1st of August, 1689, the Bishops were then suspended from the exercise -of them. Still they enjoyed their benefices, and continued to reside -in their palaces. The interim was filled up by the defence of their -opinions. Sancroft, following the bent of his disposition, shut himself -up at Lambeth, retaining impracticable views of a Regency, refusing to -acknowledge William and Mary, combining good intentions with narrowness -of mind, and saying to the last, with Pius the IX. at Rome, <i>Non -possumus</i>. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, unfortunately sympathized -with the Archbishop, and encouraged him in his policy. Ken—a far -different man, firm in principle, of a tender conscience, yet open to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_148">[148]</span> -conviction, careless about his interests, only anxious to do what was -right—almost resolved to submit. But, after a night’s rest, he said -to Dr. Hooper, who had pressed submission upon him, “I question not -but that you, and several others, have taken the oaths with as good a -conscience as myself shall refuse them; and sometimes you have almost -persuaded me to comply by the arguments you have used; but I beg you -to use them no further, for should I be persuaded to comply, and after -see reason to repent, you would make me the most miserable man in the -world.”<a id="FNanchor_174" href="#Footnote_174" class="fnanchor">[174]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>Turner, Bishop of Ely, another of the nonjuring band, whose character -has been indicated already, whose Jacobitism is unquestionable, and -who supported the Archbishop in his defiant course, wrote to him on -Ascension Day, 1689, a letter in which he refers to Ken, and the -doubts felt respecting him. “I must needs say, the sooner we meet our -brother of Bath the better, for I must no longer in duty conceal from -your Grace—though I beseech you to keep it in terms of a secret—that -this very good man is, I fear, warping from us, and the true -interests of the Church of England, towards a compliance with the new -Government.”<a id="FNanchor_175" href="#Footnote_175" class="fnanchor">[175]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_149">[149]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, coincided with Ken in his moderation; -and if the rest had resembled them, possibly a practical adjustment -of the controversy might have been reached. He is described as a -gentle, amiable man, unfitted for an Episcopal position during a season -of political trouble. After his deprivation he pursued a quiet and -inoffensive course, without giving any umbrage to the Government.<a id="FNanchor_176" href="#Footnote_176" class="fnanchor">[176]</a> -Sancroft, Lloyd, and Turner were men of a different mould.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>During the period of the Bishops’ remaining in suspension, their case -excited immense interest—friends loudly expressing sympathy, opponents -loudly expressing disapproval. The press was employed. Apologies -were published; answers were returned. On the one hand the services -of the Seven in the cause of liberty were gratefully rehearsed, -their sufferings pitifully depicted, their temper under trials -enthusiastically extolled, and the sacredness of oaths, as asserted in -their conduct, earnestly enforced. Connected with this vindication and -eulogy, were mystical allusions to the perfect number of the Episcopal -confessors, the Seven imprisoned being irreverently compared to the -burning lamps before the throne of God. On the other hand, this play -of fancy met with sarcasm and ridicule; the old arguments for the -new oaths came into hackneyed use; the patient temper of the Bishops -failed to excite any longer much admiration, and a ridiculous panegyric -pronounced upon them for “the holy tears” they wept, like “trees of -sovereign<span class="pagenum" id="Page_150">[150]</span> balm, to cure the wounds of their Royal enemy,” only aroused -mockery, whilst their suffering and services were depreciated by a -reference to the story of Alexander the Great. Alexander had coats -of armour made for men and horses three times the ordinary size, and -left behind on the banks of the River Indus, to make succeeding ages -believe that his soldiery were of gigantic bigness. So, it was said, -the setting forth a few days’ imprisonment in the Royal palace of -the Tower,—under the notion of its being a prison such as confined -the primitive Christians,—detracted from the real glory gained by -the Bishops, since everybody saw the vast disproportion between the -dungeons of Diocletian and the Tower of London.<a id="FNanchor_177" href="#Footnote_177" class="fnanchor">[177]</a></p> - -<p>As the 1st of February approached, a few Clergymen in the archdeaconry -of Sudbury applied to their Diocesan, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, telling -him that though they thought of nothing less than losing all, yet they -passionately desired to know whether they should voluntarily leave -their respective cures, or wait to be forcibly thrust out; also they -wished to know how they were to behave, so as, if possible, to preserve -the ancient Church of England. He informed them that in the opinion -of eminent lawyers a judicial sentence alone could eject them; and -therefore that they might retain possession until they were judicially -expelled. Their second question he left unanswered.<a id="FNanchor_178" href="#Footnote_178" class="fnanchor">[178]</a> Whether -Lloyd’s notion of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_151">[151]</span> law was right or wrong, the Clergy generally did not -act upon it, for most of them quietly quitted possession on the 1st -of February.<a id="FNanchor_179" href="#Footnote_179" class="fnanchor">[179]</a> Amongst the most distinguished of these Nonjurors -were George Hickes, Dean of Worcester; Henry Dodwell, who, though -not in orders, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford; -Jeremy Collier, Lecturer at Gray’s Inn; and John Kettlewell, Vicar of -Coleshill, in Warwickshire.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Hickes was a man of great learning, skilled both in patristic lore and -Teutonic tongues. He was brother to the Nonconformist Minister of the -name, who suffered death after Monmouth’s rebellion; but, so far from -being tainted with his brother’s sentiments, he was an intense opponent -of Nonconformity, and an extravagant assertor of passive obedience. -He published the last speeches of two Presbyterian Ministers, under -the title of <i>The Spirit of Popery, speaking out of the Mouths of -Fanatical Protestants</i>; and declared, in his <i>Thebæan Legion</i>, -that if King James should imitate the Emperor Maximian, and doom his -soldiers to death, for refusing to commit idolatry, it would be their -duty to submit with meekness to the Royal decree. He wrote letters -to a Popish priest, and an apologetical vindication of the English -Church, in answer to those who reproached her with heresy and schism; -and he also composed a book, entitled <i>Speculum Beatæ Virginis, a -discourse of the due praise and heroism of the Virgin Mary</i>. These -works indicate what manner of man he must have been, yet it is affirmed -that at first he felt disposed to take the oaths, and came up to London -for the purpose, but swerved from it through the influence of his High -Church friends; a statement which seems very improbable.<a id="FNanchor_180" href="#Footnote_180" class="fnanchor">[180]</a> Dodwell -was still more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_152">[152]</span> learned than Hickes, and if in his theories more -absurd, he was in practice more reasonable. Some of his speculative -ideas upon marriage and music, upon the old serpent and the human soul, -were as extraordinary as any that ever entered the human brain; but -the fact which more immediately relates to my purpose is, that on the -one hand he wrote <i>Discourses against the Romanists</i>, and on the -other hand treatises upon <i>Schism</i> and <i>One Priesthood</i>, in -such a style, that when Tillotson read the MS. he told him some things -in it were so palpably false, he wondered the author did not see their -absurdity, and that they were so gross as to grate much upon one’s -inward sense. He compared him to Richard Baxter—a man unlike him in -most respects, but whom he resembled in pertinacity of purpose and -fondness for his own opinion. Collier was described in his own day as -a breathing library, and for metaphysical learning and eloquence as -bearing the bell from most men.<a id="FNanchor_181" href="#Footnote_181" class="fnanchor">[181]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Inferior to Collier in point of ability, and to Dodwell and Hickes in -point of learning, Kettlewell exceeded them in the fervour of his piety -and in the force of his character. Eminently spiritual and devout, with -his heart fixed upon another world, he threw into his life and ministry -a spiritual force, which touched as with an electric spark those who -came in contact with him, and made him a centre of power, though he was -free from any ambition to become a party leader. He had been Chaplain -in the Bedford family, and had been held in affectionate esteem by -Lord William Russell, though he utterly differed from him in political -opinion, for Kettlewell strongly maintained the doctrine of passive -obedience. He did not join in the outcry against Popery in the reign -of James II.; he thought it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_153">[153]</span> betrayed unworthy fears to be so alarmed -at the antagonism of error; and instead of preaching against Romanism, -he enforced the doctrines of the Creeds. When others were exclaiming -against the miscarriages of Government, he, it is said, turned the -thoughts of his hearers upon themselves, bidding them contemplate -the judgment of God, adore His wisdom, and submit to His will.<a id="FNanchor_182" href="#Footnote_182" class="fnanchor">[182]</a> -The use which he meant to be made of these religious reflections was -to reconcile people to the ruling powers, and to repress the idea of -resisting them, whatever might be the excesses to which they ran. “He -preached up,” as his sympathizing biographer, remarks, “the duties -of common Christianity and of universal obligation, of reliance upon -Providence, of simplicity and sincerity, of fidelity and perseverance, -with all the branches of the great doctrine of the Cross, and the -benefit which the Church maketh by sufferings; constantly recommending -Christianity to his flock as a passive religion, and giving them rules -for begetting in them a meek and passive spirit.”<a id="FNanchor_183" href="#Footnote_183" class="fnanchor">[183]</a> The temper -of the man, the tone of his churchmanship, and the preparation he -was making for his ultimate position as a Nonjuror, are very plain; -and with peculiarities of this kind he blended a love of Ritualism, -which expressed itself in rather an unusual form, for when a new set -of Communion plate had been presented to the church at Coleshill, he -caused the vessels to be dedicated by Archbishop Sancroft. They were -placed upon a table below the altar steps, and then taken, piece by -piece, and reverently placed upon the altar, sentences of Scriptures -being repeated in connection with the presentation of each. When the -patten, the chalices, the flagon, and the bason had been so offered, -a prayer of consecration<span class="pagenum" id="Page_154">[154]</span> followed, then a benediction, and then the -Holy Communion.<a id="FNanchor_184" href="#Footnote_184" class="fnanchor">[184]</a> Kettlewell is described as a man of a peaceable -disposition; but it is clear from his Memoirs that the ardour of his -affections led him to speak and act with a vehemence not agreeable -to those who differed from him, and “the true effigies” of his face -prefixed to the book, confirms the inference which in this respect must -be drawn from the narrative. He was unquestionably a man of enthusiasm, -and his enthusiasm had a capacity for becoming fanatical.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1689.</div> - -<p>The Nonjurors were not so numerous as Kettlewell and others wished. -Only six joined him in his own county. In the diocese of Lichfield and -Coventry there might be twenty. In one archdeaconry in the diocese of -Norwich there might be half that number, owing to the influence of a -nonjuring Bishop. In one College at Cambridge there was a considerable -majority of Nonjurors, attributable to the party spirit they managed to -maintain. Altogether, about 400 Clergymen quitted the Establishment. -When we remember how prevalent had been the doctrines of the Divine -right of Kings, and of the absolute submission of subjects; when, -besides this, we recollect the nature of the education given at Oxford, -where the decree against the opposite doctrines had been daily read, -and constantly hung up in the Colleges,—we wonder that the Nonjurors -were not more numerous.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Dignitaries were not so submissive as their inferior brethren. In -defiance of the Act of Parliament, nonjuring Bishops retained their -palaces; and so lenient was the Government, that, at the eleventh hour, -forms of proviso were proposed, under which Nonjurors might<span class="pagenum" id="Page_155">[155]</span> continue -to enjoy their benefices. The suspicion with which all such overtures -of kindness were regarded appears in a letter to Sancroft written by -Lloyd, the Coryphæus of the obstinates:</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="left">“May it please your Grace,</p> - -<p class="p-min">“Mr. Inch called upon me last Monday, and showed me a protest -contrived by him, and some of our good friends (as he styled -them), in order to fend off our deprivation. I thanked him and -our good friends for their kind designs, but at the same time I -could not well resolve what it might import, <i>Timeo Danaos et -dona</i>, and I dread lurking and consequential snares. It is -therefore necessary to consider well of this protest before any -determination about it.</p> - -<p>“I must confess to your Grace, that I do not think it fit for us -to appear in it, or to push it on, as it took its rise from our -friends’ kindness; for it is most proper for them to manage it.</p> - -<p>“Again, it may be very improper to stir the point, till we see -in what temper the gentlemen are that meet at St. Stephen’s -Chapel. The giving of a recognizance for the good behaving, or -quiet peaceable living, is a point that deserves to be well -weighed, especially since the interpretation of it depends much -on the mercy of the gentlemen that sit in Westminster Hall. -On the other hand, the circumstances of our poor noncomplying -brethren in our respective dioceses, must be considered, for (if -I mistake not) the benefit of the protest concerns them more -than us.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<p>“My Lord, upon the whole matter, I designed this day to have -waited upon your Grace and my Lord of Ely, but, in good truth, -I am not able to stir abroad. I took physic last Monday, and I -have been feverish ever since; but as soon as it shall please -God to enable me, I shall<span class="pagenum" id="Page_156">[156]</span> wait upon your Grace and my Lord of -Ely. In the meantime, with the tender of my humble duty and -service,</p> - -<p class="r4 p-min">“I remain,</p> - -<p class="r2 p-min">“Your Grace’s most obedient servant<br /> to command,</p> - -<p class="r1 p-min">“<span class="smcap">William Norwich</span>.”<a id="FNanchor_185" href="#Footnote_185" class="fnanchor">[185]</a></p> -</div> - -<p>This secession from the Church on a question touching the Crown -could not but be a trouble to William; at the same time he had other -troubles. The intrigues and trials between Whigs and Tories were the -plague of his reign. He wished he were a thousand miles away, and that -he had never become King of England. He thought he could not trust the -Tories—he resolved he would not trust the Whigs; and once he was on -the point of going back to Holland, leaving the Government here in the -hands of the Queen. He and his Ministers had warm debates, and it is -said that amongst them tears were shed. At last William made up his -mind to go to Ireland, and there put an end to the war.<a id="FNanchor_186" href="#Footnote_186" class="fnanchor">[186]</a></p> - -<p>He assembled a new Parliament on the 2nd of April. Terrific excitement -prevailed at the elections. The Whigs denounced the Tories as -Jacobites, and the Jacobites as Papists. The Tories denounced the Whigs -as Republicans, Fanatics, Latitudinarians, and Atheists. The Tories had -the best of it, and returned a majority. Four Tories were declared to -be at the head of the poll for the City of London. Prominent and noisy -Whigs were excluded from their old seats; liberal men, disgusted at the -excesses of their own party, voted on the other side; even Sir Isaac -Newton declined a contest at Cambridge, and recorded his name in favour -of Sir Robert Sawyer, who had been expelled from the Whig Convention. -Yet in spite of defeats, the Whigs took heart and concocted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_157">[157]</span> plans, -hoping to frustrate the opposite policy. This subject, however, it is -not necessary to pursue, neither need we describe the changes which -took place in the Ministry. Before the Revolution, the conduct of the -Ministry affected most materially the affairs of the Church and the -condition of Dissenters; after the passing of the Allegiance Act, the -Church was little affected by the policy of the Government, except -as connected with Convocation; still less did that policy touch the -Dissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">IRISH CAMPAIGN.</div> - -<p>In anticipation of the Irish campaign, a national fast was fixed for -the 12th of March, when prayers were offered for the personal safety of -William. Immediately afterwards, a form of prayer of a very different -description was printed and circulated. It referred to England as in -a state of religious apostacy, and it sought the restoration of James -without mentioning him by name. He was referred to as the stone which -the builders rejected, and which God would make the head of the corner. -There could be no mistake as to what was meant by the petitions, “Give -the King the necks of his enemies;” “Raise him up friends abroad;” “Do -some mighty thing for him, which we, in particular, know not how to -pray for.”<a id="FNanchor_187" href="#Footnote_187" class="fnanchor">[187]</a></p> - -<p>This inflammatory performance under a devout disguise aroused -indignation, and numbers of the adherents of William ascribed its -composition to the Nonjurors. The excitement against the Bishops of -that party was increased by a publication, in which they were styled -“the Reverend Club of Lambeth,” “the Holy Jacobite Club,” “wretches, -great contrivers, and managers of Cabals,” who loved “to trample on the -Dissenters, now happily out of their clutches.” The new prayers are -called<span class="pagenum" id="Page_158">[158]</span> the Bishop’s “Great Guns;” and Ken is alluded to as a fellow -who had eaten King William’s bread. The most shameful passage is one -in which, under a covert allusion to the massacre of the De Witts in -Amsterdam, a violent assault upon the individuals abused is obviously -suggested.<a id="FNanchor_188" href="#Footnote_188" class="fnanchor">[188]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<p>The Bishops published a vindication of themselves, denying that they -had any share in the recent form of prayer, or that they had any -knowledge as to who were the writers. In reference to the attack upon -them they said, “Who the author of the libel was they did not know; -but whoever he might be, they desired, as the Lord had taught, to -return him good for evil, and recommended him to the Divine mercy.” -They had all, they went on to declare, actually or virtually, hazarded -whatever they possessed in opposing Popery and arbitrary power; and -were still ready to sacrifice their very lives in the same noble cause. -In conclusion, they lamented the misfortune that they were unable to -publish full and particular replies to the many libels which were -industriously circulated by enemies, to the injury of their reputation. -The authorship of the prayers being denied by the Bishops, it was -attributed to Hickes, or to Sherlock, or to Kettlewell; on their -behalf a protest was entered against such a suspicion in the Life of -the last of these persons; but some sympathy with the New Liturgy -itself is betrayed by the writer, when, without any condemnatory or -qualifying remark, he calls it “as solemn and expressive as any could -well be;” nor does he hint at its being the work of Roman Catholics—an -origin which, by some writers, has been suggested without sufficient -reason.<a id="FNanchor_189" href="#Footnote_189" class="fnanchor">[189]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_159">[159]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER VI.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">On the 1st of July, 1690, the memorable Battle of the Boyne was -fought and won by William III. He received a slight wound; and that -slight wound created an unexampled sensation throughout England and -the cities and courts of Europe. A letter conveying the intelligence -reached the Queen at Whitehall just as she was going to chapel; and, -to use her own expression, it frightened her out of her wits. But out -of her senses with trouble one day, she was out of her senses with -joy the next, to find the injury turned out to be very slight.<a id="FNanchor_190" href="#Footnote_190" class="fnanchor">[190]</a> -Paris, at first frantic with exultation on hearing of the supposed -death of the great enemy of France, sunk into rageful disappointment -to find that he was still alive, and ready to fight further battles in -support of Protestantism. Strange as it may appear—but the strange -combinations of European parties and politics at that time will account -for it—the tidings of the wound brought no joy to Rome, any more than -to Austria.<a id="FNanchor_191" href="#Footnote_191" class="fnanchor">[191]</a> Both were reassured by a true report of the fate of -William. “No mortal man,” said Tillotson, “ever had his shoulder so -kindly kissed by a cannon bullet;” a felicitous tune of expression,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_160">[160]</span> -which even South, with all his prejudice against Tillotson, could not -fail to admire.<a id="FNanchor_192" href="#Footnote_192" class="fnanchor">[192]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<p>Whilst the battle was raging on the banks of the Boyne, a sea fight -occurred off the Sussex coast; an English Bishop, in sympathy with -his Royal master, was performing his sacred functions in the vicinity -of the latter of these conflicts; and an extract from his Diary in -reference to it is worth transcribing:—</p> - -<p>“Thirtieth of June, being Monday, I began my visitation at Arundel; -and went the next day to Lewes, where I visited on Wednesday; and on -Thursday went towards Hastings, and heard by the way that the French -were burning that town. But we resolved to go on, being invited to -lie at Sir Nicholas Pelham’s, whose house was not many miles from it. -He was gone thither with other country gentlemen; the French having -attempted to burn some ships that were run on ground there. He sent us -word the town was safe, but he could not come home that night. At six -in the morning he came, and said there was no danger, but the town was -in such confusion that it would be to no purpose to go thither. For -the churches were full of soldiers, who lay there all night, and the -streets full of country people, and all the women frighted away and -fled, so that there were none left to dress any victuals. He invited -us therefore to stay with him, and entertained us most kindly. But my -Chancellor, Dr. Briggs, all on a sudden started up, and would go to -Hastings, and about noon word was brought us some of the Clergy were -there; which made me condemn myself for not going with him, though I -followed the best advice I could get. And afterward it appeared to be -the best; for though some of the clergy appeared, there was no place -wherein to visit them;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_161">[161]</span> and besides it might have proved dangerous: for -two men were killed with a cannon bullet in the very next house to that -where my Chancellor sat; which made him run away in haste before he had -done his business, and (as I remember) left some of his books behind -him.”<a id="FNanchor_193" href="#Footnote_193" class="fnanchor">[193]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">SHERLOCK.</div> - -<p>The Battle of the Boyne led to an important clerical conversion. -William Sherlock, Master of the Temple, had distinguished himself in -the reign of James II., not only by his zeal in contending against -Popery, but also by his decision in maintaining the principle of -non-resistance. He strongly disapproved of the turn which affairs -took at the Revolution, and advocated negotiations with the exiled -Monarch, in reference to his being restored upon terms which would -preserve constitutional liberty. The accession of the Prince and -Princess of Orange inspired indignation, and the new oaths were by him -unhesitatingly declined. He threw in his lot with the Nonjurors, who -regarded his talents with respect and his character with admiration; -and they esteemed the support of a man so popular as a tower of -strength. After losing the Mastership of the Temple, he retired into -private life, and, pensive amidst misfortunes, wrote and published his -celebrated treatise on Death. Still he deprecated schism; disapproved -of the establishment of any Episcopal sect; advised those who could -conscientiously remain, not to forsake their parish churches; and even -officiated himself at St. Dunstan’s, actually reading the prayers -for William and Mary. When the Battle of the Boyne decided the fate -of the exile, and secured peace for the occupants of the throne, -Sherlock looked at things in another light, became reconciled to the -revolutionary<span class="pagenum" id="Page_162">[162]</span> settlement, and took the oaths which he had before -refused. As a consequence, he returned to the Mastership of the Temple, -and also received the Deanery of St. Paul’s, vacated by Tillotson’s -elevation to Canterbury. So prominent a man on the nonjuring side, -could not pass through such a conversion without giving some reasons -for it; accordingly he wrote a book, which he entitled, <i>The Case of -the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers stated and resolved according to -Scripture and Reason and the Principles of the Church of England</i>.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">SHERLOCK.</div> - -<p>Sancroft, soon after the Revolution, published what was called -<i>Bishop Overall’s Convocation Book</i>, written in the reign of James -I., containing certain conclusions respecting Ecclesiastical and Civil -Government, one of which, notwithstanding the current tone of the -book in favour of non-resistance, is to the effect, that a Government -originating in rebellion, when thoroughly settled, should be reverenced -and obeyed as “being always God’s authority, and therefore receiving no -impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it.” The Convocations -of Canterbury and York had endorsed the contents of Overall’s volume; -and, by a canon, distinctly condemned the doctrine that a Government -begun by rebellion, after being thoroughly settled, is not of God.<a id="FNanchor_194" href="#Footnote_194" class="fnanchor">[194]</a> -Sherlock made a good deal out of this, and said he should have -continued to stick at the oaths, had he not been relieved by Overall’s -book, and had not the venerable authority of a Convocation given him a -freedom of thinking, which the apprehensions of novelty and singularity -had cramped before.<a id="FNanchor_195" href="#Footnote_195" class="fnanchor">[195]</a> He did not consider, as is sometimes -represented, that the Bishop and Convocation settled the matter, and -that<span class="pagenum" id="Page_163">[163]</span> he was to submit as a child to the authoritative decree; but that -a door had been thereby opened to the sons of the Church to look at -the matter;<a id="FNanchor_196" href="#Footnote_196" class="fnanchor">[196]</a> and that he, having been thus induced to examine it -afresh, had for various reasons, which he assigns—some of which, it -must be acknowledged, run counter to his previous publications on the -subject<a id="FNanchor_197" href="#Footnote_197" class="fnanchor">[197]</a>—arrived at the conclusion that he could conscientiously -take the required vow. A terrible storm assailed him after this. -Argument, satire, and abuse, sometimes in vulgar prose, sometimes in -doggerel rhyme, descended in torrents upon his devoted head. Nonjurors -reviled him on the one side; Revolutionists on the other; and people -who did not care for either side joined in the old English cry against -turncoats and time-servers.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_164">[164]</span> Most people maintained he had changed -for the sake of loaves and fishes; and, as Mrs. Sherlock had made -herself very notorious, and was said to have had immense influence -over her husband, she caught a terrible pelting from a literary mob, -who assailed her as Xanthippe, Delilah, and Eve, all in one. Sherlock -had to pay the penalty, which men, whose new opinions jump in the -same direction as their pecuniary interests, must ever pay; but human -motives, whether good or evil, lie so far beneath the surface, that the -reading of them by even honest historians may widely differ from the -reading of them by the only Omniscient One. Contemporaries were too -much involved in party strife to take an unbiassed view of Sherlock’s -conduct; and writers since have scarcely been able to free themselves -from prejudices handed down by the pamphlets of that day. The grave -feature of the case affecting the reputation of the Master and Dean, -is to be found, not in the new application of a principle which he -had long held; but in the repudiation of his old principles, just at -the moment when the Battle of the Boyne had destroyed all prospect -of James’ restoration—the chance upon which, as Sherlock’s enemies -believed, he had ventured hopes of high preferment, during the time of -casting in his lot with the poor Nonjurors.<a id="FNanchor_198" href="#Footnote_198" class="fnanchor">[198]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<p>The Battle of the Boyne having established the Revolution, and with it -the throne of William, the people who had hailed him as their Deliverer -became more than ever impatient towards all who remained disaffected -towards his Government.</p> - -<p>Lloyd, the nonjuring Bishop of Norwich, a friend,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_165">[165]</span> adviser, and -correspondent of Sancroft, not being one of the illustrious Seven, -had never shared in that halo of confessorship which for awhile had -played around their sacred heads; but he had long been, and was still -more than ever, regarded as an obstinate, violent, and intriguing -Churchman, bent upon overthrowing the new Sovereign, and bringing back -to Whitehall the exiled King. His politics, not his religion, made him -unpopular; and his letters to his archiepiscopal friend, written in the -summer of 1690, betray the fact, that whatever might be the dislike -of the London populace to nonjuring Bishops in general, a feeling of -hatred prevailed against him in particular, and threatened his security -in one of the most unaristocratic districts of the Metropolis.</p> - -<p>“I was yesterday,” he wrote on the 5th of August, “forced to a sudden -flight, being alarmed by the rabble, who began to appear at their -Reformation work in Old Street. I had a message from a good friend last -Saturday, which assured me that the rabble would be up in a short time. -And on Friday, my housekeeper (being among some of her relations in -Cripplegate) brought me word, that the fanatics talked bitterly against -the Bishops, and would shortly call them to an account.</p> - -<p>“About 9 of the clock yesterday, Mr. Edwards, of Eye, and another -gentleman, called upon me, and told me they saw about 150 of the mob -very busy in pulling down of houses in Old Street. Within a few minutes -the hawker which sells pamphlets brought the same tidings, and, in -regard the dangerous crew were so near, I sent forthwith one of my men -to see how the affair went abroad, and another to fetch me a hackney -coach, into which I got with my wife and child, and straightway took -sanctuary in the Temple. From thence I sent for further information, -and found that the crew in Old<span class="pagenum" id="Page_166">[166]</span> Street was dispersed; partly by Justice -Parry coming among them and taking their names and threatening them -with informations; and chiefly by a company of the train-bands, who in -that nick of time passed that way to muster in the fields.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1690.</div> - -<p>“About four in the afternoon I returned to my house and found all quiet -in the way. If the rabble had continued I would not have failed to send -notice to your Grace; and, on the other hand, I resolved not to send a -confused uncertain alarm. God be praised, this scarecrow is over, and -I hope God will still deliver us from the bloody fangs of cruel saints -and scoundrels.”<a id="FNanchor_199" href="#Footnote_199" class="fnanchor">[199]</a></p> - -<p>Six months later the popular fury against men of Lloyd’s order was -being fanned afresh, and again he told his sorrows to his old friend:</p> - -<p>“Your Grace will see by the enclosed papers how the mob are encouraged -to bring some under their discipline: their wrath is cruel, and their -malice as keen as razors, but God defend the innocent from their rage.</p> - -<p>“There is also published a most devilish Atheistical satire against the -Clergy in general, but more especially against poor Nonjurors. I think -no age hath seen the like of it,—it’s called a Satire against the -Priests.”<a id="FNanchor_200" href="#Footnote_200" class="fnanchor">[200]</a></p> - -<p>Nonjurors lived on both sides the Irish Channel. Soon after the battle -which decided the fate of James, though it did not crush the hopes and -schemes of his supporters, William had his attention called to the -refusal of the Bishop of Ossory to pray for him in public worship. “His -Majesty’s command,” said the Secretary of State to the delinquent, “is, -that your Lordship be suspended till further order. I know not the -terms, being here in a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_167">[167]</span> camp, that are used in things of this nature; -but I acquaint your Lordship of His Majesty’s present resentment, and -can say no more till I hear from your Lordship herein.”<a id="FNanchor_201" href="#Footnote_201" class="fnanchor">[201]</a> Nonjurors -on this side of the Channel, however, gave much more trouble than they -did on the other.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">SCHEMES FOR RESTORATION.</div> - -<p>A scheme for the restoration of James came to light at the end of 1690. -The leader of the conspiracy was Richard Graham, Viscount Preston, -Secretary of State in the preceding reign, whose patent of nobility had -been drawn up at St. Germains, and who retained his seals of office -in spite of the Revolution. Secret conferences were held amongst the -English Jacobites, and as the result, Lord Preston, with a Mr. Ashton -and another companion, were despatched with treasonable papers to the -ex-King; but ere they had passed Tilbury Fort, in a smack which was -to convey them to the shores of France, they were seized and brought -back to London. Preston and Ashton were tried, convicted, and condemned -at the Old Bailey. Ashton was executed; Preston was pardoned. As -they lay under sentence of death, the sympathies of the Nonjurors -eagerly gathered round them, and the following letter from two -well-known members of the party, to Sancroft—who still lingered in his -Archiepiscopal Palace on the banks of the Thames—shows how earnestly -they sought to enlist his offices:—</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“We who waited on your Grace on Sunday last, in the evening, -being sensible that we were defective in the delivery of -our message, occasioned, in great measure, out of profound -respect to your Grace, have, upon a fuller recollection of -the importance of that affair, presumed to lay our thoughts -more plainly before your<span class="pagenum" id="Page_168">[168]</span> Grace, humbly conceiving, with all -due submission to your Grace’s judgment, that if your Grace -shall think it proper to give your personal assistance to the -gentlemen under sentence of death, it would not only be a -very great comfort and satisfaction to the dying gentlemen, -but likewise a considerable support and encouragement to all -surviving honest men.</p> - -<p>“My Lord, the concern is very extraordinary, otherwise we had -not presumed to give your Grace this trouble, and therefore, we -humbly beg your Grace would please to excuse this freedom.<a id="FNanchor_202" href="#Footnote_202" class="fnanchor">[202]</a></p> - -<p class="smcap r2 p-min">“Jeremy Collier,</p> - -<p class="smcap r1 p-min">“Shadrach Cooke.”</p> -</div> - -<p>Turner, Bishop of Ely, was charged with complicity in Preston’s -treasonable business, and two suspicious letters were produced, said -to be in the Prelate’s handwriting; but I cannot find evidence of -their authorship, or any proof in their contents justifying a charge -of treason. As Turner immediately hid himself, and then absconded, -it looks, notwithstanding, as if he felt a pang of conscious guilt; -but concealment in his case seems to have been a difficult matter, -for he had such a remarkable nose, that Sancroft, with a play of -humour,—which occasionally illumined his misfortunes,—spoke of -his friend as resembling Paul’s ship of Alexandria, which carried -a well-known sign upon its prow, or beak. Hence, though London was -a great wood, it would be hard for one with such a face, however -disguised by a patriarchal beard, or by a huge peruke, to escape -detection.<a id="FNanchor_203" href="#Footnote_203" class="fnanchor">[203]</a> It is not a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_169">[169]</span> little remarkable that, though the deposed -Primate prayed for his friend’s safety, he expressed no conviction -of his friend’s innocence. The Nonjurors, as we have seen, had been -treated with consideration and kindness. Though forfeiting their Sees -in February, 1690, after which successors were nominated, the Prelates -of the party were allowed to retain their palaces; and even as late -as April, 1691, attempts were made by friends of the Government to -compromise matters with them, in spite of the increased odium cast on -their order by Turner’s conduct: it was proposed that, at least, they -should disavow all share in the alleged conspiracy, but Sancroft would -do nothing of the kind, easy and reasonable as such a concession seemed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS EJECTED.</div> - -<p>There remained no alternative but to eject the disaffected, and to -induct loyal successors. As the crisis approached, questions were -raised and discussed by Nonjurors, touching the treatment of those -so inducted. Lloyd, Sancroft’s busy correspondent, now wrote to say -how perplexed he felt; for, extreme as might be his views, they were -surpassed by the views of others. He reported that they asked, what -they should do in case they appeared at any of the new Episcopal -elections,—should they oppose them? From such a proposal he shrunk, -for to carry it out might incur a <i>premunire</i>. Further, he -inquired whether for him to recommend their absenting themselves -would not be cowardly? Nonplussed by these problems, he despondingly -added, “What, then, is to be done? Here I stick.” His friend Wagstaffe -informed him, some had resolved to resist all Erastian intrusion, -and expected the displaced Bishops would assert their rights. Lloyd -grew testy at such an excess of zeal, and wished to know what the -self-appointed critics would advise the Prelates to do? Had not those -very critics<span class="pagenum" id="Page_170">[170]</span> submitted to deprivation? Of what use would it be for -their superiors to do otherwise?<a id="FNanchor_204" href="#Footnote_204" class="fnanchor">[204]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>Presently the question came again on the carpet.</p> - -<p>“May it please your Grace,” wrote the indefatigable Lloyd, “I had last -Saturday a fit opportunity to discourse with Sir Edward Entwich about -the <i>vexatio questio</i>, and found him—upon consideration of the -whole matter—to be of the same opinion with Mr. N—— th. The first -question that I proposed was, whether it was advisable for us to keep -possession till we were ejected by legal processes; his answer was, we -might, if we judged it meet, dispute the possession; but then, saith -he, you must at last expect to be outed, and to pay the costs and -charges of the suit, and to be called to Westminster Hall, and perhaps -elsewhere, to answer hard questions, and that with all rigour. I then -asked whether he would advise us so to do, and appear for us, and draw -pleas as occasions offered? To this his answer was, that he knew not to -what purpose we should put ourselves to fruitless trouble; for, saith -he, if a happy turn should come, all the proceedings against you will -be out of doors. This is the sum of our discourse.”</p> - -<p>He adds a paragraph respecting a Nonjuror whose Jacobitism had plunged -him into serious danger:</p> - -<p>“I saw Dr. B[ea]ch last week, who hopes shortly to be at liberty, or at -least to be abroad upon bail.</p> - -<p>“It was well for him that the informer blundered in his depositions -against him, and indeed, so did the justices who took the information; -for there is not in the deposition any express mention of the time or -place, when and where the Doctor said, that <i>the same power which put -our Saviour on the pinnacle of the Temple, put William and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_171">[171]</span> Mary upon -the throne</i>; but I am told that there are other informations against -him. His successor has broke into his Church in his absence, and got -possession in his absence, and this is a very great trouble to the Dr.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS EJECTED.</div> - -<p>“I hear that Mr. Dean of Worcester begins to appear again, and hopes -that the storm will blow over him. I heartily wish it may, <i>sed timeo -Danaos</i>; for commonly they are not so generous.”<a id="FNanchor_205" href="#Footnote_205" class="fnanchor">[205]</a></p> - -<p>The Dean of Worcester here referred to was Dr. Hickes. A little more -than a fortnight before Lloyd’s letter was written, the Dean drew up -a protest against his own ejectment, addressed to the Sub-Dean and -Prebendaries, idly declaring the appointment of a successor to be -illegal, and as idly calling upon them to defend the rights of the -dispossessed. This protesting ended in smoke. Hickes and Wagstaffe, as -well as Lloyd, had to succumb; so had Frampton of Gloucester, and White -of Peterborough. Sancroft yielded only to a legal process; and at last, -on Midsummer eve, between seven and eight o’clock, accompanied by the -steward of his household and three other friends, he entered a boat at -Lambeth ferry, which conveyed the little party to the Temple stairs, -where the deprived Primate sought shelter for a few days in Palsgrave -Court. One imagines, as amidst the lengthening shadows on the waters -that same night he left for ever the towers of the familiar palace, he -would cast “one longing, lingering look behind.” But history preserves -a more touching picture of the departure of Ken from the city of Wells.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>After he had from his pastoral chair in the Cathedral asserted his -Canonical right to remain Bishop of the Diocese, he passed through -the gardens and crossed the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_172">[172]</span> drawbridge over the moat, whilst old and -young crowded round him to ask his blessing and say farewell. “Mild, -complacent, yet dignified,” remarks the Layman who writes his life, -“on retiring with a peaceful conscience from opulence and station -to dependence and poverty, as the morning sun shone on the turreted -chapel, we naturally imagine he may have shed only one tear, when -looking back on those interesting scenes. Perhaps his eye might have -rested on the pale faces of some of the poor old men and women who had -partaken their Sunday dinner so often, and heard his discourse in the -old hall.”<a id="FNanchor_206" href="#Footnote_206" class="fnanchor">[206]</a></p> - -<p>Dr. Beveridge, who will be more particularly noticed hereafter, was -offered the See of Bath and Wells; but he was threatened by the -Nonjurors, in case he should accept the offer, with the fate of -schismatical usurpers, like Gregory and George of Cappadocia, who -invaded the See of Alexandria, upon the deposition of the orthodox -Athanasius.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS EJECTED.</div> - -<p>A rumour went abroad that the Archdeacon of Colchester had accepted a -mitre, in consequence of which friends pestered him with letters for -his suspected act, and turned against him his reputation for learning -and loyalty. Dr. Lowth prematurely addressed him under an Episcopal -title, and expostulated with him in the following terms:—</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="left">“May it please your Lordship,</p> - -<p class="p-min">“You must be sensible in what great reputation all well-minded, -learned, and judicious men, have had your laborious performances -upon the Laws and Canons of the Church. But notwithstanding, -since you have accepted a nomination to the Bishopric of Bath -and Wells, of which See Dr. Ken is the Canonical proprietor;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_173">[173]</span> -and having not been removed by his brethren, the Bishops, -something more is required of you, whereby its comportment with -those Church Laws may appear, so frequently forbidding two -Bishops to be in one city. It is well known what separations -the same practice hath bred in God’s Church, as also that her -decision hath still been against you. If, then, the same return, -the guilt and schism of it must be laid at your door, unless -you can produce such ground for the present practice, whereof -not only yourself but the Ancient Church hath heretofore been -ignorant. These are the sentiments of many, who have formerly -been your just admirers, and desire that you will give them no -occasion of taking new measures concerning you, and particularly -of him, who, notwithstanding he may no longer—upon the account -of your present promotion—write himself your brother, yet will -always remain</p> - -<p class="r4 p-min">“Yours, in the faith and discipline</p> - -<p class="r2 p-min">of the Ancient Church.”<a id="FNanchor_207" href="#Footnote_207" class="fnanchor">[207]</a></p> -</div> - - -<p>Whether or not such rebukes and warnings prevented Beveridge from -accepting the vacant See, at all events he declined it, and remained a -Presbyter till after the death of William.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_174">[174]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER VII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Nonconformists regarded the Revolution with thankfulness. William -was, in their eyes, a Heavensent deliverer, and at weekly and monthly -fasts they joined in prayer, that God’s blessing might rest on his -forces,<a id="FNanchor_208" href="#Footnote_208" class="fnanchor">[208]</a> which they regarded as being at war with Babylon. It is -said that had the London Dissenters been requested to raise a monument -to his memory, they would have provided a statue of gold;<a id="FNanchor_209" href="#Footnote_209" class="fnanchor">[209]</a> and -Calamy paints in bright colours their payment of taxes, and hearty -intercession for both King and Queen. He also alludes to their public -ordinations, their loving carriage amongst themselves, and their -friendly behaviour towards the Established Church. There is truth in -what he says, and we can conceive how, with memories of ancestral -troubles, he would rise to enthusiastic delight whilst recording the -blessings of the Revolution; but truth throws strong shadows amidst -these brilliant hues, and, indeed, he himself, in subsequent portions -of his narrative, makes an abatement in his demands on our admiration.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Mutual charity would have been exemplified if Howe’s advice had -prevailed, for he urged Conformists and Nonconformists<span class="pagenum" id="Page_175">[175]</span> not to magnify -diversities of opinion, but to promote the interests of a common -Christianity. “If our rulers,” he adds, “shall judge such intercourses -conducing to so desirable an end, they may perhaps in due time think -it reasonable to put things into that state, that ministers of both -sorts may be capable of inviting one another occasionally to the -brotherly offices of mutual assistance in each other’s congregations. -For which, and all things that tend to make us a happy people, we -must wait upon Him in whose hands their hearts are.”<a id="FNanchor_210" href="#Footnote_210" class="fnanchor">[210]</a> But on many -people these sentiments fell as idle words; and if by others they -were heard for one moment, the very next they were drowned by the -din of old controversies, or the outburst of new passions. Beautiful -and blessed ideals of union to most were as destitute of all charm -for their affections as of power to work themselves out into facts. -Catholic-minded men on opposite sides, if unencumbered by partizanship, -would have surmounted difficulties, and reached, if not unity of -fellowship, yet freedom of intercourse; but then, as always, prejudices -in the many defeated endeavours on the part of a few, and reopened -breaches when they seemed on the point of being healed.</p> - -<p>Death removed some most distinguished Nonconformist Ministers at the -era of the Revolution.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>John Bunyan, who belongs more to the universal church than to a -particular sect, died, as he had lived, in the Baptist communion. -He has come before us in a former volume, not as a leader in -ecclesiastical affairs, but as a sufferer for conscience’ sake, and -as an author of works which have won for him an unparalleled renown. -He trod the paths of private life, save that when he came to London -his “preaching attracted enormous multitudes;” and it was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_176">[176]</span> in the city -which had witnessed his vast popularity that he breathed his last. A -minister of peace, he took a long journey on horseback to extinguish -domestic strife, and on his way afterwards to the Metropolis, brought -on a fatal fever, through fatigue and exposure to heavy rains. This -occurred in the month of August, 1688, when the throne of James was -tottering to its fall, and plans which led to the Revolution were being -formed; probably whisperings of what was to happen to his country -reached Bunyan’s ears in his last hours. Illness overtook him in the -house of his friend Mr. Strudwick, a grocer on Snow Hill, and just -before his death he said to his friends, “Weep not for me, but for -yourselves. I go to the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who will, no -doubt, through the mediation of His blessed Son, receive me, though a -sinner, where I hope we ere long shall meet to sing the new song and -remain everlastingly happy, world without end.” “He felt the ground -solid under his feet in passing the black river which has no bridge, -and followed his pilgrim into the celestial city.” He expired before -the end of August, and was interred in Bunhill Fields; his church at -Bedford lamented with unaffected sorrow his loss at the age of 60; -and keep the next month days of humiliation and prayer for the heavy -bereavement they had sustained.<a id="FNanchor_211" href="#Footnote_211" class="fnanchor">[211]</a></p> - -<p>Dr. John Collinges, a Presbyterian, once Vicar of St. Stephen’s, -Norwich, died in 1690. He had assisted Pool in his <i>Annotations</i>, -and written practical as well as controversial works. One of them, -entitled <i>The Weaver’s Pocket-book, or Weaving Spiritualized</i>, -was no doubt suggested to him as he had stood watching the loom in the -house of some industrious parishioner in days<span class="pagenum" id="Page_177">[177]</span> when the city of Norwich -enjoyed the zenith of its manufacturing industry. He left behind a -good reputation, being, as his brethren testified, “a man of various -learning and excelling as a textuary and a critic, and generally -esteemed for his great industry, humanity, and exemplary piety.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>John Flavel ended his days on the 26th of June, 1691, at Exeter. He -had, before his death, left the town of Dartmouth, the scene of his -long and zealous ministrations, because the rabble, headed by certain -aldermen, in 1685 paraded the town, carrying the good man’s effigy to -be burnt,—an insult he revenged by praying, “Father, forgive them, for -they know not what they do.” With his lively imagination he combined -intense spiritual emotion, and the following story, which he relates -of himself in his <i>Pneumatologia</i> is so curious that, though -familiar from frequent quotation, it deserves to be inserted here. It -exemplifies a phase of spiritual life belonging to an age which has -passed away.<a id="FNanchor_212" href="#Footnote_212" class="fnanchor">[212]</a></p> - -<p>“Being on a journey, he set himself to improve his time by meditation; -when his mind grew intent, till at length he had such ravishing tastes -of heavenly joys, and such full assurance of his interest therein, that -he utterly lost the sight and sense of this world and all its concerns, -so that for hours he knew not where he was. At last, perceiving himself -faint from a great loss of blood from his nose, he alighted from his -horse and sat down at a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_178">[178]</span> spring, where he washed and refreshed himself; -earnestly desiring, if it were the will of God, that he might there -leave the world. His spirits reviving, he finished his journey in the -same delightful frame. And all that night passed without a wink of -sleep, the joy of the Lord still overflowing him, so that he seemed an -inhabitant of the other world. After this, an heavenly serenity and -sweet peace continued long with him; and for many years he called that -day one of the days of heaven, and professed he understood more of the -life of heaven by it, than by all the discourses he had heard or the -books he ever read.”<a id="FNanchor_213" href="#Footnote_213" class="fnanchor">[213]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>Richard Baxter was an old man at the time of the Revolution, weighed -down by suffering; and the Toleration Act came too late to give scope -to energies which, had the event happened twenty years earlier, would -have been ardently spent in tilling the newly-opened fields of labour. -Yet, when the adoption of the Doctrinal Articles of the Church was -required as the condition of exercising a Nonconformist ministry, the -trembling hand of the veteran theologist could not resist an impulse -to write down scholastically the sense in which the Articles were to -be subscribed. It was his own sense, yet it was also, as he believed, -one in which many of his brethren concurred. Few, it is said, took -notice of his explication, and at this we are not surprised, as his -explication contains more in the way of suggestive thought than of -explicit definition. His metaphysics, warmed by zeal for practical -religion, appear distinctly in this farewell effort. He has something -abstruse to say as to the glorified body of Christ, and upon some -other points; and he lays down a dictum, often repeated since in a -wider sense than he specifies, with regard to legislation in Church -and State:<span class="pagenum" id="Page_179">[179]</span> “God’s laws are the supreme civil laws, man’s laws are -but by-laws.” He also insists upon the doctrine of the Apostle James, -as well as the doctrine of the Apostle Paul; and, after charitably -saying, “all were not accursed that hoped well of Socrates, Antonine, -Alexander, Severus, Cicero, Epictetus, Plutarch,” and others, he -adds, “there is no name, that is, no Messiah, to be saved by, but -Christ.”<a id="FNanchor_214" href="#Footnote_214" class="fnanchor">[214]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>In a tenement near his friend Sylvester’s, in Charterhouse Square, -Baxter spent his last days; and when disabled from preaching in his -friend’s meeting-house, he preached in his own dwelling, almost dying -in the exercise of his favourite employment. “It would doubtless,” -it is said, “have been his joy to have been transfigured on the -Mount.” “He talked in the pulpit,” as one reports, “with great freedom -about another world, like one who had been there, and was come as a -sort of express from thence to make report concerning it.” His busy -pen was employed as long as he could grasp it with his fingers, in -writing something for the benefit of his fellow-men. At last growing -infirmities confined him to his chamber, and then to his bed. There his -vigorous mind “abode rational, strong in faith and hope, arguing itself -into, and preserving itself in, that patience, hope, and joy, through -grace.” With unaffected humility he spoke of himself as a sinner worthy -of being condemned for the best duty he ever did, whose hopes were all -“from the free mercy of God in Christ.” Reminded of the good which his -works had produced, he replied, “I was but a pen in God’s hands, and -what praise is due to a pen?” When extremity of pain constrained him -to pray for release, he would check himself with the words, “It<span class="pagenum" id="Page_180">[180]</span> is -not fit for me to prescribe;—<i>when Thou wilt, what Thou wilt, and -how Thou wilt</i>!” “Oh! how unsearchable are His ways, and His paths -past finding out; the reaches of His providence we cannot fathom! Do -not think the worse of religion for what you see me suffer.” He had -assurance of future happiness, and great peace and joy in believing, -only lamenting that because of pain he could not express all he felt. -Still he spoke of heaven, and quoting the Apostle’s description of -the celestial Church, remarked, that it deserved a thousand thousand -thoughts. With characteristic width of sympathy, he spent many of his -last hours in praying for a distracted world, and a divided Church. -Physical pain, his old companion, continued to the last. “I have pain,” -he said, “there is no arguing against sense; but I have peace—I -have peace.” The catalogue of his diseases is enough to excite pity -in the most inhuman, and our sensibilities are positively tortured -by the pathetic descriptions he gives of himself. They illustrate -the beautifulness of his oft-quoted answer to the question, How he -did?—“<i>Almost well.</i>” “On Monday, about five in the evening,” -says Sylvester, “Death sent his harbinger to summon him away. A great -trembling and coldness awakened nature, and extorted strong cries, -which continued for some time;” at length he ceased, waiting in -patient expectation for his change. The gentle cry in the ear of his -housekeeper, “Death, death!” betokened full consciousness at the last -moment, and turning to thank a friend for his visit, he exclaimed, -“The Lord teach you to die.” About four o’clock on the morning of -the 8th of December, 1691, he had done for ever with the sorrows of -mortality, and entered on the saints’ everlasting rest. His body sleeps -in Christchurch beside the ashes of his wife and mother. Many vied in -doing honour to his memory. Conformists as well as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_181">[181]</span> Nonconformists -carried him to the grave, and made great lamentations over him; a train -of mourning-coaches reached from Merchant Taylors’ Hall—whence the -corpse was carried—to the place of burial.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>At the commencement of the year 1692, another of the old Puritans left -this world. He represented a class which had borne the brunt of the -battle, and who, when the Revolution brought peace, loved to relate -stories of sufferings which promoted Dissent, after the severer laws -against it were relaxed.</p> - -<p>Francis Holcroft, son of a knight residing at Westham, near London, -was sent to Clare Hall, Cambridge, where Dr. Cudworth was Master, and -David Clarkson a Fellow. Under the instructions of the latter, the -gownsman became a Puritan, and as, on a Sunday morning, he sat over -the College Gate, in a chamber which he shared in common with young -Tillotson, described as “his bed-fellow,” he sometimes observed a -horse, which was brought up for one of the Fellows, who served the -living of Littlington, and which was frequently led away without its -master. Pitying the sheep without a shepherd, the young Puritan offered -to supply the neglected parish, where his services were crowned with -signal success. Promoted in 1655 to the Vicarage of Bassingbourne, -he became exceedingly popular, and, not content with the effect of -his sermons, he felt anxious to establish ecclesiastical discipline, -and therefore formed a Church upon Congregational principles. At the -Restoration things changed. Holcroft was ejected, and the sheep were -scattered. He met them as he could, some in one place, some in another; -but the circuit of his labours becoming too wide for his failing -strength, he arranged that four members should assist him in pastoral -work. Worship was disturbed by the beating of drums, and the pastor was -imprisoned; but the greater<span class="pagenum" id="Page_182">[182]</span> the persecution the more his popularity -increased, and when silenced as a preacher, he sent pastorals round -his wide rural diocese. For some time the congregations to which he -ministered, formed of Baptists and Pædobaptists, constituted only -one Church; but after the Revolution they settled down into distinct -communities. The memory of Holcroft still lingers in the neighbourhood -of Cambridge, and old barns in which he ministered were pointed out -a few years ago. He died on the 6th of January, 1692. Before his -departure, spiritual tranquility, awhile disturbed, was happily -restored, for he died exclaiming, “I know that if the earthly house -of this tabernacle be dissolved, I have a house not made with hands, -eternal in the heavens.” He sleeps in a small burial-ground beside the -churchyard of Oakington, four miles from Cambridge. Three flat stones -cover the spot hallowed by the remains of two other Nonconformist -ministers, as well as his own. Over his resting-place are inscribed the -appropriate words, “They that be wise shall shine as the brightness of -the firmament; and they that turn many to righteousness as the stars -for ever and ever.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Several others of the ejected died about the period of the Revolution. -Veneration for them increased as death swept them away: their virtues -were embalmed; their names were canonized. Collectors of anecdotes -published whatever they could find respecting the departed, sometimes -accompanied by severe reflections upon the old laws which had thrust -them out of the gates of the Establishment. People in Derbyshire were -told that rich as might be their treasures in wool and lead, the -shepherds they had lost were more precious than all the flocks grazing -on their beautiful hills; and the sermons they had preached were -costlier than all the metals dug out of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_183">[183]</span> their capacious mines. After -a short beadroll of pastors in the county, the writer asks, What hath -cast away the shields of the mighty? <i>Uniformity.</i> What hath slain -the beauty of England, and made the mighty fall? <i>Uniformity.</i> -What hath despoiled the neck of the Church, like the town of David -builded for an armoury, whereon there hung a thousand bucklers, all -shields of mighty men? <i>Uniformity.</i><a id="FNanchor_215" href="#Footnote_215" class="fnanchor">[215]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_184">[184]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER VIII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">It is a curious coincidence that Tillotson, Barrow, and Howe were -all born in the year 1630. Tillotson’s father lived at Sowerby, -near Halifax; a respectable clothier, a decided Puritan, a zealous -Calvinist, yet at that time an Episcopalian in practice, for he had his -child baptized in the Church of his native village, and a gentleman, -afterwards Rector of Thornhill, stood godfather. When this little -boy came to be Archbishop, his Puritan parentage, and the fact of -his father being a Baptist, occasioned reproach; it was said that he -had never been baptized in any way, and a preacher before the House -of Commons, after Tillotson’s elevation to the Primacy, is supposed -to have alluded to the rumour, when he declared, with more absurdity -than wit, that there were fathers of the Church who never were her -sons. The register of Sowerby, however, sets that question at rest, -showing that he was baptized in the parish church; and another moot -point touching Tillotson’s ecclesiastical life, namely, whether he was -ever episcopally ordained, is now also settled; it appears he received -ordination from a Scotch Bishop—the Bishop of Galloway.<a id="FNanchor_216" href="#Footnote_216" class="fnanchor">[216]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">TILLOTSON.</div> - -<p>Educated at Cambridge under the Commonwealth by Puritan tutors, he -afterwards became identified with the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_185">[185]</span> Latitudinarian school of -Divines, but in 1661 we find him amongst the Presbyterians, preaching -a morning exercise at Cripplegate. He certainly conformed in 1662, -and that fact itself implies his submission to Episcopal ordination. -At an early period he attained celebrity as a preacher, although he -read his sermons, and never was able to preach without a manuscript. -It is related of him that on one occasion he made an attempt to speak -extempore upon a plain text, and one upon which he has five discourses -in his printed works; yet he found himself so much at a loss, “that -after about ten minutes spent with great pain to himself, and no great -satisfaction to his audience, he came down with a resolution never -to make the like attempt for the future.”<a id="FNanchor_217" href="#Footnote_217" class="fnanchor">[217]</a> He was successively -Curate at Cheshunt; Rector of Ketton, or Kedington in the County of -Suffolk; preacher at Lincoln’s Inn; Tuesday Lecturer at St. Lawrence, -Jewry; and Canon and Dean of Canterbury. After the Revolution he -accepted the Deanery of St. Paul’s, and his position in reference to -public affairs at that juncture has been noticed already; here it -will be sufficient to trace the steps by which he reached the highest -position in the Church of England. In some way Tillotson had become a -personal favourite with the Prince of Orange, and had been desired to -preach before him at St. James’s, soon after his arrival in London. -Burnet interested himself zealously on the Dean’s behalf; but, beyond -personal grounds, the popularity of this Divine as a preacher, his -eminent abilities, his opposition to the policy of the late King, -his liberal politics, his desire for Comprehension, his conciliatory -temper, and his moderation in ecclesiastical affairs, recommended him -to the new Sovereign as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_186">[186]</span> fitted to occupy the post vacated by Sancroft. -The very day Tillotson kissed hands on his appointment to the Deanery -in September, 1689, the King told him, in reply to his thanks for -an office which had set him at ease for the rest of his life, that -this was no great matter, for his services would soon be needed in -the highest office of the Church.<a id="FNanchor_218" href="#Footnote_218" class="fnanchor">[218]</a> In February, 1690, William -pressed upon Tillotson the acceptance of the Primacy; of his extreme -reluctance to accept it there can be no doubt; his conversation with -his Royal Master, his correspondence with Lady Rachel Russell, and his -own private memoranda, prove that if ever a man honestly said, <i>Nolo -Episcopari</i>, Tillotson did. What he wrote within a year afterwards -shows that to him the archiepiscopal throne was a bed, not of roses, -but of thorns. The <i>congé d’élire</i> was issued May the 1st, and -his consecration followed on Whit-Sunday at St. Mary-le-Bow, when the -congregation included some of the principal Whig nobility, and his -progress along Cheapside was an ovation amidst crowds who admired both -his eloquence and his liberality.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1691.</div> - -<p>He took possession of Lambeth Palace in November, 1691, having first -repaired the building, altered the windows, wainscoted the rooms, and -erected a large apartment for his wife, he being one of the earliest -Archbishops living there in lawful wedlock.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">SANCROFT.</div> - -<p>With congratulations from friends there came insults from foes. Arian, -Socinian, Deist, Atheist, were titles bestowed on his Grace; and in -allusion to the doubts respecting his baptism, he received the nickname -of <i>Undipped John</i>. His manner of bearing such treatment showed -his proficiency in the Christian virtues of patience and meekness. One -day, when he was conversing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_187">[187]</span> with a gentleman, a servant brought in a -sealed packet containing a mask. The Archbishop smiled, and said, “This -is a gentle rebuke, if compared with some others in black and white,” -pointing to papers lying on the table. A bundle of letters, found after -his death, exhibited a memorandum in his own handwriting, “These are -libels. I pray God forgive them; I do.”<a id="FNanchor_219" href="#Footnote_219" class="fnanchor">[219]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1692.</div> - -<p>It is interesting to follow Sancroft into his retirement. He left the -Metropolis—never to see it again—in August, 1691, for Fresingfield, a -village in Suffolk, where his family had been settled for generations, -where his ancestors lay buried in the parish church, and where he -himself had been born and baptized. He went down at harvest-time, the -sweet air and quiet of the place being, as he said, so preferable to -the smoke and noise of London. Presently we find him busy in building -a new house, reckoning up the time it would take to daub and tile it, -to clothe and cover it in, amidst the dews and mists which might be -expected to begin by St. Bartholomew’s-day—then at hand. He complains -of being weakly, and describes himself as eating bread-and-butter in a -morning, and “superbibing a second dish of coffee after it;” waiting -to see what that, and time, and native air would do for his health. -He gave up pills, and swallowed juniper-berries, and lived upon plain -food, and ate with a keener appetite than he had been accustomed to at -Lambeth. In the late autumn the new house remained incomplete; there -was winter work to do within doors, paving and flooring, daubing and -ceiling, plastering, glazing, and wainscoting, making doors and laying -hearths; the old tenement, in the meantime, being packed close from end -to end with the Bishop, his little household and workmen.<a id="FNanchor_220" href="#Footnote_220" class="fnanchor">[220]</a> The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_188">[188]</span> -superintendence of building, which appears to have occupied him for a -time, presents a strange contrast to previous employments in the Church -and the Palace, the Court and the Council-Board; and the simplicity -of Sancroft’s rural life appears simpler still when we think of the -palatial splendour in which he had previously moved. He wished to shut -out the world; he sometimes felt like a dead man out of mind; old -friends dropped off, and tales of sorrow aroused his sympathies; yet -he seems, on the whole, to have spent a pleasant time down in Suffolk, -although those who disliked his nonjuring principles did what they -could to plague his peace. He was reported to be engaged with some of -his brethren in plots for the restoration of the exiled Monarch; and -Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, came under suspicion of the same offence, -in consequence of which he was arrested in his orchard at Bromley one -day, whilst quietly working out the heads of a sermon.<a id="FNanchor_221" href="#Footnote_221" class="fnanchor">[221]</a> In the end, -these charges of conspiracy proved to be abominable fabrications, which -Sprat took care fully to expose.<a id="FNanchor_222" href="#Footnote_222" class="fnanchor">[222]</a> Other Nonjurors were suspected of -treasonable intrigues, and Dean Hickes fell into great trouble. “If the -persons,” it is said in a letter written at the time, “now malignantly -fermented, should find him walking abroad, they would certainly take -him up and bring him forthwith to the King’s Bench, and be ready with -an information against him.” The Dean was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_189">[189]</span> advised to abscond for the -present, and so he became, “like the tortoise in winter-time, earthed -for some days.” Dr. Bryan about the same time heard that a warrant had -been issued for his apprehension, on account of his having written -“flat treason.” “It was advisable for him to step out of the way.” Ten -days later, Bishop Lloyd, to whom we are indebted for these snatches -of information, wrote again to the archiepiscopalian recluse, that -he found the Dean had removed his quarters, and desired to be very -private, and that messengers were searching for Dr. Bryan.<a id="FNanchor_223" href="#Footnote_223" class="fnanchor">[223]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">SANCROFT.</div> - -<p>Sancroft, who escaped arrest because Sprat, when confronted with his -accusers, exposed their falsehoods, seems to have been more annoyed -a few months before by a very different accusation. “The spirit -of calumny, the persecution of the tongue, dogs me even into this -wilderness. Dr. Lake, of Garlick Hill, and others, have (as I am -informed) filled your city with a report that I go constantly to this -parish church, and pray for I know not whom, nor how, and receive the -Holy Sacrament; so that my cousin had something to do to satisfy even -my friends that it was quite otherwise.”<a id="FNanchor_224" href="#Footnote_224" class="fnanchor">[224]</a> The fallen Primate’s -intense dislike to the Establishment—as bitter as could be manifested -by any virulent Dissenter—here bursts out in unmistakable fashion. -The feeling remained as a sort of monomania to the day of his death. -It kept him from setting foot over the threshold of a parish church, -and led him to frame an instrument by which he appointed Lloyd, -the deprived Bishop of Norwich, his Vicar in all ecclesiastical -matters,<a id="FNanchor_225" href="#Footnote_225" class="fnanchor">[225]</a> and inaugurated a voluntary and schismatical Episcopalian -Church.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693.</div> - -<p>At the end of the year 1691 he removed into his new<span class="pagenum" id="Page_190">[190]</span> house, and on New -Year’s-day at family worship he officiated himself, “in a very cold -room where there never was a fire.” He would not employ a Chaplain. -The preparation and arrangement of Laud’s MSS. for the press, occupied -a good deal of his time, after which, in the month of November, 1693, -his end approached. “It touched my spirits extremely,” says Mr. North, -who visited him, “to see the low estate of this poor old saint; and -with what wonderful regard and humility he treated those who visited -him, and particularly myself.” His pious ejaculations were carefully -recorded by his friends, and we are glad to find him saying to a -visitor, “You and I have gone different ways in these late affairs, -but I trust heaven’s gates are wide enough to receive us both. What -I have done, I have done in the integrity of my heart.” The approach -of mortality expands human charity, yet the ruling passion may be -strong in death. Hence, though the dying man felt kindly towards all, -he insisted that only Nonjurors should read prayers by his bedside, -or officiate at his funeral. He entreated that God would bless and -preserve His poor suffering Church, which by the Revolution had been -almost destroyed; that he would bless and preserve the King, Queen, and -Prince, and in His due time restore to them their undoubted rights.<a id="FNanchor_226" href="#Footnote_226" class="fnanchor">[226]</a></p> - -<p>Sancroft had an active but narrow intellect, a playful but feeble -imagination, a careful but perverted judgment. His powers had been -cultivated by study, and his productions indicate compass and command -of learning. Living in a narrow circle, his prejudices were strong; -and bitter memories of Presbyterian oppression at Cambridge followed -him to the grave. His nature was not destitute of affection and -generosity, and he seems not to have<span class="pagenum" id="Page_191">[191]</span> been morose; he was simple in his -living, rather than ascetic in his temper. By no means a Ritualist, he -decidedly opposed Romanism, though his sentiments were what would be -called decidedly High Church. Of his conscientiousness, honesty, and -self-denial, the sacrifice of the Primacy is a sufficient proof; and of -his obstinacy, the conduct he manifested on leaving Lambeth, and the -persistency he showed in nonjuring habits, afford abundant evidence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TILLOTSON.</div> - -<p>Tillotson survived his predecessor little more than twelve months. -He did not occupy his See long enough to accomplish much either as -Bishop or Primate. In neither capacity has he left any memorials. No -injunctions from him appear in the Archiepiscopal Register, and his -biographer makes no mention of his visitations. We are told that he -convened an assembly of Bishops at Lambeth, when they agreed with him -upon certain regulations, which remained at his death unpublished, -as he preferred they should appear with Royal as well as Episcopal -authority, and he had not time to complete arrangements for that -purpose. His biographer furnishes a list of his deeds, which form but a -meagre total for a primacy of even two years and a half, when so much -needed to be done. Le Neve, who is particular in noting archiepiscopal -acts, has next to nothing to say of Tillotson’s archiepiscopal -career. The most he can do is to supply extracts from a MS. diary, -eulogizing the Primate’s eloquence and charities, and stating that -William, after his Grace’s death, never mentioned him without some -testimony of esteem. He used to say to Mr. Chadwick—son-in-law of the -Archbishop—“I loved your father: I never knew an honester man, and I -never had a better friend.”<a id="FNanchor_227" href="#Footnote_227" class="fnanchor">[227]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_192">[192]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694.</div> - -<p>From what we know of him, we should judge that the deficiency of -results during his episcopate is to be attributed more to the -difficulties of the times and the inconvenience of circumstances, than -to want of ability or the absence of devotedness.</p> - -<p>He was seized, in the Chapel at Whitehall, with paralysis on the 18th -of November, 1694; and though the fit crept over him slowly, he would -not call for assistance, lest he should disturb Divine worship. His -death occurred on the 22nd, at the age of 65.</p> - -<p>His character, as compared with Sancroft’s, has been differently viewed -by enemies and friends. Nonjurors said that his predecessor devised no -project for revolutionizing the Church, implying that Tillotson did; -that his predecessor was no Latitudinarian, more than insinuating that -Tillotson was; and when they spoke of Sancroft as a true Father, they -meant to affirm that his successor was by no means such. “Intruder,” -“thief,” “robber,” “ecclesiastical usurper,” were epithets fastened on -the Archbishop of the Revolution. Burnet, on the other hand, extols him -as a faithful friend, a gentle enemy, with a clear head and a tender -heart, without superstition in his religion, and, as a preacher, the -best of his age.<a id="FNanchor_228" href="#Footnote_228" class="fnanchor">[228]</a></p> - -<p>In saying so much, Burnet probably went no further than facts warrant. -And I would add, that if Sancroft made a sacrifice in renouncing the -Archbishopric, Tillotson, according to his private confessions, made -scarcely less sacrifice in accepting it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TILLOTSON.</div> - -<p>Intellectually he was a man of eminence;<a id="FNanchor_229" href="#Footnote_229" class="fnanchor">[229]</a> what Burnet advances -cannot be gainsayed; for Tillotson’s writings<span class="pagenum" id="Page_193">[193]</span> indicate a rare amount -of common sense and of calm judgment, the more remarkable in an age -of manifold passions;<a id="FNanchor_230" href="#Footnote_230" class="fnanchor">[230]</a> and he shows eminent precision and force -in stating propositions and arguments, at a time when a great deal of -loose reasoning passed muster. His sermons are chiefly remarkable in -this point of view. Free from Puritan stiffness, and what many would -call Puritan enthusiasm, free also from that academical affectation -which had so long offended pure taste,—they were couched in the -language of common life, and people felt a strange pleasure, which -they could not describe, at hearing from the pulpit language such as -they heard at their own fireside. He seems to have aimed at that which -ought to be the object of every Christian preacher, to translate the -truths of the Gospel into such forms of thought and utterance as were -suited to the age in which he lived. He spoke upon religion just as men -talk upon every-day topics; and thus he brought down Divinity to the -level of his congregation. He could be earnest and even vehement in the -inculcation of truth and duty; and never would he be more acceptable -to a large class of his hearers than when, with tact and warmth, he -exposed the errors of Popery—an opportunity for doing which he rarely, -if ever, missed. His habit, too, of insisting upon the reasonableness -of almost everything he taught would coincide with the current which, -in educated circles, had strongly set in against the enforcement of -morality and religion on grounds of authority. Preachers not only help -to promote, but they reflect the spirit of their own times. Their modes -of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_194">[194]</span> teaching are fashioned by it. A reaction had arisen against the -authority of the Church, of the Fathers, of the Schoolmen, and of the -Reformers; consequently, sermons filled with quotations and appeals to -great names were no longer in request. Even Scripture came to be less -favourably used in the way of exclusive authority, than in the way of -addition to the force of reasoning. Texts were with many not so much -corner-stones, as pillars and buttresses. Tillotson made a large use of -Scripture, but the common key-note with him was the reasonableness of -the doctrines he laid down. I should suppose that his appearance, his -voice, and his manner in the pulpit—the fact of what he was, as well -as the circumstance of what he said, and that indefinable something -which contributes so much to a speaker’s popularity—added immensely -to the impressiveness of his elocution. There is for modern readers -nothing attractive in his style, quite the reverse. I know scarcely -any other popular sermons so hard to read. Some are exceedingly dry -and uninteresting.<a id="FNanchor_231" href="#Footnote_231" class="fnanchor">[231]</a> From natural temperament he lacked what is -signified by the word <i>unction</i>. He has no strokes of pathos, -and the spirit of his theology adds to the defect, by depriving his -sermons, to some extent, of that light and beauty, that tenderness and -power, which proceed from a clear insight into the deepest spiritual -wants of humanity, and the supply made for them in the unsearchable -riches of Christ.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694.</div> - -<p>Wit was not wanting amongst Tillotson’s gifts. “I hate a fanatic in -lawn sleeves,” cried one of his detractors—“I hate a knave in any -sleeves,” replied the Prelate. He said South “wrote like a man, but -bit like a dog;”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_195">[195]</span> and when South replied, “he would rather bite like -a dog, than fawn like one,” Tillotson rejoined, “that for his part he -would choose to be a spaniel rather than a cur.”<a id="FNanchor_232" href="#Footnote_232" class="fnanchor">[232]</a> Sancroft was a -Tory. Tillotson, through the discipline of the Revolution, had cast -off the last remnant of the doctrine which he unfortunately inculcated -at the time of Russel’s execution. Tillotson had by his Puritan birth, -childhood, and education, imbibed feelings which he never completely -lost; and his personal sympathies with those who retained a Puritan -creed continued to live in his later days, fostered by friendly -intercourse with members of nonconforming communions. Yet perhaps he -had not a whit more of love for Nonconformity than High Churchmen, -whose reputation for charity his own completely eclipsed.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TENISON.</div> - -<p>As in our day, so it was in the days of William the III., when a -vacancy occurred in the See of Canterbury, different names were -suggested for its supply. Stillingfleet, Bishop of Worcester, and Hall, -Bishop of Bristol, were both mentioned, and their merits canvassed, -but after the lot had been shaken a little in the Royal urn, guided -by the Queen, it fell upon Thomas Tenison, Bishop of Lincoln. He had -been a distinguished London clergyman, prominent in opposing Popery and -King James. A nobleman, wishing to secure the Bishopric of Lincoln for -some one else, and to prejudice the Queen against Tenison, told Her -Majesty that he had delivered a funeral sermon for Nell Gwyn, and had -praised that concubine of Charles II. “I have heard as much,” replied -Mary; “this is a sign that that poor unfortunate woman died penitent; -for if I can read a man’s heart through his looks, had not she made -a truly pious and Christian end, the Doctor could<span class="pagenum" id="Page_196">[196]</span> never have been -induced to speak well of her.”<a id="FNanchor_233" href="#Footnote_233" class="fnanchor">[233]</a> Tenison’s conduct in the diocese -of Lincoln increased the high estimation in which he was held by Mary, -and consequently he was nominated to Canterbury on the 8th of December, -1694, and confirmed in his election in the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow on -the 16th of January, 1695.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>Between those two dates, his Royal patroness sickened with the -small-pox, three days before Christmas, and died three days after. -I shall employ a passage in the funeral sermon which he preached on -the occasion, not only because it well describes the event, but also -because it exhibits the preacher’s style, and occasioned at the time -considerable controversy.</p> - -<p>“Some few days before the feast of our Lord’s nativity, she found -herself indisposed. I will not say that of this affliction she had -any formal presage, but yet there was something that looked like an -immediate preparation for it. I mean her choosing to hear read more -than once a little before it, the last sermon of a good and learned man -(now with God) upon this subject: ‘What, shall we receive good from -the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil?’ This indisposition -speedily grew up into a dangerous distemper; as soon as this was -understood, the earliest care of this charitable mistress was for the -removing of such immediate servants, as might by distance, be preserved -in health. Soon after this she fixed the times of prayers in that -chamber to which her sickness had confined her.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">TENISON.</div> - -<p>“On that very day she showed how sensible she was of death, and how -little she feared it. She required him who officiated there to add that -collect in the Communion<span class="pagenum" id="Page_197">[197]</span> of the Sick, in which are these words, ‘That -whensoever the soul shall depart from the body, it may be, without -spot, presented unto Thee.’ ‘I will,’ said she, ‘have this collect read -twice every day. All have need to be put in mind of death, and Princes -as much as anybody else.’</p> - -<p>“On Monday the flattering disease occasioned some hopes, though they -were but faint ones. On the next day, the festival of Christ’s birth, -those hopes were raised into a kind of assurance, and there was joy, a -great joy seen in the countenances of all good people. That joy endured -but for a day, and that day was closed with a very dismal night. The -disease showed itself in various forms, and small hopes of life were -now left. Then it was that he who performed the holy offices, believed -himself obliged to acquaint the good Queen of the small hopes all -had of any likelihood of her recovery. She received the tidings with -a courage agreeable to the strength of her faith. Loath she was to -terrify those about her; but for herself, she seemed neither to fear -death, nor to covet life. It was, you may imagine, high satisfaction -to hear her say a great many most Christian things, and this among -them: ‘I believe I shall now soon die, and I thank God I have, from my -youth, learned a true doctrine, that repentance is not to be put off -to a death-bed.’ That day she called for prayers a third time, fearing -she had slept a little, when they were the second time read; for she -thought a duty was not performed if it was not minded.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>“On Thursday she prepared herself for the blessed communion, to which -she had been no stranger from the 15th year of her age. She was much -concerned that she found herself in so dozing a condition, so she -expressed it. To that, she added, ‘Others had need pray for me,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_198">[198]</span> seeing -I am so little able to pray for myself.’ However, she stirred up her -attention, and prayed to God for His assistance, and God heard her, for -from thenceforth to the end of the office, she had the perfect command -of her understanding, and was intent upon the great work she was going -about; and so intent, that when a second draught was offered her, she -refused it, saying, ‘I have but a little time to live, and I would -spend it a better way.’</p> - -<p>“The holy elements being ready, and several Bishops coming to be -communicants, she repeated piously and distinctly, but with a low voice -(for such her weakness had then made it) all the parts of the holy -office which were proper for her, and received, with all the signs of a -strong faith and fervent devotion, the blessed pledges of God’s favour, -and thanked Him with a joyful heart that she was not deprived of the -opportunity. She owned also, that God had been good to her, beyond -her expectation, though in a circumstance of smaller importance, she -having, without any indecency or difficulty, taken down that bread, -when it had not been so easy for her, for some time, to swallow any -other.</p> - -<p>“That afternoon she called for prayers somewhat earlier than the -appointed time, because she feared (that was her reason) that she -should not long be so well composed. And so it came to pass; for -every minute after this ’twas plain that death made nearer and nearer -approaches. However, this true Christian kept her mind as fixed, as -possible she could, upon the best things; and there were read, by her -directions, several psalms of David, and also a chapter of a pious book -concerning trust in God. Toward the latter end of it, her apprehension -began to fail, yet not so much but that she could say a devout Amen to -that prayer in which her pious soul was recommended to that God who -gave it.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_199">[199]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">TENISON.</div> - -<p>“During all this time there appeared nothing of impatience, nothing of -frowardness, nothing of anger; there was heard nothing of murmuring, -nothing of impertinence, nothing of ill-sound, and scarce a number of -disjointed words.</p> - -<p>“In all these afflictions the King was greatly afflicted; how sensibly, -and yet how becomingly, many saw, but few have skill enough to -describe; I am sure I have not. At last, the helps of art and prayers -and tears not prevailing, a quarter before one on Friday morning, after -two or three small strugglings of nature, and without such agonies as -in such cases are common, she fell asleep.”<a id="FNanchor_234" href="#Footnote_234" class="fnanchor">[234]</a></p> - -<p>I have thought it best to give this extract without any abridgment, as -certain omissions in the account of the Queen’s last hours became the -subject of much controversy.</p> - -<p>Mary was buried in Westminster Abbey, with all the pomp of a purple and -gold coffin, banners, and escutcheons, Lords in scarlet and ermine, and -Commons in black mantles; far more interesting than all that is the -following incident, carefully recorded: “A robin redbreast, which had -taken refuge in the Abbey, was seen constantly on her hearse, and was -looked upon with tender affection for its seeming love to the lamented -Queen.”<a id="FNanchor_235" href="#Footnote_235" class="fnanchor">[235]</a></p> - -<p>Loyalty to William, and sympathy with him in his great loss, were -expressed in numerous addresses. A large collection of elegiac poems -were published at Cambridge, entitled, <i>Lacrymæ Cantabrigienses</i>, -&c., by a list of Dons, some of whom became Bishops; and the London -Clergy vied with each other in their eulogiums—to use the words of a -contemporary letter-writer, playing “the fool in their hyperbolical -commendation of the Queen,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_200">[200]</span> that looks like fulsome flattery, and some -expressions bordering upon blasphemy.”<a id="FNanchor_236" href="#Footnote_236" class="fnanchor">[236]</a> The Presbyterians, headed -by Dr. Bates, presented an address of condolence to His Majesty.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>The nonjuring Clergy were much excited by the publication of Tenison’s -sermon, since it represented the Queen as eminently religious and -devout, but said not a word of any repentance for having assumed her -father’s crown, and for the filial impiety considered to be involved in -such conduct. A letter to this effect, published in the month of March, -1695, created an intense sensation, being attributed to Bishop Ken. -It is printed as his composition in the Memoirs of Tenison; but the -Layman who wrote Ken’s life pronounces it “a tissue of bitter obloquy -against the Queen and the Archbishop, wholly inconsistent with the meek -spirit of the author of the <i>Practice of Divine Love</i>.”<a id="FNanchor_237" href="#Footnote_237" class="fnanchor">[237]</a> Upon -internal grounds he rejects its genuineness. I feel disposed to do -the same. Tenison also, it appears, doubted it, but I find no notice -of Ken’s having disavowed the authorship; and we must not forget how -possible it is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_201">[201]</span> for an amiable and pious man, under the influence -of what he regards as duty, to say things which run counter to the -generally calm and quiet current of his life.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">LICENSING OF THE PRESS.</div> - -<p>Tenison’s sermon was zealously defended by an anonymous pamphleteer, -who included within his defence funeral discourses delivered by other -dignitaries; and whilst the press was occupied by this controversy, -the friends and agents of James were rejoicing in the death of Mary -as endangering the position of William. The Church of England, it was -now thought, would be weaned from his cause, by the outburst of his -Presbyterian predilections, even to the overthrow of Episcopacy. The -ruin of its interests seemed at hand, unless the Revolution could be -revolutionized. Ten thousand men, the Jacobite plotters surmised, would -suffice for the reconquest of the kingdom, since the Church of England -party, who had been for William only on Mary’s account, were, it was -thought, now entirely alienated from him. The confusion occasioned by -her removal was relied upon as a proof of the inclination of the people -to see their Stuart King back at St. James.<a id="FNanchor_238" href="#Footnote_238" class="fnanchor">[238]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>In noticing the deaths of Sancroft, Tillotson, and Mary, we have passed -over a period marked by one of those silent changes which often elude -the notice of historians. The change referred to is connected very -closely with religious freedom. We have had frequent occasion to notice -restrictions on the liberty of the press. It is not necessary to go -back further than 1662, when Lord Clarendon’s Act for licensing books -was passed. The Act proscribed the printing and selling of heretical, -schismatical, blasphemous, seditious, and treasonable publications. -Nothing was to appear contrary to the Christian<span class="pagenum" id="Page_202">[202]</span> faith, or the -doctrines or discipline of the Church of England. Books on law required -a license from the Lord Chancellor or the Lord Chief Justices; books of -history, a license from the Secretaries of State; books of divinity and -philosophy, a license from the Archbishop of Canterbury. The folly of -such restrictions—proved by their futility when evaded, and by their -mischievousness when carried into effect—needs no comment. The Act now -noticed was made to be in force for two years. It was then continued. -In 1685 it was re-enacted for seven years. It continued through the -Revolution; and in 1692 was renewed under the Tories for two years -more. At four different times, from 1694 to 1698, attempts were made -in Parliament to prepare new Bills for licensing printing presses, and -the Whigs on one occasion seemed on the point of following the example -of their political rivals. Movement in the old direction went so far -once, that a restrictive Bill passed the Lords and was read in the -Commons—to be thrown out on a second reading. Church and State thus -narrowly missed being shackled again in the exercise of rights ever -precious to enlightened humanity; and the year 1694, though unmarked in -history, is illustrious in fact through the melting away for ever of a -long-continued and mischievous licensing law. Not, however, as we shall -presently see, that all legislative interference with the publishers of -opinions then terminated; but a great obstacle vanished out of the path -to that wide intellectual liberty which as a nation we now enjoy.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_203">[203]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER IX.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Tillotson, shortly before his death, as already related, was engaged -with his Episcopal brethren in drawing up certain ecclesiastical -regulations to be issued on their authority, but which he afterwards -felt would be more effective if published in the King’s name. Shortly -after Tenison’s accession to the Archiepiscopate, injunctions were sent -forth by Royal command, touching points exactly of the nature indicated -to have been discussed in prior Episcopal meetings at Lambeth. When -we consider the time of their appearance, we have no doubt the new -Archbishop adopted the draft of his predecessor. It appeared in the -form of a Royal proclamation, recommending care in conferring orders, -condemning pluralities and non-residence, and urging upon Bishops to -watch over their Clergy, and promote, through them, the celebration -of Sacraments, the visitation of the sick, and the catechetical -instruction of the young.<a id="FNanchor_239" href="#Footnote_239" class="fnanchor">[239]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>The publication of these articles in the King’s name is a fact not -to be lightly passed over. Royal letters had been issued by Queen -Elizabeth for the reform of ecclesiastical affairs, yet none of them -dealt so particularly with abuses as did this mandate of William’s. -It is remarkable that Charles I.—the opposite in ecclesiastical and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_204">[204]</span> -political sentiments to the hero of the Revolution—had addressed to -Laud a number of instructions, which strongly resemble those now under -notice.<a id="FNanchor_240" href="#Footnote_240" class="fnanchor">[240]</a> After the Restoration, although Charles II. by several -missives had exercised immediate authority over the Church, and had -given explicit directions as to how the Clergy were to preach,<a id="FNanchor_241" href="#Footnote_241" class="fnanchor">[241]</a> -such orders as approach nearest to those of William are found to bear -the simple impress of archiepiscopal authority.<a id="FNanchor_242" href="#Footnote_242" class="fnanchor">[242]</a> What had been -attempted in the way of Church reform by Sancroft appears in the shape -of an agreement between himself and the other Prelates to do things -formerly enunciated.<a id="FNanchor_243" href="#Footnote_243" class="fnanchor">[243]</a> The grounds upon which Tillotson and Tenison -arrived at the determination to seek Church reform under cover of Royal -authority, do not appear; but the proclamations indicate that, at the -time, the chief spiritual rulers of the land must have had high views -of the prerogatives of the Crown. If since Elizabeth’s Reformation the -title of <i>Head of the Church</i><a id="FNanchor_244" href="#Footnote_244" class="fnanchor">[244]</a> had not been legally employed, -all which that title could be taken to mean, successive Archbishops of -Canterbury—Tillotson and Tenison—were ready to concede; and what is a -little curious, in making this concession they could find a precedent -in the acts of Archbishop Laud under Charles I.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_205">[205]</span> A still more striking -example of the interference of the Crown with purely religious subjects -will soon come under our notice.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ECCLESIASTICAL REGULATIONS.</div> - -<p>The fact is, that what is generally called Erastianism attained more -power than ever after the Revolution. The State ruled the Church. In -the matter of Toleration it maintained the liberties of Nonconformity -against the designs of bigoted Churchmen, and in the management of -internal affairs it sought to promote the interests of a moderate and -salutary reform.</p> - -<p>A circular from the Archbishop, addressed to each of his suffragan -Bishops, followed on the 16th of July, 1695; and in it, without -referring to the Royal communication made in the month of February, -he specifies a number of particulars which had been considered by him -and such of his brethren as were at the time in or near London. These -particulars relate to certain religious matters—to the public reading -in church of the Act against profane cursing and swearing, and to -catechetical instruction—but they relate also to a number of subjects -connected with temporalities, such as the prevention of Simoniacal -covenants, the better payment of curates, dilapidations, glebe lands, -surrogates, and the removal of clergymen from one diocese to another. -The employment of proper care in examinations for orders—a point of -great religious importance—is, however, enforced at length, and each -Bishop is urged to lay it upon the conscience of the candidate, to -observe such fasting as is prescribed upon Ember-days, and to give -himself to meditation and prayer. It is worth noticing that the third -of the injunctions calls attention to the 55th canon, which enjoins -the bidding of prayer for the King before sermon; “it being commonly -reported,” says the Archbishop, “that it is the manner of some in every -diocese either to use the Lord’s Prayer (which the canons prescribe<span class="pagenum" id="Page_206">[206]</span> -as the conclusion of the prayer, and not the whole prayer) or at -least, to leave out the King’s titles, and to forbear to pray for the -Bishops as such.”<a id="FNanchor_245" href="#Footnote_245" class="fnanchor">[245]</a> The sentence reveals a state of things serious, -if not alarming, both to the King and the Bishops. Plainly there -brooded disaffection towards the existing power in Church and State. -Jacobites and Nonjurors troubled the British Israel, and manifested -their feelings in the House of God. Parish churches, if not cathedrals, -presented Sunday after Sunday proofs of disloyalty and spiritual -revolt. A new species of Nonconformity ate its way into the hearts of -Englishmen—a fact to be illustrated in subsequent portions of this -history.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>Between the months of February and July, to which the Royal and the -Episcopal letters belonged, there occurred an incident which comes -in juxtaposition with what has been related of ecclesiastical powers -exercised by the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was in the month -of May nominated as the first of the Lords Justices of England for -the administration of public affairs during His Majesty’s absence in -Holland and Flanders.</p> - -<p>William had repeatedly left England since the Revolution. In 1691 he -was absent from January to March, and from May to October; in 1692 from -March to October; in 1693 from March to November; in 1694 from May to -November. Like Richard Coeur de Lion, like the three Edwards, like the -fifth Henry, William of Orange was a man of war from his youth, and -his military vocation led him, as it led them, away from the peaceful -duties of home government. As they at the head of steel-clad knights -and sturdy bowmen marched over the Tweed or through Normandy, Picardy, -and Poitou; as they led<span class="pagenum" id="Page_207">[207]</span> crusaders to fight battles at Jaffa, Askelon, -and Jerusalem, so did he who now swayed the English sceptre, carry his -troops over into the Netherlands to bear the brunt of the Landen fight, -or recover the strongholds of Namur.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">LORDS JUSTICES.</div> - -<p>When William had been abroad before in the life-time of Mary, she ruled -as Queen Consort, rendering a special regency needless; now that she -slept in her grave, it was necessary that representatives appointed by -the Crown should during the Royal absence govern the threefold realm.</p> - -<p>Churchmen in ancient times had held the highest offices in the State, -and had been the Prime Ministers of Kings. Whilst Richard I. was pining -in captivity on his return from Palestine, Archbishop Hubert Walter -acted as Chief Justiciary of the kingdom, and even in person laid siege -to the castles of malcontents and reduced them to his master’s sway; -and whilst the not less brave, but more prudent, Henry V. was winning -laurels at Agincourt, Archbishop Chicheley acted as Prime Minister at -home, and took his place at the head of the Council-Board.<a id="FNanchor_246" href="#Footnote_246" class="fnanchor">[246]</a> After -the Reformation, Churchmen, though of diminished influence, appeared -in high political positions. Juxon held the staff of Lord Treasurer, -and Williams kept the Great Seal; but after the blow struck at the -Church by the Long Parliament, no ecclesiastic occupied any important -State office until the reign of William III. Upon this new turn in the -wheel, curiously enough, came the restoration of high civil authority -to ecclesiastical hands. At the same moment, the Church appeared -submissive to the State, and the State appeared in submission to the -chief ruler of the Church. The former kind of submission was real, the -latter only apparent.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_208">[208]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1695.</div> - -<p>The Archbishop did not fill the place of a Prime Minister like -Chicheley, any more than he took the command of troops like Hubert -Walter. It is difficult to say who in the month of May, 1695, was Prime -Minister; as the Duke of Leeds, who had headed the late administration, -just then, though still nominally President of the Council, lay -prostrate in disgrace, and his name is omitted in the list of Lords -Justices who held the Regency. The Whigs were recovering power, and -with the seven members of that party who were commissioned to act in -the Royal name, there appeared but one Tory. William III. himself -always acted as Minister of Foreign Affairs whether he was at home or -abroad, and during his absence from England on this occasion probably -the management of domestic business principally rested with Somers, -Keeper of the Great Seal, and Shrewsbury, Secretary of State. The -Archbishop, as standing next to the Royal family, took precedence in -the Commission, but the actual power which he exercised must not be -measured by that circumstance.</p> - -<p>On the 10th of October William returned, after having had the -satisfaction of seeing a Marshal of France surrender to the allies, -the Castle of Namur. The sound of bells from every steeple, the -twinkling—for in those days it could hardly be a glare—of lights in -every window, and street crowds rending the air with hurrahs, welcomed -the victor as he passed through London to his favourite residence at -Kensington. Speedily afterwards he made a Royal progress, and visited -Newmarket, where, on Sunday, October the 20th, the Vice-Chancellor, -accompanied by the principal members of the University of Cambridge, -in all their sedate magnificence, waited on His Majesty, and delivered -a congratulatory speech. The usual kissing of hands and assurances -of favour wound up the ceremony.<a id="FNanchor_247" href="#Footnote_247" class="fnanchor">[247]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_209">[209]</span> He also visited Oxford, where -he had been unpopular; but now, if we were to judge by the reception -prepared, we should conclude the tide had turned; for Latin orations, -musical concerts, and a splendid banquet were all arranged in honour -of his presence. However, he would stay in the beautiful city only a -few hours, excusing himself on the ground that he had seen the Colleges -before. He had no admiration for Oxford, and Oxford had no admiration -for him; and between the two no love was lost, when he drove off in his -lumbering coach on the road to London.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">ECCLESIASTICAL INJUNCTIONS.</div> - -<p>The Royal injunctions relative to ecclesiastical reforms, published -in February, 1695, were followed by other Royal injunctions relative -to theological disputes in February, 1696. Just then, a money panic -struck not only the commercial classes, but the whole community. The -currency sank into such a state, that owing to the wear and tear -of coin, and the ingenious arts of clippers, neither the gentleman -who paid his guinea nor the peasant who received his shilling, knew -exactly what the piece of gold or silver happened to be worth. The -subject came up in sermons, and preachers deplored the low state of -public morality. Fleetwood, preaching before the Lord Mayor of London -in the month of December, deplored that “a soft pernicious tenderness -slackened the care of magistrates, kept back the under officers, -corrupted the juries, and withheld the evidence;” and one of the clergy -connected with the Cathedral of York, when addressing some clippers -who were to be hanged next day, dwelt on the insensibility of culprits -of that class to the heinousness of their crime.<a id="FNanchor_248" href="#Footnote_248" class="fnanchor">[248]</a> Exactly at the -time when this monetary question had thrown everybody into a state of -embarrassment,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_210">[210]</span> a theological controversy added to the excitement of -religious people.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>To judge of the new Royal injunctions we must first understand the -controversy, and to understand the controversy is no easy matter. To -trace the dispute through all its windings would only perplex the -reader—to enumerate the publications which appeared would be wearisome -and profitless; therefore I shall content myself with indicating the -different lines pursued by the principal controversialists, and the -treatment which consequently some of them received.</p> - -<p>It may be premised that the controversy indicates a new position of -Christian thought, a new atmosphere of theological feeling, as compared -with that which had obtained in Commonwealth times and after the -Restoration. The question raised did not relate to predestination, -to the nature of Christ’s death, the extent of its efficacy and -application, but to the mode of the Divine existence. It showed a -retreat back to inquiries akin to such as agitated the Nicene Age. -Oxford and London witnessed a revival of conflicts similar to those -of Constantinople and Alexandria. Battles about grace, election, and -free-will had been fought out, and the warriors were exhausted: some -had passed away, some were growing old. The human mind now ranged -over other fields long neglected, seeking fresh victories over old -errors. Theological discussion is determined in a great degree by -circumstances, idiosyncracies, friendships, and associations; but -the spirit of an age is also a mighty force, acting with, and acting -through all other influences. And it is not a little remarkable, that -as the revival of the study of philosophy in the Christian schools of -Alexandria was followed by controversies respecting the Divine nature, -so the revival of the study of a similar<span class="pagenum" id="Page_211">[211]</span> philosophy at Cambridge was -followed by a similar result. Whereas the logic, ethics, and politics -of Aristotle have affinity with questions relating to the Divine -government, the speculations of Plato connect themselves more with -questions as to the Divine Being Himself. Accordingly, the Aristotelian -logicians of the Middle Ages, the Reformation, and the Commonwealth, -dwelt much upon predestination, justification, and the atonement; and -the philosophical Divines of the Revolution, trained more in Platonic -culture, devoted themselves to questions respecting the Trinity and the -Person of Christ.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONTROVERSIES ABOUT THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>At the time of the Revolution, Unitarian principles in England were -on the advance, both as to explicitness of statement and extent of -currency. The preparations for this change have been indicated. It -obtained in a decided form to no great degree, but its influence was -felt beyond its definite boundaries. According to the Toleration Act, -Antitrinitarians were as much precluded from publicly celebrating -worship after the Revolution, as Presbyterians and others had been -before; yet, by the close of the 17th century, it is said, Unitarian -meeting-houses were erected.<a id="FNanchor_249" href="#Footnote_249" class="fnanchor">[249]</a> Some Presbyterians, perhaps, rather -of an Arian than of a Socinian type, at that period diverged from -orthodox paths; but it is stated that on the whole these opinions -“were more prevalent in the Church than among the Dissenters.”<a id="FNanchor_250" href="#Footnote_250" class="fnanchor">[250]</a> -The republication of <i>Biddle’s Tracts</i>, and the issue of new -works, published anonymously, going far beyond the theological point -Biddle had reached, promoted the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_212">[212]</span> denial of our Lord’s Divinity. The -series was zealously supported, if not prepared by the well-known -Thomas Firman, who, though an Unitarian, remained a member of the -Church of England.<a id="FNanchor_251" href="#Footnote_251" class="fnanchor">[251]</a> The modern assailants of orthodoxy, catching -the rationalistic spirit of the times, dwelt upon what they conceived -to be the unreasonableness of the doctrine of the Trinity, and urged -the absence in Scripture of the scholastic terms in which the doctrine -is commonly defined. They charged the Fathers and the Schoolmen with -corrupting Christianity; then directing their attention to the doctrine -of the Redeemer’s Deity, they insisted much upon His proper humanity, -upon His trustfulness, devotion, and obedience.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>If, said the Unitarians, Christ be God, none can be greater than He, -yet He says, “The Father is greater than I.” If Jesus Christ were truly -God, they alleged, it would be blasphemy to call Him the sent of God; -heedless of the allegation, on the other side, that if He were simply -man, it would be blasphemy to ascribe to Him Divine names, attributes, -and honours. Arguments were also adduced against the doctrine of the -Personality and Divinity of the Holy Ghost. A violent attack also was -made, in a distinct publication, on the character of Athanasius, with -the object of damaging the theological belief which that great Father -of the Church so zealously upheld.<a id="FNanchor_252" href="#Footnote_252" class="fnanchor">[252]</a> Books of this description, -vindicating opinions under a legal ban, excited the indignation both of -Church and Parliament. A work, bearing on the heterodox side, written -by a Divine of the Latitudinarian school, led to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_213">[213]</span> his being deprived of -the Rectorship of Lincoln College, Oxford,<a id="FNanchor_253" href="#Footnote_253" class="fnanchor">[253]</a> and a vote was passed -by the Commons dooming to the flames an attack on the doctrine of the -Trinity.<a id="FNanchor_254" href="#Footnote_254" class="fnanchor">[254]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>Dr. Wallis, the Savillian professor of Geometry, wrote a pamphlet<a id="FNanchor_255" href="#Footnote_255" class="fnanchor">[255]</a> -in defence of the doctrine of the Trinity, and employed some of the -strangest expressions and illustrations with regard to the mystery -that were ever conceived by any human being. “What is it,” he asks, -“that is pretended to be impossible? ’Tis but this, that there be three -<i>somewhats</i>, which are but one God, and these <i>somewhats</i> -are called Persons.” To explain the Trinity in unity, he compares -the Almighty to a <i>cube</i>, with its length, breadth, and height -infinitely extended. The length, breadth, and height of the cube, he -says, are equal, and they are the equal sides of one substance—a -fair resemblance of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. This <i>longum</i>, -<i>latum</i>, <i>profundum</i>, such are his words, is one cube of -three dimensions, yet but one body; and this Father, Son, and Holy -Ghost are three Persons, and yet one God. Vain attempts were made by -the early Fathers to give definite conceptions of the mode of the -Divine existence—the sun and its rays, a fountain and its streams, -reason and speech, ointment and fragrance, being employed for the -purpose; but Dr. Wallis attained to an originality as unenviable as -it was startling; and were it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_214">[214]</span> not for his known candour and piety, -it might be supposed he intended to turn the orthodox doctrine into -ridicule.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>Dr. Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul’s and Master of the Temple, now in the -black books of High Churchmen, undertook to meet the new attacks upon -the Trinity; and, as so much was made of the assumed unreasonableness -of that doctrine, he commenced his vindication of it with an elaborate -argument to prove that it involves no contradiction whatever. He used -the shield of reason to resist the darts of reason. His notion was, -that self-consciousness constitutes the numerical unity of a Spiritual -Being,—that the unity of a mind or spirit reaches as far as its -self-consciousness,—that, in the three Persons of the Trinity, there -is what may be called a mutual self-consciousness, a self-consciousness -common to the three; and that therefore these three Persons are -essentially and numerically one. A moral union in knowledge, will, -and love, he says, is the only union of created spirits; but there is -an essential union between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, through the -existence of a mutual consciousness. This notion contains, according -to Sherlock, the true faith of a Trinity in unity. It is orthodoxy -rationalized. It does not confound the Persons; it does not divide -the substance.<a id="FNanchor_256" href="#Footnote_256" class="fnanchor">[256]</a> After working out an abstruse argument to this -effect, and after endeavouring to show there is authority in some of -the Fathers for his theory, he concludes by taking up, <i>seriatim</i>, -certain objections which had been urged in recent Unitarian writings.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>A young man, a Master of Arts, just turned 27, stood up, on the 28th -of October, 1695, in the pulpit of St. Mary’s, Oxford, before a large -audience of Dons and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_215">[215]</span> Gownsmen, to preach from the text—now given up -on all hands as an interpolation—“There are three that bear record -in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost; and these three -are one.” The preacher was Joseph Bingham, a scholar of surprising -erudition, destined to throw a world of light upon the antiquities of -the Christian Church; in the sermon, and preface to it when published, -he distinguished between the patristic and the scholastic doctrines of -the Trinity, maintaining that Luther, in his theology on that point, -followed in the wake of the Fathers, whilst Calvin trod in the steps -of the Schoolmen. The Lutheran, the Patristic, and the Scripture -doctrine, in Bingham’s estimation, amounted to this—that there are -three individual substances in the Godhead, really and numerically -distinct from each other, though at the same time they are one in -another sense; for they are not of a different nature; they are not -divided like men and angels; they are not three parts of one whole; -nor are they three Beings, who have Divine natures independently, -every one from himself; nor are they three opposite principles, or -three providences, clashing with one another. No; they constitute -“one harmonious providence, and one undivided principle of all other -things.”<a id="FNanchor_257" href="#Footnote_257" class="fnanchor">[257]</a> Sherlock, a citizen of the world, catching the spirit of -the age, appealed to reason; Bingham, a recluse, scarcely touched by -habits of thought outside his University, appealed to tradition. This -piece of hard, dry learning, without the slightest tincture of pathos, -or a single practical remark from beginning to end, must have proved a -repulsive lesson even to an Oxford audience. Its general drift, running -in the same direction as Sherlock’s teaching, though it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_216">[216]</span> included no -theory of mutual consciousness, alarmed the authorities; they went -home from St. Mary’s in great agitation, muttering against the young -preacher charges of Tritheism, Arianism, and other heresies. Bingham -was simply a student who had missed his way in theological speculation; -but Sherlock was personally disliked by Jacobites, who were irritated -by his political apostacy, and by the adherents of William, who envied -him his church preferments. No hornet’s nest could be worse than -the attacks which this unlucky controversialist aroused. Many who, -under other circumstances, would have let heterodoxy alone, could not -tolerate it when coming from such a quarter; and the most unseemly -reflections on the man’s character were mixed up with arguments against -his doctrines.<a id="FNanchor_258" href="#Footnote_258" class="fnanchor">[258]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>South plunged into the fray, and used his sledgehammer with unmerciful -violence. Not unlearned, not unversed in logic, South was more of a -rhetorician than a philosopher, more of a wit than a Divine. After -denouncing Sherlock’s explication as wholly inconsistent with the -mysteriousness of the subject, and representing his exceptions to -the use of certain words in relation to it as false, groundless, and -impertinent, he exposed, with tremendous ridicule, the theory of mutual -consciousness. “For self-consciousness, according to him,” says South, -“is the constituent principle, or formal reason, of personality. So -that self-consciousness properly constitutes or makes a person, and so -many self-consciousnesses make so many distinct persons. But mutual -consciousness, so far as it extends, makes a unity not of persons (for -personality as such imports distinction and something<span class="pagenum" id="Page_217">[217]</span> personally -incommunicable), but an unity of nature in persons. So that after -self-consciousness has made several distinct persons, in comes mutual -consciousness and sets them all at one again, and gives them all but -one and the same nature, which they are to take amongst themselves -as well as they can. And this is a true and strict account of this -author’s new hypothesis; and such, as I suppose, he will not except -against, because justly I am sure he cannot; howsoever, I may have -expressed the novel whimsey something for the reader’s diversion.”<a id="FNanchor_259" href="#Footnote_259" class="fnanchor">[259]</a> -How monstrous to think of diverting people, when professedly engaged in -studying the awful secrets of the Divine Essence!</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>South maintained that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are not distinct -infinite minds or spirits—that to say they are so, is to contradict -Councils, Fathers, Schoolmen, and later Divines; that the book he -assailed contains philosophical paradoxies and grammatical mistakes; -and that the author was insolent, scornful, and proud beyond all -parallel. To quote a full sample of South’s personal abuse would be to -cover pages.<a id="FNanchor_260" href="#Footnote_260" class="fnanchor">[260]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>No doubt there is much force in some of his arguments, and he -completely demolished the theory of mutual consciousness. But he was -much stronger as a destructive than as an architect. When he attempted -to define a positive notion of the Trinity, he failed, as all did -who went before him, as all have who followed after him. Nor could -he escape the infection of a most infelicitous, if not a decidedly -irreverent,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_218">[218]</span> habit of illustrating theological mysteries. Wallis -had written of <i>three somewhats</i>, and of a <i>Divine cube</i> -of infinite dimensions. Sherlock had propounded a theory of Divine -<i>mutual-consciousness</i>; and now South came forward with the idea, -that the distinctions in the Godhead are <i>modes, habitudes, and -affections</i> of the Divine substance—they are <i>postures</i>—such -in spiritual and immaterial beings, as <i>posture</i> is to the human -body.<a id="FNanchor_261" href="#Footnote_261" class="fnanchor">[261]</a> Passing over South’s coarse scurrility, I cannot conceive -how any inquirer after truth can be helped on his way by this clever -and brilliant companion, who never misses an opportunity of cracking a -joke in his reader’s ear. Even when South’s reasoning is forcible, he -is ever interrupting it with flashes of wit; and throughout one feels, -what is fatal to all religious instruction, that the polemic is more -anxious about victory than truth. No doubt his attack on Sherlock was -deemed by contemporaries a decided success; he drove his antagonist -from the field and spoiled him of his armour. But when he charged him -with Tritheism, he charged him with what Sherlock utterly denied. -That Sherlock’s theory is Tritheistic was a mere inference, and what -may seem a logical deduction to others did not appear so to himself. -In like manner Sabellianism, in the eyes of some, lurked under the -folds of South’s argument, though he indignantly repelled the idea. -The fact is, no man can attempt a logical explanation<span class="pagenum" id="Page_219">[219]</span> of the Godhead -without being in danger of falling into Tritheism on the one side, or -Sabellianism on the other. In such controversies we notice the frequent -use of some word not in Scripture, but considered to be an equivalent -for what is Scripture—a term conceived to be a concentration of -diffused truth—the quintessence of a doctrine previously in a state -of solution. Unfortunately such words are differently understood by -different parties. One person refuses to take them in the sense affixed -to them by another, and will employ a meaning of his own. The same -proposition thus becomes to two different minds entirely different -things, and the utmost confusion is the consequence. Theories to -explain facts are confounded with the facts themselves, and a man who -only denies a particular theory, is charged with denying the fact to -which the theory relates. Hence, whilst Sherlock and South were really -contending for the doctrine of the Trinity, each regarded the other as -giving it up. It should be added that in the end, Sherlock’s statements -were more cautious than at the beginning; for he came to admit that the -phrases—three minds, three spirits, three substances—which he had so -freely used, needed great care for their proper employment, and were -liable to be taken in a heretical sense; that after all, Father, Son, -and Spirit, are really of one and the same substance.<a id="FNanchor_262" href="#Footnote_262" class="fnanchor">[262]</a> Sherlock -and South did but follow up divergent tendencies of thought and action -before the Council of Nicæa—tendencies which that Council sought to -check and harmonize. Sherlock followed in the wake of Tertullian, -Novatian, Hippolytus, and Origen, whose inquiries mainly pointed to -<i>distinctions</i> in the Godhead.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_220">[220]</span> South trod in the footsteps of -Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, Irenæus, and Clement of Alexandria, who -leaned towards Monarchianism, and were jealous of any dishonour done to -the Divine Unity.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>In this controversy, which divided two men by a distance, in -the judgment of some thinkers, infinitesimally small, homage -was nevertheless done to the essential importance of truth. The -controversy, however, betrayed the utter absence of disposition on -the part of each to learn one jot of wisdom from the other. It was -literally a <i>polemical</i> affair; a battle, each seeing in his -opposite an enemy—in fact the old story of disputes between Church and -Church, sect and sect, conformist and nonconformist—war to the knife -by mistaken foes, instead of mutual help by friends in council.</p> - -<p>Of course Unitarians, as they stood by, watched the conflict with -eager curiosity, striving to turn it to their own account. In the view -of those who had advanced beyond John Biddle, the doctrine of the -Trinity and the use of the Word were repugnant; and they traced what -they deemed an innovation to the early philosophical schools that had -so powerfully influenced the after-history of theological thought. -They labelled Cudworth’s theory as the Platonic; Sherlock’s as the -Cartesian; South’s as the Aristotelian. Moreover, they connected the -scheme of Sherlock with the philosophy of Realism, and the scheme -of South with that of Nominalism. With regard to speculations which -had been woven around the teaching of Holy Scripture, there was some -ground for the nomenclature; but it really forms another instance of -the confusion of thought produced when critics identify metaphysical -theories with simple conclusions drawn from Scripture, as expressed in -the grand old words, “The Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy<span class="pagenum" id="Page_221">[221]</span> -Ghost is God, and yet there are not three Gods, but one God.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>Howe took part in the bewildering dispute, and has been supposed by -some to have advocated Sherlock’s side. But it seems to me that what I -have been saying accords with his views, and that he counted such an -opinion as that expressed by Sherlock only as a theory for obviating -objection to a fact, whilst another theory might be held in perfect -consistency with a sincere faith in the truth to which both theories -apply. In his <i>Calm and Sober Inquiry Concerning the Possibility -of a Trinity in the Godhead</i>, the utmost he asserts is, that such -a mode of triune existence as Sherlock attributes to the Divine -Being is <i>possible</i>, and to his mind the most reasonable; but -he did not think another hypothesis of a different kind altogether -indefensible. He adopted what is called the <i>personal</i> theory; -but he did not deem a <i>modal</i> theory, like South’s, either absurd -or heterodox.<a id="FNanchor_263" href="#Footnote_263" class="fnanchor">[263]</a> Evidently he considered that different hypotheses -are at hand not fully to elucidate the mode of the Divine existence, -but to obviate objections, by showing that a threefold distinction in -that existence can be imagined, so as not to involve any contradiction -whatever.<a id="FNanchor_264" href="#Footnote_264" class="fnanchor">[264]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>Amidst this war of words, in which reason and tradition had a share, -secular authority interfered. On the 3rd of January, 1694, the Lords -spiritual and temporal ordered their Majesties’ Attorney-General to -prosecute the author and printer of an infamous and scandalous libel, -entitled, <i>A Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the -Trinity</i>.<a id="FNanchor_265" href="#Footnote_265" class="fnanchor">[265]</a> This was a State condemnation of Unitarianism, and -the same year a tract<span class="pagenum" id="Page_222">[222]</span> printed by the Unitarian Society was seized by -authority, and the writer apprehended. On the 25th of November, 1695, -the Vice-Chancellor and Heads of Houses at Oxford decreed it to be -false, impious, and heretical, contrary to the doctrine of the Catholic -Church, and especially the Church of England, to say that there are -three infinite, distinct minds and substances in the Trinity, or that -the three Persons are three distinct, infinite minds or spirits. This -was a condemnation by the University of the doctrines enunciated by -Sherlock and supported by Bingham. The latter, in consequence of the -storm raised by his sermon, resigned his fellowship, and withdrew from -the University; but others, who thought with him, asserted, that what -the Heads of Oxford had condemned as heretical, really expressed the -Catholic faith; that the decree virtually accused of error the Nicene -Creed and the Church of England, and exposed both to the scorn and -triumph of the Socinians. Sherlock declared “that he would undertake, -any day in the year, to procure a meeting of twice as many wise and -learned men to censure their decree.”<a id="FNanchor_266" href="#Footnote_266" class="fnanchor">[266]</a> Out of this state of things -also arose the new Royal injunctions I have noticed. They prohibited -every preacher from delivering 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; and -they also strictly charged the right reverend fathers to make use of -their authority for repressing the publication of books against that -doctrine.<a id="FNanchor_267" href="#Footnote_267" class="fnanchor">[267]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<p>Charles II. had in 1662 commanded the Clergy to avoid<span class="pagenum" id="Page_223">[223]</span> “the deep points -of election and reprobation, together with the incomprehensible manner -of the concurrence of God’s free grace and man’s free will.”<a id="FNanchor_268" href="#Footnote_268" class="fnanchor">[268]</a> -He thus claimed a high spiritual authority over the Ministers of -religion, but it was by removing certain topics from within the range -of discussion. In the instance just given, William III. enjoined -the positive inculcation of a particular doctrine, and no other. He -did not on his own authority define the doctrine, but only referred -to the doctrine authorized in the Creeds and Articles recognized -by the Established Church; indeed, he did not go beyond the terms -employed in the sixteenth clause of the Toleration Act;<a id="FNanchor_269" href="#Footnote_269" class="fnanchor">[269]</a> yet it -must be confessed that altogether he appears as a still more definite -theological censor than Charles II. And it is worth notice that in this -respect he not only assumed a supreme Headship over the Established -Church, but he also claimed to rule the Free Churches of England, for -he commanded that no “preacher whatsoever, in his sermon or lecture, -should presume to deliver any other doctrine concerning the Trinity -than that defined in the Creeds and Articles.” When we weigh the -words employed, we are astonished to find the constitutional King of -the Revolution—the Prince who came to deliver the consciences of -Englishmen from the despotism of James and the tyranny of Rome—binding -upon the Ministers of religion one precise and rigid form of expression -as to the most profound of all theological mysteries. What makes -this fact still more curious, and the conduct in question still more -unreasonable, is that the most learned<span class="pagenum" id="Page_224">[224]</span> men in the Church at that -very crisis were unable to decide amongst themselves what was the -doctrine of her formularies, Sherlock declaring it to be one thing and -South another. The truth is, that William lent himself to a device -of the well-meaning Archbishop for maintaining the orthodoxy of all -religionists in the realm, without meaning to claim any power over -the religion of his subjects; for to any usurpation of that sort he -was, from temperament, education, and principle, utterly averse. -The Whig Archbishop, whose intellectual acuteness did not equal his -common sense, who could detect no political or philosophical heresy -in the course which he recommended, simply sought to accomplish what -he considered as a laudable end by a method which he thought most -effectual. He sought to put down error, and to promote peace, and in -doing it, hastily snatched at the rusty halberd of authority over -conscience, which the Revolution had hung up as a relic of the past. -Nothing could be more awkward and inconsistent than such a weapon, -placed by a Latitudinarian Prelate in the hands of a Sovereign adored -as the incarnation of civil and religious liberty.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>Although it is true of ancient times and Oriental states, that “where -the word of a King is, there is power,” the King’s word amongst -Englishmen at the time we speak of, especially upon religious subjects, -carried with it no weight whatever; and although the controversy -raging when the injunctions were devised soon burnt out, the heresies -assailed lingered on, and in 1698 the Commons appealed to His Majesty -for a proclamation for suppressing pernicious books containing -doctrines opposed to the Holy Trinity, and other fundamental articles -of the Christian faith.<a id="FNanchor_270" href="#Footnote_270" class="fnanchor">[270]</a> The King, not choosing to do this, gave -his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_225">[225]</span> faithful Commons a short answer, promising attention to the -subject, and wishing that provision could be made for the purpose -desired; but, however, a proclamation was immediately issued for -preventing and punishing immorality and profaneness. Not long before -this circumstance, a youth of only eighteen years of age was executed -in the city of Edinburgh for blasphemy—a victim to the zeal of the -Presbyterian Clergy;<a id="FNanchor_271" href="#Footnote_271" class="fnanchor">[271]</a> and, about the same time, the orthodox -Dissenters of England, in an address of theirs, most inconsistently -urged His Majesty to deprive Unitarians of the liberty of the -press.<a id="FNanchor_272" href="#Footnote_272" class="fnanchor">[272]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE TRINITY.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1693–8.</div> - -<p>An Act of Parliament was passed in 1698 declaring that any one educated -in the Christian religion, who should, by writing, printing, or -teaching, deny the doctrine of the Trinity, the truth of Christianity, -or the authority of the Scriptures, must, for the first offence, -be disqualified for holding any office; and, for the second, be -incapacitated for bringing an action, possessing lands, becoming a -guardian, acting as an executor, or receiving a legacy; moreover, such -a person might be subjected to imprisonment for three years. Parliament -thus united its authority with that of the Sovereign in the support of -orthodox opinions, without perceiving the futility of such methods of -defending the Gospel. And it is not a little surprising that such a man -as Calamy, both in his <i>Diary</i> and in his <i>Historical Addition -to Baxter’s Life and Times</i>, passes by<span class="pagenum" id="Page_226">[226]</span> the objectionable enactment; -indeed, so entirely unaffected by its injustice does he appear to -have been, that, in the latter work, he tells us, in the year 1698, -Parliament “did not meddle with matters of religion, though they had a -committee for religion as usually.”<a id="FNanchor_273" href="#Footnote_273" class="fnanchor">[273]</a> Nothing could more decidedly -prove how much even the advocates of religious liberty had yet to learn -touching that very object which they were supposed to understand, and -were sincerely anxious to promote. It is a pleasure to be able to add, -that neither at the time, nor afterwards, so far as can be ascertained, -did this Act take any effect; and, apparently, it remained a dead -letter until its repeal in the year 1813.<a id="FNanchor_274" href="#Footnote_274" class="fnanchor">[274]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_227">[227]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER X.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">James, after his defeat on the banks of the Boyne, did not relinquish -the hope of recovering his crown. In 1692, amidst preparations for a -descent on the shores of England, he issued a Declaration, in which -he promised to maintain the rights of the Established Church; but as -for his past conduct, he had nothing to retract, nothing to deplore; -and as to his future course, he held out no hopes that he would rule -otherwise than he had been doing. Not only were all who should resist -his new attempt to expect his vengeance, but whole classes of persons, -amounting to some thousands, who had incurred his displeasure, were -threatened with punishment. High in the list of culprits excluded from -mercy, stood Tillotson and Burnet. Such a manifesto, of course, did -the Exile’s cause more harm than good; and, therefore, in 1693, he -reluctantly published another, pitched in a different key, promising -an amnesty to those who would submit, and to all his subjects the -restoration of Parliaments, the preservation of the Test Act, and a -limitation of the dispensing power. These concessions were as tardy and -ineffectual as they were insincere. “After all,” said one who was in -the confidence of James, “the object of this Declaration is only to get -us back to England. We shall fight the battle of the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_228">[228]</span> Catholics with -much greater advantage at Whitehall than at St. Germains.”<a id="FNanchor_275" href="#Footnote_275" class="fnanchor">[275]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693.</div> - -<p>Within the gloomy courts and chambers of the old Palace of St. -Germains—which in melancholy stateliness furnishes such a contrast -to the cheerful prospect from its windows—James, with his Court of -blinded partizans and his crowds of Jesuit priests, was aiming to -convert certain English Protestants who had followed his unhappy -fortunes, and was planning his return to the land of his fathers, with -the hope of reconciling an heretical realm to the true Catholic Church. -Schemes of insurrection were contrived before the death of Queen -Mary; then came schemes for assassination. Previous to that period, -the death of William had offered James no augmentation of hopes; -afterwards, to clear off the reigning Prince from the stage seemed an -advantageous step. That James originated any plot for the murder of his -son-in-law cannot be proved, and ought not to be believed; nor can it -be shown that he expressly sanctioned anything of the kind; but it can -scarcely be questioned that he knew and connived at what was going on. -Insurrection and assassination plots together opened up vistas into -which the refugees at St. Germains wistfully peered, as they laid their -heads together, and talked over the business in retired corners of the -shaded alleys, or in secret nooks of the rambling palace galleries. A -hundred priests, it is said, were to attend the anointed King in his -expedition, carrying precious relics as pledges of victory—including -the image of St. Victor, of which the miraculous virtue upon infidels -and heretics had been proved, when it was sent as a present to France -from the Queen of Poland. So confident of success were the plotters, -that they talked<span class="pagenum" id="Page_229">[229]</span> of taking debentures on English estates, soon to -fall into their hands; also pieces of preferment in Church and State -were allotted to Royal favourites, and Jesuits rejoiced in the idea of -setting up a branch of their order within the spacious precincts of -Chelsea College.<a id="FNanchor_276" href="#Footnote_276" class="fnanchor">[276]</a> These Papists abroad found sympathizing friends -at home amongst the Nonjurors, some of whom were at the time charged -with preaching from texts suggestive of treason and rebellion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>A correspondence between the Court of St. Germains and the English -Jacobites, ranging from October, 1693, to August, 1694, brought to -light by Macpherson, shows what was going on at that period. “It is -His Majesty’s desire,” said an agent of the Exile, “that the Bishops -and non-swearing Clergy send one or two of their number, especially -one of the Bishops, to him, with all convenient speed, instructed by -the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury [Sancroft], and the rest of the most -considerable of them, to inform His Majesty of the readiness they were -in last year to have joined him at his landing, and to have preached -loyalty and due obedience to the people; and to bring assurances, under -the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury’s hand, that they are in the same -disposition still, and will join His Majesty whenever he shall land. -For the same end, to encourage the people to come into their duty, and -because that there may be some danger in inserting of names, ways of -writing in white must be found out, and the paper sent by the boat, -and not be brought by any of the persons who are sent. This is of the -last importance for the King’s service, and therefore, tho’ difficult -in appearance, must be complied with; and it’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_230">[230]</span> hoped that there may -be no danger, considering how safe all things come. The King is sorry -he cannot put his own hand to this. The King’s affairs depend upon the -punctual doing of what he desires, as you shall know in due time. The -person sent may come safe by Holland. He must likewise bring as good an -account as he can, of the number and names of the non-swearing Clergy; -and likewise, how the non-swearing Clergy stand affected, and what the -King may expect from them, with the best account he can of the state of -the King’s affairs in general.”<a id="FNanchor_277" href="#Footnote_277" class="fnanchor">[277]</a> “You are,” it is said in another -letter, “to let the Bishop of Norwich [Lloyd] know from us, how much we -are pleased with his zeal and faithfulness in our service, to assure -him of our favour, and to return him our most hearty thanks.”<a id="FNanchor_278" href="#Footnote_278" class="fnanchor">[278]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1693.</div> - -<p>Assurances were sent from this side the water to the plotters abroad, -full of the spirit of revolt. “His Majesty [James] has likewise for -him, six Protestant Bishops and 600 Ministers who have not taken the -oaths, and almost all the Ministers of the Church of England who have -taken the oaths; that is to say, as one of their Bishops writes to me, -four parts in five are ready to join the King, or to preach in their -churches to stir up the people in his favour,—500 of them having -been ready to join him last year, in order to convince Protestants -that their religion was in no danger, and in order to preach their -sentiments to the inhabitants of the country, thro’ which the King -should pass.”<a id="FNanchor_279" href="#Footnote_279" class="fnanchor">[279]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>Another of these conspirators assured his accomplices abroad, that he -would unite with his regiment a company of Clergymen of the Church -of England, who were determined<span class="pagenum" id="Page_231">[231]</span> to serve as volunteers in this -expedition; and he hoped also, by a stratagem, to seize the Prince and -Princess of Orange, and to bring them as prisoners to His Majesty.<a id="FNanchor_280" href="#Footnote_280" class="fnanchor">[280]</a></p> - -<p>Captain Crisp declared that the Bishop of Exeter was entirely in the -King’s interest; and that five parts of seven in the county of Cornwall -were on the same side.<a id="FNanchor_281" href="#Footnote_281" class="fnanchor">[281]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694.</div> - -<p>Sir Theophilus Oglethorpe, Sir John Fenwick, Major-General Sackville, -and several other persons of quality and distinction, maintained that -the persons mentioned, having made an exact inquiry through all the -counties of England, found that the mind of the nation in general -was entirely alienated from the Prince of Orange, by losses suffered -at sea, by heavy taxes, by the interruption of commerce within and -without the kingdom, and by the general disorder occasioned through -a change in the circulation of the coin. It is distinctly affirmed, -“that four parts out of five of the Clergy are disposed to declare for -the King;”<a id="FNanchor_282" href="#Footnote_282" class="fnanchor">[282]</a> and His Majesty was earnestly besought to think of -some way to reconcile the Church party, and those of the Dissenters -who were in Parliament, as it would contribute much to His Majesty’s -service.<a id="FNanchor_283" href="#Footnote_283" class="fnanchor">[283]</a> This was before the death of Mary, afterwards intrigues -did not end in foolish, harmless, and untruthful correspondence. A -conspiracy was formed to attack William when driving over a piece of -bad road between Brentford and Turnham Green, but the conspirators were -betrayed, and the bubble of vengeance immediately burst. Charnock, -Keyes, and King, Roman Catholic Jacobites—who, with others of the -same faith in religion and politics, had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_232">[232]</span> deeply involved in this -affair—suffered for their offence, the last-named declaring at the -foot of the gallows, that what he had done was to be attributed to his -own sinful passions, not to any Roman Catholic doctrine on the subject -of tyrannicide. Two others of higher grade—Sir John Friend, belonging -to the Jacobite nonjuring class, and Sir William Parkyns, a Jacobite, -but a juror too—on the 3rd of April, also suffered death for their -share in the conspiracy. The fate of these knights created immense -excitement, chiefly on account of a circumstance which brings their -execution before us. Jeremy Collier has been already mentioned as a -distinguished nonjuring Divine, and a great sensation was produced in -the vast crowds round the fatal tree by the sight of this clergyman—in -company with two others less known, named Cook and Snatt—performing -some peculiar religious rites at the last moment of the culprits’ -lives. The three Divines were observed in the cart, not only praying -with the unhappy men, but laying hands upon them as they knelt -down—Collier solemnly pronouncing over them the form of absolution, -prescribed in the Visitation of the Sick. A paper, professedly written -by Friend, and delivered to the Sheriff, contained a prayer for King -James’ restoration, and stated that the writer was a member of the -Church, “though,” he adds, “a most unworthy and unprofitable part of it -(meaning the nonjuring part), which suffers so much at present for a -strict adherence to the laws and Christian principles.</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>For this I suffer, and for this I die.”<a id="FNanchor_284" href="#Footnote_284" class="fnanchor">[284]</a></div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>People were astonished at the strange absolution performed. Multitudes -more who heard of it shared in the wonder, and the circulation of the -paper increased the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_233">[233]</span> excitement. To all but the most obstinate, the -administering of absolution under the circumstances seemed like an -act of sympathy with civil treason, and a gross perversion of Church -formularies. London presently rose in a state of high commotion. The -Tyburn affair was in everybody’s mouth, and broadsides and pamphlets -bearing upon it were in everybody’s hands. The public authorities -interfered, and at once seized Cook and Snatt. Collier eluded their -search; and in some garret, cellar, or other out-of-the-way place, -wrote a defence of what he had done. He had, he said, been sent for -to Newgate; Sir William Parkyns had begged that the absolution of the -Church might be pronounced over him in his last moments. Collier had -been refused admittance to the prisoner in his cell on the day of -execution, and so he went to Tyburn to pronounce absolution there. He -used a form in the Prayer-Book; and as to the imposition of hands, -complained of as an innovation, he concluded that it was a very -ancient, and, at least, a very innocent ceremony.<a id="FNanchor_285" href="#Footnote_285" class="fnanchor">[285]</a></p> - -<p>The Bishops, considering that a scandal had been brought upon the -Church, published a declaration condemnatory both of the culprits’ -papers and the Clergymen’s conduct. The papers they charged with making -a favourable mention of so foul a thing as the assassination of His -Majesty; and the Clergymen’s conduct they denounced as insolent, and -without precedent either in the English Church or in any other.<a id="FNanchor_286" href="#Footnote_286" class="fnanchor">[286]</a> -All the Bishops in London signed this document, including Crew of -Durham, and Sprat of Rochester, who, from their past career, were still -suspected of Jacobite tendencies. Collier, whose boldness equalled his -learning, returned<span class="pagenum" id="Page_234">[234]</span> to the charge, and from the depths of his obscurity -re-proclaimed the doctrine of the imposition of hands as scriptural, -and consonant with patristic teaching. He also pleaded on its behalf, -in such a case as the one in question, no less a precedent than the -conduct of Bishop Sanderson, oddly enough putting the Prelate in the -place of the traitor under the fatal beam. “This eminent casuist,” -says Collier, “about a day before his death, desired his chaplain, Mr. -Pullin, to give him absolution; and at his performing that office, he -pulled off his cap that Mr. Pullin might lay his hand upon his bare -head.”<a id="FNanchor_287" href="#Footnote_287" class="fnanchor">[287]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1696.</div> - -<p>Collier was the leading spirit in this transaction, and he willingly -accepted the chief responsibility; yet he continued to hide himself, -and finally escaped the constable’s clutches. His two companions, after -a true Bill had been found against them by the Grand Jury of Middlesex, -were set at liberty; and it is a question whether they could have been -legally convicted of the commission of any crime against the law of the -land—for absolution at the point of death, by the imposition of hands, -whatever might be thought of it in a religious point of view, could not -be regarded as a political offence; and absolving such men, although -it looked like sympathy in their enterprise, could scarcely bring the -absolvers within the compass of the statute of treason.</p> - -<p>Another conspirator’s name gathered round it ecclesiastical -complications. Sir John Fenwick, an active person amongst the numerous -plotters against William, fell into the hands of justice in the month -of June. A letter, from the Duke of Shrewsbury to William III., -indicates what thoughts were entertained of this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_235">[235]</span> conspirator, and of -the views of certain people in France at that juncture.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>“I am not acquainted with the particulars my Lord Steward has sent your -Majesty from Sir John Fenwick; he is generally reputed a fearful man, -and though now he may not offer to say all, yet beginning to treat is -no contradiction to that character. I am confident he knows what, if -he will discover, may be much more valuable than his life. If he were -well managed, possibly he might lay open a scene that would facilitate -the business the next winter, which, without some such miracle, I doubt -will be difficult enough.</p> - -<p>“An acquaintance of mine saw a fresh letter to my Lady Walgrave, from -my Lord Galmoy, at St. Germains, who I think is her husband, where he -says he has never been credulous in the hopes of King James’ coming; -but that now he is well assured, it will be attempted the end of this -year, and with good appearance of success. The same person saw another -letter from another hand, they would not say from whom, but from one -more likely to know than the former, and spoke in the same language, -but with more assurance.”<a id="FNanchor_288" href="#Footnote_288" class="fnanchor">[288]</a></p> - -<p>Fenwick, after his capture, made revelations, as Shrewsbury supposed -him not unlikely to do; but, to the great surprise and indignation of -the latter, he learnt before long, that the cunning conspirator had -woven a story, by which he had contrived to bring the Duke himself into -suspicion. The fact is, that for a long time after the Revolution, -things were said and done—whispered, insinuated, listened to, and -winked at—which bore an ugly look in the eyes of honest people; and -it is wonderful in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_236">[236]</span> what a perilous position the frail, eagle-faced -champion of constitutional rights and of European Protestantism stood -for years after he had accepted the British crown. True, some men were -accused without good reason, but to many cases the adage applied, -“Where there is smoke there is fire.”<a id="FNanchor_289" href="#Footnote_289" class="fnanchor">[289]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1696.</div> - -<p>Charles, Earl of Middleton, took an active part in Jacobite intrigues, -and he is worth notice here as an example of Jacobitism in alliance -with Protestantism, or rather in alliance with views anti-Catholic. -He married into a Popish family, but did not adopt their religion. -Indeed, his principles on that score were very loose, although he -knew how, with a clever stroke, to repel the onsets of Jesuitical -sophistry. A priest one day tried to prove to him the doctrine of -Transubstantiation. “Your Lordship,” said he, “believes in the -Trinity;” Middleton stopped him by asking, “Who told you so?” The -priest felt amazed, upon which the Peer added, it was the priest’s -business to prove that his own belief was true, and not to question -another man about his.<a id="FNanchor_290" href="#Footnote_290" class="fnanchor">[290]</a> In one of the Earl’s furtive missions -to England upon the business of the exiled Prince, he had met with -Shrewsbury, and had evidently tried, in an underhand way, to work his -mind into a Jacobite direction. Fenwick had got hold of this, and had -made the most of it against the Duke, who now occupied the office of -Secretary of State,<a id="FNanchor_291" href="#Footnote_291" class="fnanchor">[291]</a> and had, during William’s absence, discharged, -along with the Archbishop of Canterbury and others, the high function -of a Lord Justice. The letter which Shrewsbury wrote<span class="pagenum" id="Page_237">[237]</span> to William is -worth insertion, as illustrative of what went on behind the scenes, -of the scrapes men fell into, of the way they got out of them, of -the generosity and forgiving spirit of the King, and of the rickety -condition of English Protestantism, if it had rested upon nothing -better than the character of politicians.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p>“I want words,” says Shrewsbury, -addressing William, “to express my surprise at the impudent and -unaccountable accusation of Sir John Fenwick; I will, with all -the sincerity imaginable, give your Majesty an account of the -only thing I can recollect, that should give the least pretence -to such an invention, and I am confident you will judge there -are few men in the kingdom, that have not so far transgressed -the law.</p> - -<p>“After your Majesty was pleased to allow me to lay down my -employment, it was more than a year before I once saw my Lord -Middleton; then he came and stayed in town awhile, and returned -to the country; but a little before the La Hogue business he -came up again, and upon that alarm, being put in the Tower, -where people were permitted to see him, I visited him as often -as I thought decent for the nearness of our alliance. Upon his -enlargement, one night at supper, when he was pretty well in -drink, he told me he intended to go beyond seas, and asked if I -would command him no service. I then told him by the course he -was taking it would never be in his power to do himself or his -friends service, and if the time should come that he expected, -I looked upon myself as an offender not to be forgiven, and -therefore he should never find me asking it. In the condition -he was then, he seemed shocked at my answer, and it being some -months after before he went, he never mentioned his own going, -or anything else to me, but left a message with my aunt, that he -thought it better to say nothing to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_238">[238]</span> me, but that I might depend -upon his good offices upon any occasion, and in the same manner, -he relied upon mine here, and had left me trustee for the small -concern he had in England. I only bowed and told her I should -always be ready to serve her or him or their children.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1696.</div> - -<p>“Your Majesty now knows the extent of my crime, and, if I do not -flatter myself, it is not more than a king may forgive.</p> - -<p>“I am sure, when I consider with what reason, justice, and -generosity, your Majesty has weighed this man’s information, I -have little cause to apprehend your ill-opinion upon his malice. -I wish it were as easy to answer for the reasonableness of the -generality of the world. When such a base invention shall be -made public, they may perhaps make me incapable of serving you, -but if till now I had had neither interest nor inclination, the -noble and frank manner with which your Majesty has used me upon -this occasion shall ever be owned with all gratitude in my power.</p> - -<p>“My Lord Steward being at the Baths, nothing was resolved as to -Sir John Fenwick’s trial till his answer returns.</p> - -<p class="hangingindent">“I am, with all imaginable submission, your -Majesty’s most faithful, dutiful, and obedient subject and -servant,</p> - -<p class="smcap r1">“Shrewsbury.”<a id="FNanchor_292" href="#Footnote_292" class="fnanchor">[292]</a></p> -</div> - - -<p>Fenwick disclosed divisions amongst the Nonjurors, classifying them as -compounders and non-compounders—the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_239">[239]</span> compounders being anxious for -some security from King James, that English religion and liberty would -be preserved in case of his restoration; and the non-compounders being -prepared to cast themselves entirely upon his honour and generosity. -Lloyd, the deprived Bishop of Norwich, adopted the latter view, and -would hear of no terms in a matter of Divine right.<a id="FNanchor_293" href="#Footnote_293" class="fnanchor">[293]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>The Bill for Fenwick’s attainder created much discussion in the House -of Commons. The discussion took a theological turn upon the point of -deficiency of evidence, the testimony of one witness not being backed -by the testimony of a second. Much was said by the opponents of the -attainder, respecting the eternal law of God and man, and of the Holy -Scriptures requiring more witnesses than one to convict a person of a -capital crime. “No man,” it was repeated, “shall be condemned to die -by the mouth of one witness, but by two or three witnesses he shall -suffer.” It was replied, that not the Levitical law, but the law of -England, should be guide in such a case; then, some one rejoined, that -he and those who thought with him, did not wish to base their argument -simply on Scripture, but upon the fact that this law of Moses having -been confirmed by our Saviour in the New Testament, it ought to be -brought into connection with the law of the land.<a id="FNanchor_294" href="#Footnote_294" class="fnanchor">[294]</a> In spite of -attempts made to save Sir John, the Bill passed both Houses. Robert -Nelson interceded with Tenison to plead with the King. “My very good -friend,” returned the Primate, “give me leave to tell you, that you -know not what spirit this man, nor I am of; I wish for his, nor no -man’s blood, but how can I do my duty to God and my King, should I -declare a man<span class="pagenum" id="Page_240">[240]</span> innocent; for my not being of the side of the Bill will -convince the world that I think him so, when I am satisfied in my -conscience, not only from Goodman’s evidence, but all the convincing -testimonies in the world, that he is guilty. Laws <i>ex post facto</i> -may indeed carry the face of rigour with them, but if ever a law was -necessary this is.”<a id="FNanchor_295" href="#Footnote_295" class="fnanchor">[295]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1696.</div> - -<p>An amusing circumstance occurred during the debate. Dr. John Williams, -Hector of St. Mildred’s, Poultry, accepted the Bishopric of Chichester, -and was consecrated at Lambeth, by Tenison and others, the day before -the third reading of the Bill. Rushing into the Bishops’ chamber to -robe himself, he was accosted by the Archbishop, “Brother, brother! -you’ll overheat yourself; what’s the reason of all this pother?” -“Nothing, may it please your Grace,” said he; “but I was fearful lest -the Bill against Sir John Fenwick should be read before I could take -my place in the House.” “Fye, my Lord,” said Tenison; “you might have -spared yourself that labour, since you had not an opportunity of -hearing the merits of the cause at the first and second reading; but -since, as I perceive, you are come to give your vote, pray, brother, -come in along with me, that you may hear it once read, before you do -it.”<a id="FNanchor_296" href="#Footnote_296" class="fnanchor">[296]</a></p> - -<p>After the Bill had passed, efforts were continued on the culprit’s -behalf. His Lady petitioned the House of Lords and the House of -Commons; also she threw herself as a suppliant at William’s feet in -vain. Fenwick delivered a paper, supposed to have been drawn up by -White, the deprived Bishop of Peterborough, in which he did not deny -the facts sworn, but only complained of his attainder as unjust; at -the same time declaring his loyalty to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_241">[241]</span> King James and to the Prince -of Wales, but denouncing, with horror, the idea of assassinating -William.<a id="FNanchor_297" href="#Footnote_297" class="fnanchor">[297]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">JACOBITES.</div> - -<p>Fenwick suffered upon Tower Hill the 20th of January, 1697. That wintry -morning, cold with storms, White appeared with him on the scaffold, -not to pronounce absolution or lay on hands, but simply to pray with a -dying man.<a id="FNanchor_298" href="#Footnote_298" class="fnanchor">[298]</a> Commending the King to the Divine protection—meaning -James, but not using his name—Fenwick, as he laid his neck on the -block, cried, “Lord Jesus, receive my soul.” His corpse was buried by -torch-light in St. Martin’s Church.</p> - -<p>Others were hanged for treasonable practices, including Cranburne, -who professed himself a member of the Church of England; and -Rookwood and Lowick, Roman Catholics, whose <i>Jesu Maria</i> and -<i>Paternosters</i> are particularly mentioned by the Protestant -narrator of their last end.<a id="FNanchor_299" href="#Footnote_299" class="fnanchor">[299]</a></p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_242">[242]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XI.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The peace of Ryswick, which put an end to the war between William and -Louis, and detached the latter from the cause of James, dispelled for -awhile the visions which had tantalized and disappointed the nonjuring -party; for the treaty, sanctioned by France, Spain, and the United -Provinces, recognized the constitution of England, and William as a -constitutional King. Some Clergymen, wearied by the bootless resistance -of eight long years, now came to terms, and swore allegiance to the -reigning Sovereign, adopting at last the principle which they had -denounced, that a settled Government, though illegitimate in its -origin, is binding in its authority.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">PEACE OF RYSWICK.</div> - -<p>Immense joy arose on this occasion; it prolonged itself during the -month of November. The anniversary of the landing at Torbay of course -set in motion peals of bells, lighted up candles in windows, kindled -bonfires in market-places, and evoked shouts of glee from assembled -multitudes. The 14th of November, the day of Williams return and -landing at Margate, became an additional season of joy. On the -16th, which turned out a bright morning, he entered his capital in -state, attended by the Lord Mayor and Aldermen, with a measure of -the splendour which on past occasions brightened the City’s dark and -narrow streets; although some of the spectators of the sight noticed a -decline<span class="pagenum" id="Page_243">[243]</span> in the splendour of the pageantry.<a id="FNanchor_300" href="#Footnote_300" class="fnanchor">[300]</a> The triumph of the day -was complete when the University of Oxford, to the unutterable chagrin -of the Nonjurors, struck its colours, and in an adulatory address did -homage to the hero. This tide of joy flowed into the following month. -The 2nd of December was held as a day of thanksgiving for the peace. -The King and Court attended Divine service in the Chapel at Whitehall, -where Burnet preached, or, as one who heard him says, “made a florid -panegyric,”<a id="FNanchor_301" href="#Footnote_301" class="fnanchor">[301]</a> founded on the words, “Happy are thy men, and happy -are these thy servants, which stand continually before thee, and hear -thy wisdom. Blessed be the Lord thy God which delighted in thee to -set thee on his throne, to be king for the Lord thy God: because thy -God loved Israel to establish them for ever, therefore made he thee -king over them, to do judgment and justice.” The same day St. Paul’s -Cathedral was opened for Divine service, and William would have been -there, instead of being in his own Chapel, but for fear lest the -multitude, thronging the streets, should render his approach almost -impracticable. The Corporation of London appeared in their civic pomp; -Compton ascended his throne, just enriched by the carvings of Grinling -Gibbons; and he afterwards preached from the appropriate text, “I -was glad when they said unto me, Let us go up into the house of the -Lord.”<a id="FNanchor_302" href="#Footnote_302" class="fnanchor">[302]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1698.</div> - -<p>A new Parliament, of a decidedly High-Church stamp, assembled on -the 9th of December, amidst an atmosphere of hypocrisy and intrigue -rarely equalled. A sermon preached before the Commons by the Rector of -Sutton,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_244">[244]</span> in Surrey, upon government originating with the people, and -good government alone being the ordinance of God, gave vast offence -to the Tories, and occasioned the passing of a curious resolution, -that no one should preach before the House unless he was a Dean or a -D.D. A Committee of the Lower House formally complained of Dissenters -being made Justices of the Peace; whereas it turned out on inquiry -that not two of their number were placed on the roll, besides such -as had become occasional Conformists. Some zealots went so far as to -propose, that an address should be presented to the King, to remove -Burnet from the office of Preceptor to the young Duke of Gloucester; -but as this was too absurd a proposal to find much support, it had to -be withdrawn.<a id="FNanchor_303" href="#Footnote_303" class="fnanchor">[303]</a> Under pretence of patriotism and economy, a strong -opposition party carried one measure for a reduction of the army, which -compelled William to part with his Dutch Guards, the sorest sacrifice -he ever made; and another for the recovery of Irish estates, bestowed -by the Monarch on his supporters, a proceeding which ended in the -aggrandizement of its inventors.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">PARLIAMENT.</div> - -<p>The peace of Ryswick had brought “a great swarm of priests”<a id="FNanchor_304" href="#Footnote_304" class="fnanchor">[304]</a> to -England, who held up their heads with so much insolence, that some -foolish Protestants and some cunning politicians absurdly declared, -the articles of peace favoured Popery, and the King was a Papist in -disguise. Soon the new Parliament, stirred by a gust of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_245">[245]</span> wind which -threatened a “No Popery” tempest, set to work upon a Bill obliging -every Popish minor succeeding to an estate, immediately to take the -oath of allegiance, and, as soon as he attained his majority, to -submit to the Test Act,—otherwise his property would devolve on the -Protestant next of kin. The Bill also banished Popish priests, and -adjudged them to perpetual imprisonment in case they dared to return; -the reward for conviction being £100. The Bill is said to have been -partly a trick contrived by the Tories to perplex the Whigs, who prided -themselves on being the champions of Toleration; but when they saw -the Whigs supporting it, they indicated a desire to drop the measure. -With a view of provoking defeat, they introduced additionally severe -and unreasonable clauses; yet, contrary to their expectations, the -Lords, under the influence of an anti-Popish fever, accepted what came -up to them, and the Bill, unamended, not only passed the Upper House, -but received the Royal assent. Burnet supported it, and endeavoured -to defend himself against the charge of injustice and inconsistency. -“I had always thought,” he says, “that if a Government found any sect -in religion incompatible with its quiet and safety, it might, and -sometimes ought, to send away all of that sect, with as little hardship -as possible. It is certain that as all Papists must, at all times, -be ill subjects to a Protestant prince, so this is much more to be -apprehended when there is a pretended Popish heir in the case.” The -new law happily proved a nullity. Some of the terms were so vague, and -the provisions were so oppressive, that the “Act was not followed, nor -executed in any sort.”<a id="FNanchor_305" href="#Footnote_305" class="fnanchor">[305]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_246">[246]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1699.</div> - -<p>Complaints of growing immorality had been repeatedly made; -proclamations to check it had been often issued; and on the 28th of -November, Parliament requested the publication of a new one. Upon this, -the Archbishop of Canterbury addressed a pastoral letter to each of his -Suffragans, requesting them to stir up the Clergy to a more zealous -discharge of their duties. The good effects of pastoral diligence had -been made apparent in London; now Ministers in general were exhorted -to imitate the admirable example. Let them by their consistent lives -recommend the doctrines which they preached. The family and the parish -were spheres of usefulness, to be filled up by the discharge of the -duties included in a Christian walk and conversation; persons in holy -orders ought to be pre-eminently holy. Enemies were seeking objections -against Christ’s religion, its friends therefore ought to be diligent -in its defence, acquainting themselves with the grounds on which it -rested, and the modes of sophistry by which it was assailed. Frequent -meetings of the Clergy for conference on religious matters might do -much good, especially if Churchwardens and others of the laity could -be brought to co-operate. Obstinate offenders should be subjected to -ecclesiastical censure, and the assistance of the magistrate should be -sought when it was likely to be effectual; people were not to shrink -from exposing crime and securing its punishment, through fear of being -denounced as informers. Finally, since education laid the firmest -basis for morality and religion, it became the parochial clergy to be -sedulous in the catechizing of children. In this way the Archbishop, -through the medium of Diocesans and their Clergy, endeavoured to -promote the interests of the Church.<a id="FNanchor_306" href="#Footnote_306" class="fnanchor">[306]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_247">[247]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHURCH PREFERMENTS.</div> - -<p>The power vested in the Crown of nominating Bishops and other -dignitaries had been exercised during the life of Queen Mary very -much according to her discretion. William,—perhaps because he was a -foreigner, and also destitute of entire sympathy with Episcopalianism, -or because he was so engrossed with foreign affairs,—seems to have -been reluctant to take part in the bestowment of ecclesiastical -patronage. In the year 1700 he devolved its responsibilities, to a -large extent, upon the Archbishops of Canterbury and York, and the -Bishops of Salisbury, Worcester, Ely, and Norwich. Whilst he was in the -realm they were to signify to him their recommendation of such persons -as they thought fit for vacant preferments, which recommendation they -were to present through the Secretaries of State. If whilst he was -beyond the seas, any Bishoprics, Deaneries, or other specified clerical -offices in his gift, above the annual value of £140, should need -filling up, the Commissioners were to transmit the names of suitable -persons, respecting whom his pleasure would be made known under his -sign-manual. At the same time he delegated to them full power at once -to appoint to other preferments. Also, he declared, that neither when -he was abroad nor when he was at home, should either of his Secretaries -address him in reference to any benefices left to the recommendation or -disposal of the Commissioners, without first communicating with them, -also that no warrant should be presented for the Royal signature until -their recommendation had been obtained.<a id="FNanchor_307" href="#Footnote_307" class="fnanchor">[307]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1700.</div> - -<p>An affecting bereavement now occurred in the Royal family. William, -Duke of Gloucester, a son of Princess<span class="pagenum" id="Page_248">[248]</span> Anne and Prince George of -Denmark, was heir to the throne, and therefore in him centred the -hopes of the nation. He seems to have been a lively child, for in -1695, when only six years old, he ran to meet his uncle with a little -musket on his shoulder, and presented arms. “I am learning my drill,” -he cried, “that I may help you to beat the French.” Nothing could -have better pleased the veteran, who soon afterwards actually created -the boy Knight of the Garter. Military tastes continued to guide his -childish amusements, and he formed a regiment of lads, chiefly from -Kensington, who attended him at Campden House, the residence of his -mother, a quaint mansion burnt down a few years ago. The education of -the Prince early occupied the thoughts of William, who offered the -post of Governor to the Duke of Shrewsbury, now restored to the Royal -confidence.<a id="FNanchor_308" href="#Footnote_308" class="fnanchor">[308]</a> Shrewsbury declined, and the office fell into the -hands of Marlborough. A story is told to the effect, that the King said -to the future hero of Blenheim, “Teach him to be what you are,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_249">[249]</span> and my -nephew cannot want accomplishments.” The still more important duties of -preceptor to the youth were entrusted to Burnet, as already indicated. -Windsor then being within the diocese of Salisbury, the Prince was to -live there during the summer months, when the Bishop reckoned he would -be in his diocese, and therefore in the way of his proper episcopal -duties; he satisfied himself with thinking, that all would be right -if the King allowed him ten weeks in the year for the other parts of -his diocese,—a circumstance which shows how in those days notions of -a Bishop’s office were different from what, happily, they are now. -“I took to my own province,” says the right reverend preceptor, “the -reading and explaining the Scriptures to him, the instructing him in -the principles of religion, and the rules of virtue, and the giving him -a view of history, geography, politics, and government. I resolved also -to look very exactly to all the masters that were appointed to teach -him other things.”<a id="FNanchor_309" href="#Footnote_309" class="fnanchor">[309]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">DUKE OF GLOUCESTER.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1700.</div> - -<p>But a sad fatality brooded over all the offspring of poor Anne. After a -few days’ attack of fever, the young Duke died on the 30th of July.</p> - -<p>He was buried in Westminster Abbey, and recently, upon the family vault -being opened, amongst the ten small coffins of the children of James -II., and the eighteen small coffins of the children of his daughter -Anne, lay the coffin of the youthful William, resting in remarkable -juxtaposition upon that of Elizabeth of Bohemia.<a id="FNanchor_310" href="#Footnote_310" class="fnanchor">[310]</a> Thus one of an -unfortunate race, who never attained the crown he inherited, mingled -his dust with that of a great aunt, who soon lost the crown she had -prompted her husband too eagerly to seize. As the nation unaffectedly -mourned<span class="pagenum" id="Page_250">[250]</span> the death of the youthful Duke, a gentleman,<a id="FNanchor_311" href="#Footnote_311" class="fnanchor">[311]</a> living at -Holland House, a friend of Atterbury’s, lamented the removal of his -Royal neighbour in the following lines, which afford a specimen of the -affected elegiac strains popular at the period:—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“So by the course of the revolving spheres,</div> - <div>When’er a new discover’d star appears,</div> - <div>Astronomers with pleasure and amaze,</div> - <div>Upon the infant luminary gaze.</div> - <div>They find their heaven’s enlarged, and wait from thence,</div> - <div>Some blest, some more than common influence;</div> - <div>But suddenly, alas! the fleeting light</div> - <div>Retiring, leaves their hopes involved in endless night.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>The Duke of Gloucester was the last Protestant heir to the Crown -recognized in the Act of Settlement. His death therefore exposed the -Royal succession to new perils, revived the hopes of the Jacobites, and -created anxiety in the minds of William and his Ministers. The King at -the time had left England nearly a month; and as, amidst the gardens -of his retreat at Loo, he saw the shortening of the summer days, he -had pondered future contingencies, and laid plans for preserving the -work which he had wrought. When, in the following February, 1701, he, -bearing evident signs of increasing frailty, met Parliament, he told -the Houses that the loss just sustained made it necessary there should -be a further provision for a Protestant succession; adding, that the -happiness of the nation, and the security of religion, seemed to depend -so much upon this, that he could not doubt it would meet with general -concurrence. The addresses echoed the same sentiment, and in March the -Bill of Succession came under Parliamentary debate. It determined that -the Princess Sophia, Duchess-Dowager of Hanover, or her heirs, should<span class="pagenum" id="Page_251">[251]</span> -succeed upon failure of issue to William and Anne; and it laid down -the principle that whosoever wore the Crown should commune with the -Church of England, as by law established. Other important resolutions, -which it does not come within my province to notice, were incorporated -in the Bill; and these gave rise to fierce discussions between the two -great political parties, who, throughout the whole of this reign, were -teasing William out of his life, provoking the phlegmatic Dutchman to -exclaim, that “all the difference he knew between the two parties was, -that the Tories would cut his throat in the morning, and the Whigs -in the afternoon.”<a id="FNanchor_312" href="#Footnote_312" class="fnanchor">[312]</a> The Act of Settlement at length passed, and -received the Royal assent.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE SUCCESSION.</div> - -<p>It is curious to observe with respect to this Act, that Sophia, who was -made the protectress of the Reformed faith, and who was to supersede -the Stuarts on the throne, was neither a zealous Protestant nor a -foe to the exiled family. For when asked what was the religion of -her blooming daughter, at the time just thirteen years of age, she -replied she had none as yet; “we are waiting to know what prince she -is to marry, and whenever that point is determined, she will be duly -instructed in the religion of her future husband—whether Protestant -or Catholic.” And in a communication, which Lord Chancellor Hardwicke -called her Jacobite letter, she bewailed the fate of the poor Prince of -Wales, who, if restored, she said, might be easily guided in a right -direction.<a id="FNanchor_313" href="#Footnote_313" class="fnanchor">[313]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>A limitation of the heirship, within the pale of any particular -Protestant community, which may become less and less national as time -rolls on, is open to grave objections; but the limitation of descent -within Protestant lines of some kind, appears to rest upon a sound -basis. The<span class="pagenum" id="Page_252">[252]</span> reasons for it are furnished not by the religious, but by -the political character of Romanism. No doctrinal or ecclesiastical -opinions ought to exclude a legitimate heir, but a Popish claimant -is the subject of another and an ambitious power, which associates -temporal with spiritual authority, and exercises assumed prerogatives -after an elastic fashion, which can contract or expand them with -exquisite cunning, as fear darkens, or as hope brightens the prospect -of futurity. A Roman Catholic Sovereign is involved in complications -intolerable to a Protestant people, with a history full of warning -against foreign interference. It was a true instinct which led Lord -William Russell, amidst the aberrations of party zeal, to deprecate -as a terrible calamity the accession of a Papist; the same instinct -prompted the limitation of the Succession Act. Taught by the story of -the past, our ancestors guarded against Romish intermeddling, and it is -well for the fortunes of this country, that, acting on this maxim, our -fathers did not, in a fit of blind generosity, mistaken for justice, -open or keep open a door of mischief which, in some perilous hour, it -might be impossible to shut.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">JAMES II.</div> - -<p>Another important event was now approaching. James II., tired out -by a chequered life, desired to die. Whatever may be thought of his -principles, and the effect of his reign upon the interests of his -country, no one can doubt his religious sincerity, and when the -immoralities of his earlier days had been discontinued, confessed, and -deplored,<a id="FNanchor_314" href="#Footnote_314" class="fnanchor">[314]</a> he manifested an earnest devoutness, tinged, of course, -by the peculiarities of his faith. Dwelling upon the examples of some -good men who had longed to be removed from this world, and upon the -moral dangers to which others had been exposed, he counted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_253">[253]</span> it “a high -presumption for a slender reed not to desire to be sheltered from such -terrible gusts as had overturned those lofty cedars.” When indulging in -such meditations, he was seized with a fit in early spring, from which -he partially recovered. Once more, within the Palace at St. Germains, -he was seized, in the midst of his devotions at chapel, with another -attack on the 2nd of September. Afterwards he sent for his son, who, -seeing the bed stained with blood from a violent hæmorrhage, burst -into violent weeping. Having calmed the child, his father conjured him -to adhere to the Catholic faith; to be obedient to his mother, and -grateful to the King of France; to serve God with all his strength, -and if he should reign, to remember kings were made not for themselves -but the good of their people, and to set a pattern of all manner of -virtues.<a id="FNanchor_315" href="#Footnote_315" class="fnanchor">[315]</a></p> - -<p>This was good advice, but it bore an application such as would guide -the son in the father’s ways. He exhorted everybody about him to spend -pious lives, and urged his few Protestant courtiers and servants to -embrace the Catholic faith. It deserves mention that he forgave all -who had injured him, mentioning in particular his daughter Anne, and -his son-in-law William. But the most important circumstance connected -with his dying moments was the visit of the <i>Grand Monarque</i>, -who promised James he would take his family under his protection, and -acknowledge the Prince of Wales as King of England—an assurance which -drew joyful tears from the family and courtiers. On Friday, the 16th of -September, 1701, James expired; as if a saint had been taken to heaven, -the physicians and surgeons who made a <i>post-mortem</i> examination, -kept particles of his body as relics, and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_254">[254]</span> attendants dipped their -chaplets and handkerchiefs in his blood.<a id="FNanchor_316" href="#Footnote_316" class="fnanchor">[316]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>William went into mourning. Coaches and liveries were put in -black;<a id="FNanchor_317" href="#Footnote_317" class="fnanchor">[317]</a> but tidings of the promise made by Louis soon aroused -indignation.</p> - -<p>The King was in Holland at this crisis, but Sir Thomas Abney, the -Nonconformist Lord Mayor of London, at once caused an address to be -voted to His Majesty, expressive of the loyalty of the citizens, and of -their determination to oppose France and the Pretender.</p> - -<p>After William had returned on his fortunate day, the 5th of November, -he on the 11th dissolved Parliament, and then called another: as he was -taking this step, loyal addresses poured in from all parts, and amongst -them one from the London Nonconformists, presented by John Howe. They -said they were grateful to Divine Providence for the settlement of -the Protestant succession, and pledged themselves to use their utmost -endeavours to maintain His Majesty’s title, and that of his successors, -as by law established.<a id="FNanchor_318" href="#Footnote_318" class="fnanchor">[318]</a> An address of the same nature was presented -by the Baptists.<a id="FNanchor_319" href="#Footnote_319" class="fnanchor">[319]</a></p> - -<p>The truth is, a new war now threatened Europe, for Louis had torn in -pieces the Ryswick Treaty by the bedside of James, and deliberately -defied the provisions of the Act of Settlement.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">THE SUCCESSION.</div> - -<p>When William met his new Parliament on the 31st of December, 1701, -he told them that the setting up of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_255">[255]</span> the pretended Prince of Wales -as King of England was not only the highest indignity to himself and -the nation, but it concerned every one who valued the Protestant -religion or the welfare of his country. “I have shown,” these were -the closing words he used, “and will always show, how desirous I am -to be the common father of all my people. Do you, in like manner, lay -aside parties and divisions. Let there be no other distinction heard -of amongst us for the future, but of those who are for the Protestant -religion and the present Establishment, and of those who mean a Popish -Prince and a French Government. I will only add this—if you do in good -earnest desire to see England hold the balance of Europe, and to be -indeed at the head of the Protestant interest, it will appear by your -right improving the present opportunity.”<a id="FNanchor_320" href="#Footnote_320" class="fnanchor">[320]</a></p> - -<p>His speech elicited applause. It charmed the Whigs, and many had it -ornamentally printed in English, French, and Dutch, and hung up on the -walls of their homes. Political animosities were lulled for awhile by -circumstances inspiring concern for the Empire, and “the whole nation, -split before into an hundred adverse factions, with a King at its head -evidently declining to his tomb, the whole nation, Lords, Commons, and -people, proceeded as one body, informed by one soul.”<a id="FNanchor_321" href="#Footnote_321" class="fnanchor">[321]</a> Unanimously -it was resolved that no peace should be made with France until after -reparation for the indignity done to England.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>A mania for oath-taking infected our fathers, and now, in addition to -the old law, which had occasioned the nonjuring party, came a new law, -which served to revive it. When death had taken away the Sovereign -to whom they regarded themselves as pledged while he lived, the -Nonjurors began to deliberate about taking the oath, but a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_256">[256]</span> new form of -abjuration stopped their deliberations.<a id="FNanchor_322" href="#Footnote_322" class="fnanchor">[322]</a> Ken was troubled at the -prospect of its universal imposition, and hoped its enforcement would -be limited; but a Bill passed requiring not only all civil officers, -but also all ecclesiastics, all members of the Universities, and all -schoolmasters to acknowledge William as <i>lawful and rightful</i> -King, and to deny any title whatever in the pretended Prince of Wales. -Sixteen Lords, including Compton, Bishop of London, and Sprat, Bishop -of Rochester, protested against the Abjuration Bill;<a id="FNanchor_323" href="#Footnote_323" class="fnanchor">[323]</a> and others -reasonably judged that to swear allegiance was one thing, but to swear -respecting the nature of a title to the Crown was another—that in the -first case people were within the region of fact, that in the second -they were brought into the region of theory. Calamy records, with no -apparent dissatisfaction, that the oath was thought to be the best -means of disappointing such as hoped by the assistance of France to -make way for the Pretender, and so accomplish the design of restoring -arbitrary power and the Popish religion.<a id="FNanchor_324" href="#Footnote_324" class="fnanchor">[324]</a> The Abjuration Bill -received the Royal assent by Commission in the month of March, 1702.</p> - -<p>Naturally at this juncture there were Jacobites who felt a flutter -of excitement. Looking upon oaths as cobwebs easily brushed away, -they hoped the Hanoverian succession might prove an idle dream, and, -on the tiptoe of expectation, began eagerly to talk to one another -of prospects, which brightened as the declining health of William -foreboded his speedy removal. One busy agent forwarded for the use -of the Stuarts certain proposals, in which he curiously sketched the -political views of religious parties in this country, as they struck -his eye.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_257">[257]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">STATE OF PARTIES.</div> - -<p>“As for England, the parties most to be considered are—First, the -Episcopal, which, being in possession of the bells, is by far the -most numerous, though not the most active; for, being at their ease, -and possessing not only the tythes but the magistracy and profitable -employments of the nation, they flatter themselves with an opinion -that upon any emergency or change of State, they shall be able to give -the law to all other interests. And it is not improbable they might, -could they find out a way to settle the Crown upon any solid basis. -But that not being possible to be done but in the right line, that -party rather suffers than approves of what has been done, by adding the -House of Hanover to their weak and trembling entail, which, as it was -the project only of the Prince of Orange and his Dutch Council, is by -many suspected, but despised by more, nor could have passed the House -of Commons, but that they were told it was the only way to express a -contempt of the power of France; and by that means to make the people -believe that they feared nothing thence, and likewise to oblige that -Monarch to apprehend their power to be much greater than indeed it is; -to stave off a war they more apprehend and dread themselves than he -needs to do, notwithstanding all the rabble and trading part of the -nation are universally for it.</p> - -<p>“The next party requiring consideration is the Presbyterian, which -consists of a malicious, sour, and subtle part of men, who are -more united in malice than the former, and do, with their demure -countenances and outside Pharisaical righteousness, draw from the -churches to their meeting-houses the most hypocritical part of the -trading people; so that their numbers are wonderfully increased of late -years, to the terror of the aspiring part of the episcopal parsons, -who dread that Bishops, Deans, and Chapters are tumbling down again, -knowing bare<span class="pagenum" id="Page_258">[258]</span> competencies too weak supports for their dissolute and -scandalous lives.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>“The next party to be considered is the Independent, under which -denomination may be included that rabble of divers sects, which by -above fifty several whimsical societies engross in the whole a greater -number of dissenters to the Prelatical Church than the Presbyterians -do, and are mortal enemies to both, including within them that sort of -men which are most properly called Republicans or Commonwealth’s-men, a -restless, bold, and busy spirit, easiest to be gained to your Majesty’s -interest, it being become a maxim amongst the wisest of them, that -since it appears impracticable to unite and settle all interests in a -Commonwealth, it is absolutely necessary to restore your Majesty and -the right line, to keep off the necessity of a perpetual war, which -these botching entails apparently threaten the nation with. Nay, in -their maxims they go farther, and say that it were better for the -kingdom in general, but most for themselves in particular, that the -rightful Monarch should be a Catholic rather than of the Episcopal or -Presbyterian ways, which will ever in their several turns, when united -to the Crown, persecute or at least discountenance them.</p> - -<p>“The numerous party of the Quakers cannot be reckoned under the last -head, and are not to be disregarded as mad men, as they seem to many to -be. For, generally speaking; they are your Majesty’s friends, and in -all discourses with their oppugners charge them with their inhuman and -unjust dealing with their rightful Prince; an argument that nonplusses -all, and converts some to see the wickedness of their ways. Besides, -to my certain experience, there are many capable of being agents and -negotiators amongst them, as willing, as able, if well directed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_259">[259]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">STATE OF PARTIES.</div> - -<p>“Lastly, the non-jurant party of the nation may be thought of, though -not numerous enough without the Catholics to make any considerable -strength or appearance in the field. These, however, are respected -as men of honour, that the penitent or discontented may safely open -their minds to, and can confide in; so that properly instructed, they -are safe agitators dispersed in every corner of the nation, who too, -upon occasion, will, to a man, appear in the field for your Majesty’s -service.</p> - -<p>“As for the Catholics, though I am sorry to say it, they seem the most -desponding and least useful party in the kingdom; nay, which is worse, -they are the only people who encourage the interested and atheistical -to stick to the Prince of Orange, though they both despise and hate -him as much as any; for the avowed despair the priests have brought -those to is so universally owned, that it discourages the waverers from -declaring themselves to be for their duty, and confirms the malicious -in their insolence, so that some course must be taken for altering -their conduct and conversation, or they will prove the greatest -<i>remora</i> to any good design which may be set on foot.”<a id="FNanchor_325" href="#Footnote_325" class="fnanchor">[325]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>We are apt to read History amidst mental illusions. We unconsciously -transfer our knowledge of results to those who were living amidst -antecedents. Hence, sometimes we credit Englishmen of William’s reign -with a sense of security which could only arise from a defeat of plots, -which then appeared by no means certain. Indeed, the stability of the -Revolution Settlement was not assured until the middle of the next -century. Up to that time moments occurred when Government knew it sat -upon barrels of gunpowder. William’s throne to the last<span class="pagenum" id="Page_260">[260]</span> remained in -a shaky condition. The end alone prevents our recognizing the obvious -parallel between his reign and that of Louis Philippe in France. A -counter-Revolution was imminent throughout; and to our fathers in those -days we must not attribute the lordly conviction of permanence which we -cherish with so much pride. People in London under William could count -on things lasting as then they were, with almost as little confidence -as people in Paris during the last forty years. But powerful elements -blended with changes in Great Britain such as have not influenced -those of our Gallic neighbours. With them Revolutions have been -political—with us religious. Puritanism and Anglo-Catholicism—factors -both for good and evil—we find at work on this side the channel, not -on the other.</p> - -<p>As Parliament was framing oaths, and Jacobites were brewing plots, -Convocation, being restored to activity, plunged itself into new -controversies, the outgrowths of old ones, which require to be recorded -with some minuteness, in spite of their being as dry as withered -thorns.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_261">[261]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Convocational history in the reign of William III., from the year -1689 to the year 1700, is simply a history of writs and prorogations. -During that period no business was ever transacted, the Lower House -never met. Tillotson and Tenison, knowing the temper prevalent in -the Church, aware of the influence of the nonjuring Clergy, sensible -of the wide diffusion of sympathy with them, and alive to the fact -of an extensive revival of High-Church principles, were apprehensive -of a collision between the two Houses in case they proceeded to -business. They therefore thought it prudent to hold in abeyance the -right of meeting, until some exigency rendered their coming together -indispensable. Indignant murmurs at this state of things freely escaped -the lips of many a Dean, Prebendary, Archdeacon, and Rector; and at -length found utterance in a publication, which produced a wonderful -impression, and led to important results. Few pamphlets have been -more famous in their day than the <i>Letter to a Convocation Man</i>, -published in the year 1697. It was widely circulated, read by all -sorts of people, canvassed in City coffee-houses, discussed in country -inns, talked of by parishioners under church porches, and pondered in -rectories, vicarages, and quiet homes all over England. It made, says -Nicholson, “a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_262">[262]</span> considerable noise and pother in the kingdom.”<a id="FNanchor_326" href="#Footnote_326" class="fnanchor">[326]</a> -The <i>Letter</i> insisted upon the state of the country—so marked -by false and pernicious principles, by irreligious indifference, -and by immoral conduct—as a reason why the representatives of the -Church should assemble in their legal capacity. The constitutional -right of Convocation was strongly urged, the Royal writ needful for -it being, as the writer alleged, no more a sign of precariousness in -this case, than is a Royal writ in any other. A resemblance was traced -between Convocation and Parliament, and curious antiquarian and legal -questions were reviewed. The author touched on the mode of summoning -Convocation—a subject which requires to be explained, not only on -account of the use which he made of it, but on account of a use to -which it was put by another advocate on the same side.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1697.</div> - -<p>English Convocations, since the 25th of Henry VIII.—when an Act was -passed depriving Archbishops of the right to call those assemblies at -pleasure—came to be convoked exclusively by writs addressed to the -Archbishops, who were authorized, under their seals, to summon for -business the Clergy of their province. The Archbishop of Canterbury -addressed his mandate to the Bishop of London, to be executed by him -as his provincial Dean, and the Bishop of each diocese to whom the -immediate execution of such a mandate belongs, received directions -to make a proper return to his Grace or his Commissary—such return, -when made, being entered in the Register of the Archiepiscopal See. -But, as early as the reign of Edward I., there was introduced into -the writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament a clause—called the -<i>præmonentes</i> or <i>præmunientes</i> clause, from its beginning -with that word—requiring him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_263">[263]</span> to give notice of such writ to the -Prior and Chapter, and to the Archdeacon and Clergy, so as to cause -the Prior and the Archdeacon, in their own persons, and the Chapter -and Clergy by their Procurators, or proxies—one for the Chapter, and -two for the Clergy—to be present with him at Westminster, there to -attend to public affairs. After the Reformation, Deans were substituted -for Priors; and, with that alteration, the writ continued to run in -its ancient form.<a id="FNanchor_327" href="#Footnote_327" class="fnanchor">[327]</a> The writ indicated exactly the same kind of -representatives to be summoned as did the Archbishop’s mandate; and, -upon this ground, the author of the <i>Letter</i> insisted upon the -right of the Lower Clergy to assemble for deliberation as being no less -inalienable than the right of the House of Commons—the premonition, or -warning, to be delivered to the Clergy being, as he says, “an argument -of invincible strength to establish the necessity of Convocations -meeting as often as Parliaments.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>The author of this famous pamphlet maintained that Convocation had the -power of determining its own matters of debate; but in the maintenance -of this position, he had to explain away the sense of the words -employed in the writ of summons, <i>super præmissis, et aliis quæ -sibi clarius exponentur ex parte Domini Regis</i>—words which limit -Convocational discussions to topics proposed by Royal authority.<a id="FNanchor_328" href="#Footnote_328" class="fnanchor">[328]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1697.</div> - -<p>To this anonymous publication, which roused High Churchmen to activity -and filled Low Churchmen with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_264">[264]</span> alarm, an answer appeared from the pen -of Dr. William Wake, already well and favourably known in the world -of letters, through his answers to Bossuet, and other writings on the -Roman Catholic controversy, as well as his version of the Epistles of -the Apostolical Fathers. He contended that ancient Synods were convened -by Royal authority, that when they assembled, the Civil Magistrate had -a right to prescribe questions for debate, and that they could not -dissolve without his license. The King of England, he said, had supreme -power over English Convocations, and the Clergy could confer on no -subject without his permission. After certain historical deductions, -he denied that sitting in Convocation is an original Church right, or -that it is the same thing as the Parliamentary privilege, vouchsafed -by the <i>præmonentes</i> clause in writs sent to Bishops. According -to Wake’s argument, the 25th of Henry VIII. has restored to the Crown -its full authority, and placed the control of Convocation entirely -in Royal hands; and he ventures to declare the possibility of Church -Synods becoming useless and even hurtful; asking, with reference to -opinions then violently expressed, “What good can the Prince propose -to himself, or any wise man hope for, from any assembly that can be -brought together, under the unhappy influence of these and the like -prepossessions?”<a id="FNanchor_329" href="#Footnote_329" class="fnanchor">[329]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Passing over other combatants, we must particularly notice one who -entered the field on the other side, and was destined to play a -distinguished part in the political as well as the ecclesiastical -affairs of his country. Francis Atterbury, born just before the Act of -Uniformity was passed in 1662, and educated first at Westminster and -then at Oxford, distinguished himself at the early age of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_265">[265]</span> twenty-five, -by the extraordinary ability which he exhibited as a controversialist. -He then won literary laurels by answering an attack upon the spirit of -Martin Luther and the origin of the Reformation; and soon afterwards, -when minister of Bridewell, where his eloquence attracted popular -attention, some of his sermons involved him in discussions upon points -of moral and practical divinity. Scarcely had he been made Preacher -of the Rolls, when he plunged into a conflict purely classical. -Charles Boyle, afterwards Earl of Orrery, who had been Atterbury’s -pupil at Oxford, published an edition of the Epistles of Phalaris and -the Fables of Æsop, then recently eulogized by Sir William Temple—a -publication which led to a controversy singularly renowned in the -history of criticism. Richard Bentley exposed the spurious character -of these Epistles by an appeal to external evidence, and thereby -paved the way for an application of similar criticism to productions -of a far different character.<a id="FNanchor_330" href="#Footnote_330" class="fnanchor">[330]</a> In defiance of the exposure which -reflected upon the literary reputation of both Temple and Boyle, some -of their friends, with chivalrous devotion, came forward on their -behalf; Swift, in his <i>Tale of the Tub</i>, and his <i>Battle of the -Books</i>, tilting his lance on the side of his patron Temple; and -Atterbury—associated with others under Boyle’s name, in an examination -of Bentley’s Dissertations—appearing as the champion of his late -pupil. Though no match for Bentley in scholarship, Atterbury possessed -immense power in respect of rhetorical style, clever sophistry, cutting -sarcasm, and personal invective; and these were employed with such -effect as for awhile to overwhelm the illustrious scholar, and to -silence his charges against the defenders of Phalaris.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_266">[266]</span> However, the -triumph was short; Bentley resumed his attacks, and demolished the work -of his critics, in a book which, for learning, logic, and humour, is -perhaps unrivalled in that class of productions. Atterbury must have -been sorely vexed by his discomfiture when in 1700 he threw himself -into the great ecclesiastical contest of the period, and published his -<i>Rights, Powers, and Privileges of an English Convocation</i>.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1700.</div> - -<p>Indulging in his fondness for personal attack, he abused the recent -volume by Dr. Wake as a shallow and empty performance, deficient in -historical learning and destructive of Church liberty. After referring -to the ancient practice of holding provincial Synods, he treated -Convocations as coming in their room, and as constituting necessary -appendages to English Parliaments. He insisted much upon the fact of -the Clergy having been summoned by the <i>præmonentes</i> clause in the -writs addressed to spiritual Peers, and regretted that by a political -blunder the legislative representation of the Church had become -separated from the legislative representation of the State. Without, -however, attempting to revive obsolete proceedings, he asserted most -pertinaciously the indefeasible right of the clerical order to sit in -Convocation, and to petition, advise, address, represent, and declare -their judgment upon their own affairs, notwithstanding their inability -to make, or attempt, any new canons without express Royal authority.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>The question of assembling Convocation started from an historical point -of view, but it came before the public mind in its constitutional and -practical bearings; yet, amidst the multitude of publications on the -subject, one seeks in vain for a consistent and satisfying treatment of -the subject on either side. Those who believed in Convocation, and who -wished to see it vigorously<span class="pagenum" id="Page_267">[267]</span> revived, did not dare to express all that -they believed, or all that they wished; they were checked by the spirit -of the age, and hampered by the circumstances of the Church. At the -same time they ignored the great change which had come over political -and ecclesiastical affairs through the Revolution, and they also shut -their eyes to the fact, that it is impossible to enjoy State patronage -and emoluments without some abridgment of ecclesiastical action. Those -who wished Convocation should not assemble feared to deny its rights, -and shrunk from either proposing its extinction or advocating its -reform. They only desired to mesmerize it, till clerical animosities -should expire, and the Church should be of one mind—a consummation no -nearer now than it was then. The prudence forced upon this class of -persons by their political position, asserted itself at the expense of -logical consistency; and, as is often the case, practical sagacity made -men awkward reasoners.</p> - -<p>There might be arguments for abolishing Convocation, or modifying its -powers—at any rate for defining them; but, whilst no such arguments -were urged, it was impossible to silence gainsayers, who contended that -practice ought to be accordant with theory. If Convocations be like -Parliaments, things in themselves good and wise, differences of opinion -no more furnish reasons against Convocations than against Parliaments. -If what Clarendon says be true, “that of all mankind, none form so -bad an estimate of human affairs as Churchmen,”<a id="FNanchor_331" href="#Footnote_331" class="fnanchor">[331]</a> that may be an -argument for extinguishing Convocational rights, not for continuing to -them a nominal instead of a real existence.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1700.</div> - -<p>Nor was there conclusiveness of historical argument,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_268">[268]</span> or any -consistency of demand, on the other side. High-Church advocates were -then, as always, puzzled how to forge links of union between English -Convocations and the early Synods of the Church, especially the -assembly at Jerusalem. What resemblance exists between them, except -of the most general description?—a resemblance such as pertains to -all ecclesiastical meetings whatsoever. The essential conditions of a -Convocation of Canterbury are that it must meet by authority from the -Crown; that it consist of two Houses, one composed of Bishops, and the -other of Presbyters, both purely clerical; that the members of the -Lower House must be dignitaries, together with Proctors, elected by -the Clergy, and that nothing which they do has binding force without -the consent of the Sovereign. What is there in these distinctive -features of an English Convocation to connect it with Synods before the -era of State Establishments? What precedent for any of the essential -parts of the structure can be found in the history of the meeting at -Jerusalem? The Apostles and Elders met altogether, and joined in a -deliverance upon the question at issue. No other representatives or -delegates appeared except those who came from Antioch. The resemblance -between the meeting at Jerusalem and meetings in Saxon and Norman -times is a pure imagination, beyond such resemblance as belongs to -religious conferences in general. Nor can any specific likeness -be traced between mixed Anglo-Saxon Councils and purely clerical -Convocations. An Anglo-Saxon provincial Synod was in many points very -unlike Convocation;<a id="FNanchor_332" href="#Footnote_332" class="fnanchor">[332]</a> and between <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 816, when the Synod<span class="pagenum" id="Page_269">[269]</span> -of Challok occurred, in which Abbots, Presbyters, and Deacons met, -and <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 1065, I do not find that more than one provincial -Synod was held; a national Synod met under Dunstan, <span class="allsmcap">A.D.</span> 969. -Provincial Synods, previously occasional and rare, did not become -regular and frequent until the reign of Edward I.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Convocation, with full power to deliberate, to propose and enact -canons, to alter existing formularies, to pronounce authoritatively -upon points of doctrine, and to originate schemes of ecclesiastical -action, co-ordinate with the functions of Parliament, would have been -a reality; but, in the view of many, such power would be inconsistent -with the secular relations of the Church, as dependent on the State -for much of its pecuniary support, for more of its social prestige, -and for all of its political pre-eminence. Convocation, as it was -permitted to exist under William III., was really a mere form, and -that a very troublesome one. Nor did Atterbury, or any who sided -with him, endeavour to bring it into accordance with their theory. -The theory was one of ecclesiastical independence; but when they saw -some of the difficulties of their position, they only endeavoured to -loosen a little the chain which bound up the liberty of Convocational -action.<a id="FNanchor_333" href="#Footnote_333" class="fnanchor">[333]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>The new Ministry, formed in 1700, stipulated that Convocation should be -restored to its sessional rights and privileges.<a id="FNanchor_334" href="#Footnote_334" class="fnanchor">[334]</a> This point being -conceded, those of the Clergy whom it particularly gratified, burst -into a state of clamorous excitement, broaching new or reviving<span class="pagenum" id="Page_270">[270]</span> old -theories. Atterbury, as earnest in action as he was eloquent in speech, -regarded it as eminently a critical juncture, and felt a strong desire -that those members who thought with him should come to town a fortnight -beforehand for consultation. He wished them, he said, to take proper -methods for preventing or breaking through the snares of enemies.<a id="FNanchor_335" href="#Footnote_335" class="fnanchor">[335]</a> -He urged upon his friends, Trelawny, Sprat, and Compton, the execution -of the <i>præmunientes</i> clause in the Parliamentary writ, as well -as the execution of the Archbishop’s provincial mandate.<a id="FNanchor_336" href="#Footnote_336" class="fnanchor">[336]</a> In -this measure the Bishops just named concurred, and used their writs -accordingly; so did Hough, Bishop of Lichfield, and Mew, Bishop of -Winchester.<a id="FNanchor_337" href="#Footnote_337" class="fnanchor">[337]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Tenison, in his archiepiscopal barge, started from Lambeth Palace on -Monday morning. February the 10th, and landed at St. Paul’s Wharf, -whence he was escorted<span class="pagenum" id="Page_271">[271]</span> by a number of Advocates and Proctors to -the west end of the new Cathedral; the Portland stone being then -unblackened by London smoke, and the structure, as well as its -ornaments, being still in a state of incompleteness. Received by the -Dean and Canons, his Grace was conducted to the choir, and placed in -the Dean’s Stall, fresh from the touch of the carver’s chisel,—the -Suffragan Bishops occupying the other stalls on either side. After the -Litany had been chanted in Latin, the Bishop of Chichester preached, -and at the close of the sermon the choir sung an anthem. The assembly -proceeded to the new Chapter-House, where the Archbishop, being seated -on his throne, addressed his brethren, after the writ of summons -had been read by the Bishop of London. The election of a Prolocutor -for the Lower House followed in order; the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. -George Hooper, being preferred to the Dean of Gloucester, Dr. William -Jane. High Churchmen, with dismal forebodings of opposition from Low -Churchmen, whispered amongst themselves as soon as they had presented -their Prolocutor, that perhaps they would be adjourned, without -permission to enter on business. This policy Atterbury determined -to obstruct; for, said he, if we come to any resolutions, they will -certainly be for the honour and interest of the Church, since we have a -majority in the Lower House, as remarkable as that of our opponents in -the Upper.<a id="FNanchor_338" href="#Footnote_338" class="fnanchor">[338]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_272">[272]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>Convocation having solemnly assembled, and the usual preliminaries -being accomplished, Atterbury was intent on going to work; but his -correspondence indicates that he moved too fast to please some of his -brethren, and that he had reason to apprehend they meant to reject his -leadership. They had not proceeded many steps, when Dr. Ashurst and Dr. -Freeman incurred Atterbury’s censure, because after the Archbishop’s -form of prorogation had come down, and the Prolocutor had informed the -House they were not to regard themselves as being prorogued until he -told them they were, these two gentlemen, as the Archdeacon states, -were very noisy, insisting upon it that they were actually prorogued, -and that it was a dangerous thing for them, under such circumstances, -to sit any longer. The Prolocutor immediately arose, and said, as these -gentlemen were fidgeting about in their scarlet robes, that if they -thought they were incurring any risk, they were at liberty to depart. -They immediately rose, with the hope of a respectable following, but -as they vanished, they were, if we may depend on an opponent’s report, -followed only by a general smile, and the condemnation of their own -party.<a id="FNanchor_339" href="#Footnote_339" class="fnanchor">[339]</a></p> - -<p>Another question agitated the House the same day. Complaints were -made of episcopal interference with the election of clergymen, and -accordingly a resolution to that effect passed the House, supported -by a large number, says one authority—by a small number, says -another.<a id="FNanchor_340" href="#Footnote_340" class="fnanchor">[340]</a> The same day a committee was appointed to investigate -disputed elections—a step which, in the estimation of Low Churchmen -encroached upon the episcopal<span class="pagenum" id="Page_273">[273]</span> prerogative, for they maintained that -the Bishop with his suffragans must be the final judge of all such -matters.<a id="FNanchor_341" href="#Footnote_341" class="fnanchor">[341]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>Robing themselves on the 28th of February, the members glided along -the aisles of the Abbey up the steps of Henry the VII.’s Chapel, when -they proceeded to business, without taking any notice of their right -reverend superiors, who had also robed themselves that same morning, -and sat down within the Jerusalem Chamber. It plainly appeared that -the two ecclesiastical conclaves were becoming hostile camps. A -message from the Archbishop soon reached the Lower House, asking for -an explanation, why they went to prayers before the Bishops came. The -question at issue now formally arose, and then began a lengthened -contest, as to whether the Lower House had self-contained rights, like -those of the Commons—a right of self-adjournment and prorogation, -and a right to meet, consult, and resolve, without being dependent -from step to step upon the will of Prelates. The High-Church party, -so zealous in theory for episcopal order, thus in practice broke with -their right reverend fathers. In the controversy was mixed up also -an obstinate contention on the part of the Prolocutor about what was -meant by the words, <i>in hunc locum</i> in the Archbishop’s schedule; -to settle this point were added the words, <i>vulgo vocatum Jerusalem -Chamber</i>. For a little while, some semblance of union continued. -Each party treated the other with punctilious respect. Atterbury, -indeed, at the commencement anticipated, in the matter of the address, -a “tough dispute,” and, as he said this, resembled a war-horse snorting -on the edge of a battle-field. He pressed the Lower House not to wait -for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_274">[274]</span> the Lords, but to prepare an address of its own; yet, when an -address came down to them, the Lower House heartily joined in it, only -proposing a slight alteration, which the Prelates approved. Ripples -quickly rose on the surface of debate. According to Atterbury, upon -the 8th of March, the Dean of Peterborough, Dr. Freeman, already -mentioned, behaved amiss, and threw out words reflecting on the -Prolocutor, for which a censure was demanded, and would have followed, -had the offender not begged pardon. The confused statement made to -this effect, indicates that some of the Clergy resisted the highflown -policy of their brethren; two days afterwards, however, we find both -Houses amicably taking a journey to the pleasant village of Kensington, -where stood His Majesty’s favourite palace. At half-past two on Monday -afternoon, March the 10th, the Archbishop and Bishops, in their -distinctive attire, and the Prolocutor in his cap and hood, and the -rest of the Clergy following, took coach at the west end of the Abbey. -They proceeded by Knightsbridge and the side of the Park—the trees -beginning to bud with early spring, the people by the way watching the -dignitaries as their faces peered through the windows of the lumbering -vehicles—until, arriving at the Dutch-looking palace, with its prim -gardens, the procession of the Clergy reached the Royal presence—the -Bishops going to the right hand of the throne, the Prolocutor and the -rest to the left. A loyal address was presented, and a gracious reply -returned.</p> - -<p>The tug of war, of which there had been omens before that pleasant -excursion, began in earnest soon afterwards.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>The Lower House asserted its claim to independent action, to adjourn -itself when and where it pleased, to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_275">[275]</span> originate and transact any -business whatsoever and howsoever it pleased; always, it should be -distinctly stated, choosing its time of sitting according to the time -fixed by his Grace of Canterbury’s schedule. To accomplish what was -designed, committees of the whole House were appointed, who claimed a -right to sit, in this form at least, upon intermediate days, when many -did so assemble under cover of a strict adherence to admitted rules; -but others would not, counting it a breach of law in substance, if not -in form. A matter of business, originating in the Lower House, without -consultation with the Upper, and in known opposition to its wishes, -was the examination of a certain heretical book—namely, Toland’s -<i>Christianity not Mysterious</i>—the object of which is explained on -the title page, “A Treatise showing that there is nothing in the Gospel -contrary to Reason, nor above it, and that no Christian Doctrine can be -called a Mystery.”</p> - -<p>It should be stated, that at the same time another book, entitled, -<i>Essays on the Balance of Power</i>, in which the author asserted, -that men had been promoted in the Church who were remarkable for -nothing but their disbelief in the Divinity of Christ—a statement -intended to bring certain Bishops into disrepute—attracted the -attention of the Upper House; upon which their Lordships caused to be -affixed to the Abbey doors a paper calling upon the author, whoever he -might be, to make good his assertions or to submit to punishment for so -base and public a scandal. This was an extraordinary plan, reminding -one—chiefly, however, by contrast as to importance—of Luther’s -doctrinal theses affixed to the church gates at Wittenberg; and also -recalling—more in the way of resemblance—how Archbishop Arundel’s -citation of Lord Cobham was stuck on the entrance to Rochester -Cathedral, to be defied by him to whom it was addressed.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_276">[276]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>When Toland’s book was sent up from the Lower House to the Bishops for -judgment, they felt that it was a serious matter to enter upon the -business, as by condemning certain published opinions, and approving -others, they might be altering the recognized doctrines of the Church. -Legal objections had on a similar occasion been alleged against such -proceedings, because of the consequences they might involve; now they -were urged afresh. The Bishops, therefore, came to the conclusion, in -accordance with the advice of eminent lawyers, that they could not -censure the books without license from the King, lest they should incur -certain penalties.</p> - -<p>Upon the eve of a prorogation for Easter, after the dispute about the -rights of sitting and adjournment had been carried on with an obstinacy -which it would be tiresome to describe, the Archbishop delivered to the -members of Convocation a speech, in which he alluded to the existing -dispute: “We have many enemies, and they wait for nothing more than -to see the union and order of this Church, which is both its beauty -and its strength, broken by those who ought to preserve it.” “For the -maintaining the episcopal authority is so necessary to the preservation -of the Church, that the rest of the Clergy are no less concerned in it -than the Bishops themselves.” “I have thought fit, with the rest of my -brethren, to prorogue the Convocation for some time. It is a season of -devotion, and I pray God it may have a good effect on all our minds.” -“We, on our part, are willing to forget all that is past, and to go -on with you at our next meeting, as well as at all times, with all -tenderness and parental affection, in all such things as shall conduce -to the good of this Church.”<a id="FNanchor_342" href="#Footnote_342" class="fnanchor">[342]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_277">[277]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>In spite of the prorogation until the 8th of May, the Prolocutor and -some of the Clergy persevered in their assertion of independence, and -sat for some hours the same day on which his Grace prorogued both -Houses; then they adjourned to meet the next day. But this policy, -being esteemed by some High Churchmen as a stretch of power quite -unconstitutional, led to a secession, which considerably weakened the -influence of the party.</p> - -<p>When all had come back from celebrating the Easter festival, and the -Prolocutor appeared before the Upper House with a paper in his hand, -the Primate returned to the old charge of irregularity, and told him -he could not recognize any of the proceedings carried on since his -adjournment. The Prolocutor replied, that he had been commanded by -the Lower House to bring up the paper, and did therefore present it, -as an Act of the House. After being laid upon their Lordships’ table, -the paper was found to contain arguments against the course pursued -by them in reference to Toland’s work. The Bishops now proposed -that committees from the two Houses should meet, with a view to an -amicable arrangement, but the majority of the Lower House refused to -nominate any committee for the purpose; a refusal which exceedingly -annoyed several members. The majority determined to ride the high -horse, and to dig the spur into its flanks; so when the schedule of -adjournment next time came down, the Prolocutor refused to notice -it at all, and adjourned on his own authority; an act against which -Beveridge, Sherlock, and others protested, in a paper which they -signed and presented to the Archbishop. What still more annoyed the -Upper House, was that the Clergy, under the Prolocutor’s presidency, -agreed upon a censure of a book by one of the Prelates. This was <i>The -Exposition of the XXXIX Articles</i>, by Bishop Burnet,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_278">[278]</span> in which, with -learning, moderation, and good temper, he expounded the doctrines of -the Church of England according to his idea, treating the Articles as -terms of peace and union, intended to receive a considerable latitude -of interpretation. Anything but unanimity and decorum of behaviour -marked the proceedings of the Lower Assembly at this moment; and -a report went abroad that one of the members, in consequence of a -speech he delivered, ran the risk of having his gown torn off his -back. The report is an exaggeration; it arose out of the conduct of -some one who, by rudely twitching the dress of a speaker, put an end -to his unpleasant oration. Words uttered within the Abbey walls were -reported outside in garbled forms, which led to explanations and -counter-explanations, to assertions and denials, which provoked fresh -controversy, and it became a difficult thing to determine what exactly -the two parties up in arms did and said. Enough, however, was manifest -to prove, that many of the ministers of religion, assembled to promote -the prosperity of Christ’s Church, were sadly forgetful of the simplest -lessons of the Gospel.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Connected with the presentation of the censure upon Burnet’s book -to the Upper House, there occurred two or three curious episodes. -Adjoining the Jerusalem Chamber is a small apartment called the Organ -Chamber; and there, a month before, on the 5th of April, had happened -an incident which ruffled the feelings of the very reverend Prolocutor, -and the clergymen who accompanied him. They were kept waiting at their -Lordships’ door, as they said, an hour and a half, as their opponents -said, only so long as was needful to read their paper and debate upon -it; the circumstance being attributed by some to the insolence of the -Prelates, by others, to a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_279">[279]</span> mistake of the doorkeeper. On the 30th -of May, when the Prolocutor, with the Deans of Windsor and Christ -Church, went up with the paper about Burnet’s book, and were again -waiting a while in the same antechamber, the Bishop of Bangor came -out, commissioned by their Lordships, to ask the Prolocutor whether -the message he had now to bring in, was to set right the irregularity -complained of? The Prolocutor, according to the Bishop’s report, -said, first “it was something in order to set that irregularity -right;” then, correcting himself, he added, “it was concerning that -irregularity.” After which the door to the chamber being opened, in -walked the Prolocutor and his companions, the Archbishop observing -to them, “If you have anything to offer, in order to the setting -right the irregularity we have complained of, we are ready to receive -it.” Immediately the Prolocutor stated, that he had brought a humble -representation touching an <i>Exposition of the XXXIX Articles</i>, -that it had no relation to the alleged irregularity; but with regard to -that, they were ready to satisfy their Lordships whenever called upon -to do so. The paper containing the censure was rejected, and some of -the Prelates considered the Prolocutor had employed a subterfuge for -its introduction. The Bishop of Bangor, in so many words, complained of -prevarication, a charge which fanned the Lower House into a blaze of -resentment.</p> - -<p>At this time, as on a former occasion, some of the minority in the -Lower House protested against the proceedings of the majority, by -signing a paper to that effect, to be presented to the Bishops; George -Bull, Archdeacon of Llandaff, being amongst those who appended their -names. This protest, in its turn, became another element of discord.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>Upon the 6th of June, as the Prolocutor and others of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_280">[280]</span> the Lower House -crowded the little Organ Chamber, whom should they find there, quietly -putting on his robes, but the Welsh Bishop, whom they so much disliked. -Looking at him, the incensed president of the Lower Clergy asked, -according to one version, “Were you pleased to say in the Upper House -that I lied to you?” According to a second, “My Lord of Bangor, did -you say I lied?” The Bishop answered, in some disorder, “I did not say -you lied; but I did say, or might say, that you told me a very great -untruth.” Amidst threats and demands of satisfaction, the Prelate was -glad to get out of the noise of the crowded anteroom into the serene -atmosphere of the more spacious chamber; which, however, as soon as -the Prolocutor had been admitted within the door, witnessed a renewal -of personal strife. Bishop Humphreys adhering to his statement about -what had taken place, and Dean Hooper adhering to his, something still -worse immediately followed. The Prolocutor having inquired whether -their Lordships had entered upon their Acts any reflections upon -him, Tenison rejoined, with all his rock-like firmness, and all his -prudent control of temper, “Acts, we have no acts, only minutes.” The -Prolocutor’s inquiry proved too much for Burnet, the person attacked -in the paper, who now—with characteristic impetuosity, his round face -no doubt flushed with scarlet—cried aloud with a sonorous voice, -“This is fine, indeed. The Lower House will not allow a committee to -inspect their books, and now they demand to see ours.” “I ask nothing,” -exclaimed the Prolocutor, “but what I am concerned to know, and what -of right I may demand.” “This,” retorted Burnet, “is according to your -usual insolence.” “Insolence, my Lord, do you give me that word?” -asked the other. “Yes, insolence,” reiterated the Bishop of Salisbury; -“you deserve that word, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_281">[281]</span> worse. Think what you will of yourself, -I know what you are.” The Archbishop, wondering whereunto all this -might grow, civilly interposed, that perhaps the Prolocutor had been -misrepresented, which the Prolocutor turned to his own advantage, and, -to Burnet’s annoyance, wound up this extraordinary altercation with -the remark, that he was “satisfied if in this matter he stood right in -their Lordships’ opinion; about what his Lordship of Salisbury pleased -to think, he felt not much concerned.” Back went the Dean to Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, determined to make the best of the business to the -Clergy, who sat down to hear his report; but when he said that the -Upper House had expressed their satisfaction, or seemed to be satisfied -(for the <i>ipsissima verba</i> in these contentions were continually -coming into question), up rose one who had attended him to the Bishops’ -chamber, to say, “he must do this justice to declare, that their -Lordships did not so much as seem to be satisfied, but had showed their -partiality.”<a id="FNanchor_343" href="#Footnote_343" class="fnanchor">[343]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Another heap of fuel was by all this cast upon the already blazing -fire, and it was moved that the House should resent the indignity -offered to their Prolocutor in the execution of his office, and return -him thanks for his conduct.</p> - -<p>The House recorded in its minutes the following entry: “Whereas the -reverend the Prolocutor hath been hardly<span class="pagenum" id="Page_282">[282]</span> treated in the Upper House, -and particularly this 6th day of June, 1701, was taxed by the Bishop of -Salisbury as behaving himself with his usual insolence, saying further, -he deserved that and worse words, we cannot but resent this great -indignity offered to our Prolocutor and this House; and, therefore, -take this opportunity to return our most humble thanks for his conduct -in the faithful and recent discharge of his office upon all occasions.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>The Upper House, on the 13th of June, determined that the Lower had -no power judicially to censure any book; that it ought not to have -entered upon the examination of one by a Bishop, without acquainting -the Bishops with it; that the censure on the Bishop of Sarum’s work was -in general terms, without any citation of passages; that the Bishop had -done great service by his <i>History of the Reformation</i>, and other -writings; and that, though private persons might expound the Articles, -it was not proper for Convocation to enter upon such a subject. They -also resolved, that the Bishop of Bangor had made a true and just -report of what had taken place between himself and the Prolocutor; -that the paper read by the latter did not relate to the irregularity -complained of; and that his answer was such as ought not to have been -given to his Grace, or to any member of the Upper House.</p> - -<p>Convocation was prorogued to the 7th of August, then to the 18th of -September, and was at length dissolved with the Parliament.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>All the Prelates, with three exceptions, concurred in these -proceedings. The exceptions were Compton, Bishop of London; Trelawny, -Bishop of Exeter; and Sprat, who, with the Deanery of Westminster, held -the Bishopric of Rochester.</p> - -<p>Compton, after his extreme liberalism and low<span class="pagenum" id="Page_283">[283]</span> churchmanship at the -time of the Revolution, had, by the end of the century—soured, -perhaps, by being twice passed over in appointments to the -primacy—become a decided Tory; and now he threw his influence into the -High-Church scale, without, however, making himself conspicuous in the -Convocation controversy. Trelawny, one of the seven Bishops, had been -immensely popular in his native county at the time of the great trial, -and had formed the burden of a Cornish ballad—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“And shall Trelawny die?</div> - <div>And shall Trelawny die?</div> - <div>There’s twenty thousand Cornish lads</div> - <div>Will know the reason why.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>He retained a secret attachment to James II. after the Revolution. -That monarch had, in the midst of his troubles, promised to translate -him from Bristol to Exeter; but the turn of events in favour of -William, so it is insinuated, drew the Bishop into a betrayal of his -old master; at any rate, in some way, from William he obtained his -improved preferment; but afterwards he showed himself anxious to deny -that the Bishops had invited the Prince over, though, as he said, “we -found ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.”<a id="FNanchor_344" href="#Footnote_344" class="fnanchor">[344]</a> Trelawny -never showed any sympathy with the party led by Tillotson, Burnet, and -Tenison; and, in the <i>Correspondence</i> of Atterbury, he appears -as the chief of those to whom, as diocesan and friend, the lively -and interesting letters of the Archdeacon of Totness are addressed. -The Archdeacon constantly kept the Bishop informed of what was going -on in the Jerusalem Chamber and in Henry the VII.’s Chapel; and it -is plain, from the way in which he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_284">[284]</span> wrote, how much influence he had -acquired over his patron’s mind. The intimate, cordial, and approving -friend of Atterbury could not but be opposed to the proceedings of -Tenison and Burnet. Sprat was not a man of much principle; he had -joined with Dryden and Waller in poetic praise of Oliver Cromwell, he -had sat on James’ High Commission, he had read the <i>Declaration of -Indulgence</i> in servile submissiveness, but with faltering lips; he -had voted for the Regency, and then taken the new oaths, and assisted -at the Coronation; and though he had cleared himself from the charge -of treason, there is reason to believe that he was Jacobite at heart. -He hated Nonconformists, and went in for High Church measures; and as -no love was lost between the Bishops of Rochester and Salisbury, the -latter said of the former, he had “been deeply engaged in the former -reigns, and he stuck firm to the party to which, by reason of the -liberties of his life, he brought no sort of honour.”<a id="FNanchor_345" href="#Footnote_345" class="fnanchor">[345]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>In the spring of 1701, when the great ecclesiastical tournament was -going on within the Abbey walls, a new ecclesiastical knight entered -the lists outside, in the field of literature. He not only broke -a lance, but engaged in a hand-to-hand encounter with the famous -antagonist who had distinguished himself equally in book-writing and -in debate; White Kennet came forward to answer Francis Atterbury. -White Kennet—a curious-looking person, whose forehead, to the day of -his death, bore witness to an accident which happened in his youth, -for he wore a large patch of black velvet over a ghastly scar—was -a man of great archeological research, an eminent Saxon scholar, -and a friend of Mr. Tanner and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_285">[285]</span> of Dr. Hicks. He had published, in -1695, his well known <i>Parochial Antiquities</i>, and now he sent -forth his <i>Ecclesiastical Synods and Parliamentary Convocations -historically stated and vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Mr. -Atterbury</i>. The title intimates that the object was not to test -the Convocation question by applying to it texts of Scripture, or the -opinions of the Fathers, or principles of reason, or the results of -experience; but to examine it closely in its connection with English -history and English law. After the fashion of the day, especially as -it appears in the polemical department, whilst using occasionally -courteous expressions, he deals very unpleasant blows, depreciating -his opponent’s learning, exposing his mistakes, pointing out where -he had confounded facts and fallen into sophistry, not omitting to -throw the shield of his erudition over Dr. Wake, who had been roughly -handled by his excited adversaries. Kennet’s main positions were—that -Parliamentary Convocations are not in essence and nature the same -things as ecclesiastical synods; that not spiritual affairs, but the -taxing of the Clergy, gave the first occasion of their being called -together in connection with Parliament—their first appearance in that -association being in the year 1282, in the eleventh year of Edward I., -the first proctors of the rural priesthood being soon brought into -parliamentary attendance. Repeatedly he asserts that Parliamentary -Convocations, although ecclesiastical in their constituent parts, are -not ecclesiastical in their objects and purposes, and he repeatedly -charges Atterbury with confusing civil councils with sacred synods.<a id="FNanchor_346" href="#Footnote_346" class="fnanchor">[346]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1701.</div> - -<p>It was a pet idea with Atterbury, that Bishops should avail themselves -of the <i>præmunientes</i> clause. Kennet<span class="pagenum" id="Page_286">[286]</span> undertook to show that -he was mistaken as to the time of its origin; that he incorrectly -maintained the constancy of its practical application; that he was -deceived in his notice of its nature and effect, and that the modern -had not, any more than the ancient Clergy, reason to be fond of it. -The provincial summons to Convocation, issued by an Archbishop, he -maintained to be a sufficient authority without diocesan writs. “From -the three or four first years of Queen Elizabeth,” he says, “when the -Protestant Clergy might be trusted for obedient subjects, there is not -one proof that ever any Bishop made a return of the <i>præmunientes</i> -to the Crown, or that ever the Crown challenged such a return from any -Bishop.”<a id="FNanchor_347" href="#Footnote_347" class="fnanchor">[347]</a></p> - -<p>Of the erudition and ingenuity shown in Kennet’s book there can be no -doubt: it clears up some interesting archeological points in English -history; but I am at a loss to understand what bearing his arguments, -as far as they go—for it must be remembered he gives only the first -part of the work—are meant to have on the practical determination of -the controversy. If, as he represented, the existing Convocation was -but the relic of an extinguished prerogative of self-taxation, once -possessed by the Clergy, then it remained only the shadow of a name, -and stood amongst the meaningless things which it would be a good -clearance to sweep away. If he took such a view, he does not, as far as -I can find, express it; rather he assumes throughout, that Convocations -by Royal authority, under archiepiscopal control, without the power -of making laws or discussing theological or ecclesiastical questions, -are quite wise and proper. How they can be so when reduced to such a -nullity, it is difficult to conceive. Kennet’s theory, to any one free<span class="pagenum" id="Page_287">[287]</span> -from the prejudices and heartburnings of the dispute, is unsatisfactory -to the last degree.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>When winter approached, the prospect of a new Parliament and a new -Convocation opened on the eyes of Atterbury with a fascinating effect; -and as the autumn leaves fell in the London parks, the Archdeacon -girded up his loins for a fresh attack. He was concerned about many -things—about the opposition his party was likely to encounter, about -the exact place of meeting of the Clergy, and about the execution of -the <i>præmunientes</i> clause, notwithstanding Kennet’s destructive -criticisms. He says to Trelawny, “Unless some spirit be put into our -affairs, and the managers of them, and they attend here punctually, -and behave courageously, our cause must sink, and we must be broken; -for we are beset, and unless a vigorous stand be made, shall find they -will be too hard for us. Their Lay interest is much stronger than it is -imagined to be; they know it, and feel it, and accordingly speak in a -much higher strain than ever they used to do, and talk more securely of -success at the next meeting.”<a id="FNanchor_348" href="#Footnote_348" class="fnanchor">[348]</a></p> - -<p>It was thought the Lower House needed more room for their assembly. Sir -Christopher Wren was consulted on the subject; but “any carpenter in -the town understood that matter as well as he, and I would undertake,” -said the impatient Archdeacon, “to bring one that should contrive seats -to hold near six score, which is more than ever yet met at once.”<a id="FNanchor_349" href="#Footnote_349" class="fnanchor">[349]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>Christmas festivities had scarcely ended, holly branches still hung -in the parish churches, when the new Convocation met. The day before -New Years’ Day, after a Latin service read by the Bishop of Oxford, -a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_288">[288]</span> Latin sermon preached by the Dean of St. Paul’s, and the King’s -writ and the Bishop of London’s certificate formally delivered, “the -Archbishop admonished the Clergy to retire into the chapel, at the west -end of the church, where morning prayers are usually said, and there, -under the conduct of the Dean of St. Paul’s, to choose a Prolocutor, -and present him in Henry the VII.’s Chapel, on Tuesday, the 13th of -January.”<a id="FNanchor_350" href="#Footnote_350" class="fnanchor">[350]</a> No sooner had they met for that purpose, than the old -embers of strife were kindled afresh, and blazed up furiously as -before. The first contention pertained to proxy votes, the Dean of -Canterbury contending they were valid, others answering they were quite -contrary to custom, and indeed, that absent members were guilty of -contumacy till their absence received judicial excuse, and therefore -lay under a canonical impediment,<a id="FNanchor_351" href="#Footnote_351" class="fnanchor">[351]</a> which for the time deprived -them of their ecclesiastical power. The election of Prolocutor was the -next struggle. Even such a candidate as Beveridge, decided Anglican as -he was, could not satisfy the extreme party, and they elected, by a -majority of 36 or 37 against 30, the Dean of Salisbury, Dr. Woodward, -a civilian who had grown popular with High Churchmen by opposing his -Diocesan. At that very moment, the two were engaged in litigation with -each other; and, in addition to this circumstance, which rendered the -election unseemly, the fact should be remembered that Woodward, now a -sharp thorn in the sides of Burnet, owed to that Prelate his church -preferment. The election over, the new Prolocutor approached the chair -occupied by the Dean of St. Paul’s as temporary president whilst the -votes were being taken; but the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_289">[289]</span> Dean kept possession of his seat, on -the ground that the Prolocutor could not preside when as yet there was -no House. The Prolocutor being duly presented to the Archbishop, on the -13th of January he made a speech, bristling with military allusions.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>After this, Archbishop Tenison, rock-like as ever, in a graceful -tone, recommended charity and union, and lamented existing divisions; -the only good effect of which, he said, was the impulse it had given -to the study of historical questions, whereby light had fallen on -Convocational rights, privileges, and customs. “The Prolocutor and -Clergy were then ordered to withdraw to the consistory at the west end -of the church.” Now reappeared the old bone of contention. A schedule -of prorogation from the Archbishop reached the hands of the Prolocutor: -“A paper,” he called it, “by which their Lordships had adjourned -themselves;” a paper which he would not read to the House himself; a -paper which he gave the actuary to read; a paper to which he added -words of his own, substituting <i>this place</i> for <i>Jerusalem -Chamber</i>—the gist of his treating the document thus, being that he -would not admit the power of the Upper House to prorogue the meeting -of the Lower. “Mr. Prolocutor,” said Archdeacon Beveridge, “I advise -you, in the name of Jesus Christ, not to open our first meeting in such -contempt and disobedience to the Archbishop and Bishops, and in giving -such offence and scandal to our enemies.” “I have,” replied Woodward, -“the power to alter the schedule when I intimate it.”<a id="FNanchor_352" href="#Footnote_352" class="fnanchor">[352]</a> The battle -for independence now reopened, the majority of the Lower House, headed -by the defiant Prolocutor, resolving to fight it out to the last.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_290">[290]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>The Clergy, on the 20th of January, assembled early in the cold nave -of the Abbey, after which they proceeded to prayers in the Jerusalem -Chamber. Thence they returned to Henry the VII.’s Chapel, where they -found the floor matted and curtains hung,—no small comfort on a -frosty morning.<a id="FNanchor_353" href="#Footnote_353" class="fnanchor">[353]</a> If their feet were as warm as their tempers, -they had no reason to complain, for no sooner had they taken their -places than it was proposed to have prayers over again by themselves, -to show their independence. The motion was opposed. Debates followed. -The Archbishop’s messenger waited at the door while the question of -his being admitted was discussed. After “a little noise,” he came in -with the hated schedule of prorogation. The Prolocutor took it up, -and “playing with it in his hands, supposed it to be a paper about -adjourning; and at last repeated the place and time, and putting it -to the House for their pleasure, drew up a paper and read it.” This -occurred on the 22nd of January. Upon the 28th, the Prolocutor again -informed the members he had received a message of adjournment, but that -he would not communicate it except by order of the House. Dr. Freeman -maintained it ought to be delivered in obedience to the Archbishop. The -Prolocutor tartly replied, he did not need to be taught what was his -business; and Atterbury, starting up, accused Freeman of using indecent -words.<a id="FNanchor_354" href="#Footnote_354" class="fnanchor">[354]</a> Then came discussions about committees for purposes -presented in the last Convocation. Further personalities arose. -One made an offensive allusion, another felt annoyed. “Expressions -were used,” it is said, “which might have laid the foundation of a -misunderstanding or something worse,” but for subsequent<span class="pagenum" id="Page_291">[291]</span> explanations. -On the 28th, Atterbury—the spirit of the storm—rejoiced in his native -element, as he proposed, and at last carried the point, that the -Prolocutor should have inserted in the minutes a phrase which assumed -the right of independent assembling. “This new and improper entry,” in -Kennet’s judgment, “so thrust upon the minutes, was the great cause of -widening the divisions in the Lower House.”<a id="FNanchor_355" href="#Footnote_355" class="fnanchor">[355]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Another source of discord was found in the quarrel between Burnet -and Woodward the Prolocutor. Some members complained of a breach of -privilege, and an indignity to Convocation offered to the Prolocutor -by Burnet, his Diocesan, who was said to have required him to attend -a visitation, while he was occupied with Convocational duties, and to -have issued a process against him for non-compliance. Burnet was also -charged by Woodward himself, with declaring that Convocation had no -privileges which it could plead.<a id="FNanchor_356" href="#Footnote_356" class="fnanchor">[356]</a></p> - -<p>On the 9th of February, Beveridge “made a long and pathetic speech upon -the dispute at present depending between the two Houses.” “He earnestly -exhorted both sides to union, and to think of such methods of healing -the breach as might secure the Lower House’s liberty, and yet not -entrench on the Archbishop’s authority.” He so influenced his brethren, -that a committee was appointed to consider an expedient for composing -the differences relative to prorogations.<a id="FNanchor_357" href="#Footnote_357" class="fnanchor">[357]</a> But to this note of -peace there speedily succeeded another outburst of war.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">CONVOCATION.</div> - -<p>Never, perhaps, did Convocation pass through a more tumultuous day -than Thursday, the 12th of February, ushered in though it was by -a circumstance adapted to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_292">[292]</span> calm the spirit of ever so excited an -assembly. Between 9 and 10 o’clock, as the members of the Lower House -were pacing up and down the nave of Westminster Abbey—not then -crowded with monuments as it is now—waiting for the commencement of -business, and eager to know what turn discussions were about to take, -news came that Woodward, the Prolocutor, had been taken ill—very ill, -and could not possibly attend to his duties. He must send a deputy, -said his friends, and the deputy sent, turned out to be Aldrich, Dean -of Christ Church, a man of like spirit with the Prolocutor himself. -Upon proceeding to read prayers in the Lower House, this deputy -was interrupted by a question, whether he ought to take the chair, -without receiving the sanction of the Archbishop to his appointment. -Kennet and Birch hastily departed to inform his Grace of what had -been done; but on their way through the cloisters<a id="FNanchor_358" href="#Footnote_358" class="fnanchor">[358]</a> to the yard, -into which opened the principal door to the Jerusalem Chamber, they -were stopped by another member, who proposed that they should return -and wait until after prayers. They did so. As Aldrich, encouraged by -Atterbury, ventured to take the chair, “a tumultuous noise” arose. -Opposing members “persisted with vehemence in their demand, that -the Dean of Christ Church should relinquish the chair.” They were -“peremptory in their manner”—they came “prepared for a rupture,” -says a nettled member on the other side.<a id="FNanchor_359" href="#Footnote_359" class="fnanchor">[359]</a> In the midst of the -disturbance, Wickart, Dean of Winchester, and Archdeacon Beveridge, -removed the instrument of substitution from the table, and carried it -to the Upper House, where they met with a gracious reception. After -the two had ventured so far to take the matter into their own hands, -the Lower House came<span class="pagenum" id="Page_293">[293]</span> to a resolution formally to depute certain -others to go and wait upon their Lordships; but these messengers, -unlike their predecessors, were not admitted. Instead, an order was -despatched for the whole House to attend. Accordingly they left Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, the Dean of Christ Church at their head “in his -square cap and a verger before him,”<a id="FNanchor_360" href="#Footnote_360" class="fnanchor">[360]</a> and crowded up the steps -to the Jerusalem Chamber, where, face to face with those whom they -regarded as their enemies, they heard from the lips of the Archbishop a -simple acknowledgment of a paper of consequence having been received, -in allusion to their choice of a deputy, as “an incident of great -moment;” and, besides, a formal announcement of prorogation until -February the 14th. This Atterbury and his friends confessed to be -“every way a surprise to them;” yet, nothing daunted, the Corypheus -of the party—as the members were struggling through the small room, -and the narrow passage which formed the only outlet from what was -the Prelates’ audience-room—pushed them on, crying, “Away to the -Lower House—to the Lower House.” In accordance with this boisterous -suggestion, about forty-two members rushed towards the steps of Henry -the VII.’s Chapel, and there, in defiance of archiepiscopal authority, -placed their sub-prolocutor in the chair, intending by this method -to constitute a House. Having, as they considered, thus saved their -rights, they then formally adjourned to the same day as the Upper -House had fixed. Woodward died on the 13th of February. The House now -destitute of a Prolocutor—a body without a head—became organically -incomplete, and therefore incapable of constitutional action. The first -object of desire with the members struggling for independence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_294">[294]</span> was to -supply the deficiency; but this was what the Archbishop and his friends -in the Upper House were determined to prevent—being by this time tired -out of all patience with their impracticable brethren. When, therefore, -the Lower House, on the 14th, formally communicated intelligence of the -death of Dr. Woodward, his Grace curtly expressed surprise at the news, -and at once ordered a schedule of prorogation for the 19th, the day -after Ash Wednesday. Tenison persevered in the policy of prorogation. -On the 29th he told his brethren, in plain words, he meant to do so, -assuring them, on the one hand, that they were mistaken who thought -that he and the Bishops wished to bring Convocation into disuse; and -remarking, on the other, that such heats as theirs had given great -scandal to those who understood not the controversy, but were much -concerned that there should be any differences among men, who were by -profession ministers of the gospel of peace.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<p>The party who sympathized with the Bishops felt satisfied; a great -majority felt otherwise. They met of their own accord in Henry the -VII.’s Chapel, and having chosen a Chairman or Moderator, marched -up to the little old anteroom, which had become a sort of outpost -for the episcopal garrison, where the invincible besiegers were ever -pressing upon the trenches of the upper citadel. They were now met by -the Bishop of Lincoln, whom they requested to convey a message to the -other Bishops, expressing a desire to elect a Prolocutor. A new point -of difference immediately arose. As amidst the confusion of the crowded -apartments, some members began to dictate a message to the effect that -the House wished to proceed to an election, Kennet interposed, saying -he hoped the message would not be worded so, for they were not a House, -and were unable to act as such; and, moreover,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_295">[295]</span> some of the members, he -being one, did not agree to the proposed message. The Bishop wrote down -the communication as coming from certain members of the Lower House—a -form of expression vehemently opposed by several of the listening and -agitated group, and bringing down hot indignation upon him who had -suggested it.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">DEATH OF WILLIAM III.</div> - -<p>One death had already disabled the Lower House, another death suddenly -and completely extinguished its paralyzed and convulsed existence.</p> - -<p>William of Orange fell from his horse as he was riding in the -neighbourhood of Hampton Court, and broke his collar-bone. Removed to -Kensington, he was seized with shivering fits, and it soon appeared -death was approaching. The Earl of Portland states, “that when he was -once encouraging him, from the good state his affairs were in both home -and abroad, to take more heart, the King answered him, that he knew -death was that which he had looked at on all occasions without any -terror; sometimes he would have been glad to have been delivered out of -all his troubles, but he confessed now he saw another scene, and could -wish to live a little longer. He died with a clear and full presence -of mind, and in a wonderful tranquillity. Those who knew it was his -rule all his life long to hide the impressions that religion made on -him, as much as possible, did not wonder at his silence in his last -minutes; but they lamented it much, they knew what a handle it would -give to censure and obloquy.”<a id="FNanchor_361" href="#Footnote_361" class="fnanchor">[361]</a> Early on Sunday, January the 8th, -he received “the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, with great devotion, -from the hands of the Archbishop of Canterbury”<a id="FNanchor_362" href="#Footnote_362" class="fnanchor">[362]</a>—about 8 o’clock -he was a corpse. Round his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_296">[296]</span> neck a black ribbon was discovered with a -gold ring, and a lock of Queen Mary’s hair.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1702.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">WILLIAM III.</div> - -<p>The moral conduct of the King had not been in accordance with his -religious professions. Burnet, who honestly gives his impressions of -William’s character, says in a few words, “He had no vice but of one -sort, in which he was very cautious and secret”—a statement which, -whilst it presents a contrast to James and Charles, who were barefaced -in their sensualities, admits the fact of William’s being addicted -to vicious indulgence, of which concealment neither expiated nor -diminished the guilt. It is not a little surprising that so many good -men, both Churchmen and Dissenters, who could not have been indifferent -to the interests of morality, should have lauded, as they did, the -Hero of the Revolution, both living and dead, as if he had been the -very ideal of virtue and piety. Yet Burnet, who was disposed to take -the most favourable view of his character, cannot be charged with -exaggeration when he informs us, that “he believed the truth of the -Christian religion very firmly, and he expressed a horror at atheism -and blasphemy, and though there was much of both in his Court, yet -it was always denied to him, and kept out of his sight. He was most -exemplary, decent, and devout in the public exercises of the worship of -God—only on week days he came too seldom to them. He was an attentive -hearer of sermons,<a id="FNanchor_363" href="#Footnote_363" class="fnanchor">[363]</a> and was constant in his private prayers and -in reading the Scriptures; and when he spoke of religious matters, -which he did not often, it was with a becoming gravity. He was much<span class="pagenum" id="Page_297">[297]</span> -possessed with the belief of absolute decrees: he said to me, he -adhered to these, because he did not see how the belief of Providence -could be maintained upon any other supposition. His indifference -as to the forms of Church government, and his being zealous for -toleration, together with his cold behaviour towards the Clergy, gave -them generally very ill impressions of him.”<a id="FNanchor_364" href="#Footnote_364" class="fnanchor">[364]</a> The effect of frigid -manners, felt by the nation at large, was deepened in the case of high -Churchmen, by William’s well-known Presbyterian predilections, and -his dislike to what is meant by Anglo-Catholicism. As we have seen, -during the life of Mary, he left the exercise of his prerogative in -reference to ecclesiastical matters in her hands, and after her death -meddled with them in the smallest possible degree, so that he never -could be said to have exerted any direct influence in the government -of the Church.<a id="FNanchor_365" href="#Footnote_365" class="fnanchor">[365]</a> But, indirectly, by the Revolution itself, and -by the Act of Toleration which followed, and was promoted by him, he -changed the position of the Establishment altogether, and opened up to -the Episcopal Church a new career, in which conciliation instead of -persecution could alone prove its permanent safeguard, and a secret of -prosperity. The first monarch on the throne of these realms who loved -a constitutional system of religious liberty, William not only won -the affection of Dissenters, as he might be naturally expected to do, -but by his wise and equitable policy in this respect, laid the whole -kingdom and posterity under obligations which have never yet been fully -acknowledged.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_298">[298]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XIII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The most distinguished divines who sat upon the Episcopal Bench in the -reign of William III., were more or less imbued with what were called -Latitudinarian sentiments.</p> - -<p>Tillotson and Tenison who did so much, especially the latter of them, -by force of character, as well as prominence of position, towards -keeping the Church in subordination to the State, have already -occupied a considerable space in this History. Next to them, Burnet -was most distinguished, and he also has received repeated notice as an -ecclesiastical statesman; it should be added, that he was no less a -diligent diocesan and a laborious divine. His treatise on <i>Pastoral -Care</i> expresses the spiritual anxieties of a good minister of Jesus -Christ: his Histories are pervaded by a spirit of Erastianism, as -described by some; by a tone of liberality, as denoted by others; and -his <i>Exposition of the XXXIX Articles</i>, in like manner, is both -condemned as latitudinarian, and commended as comprehensive.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>No work gives me so favourable an opinion of Burnet as his <i>Four -Discourses</i>, delivered to the Clergy of the Diocese of Sarum.<a id="FNanchor_366" href="#Footnote_366" class="fnanchor">[366]</a> -For learning, earnestness, and ability, they deserve a higher place in -theological literature<span class="pagenum" id="Page_299">[299]</span> than they have ever won. In them he exhibits -the evidences of the Christian religion with considerable vigour of -thought, and for the age in which he wrote, with much originality. His -dissertation on the Divinity and death of Christ exhibit the orthodox -Creed, as to the Godhead and Atonement of the Lord, together with a -view of Justification by Faith, very similar to that inculcated in -the writings of Bull. The authority of the Church he discusses as an -enlightened Protestant, and demolishes the arguments of the Papists; -giving, as he proceeds, some valuable hints on the history of religious -opinions, and dealing with the dogma of infallibility in a way which -is singularly curious, looked at in the light of the recent Ecumenical -Council. The obligation to continue in the communion of the Church of -England is exhibited, from his own point of view, in a temperate spirit.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Stillingfleet accepted, in reward of his theological services, the See -of Worcester in 1689. His reputation, connected with a friendly bearing -towards Dissenters in the latter, as in the earlier period of his -life, caused him to be engaged as referee in a doctrinal dispute, to -be hereafter related; his polemical skill and unimpeachable orthodoxy -were manifested afresh in his <i>Vindication of the Trinity</i>; -he also entered into a metaphysical controversy with Locke, but to -diocesan duties Stillingfleet devoted the remainder of his life. In his -younger days he had been an eloquent preacher, generally dwelling upon -the ethical more than the doctrinal side of religion; he nevertheless -insisted upon theological points, following, in his views of salvation, -Bull’s line of thought, as did Burnet, and others of the same school. -There is an hortatory tone in his sermons, approaching in fervour -to that of the Puritans, which, if not in harmony with the taste -of the upper classes in the palmy days of Tillotson’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_300">[300]</span> popularity, -must have commended Stillingfleet’s ministry to the hearts of common -people. In his first Visitation Charge, in 1690, he says there is -“an affected fineness of expression which by no means becomes the -pulpit, but seems to be like stroking the consciences of people by -feathers dipped in oil;” then, after speedily dismissing the subject -of preaching, and condemning extempore sermons, he proceeds, at great -length, to vindicate episcopal order, and to enforce the discharge -of pastoral duties. These topics, with discussions relative to -Ecclesiastical Courts, appear prominently in his episcopal charges. -And his attempts to enforce discipline, his zeal for the Reformation -and authority of Church tribunals, his enforcement of residence on -the Canons of his Cathedral, his protection of the poor, and his care -about the application of charitable funds, are the chief grounds on -which Stillingfleet’s episcopal career is eulogized by his admiring -biographer. It strikes me as unsafe to judge of him simply by what -that writer has advanced. Another and more spiritual aspect of his -character, suggested by his sermons and other productions, is left -untouched in those unsatisfactory memoirs.<a id="FNanchor_367" href="#Footnote_367" class="fnanchor">[367]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>Patrick, made Bishop of Chichester in 1689, and of Ely in 1691, was -a man of inferior ability to Stillingfleet, but of greater learning, -perhaps of higher spiritual mark. Ranked amongst Latitudinarians -through his early connection with John Smith and Henry More, he caught -and infused into some of his writings a Platonic tincture;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_301">[301]</span> but as -to the philosophical spirit of inquiry, cultivated in the Cambridge -school, he was a perfect alien. He agreed, with the least moderate -of the class, in a dislike to Puritanism, and went beyond them all -in dogmatic emphasis and Anglican leanings. He distinguished between -traditions to be rejected and traditions to be received—including -amongst the latter, not only primitive testimony as to the transmission -of Scripture, and the settlement of the Canon, but as to the doctrines -of the Faith, and the polity of the Church. He insisted upon the -efficacy of baptism as producing regeneration, and held that ordinance -to be necessary for the salvation of infants.<a id="FNanchor_368" href="#Footnote_368" class="fnanchor">[368]</a> As to the Lord’s -Supper, he dwelt little upon its nature, but much upon its benefits, -and the duty of frequent communion. His published sermons are not -specimens of his general preaching, for they were mostly delivered on -political and other public occasions. Some posthumous discourses on -contentment, and resignation to the will of God, have been preserved, -through accidental circumstances, not on account of any superior -excellence.<a id="FNanchor_369" href="#Footnote_369" class="fnanchor">[369]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>He wrote, besides his Paraphrases and works against Popery, a number -of practical and devout books; amongst them the <i>Parable of the -Pilgrim</i>, which might be read with more satisfaction, did it not -provoke humiliating comparisons with Bunyan’s Allegory. The reputation -Patrick enjoyed in his own day for devout composition, suffers greatly -when, in the light of modern taste and criticism, we examine the -forms which he prepared for the revised Prayer Book, contemplated in -1680; but I know of nothing to invalidate the manner in which his -conduct as a Bishop is eulogized. He early appeared as<span class="pagenum" id="Page_302">[302]</span> a champion -of the Church of England against Dissent, by publishing what he -called a <i>Friendly Debate</i>,—in point of fact, a most unfriendly -production, full of virulent attacks upon those who separated from the -established communion, and even advocating coercion in the service of -Uniformity.<a id="FNanchor_370" href="#Footnote_370" class="fnanchor">[370]</a> The book appeared anonymously in 1668; fifteen years -afterwards, notwithstanding the damaging circumstance that it had been -condemned by Matthew Hale, and praised by Gilbert Sheldon and Samuel -Parker, the author stated his continued opinion that the discourse was -“useful and reasonable.”<a id="FNanchor_371" href="#Footnote_371" class="fnanchor">[371]</a> It may be hoped Patrick repented of what -he had done, for he expressed in the House of Lords “regret for the -warmth with which he had written against the Dissenters in his younger -years;” and Wharton said of him, “After he was made a Bishop, he lost -his reputation through imprudent management, openly favouring the -Dissenters, and employing none but such, whereupon he lost the love of -the gentry.”<a id="FNanchor_372" href="#Footnote_372" class="fnanchor">[372]</a> However, there is evidence, that towards the Baptist -denomination, at least, he continued to manifest a most unfriendly -spirit.</p> - -<p>After the Revolution, he expressed concern at finding so little of -unity and concord, when it was natural to expect they would have been -the result of that deliverance. He seems to have become weary of the -world before he left it, and cried out with the Psalmist, “O that I -had wings like a dove! for then would I fly away and be at rest.” -Stillingfleet wrote his <i>Irenicum</i> in 1660, and twenty years after -the <i>Mischief of Separation</i>. Patrick advocated intolerance in -1683; and twenty years afterwards, though still retaining some of the -old leaven, uttered words of charity and healing.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_303">[303]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>To the class of Cambridge theologians probably belongs John Moore, -consecrated Bishop of Norwich in 1691, who is described as enjoying -Burnet’s confidence, and as being consulted by him in the composition -of his works. But Moore was one of a considerable number who gain a -reputation among friends for ability to do what they never accomplish; -since, according to one of his eulogists, “the world had reason to -expect from him many excellent and useful works,” had not episcopal -duties prevented their being composed. He was also one of a still -greater number in whom the love of books weakens regard for the rights -of property; for according to a critic less friendly to his reputation, -Moore indulged an “avarice in that respect,” which “carried him a step -beyond the sin of coveting.” His library numbered 30,000 volumes, -and was bought, after his death, by George I., as a present to the -University of Cambridge.<a id="FNanchor_373" href="#Footnote_373" class="fnanchor">[373]</a></p> - -<p>Cumberland, made Bishop of Peterborough in 1691,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_304">[304]</span> wrote in reply to -Hobbes, a Latin treatise, <i>On the Laws of Nature</i>, mentioned -in a former volume, and of him his great grandson Richard says, “He -had no pretension to quick and brilliant talents; but his mind was -fitted for elaborate and profound researches, as his works more fully -testify.”<a id="FNanchor_374" href="#Footnote_374" class="fnanchor">[374]</a> He is known to posterity, and that with faded light, -simply as a philosopher of the Cambridge stamp, and has left no proofs -of pre-eminence in episcopal efficiency; but we may conclude that he -was devoted to his office from the anecdote, that, when in his old age -his friends recommended retirement and rest, he said, “I will do my -duty as long as I can; I had better <i>wear</i> out than <i>rust</i> -out.”<a id="FNanchor_375" href="#Footnote_375" class="fnanchor">[375]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Something similar may be said of Fowler, an active opponent of -James’ Declaration, promoted to the See of Gloucester in 1690, whose -exposition of Latitudinarian theology has been described in the -<i>Church of the Restoration</i>. His broad views of Christianity, and -his opposition to Popery, recommended him to a Bishopric. He is spoken -of as a very respectable, but not very eminent, Prelate; and what is -curious in connection with his rationalism, he was credited with a -faith in the existence of witches and fairies, “whom he dreaded as much -as the lady upon the seven hills, and all the scarlet train.”<a id="FNanchor_376" href="#Footnote_376" class="fnanchor">[376]</a></p> - -<p>Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, had, before he wore a mitre, -passed through circumstances which must have left a deep impress -upon his character, and were<span class="pagenum" id="Page_305">[305]</span> calculated to impart moderation to his -episcopal proceedings. He, in 1662, was deprived of his living for not -subscribing to the Prayer-Book, before he could examine it. Approving -of it after examination, he pursued a chequered career, struggling -with poverty, but exhibiting generous dispositions; suffering during -the plague year, but persevering in his spiritual duties; vexed by -Nonconformists in his parish, yet administering the Lord’s Supper -to those who refused to kneel. His autobiography, besides sketching -these circumstances, relates what he did in the way of Visitations, -Confirmations, and Ordinations, and how he was troubled by the conduct -of some of his Clergy, by the behaviour of a physician who courted his -daughter, and by a faction in his diocese who opposed his ordination of -one who had been a Nonconformist.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>Kidder paid half his income from the See of Bath and Wells into the -hands of ex-Bishop Ken; and another circumstance is related respecting -him, which places his integrity in a conspicuous light. A message was -sent him by a minister of King William, telling him he <span class="allsmcap">MUST</span> -give his vote in Parliament in a certain way. “<i>Must</i> vote!” -“Yes, <i>must</i> vote: consider whose bread you eat.” “I eat no man’s -bread but poor Dr. Ken’s; and if he will take the oaths, he shall -have it again. I did not think of going to the Parliament, but now I -shall undoubtedly go, and vote contrary to your commands.”<a id="FNanchor_377" href="#Footnote_377" class="fnanchor">[377]</a> The -autobiography suggests the idea that Kidder was a well-meaning man, -sometimes wanting in firmness and wisdom. His publications, which are -numerous, include—besides his Boyle Lecture—Tracts against Popery, -and Plain Treatises enforcing the practice of a religious life.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_306">[306]</span> The -only sermon of his which I have read, one preached at Court on the duty -of fasting, suggests no high opinion of his pulpit power.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Amongst the Episcopal Divines of William’s reign, only one can be -considered as a decided Puritan. This was John Hall, Master of -Pembroke, Oxford, who retained that position after he became Bishop of -Bristol in 1691,—a poor piece of preferment. He is far less noticeable -as a Bishop than as a Theological Professor, in which capacity, -however, he earned no enviable fame, even in the estimation of those -who sympathized with him in his theological opinions; for Calamy says, -that he brought all the theology of the Westminster Assembly out of -the Church Catechism. He was a good man, laughed at by the wits, but -esteemed for his godliness by pious people.</p> - -<p>Nicholas Stratford—possessed of learning, a firm supporter of the -Church of England, and, judging of him by his primary visitation -charge, an earnest preacher and a faithful pastor, bent on the -salvation of souls—succeeded Cartwright in the Bishopric of Chester, -in 1689; and in the same year, John Hough, the Champion of Magdalen, -rose to the episcopal chair of Oxford.<a id="FNanchor_378" href="#Footnote_378" class="fnanchor">[378]</a></p> - -<p>An Archiepiscopal mitre rewarded, at the suggestion of Tillotson in -1691, the staunch Protestantism of Dr. Sharpe, the Dean of Norwich; -and, if we are to believe all the encomiums on his virtues, inscribed -upon his monument in York Cathedral, scarcely ever before did such -a paragon of excellence exist.<a id="FNanchor_379" href="#Footnote_379" class="fnanchor">[379]</a> Notices of him by Thoresby—to -whose conversion from Dissent to Episcopacy,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_307">[307]</span> Sharpe had largely -contributed—so far confirm the praise in his epitaph, as to show that -he was diligent, courteous, devout, and kind, and most zealous in -endeavouring to win Nonconformists over to the Church. He is described -as the best of the Bishops who had honoured Leeds with their presence, -“a most excellent preacher, universally beloved.”<a id="FNanchor_380" href="#Footnote_380" class="fnanchor">[380]</a> Samuel Wesley, -who was under great obligations to him, ranked him as a preacher above -Stillingfleet, and even above Tillotson, calling him “a more popular -pulpit orator than either;”<a id="FNanchor_381" href="#Footnote_381" class="fnanchor">[381]</a> but a set-off against these partial -commendations will appear, when we reach the history of Religious -Societies and of Dissenting Academies, and observe the course which his -Grace pursued in relation to them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>Lloyd, Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry until 1699, when, on the death -of Stillingfleet, the King translated him to Worcester, is described -by Whiston, who received ordination at his hands, as engaging in “a -most uncommon, but vastly improving examination and instruction, in the -Cathedral, beforehand.”<a id="FNanchor_382" href="#Footnote_382" class="fnanchor">[382]</a> Lloyd’s prophetical studies, vindicated by -Whiston, exposed him to a good deal of raillery and satire; Shippen, in -his <i>Faction Displayed</i>, saying of him—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“Then old Mysterio shook his silver hairs,</div> - <div>Loaded with learning, prophecy, and years.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>As with other students in the same school, his studies proved labour -lost, for Dr. Johnson relates, that “his writings supplied the kitchen -of his successor with fuel for many years;” but his character defied -detraction, and whilst revered for his virtues, that reverence was -increased by his “learning and longevity.”<a id="FNanchor_383" href="#Footnote_383" class="fnanchor">[383]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_308">[308]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Politics, rather than Divinity, recommended men as Bishops under -William III. They were constitutional Whigs sympathizing in the objects -and promoting the interests of the Revolution. The anti-Papal zeal, and -the readiness of most of them to conciliate Nonconformists, gave them -favour in the eyes of both King and Queen; nor should we overlook the -influence of Tillotson and Burnet, the great ecclesiastical apostles of -the period, in the advancement of these brethren. Sharpe’s promotion -was owing to the former, probably Moore’s was owing to the latter.</p> - -<p>In point of personal character the new Prelates will bear comparison -with their predecessors. Kidder indeed never enjoyed the reputation -for sanctity possessed by Ken. Tillotson, Tenison, Burnet, -Stillingfleet, Patrick, Cumberland, and Fowler, were in mental power -superior to Sancroft, Thomas, Lake, White, and Frampton; and as to -personal religion, which admits not of precise judgment, there is no -evidence that they were inferior. Stratford might easily surpass the -disreputable Cartwright; the name of Hough is as illustrious as the -name of Samuel Parker is disgraceful, and the name of Timothy Hall -obscure. In political bias, ecclesiastical feeling, and theological -opinion, the new Prelates differed from their predecessors, and must -therefore have imported into their dioceses some new methods of -procedure.<a id="FNanchor_384" href="#Footnote_384" class="fnanchor">[384]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_309">[309]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>Another class of Bishops consisted of men who appear in history as -political celebrities.</p> - -<p>Compton, Bishop of London, is familiar to the reader as an active -revolutionist, a man of disappointed ambition, and a friend to the -High Church party in Convocation. Having nothing to do with the -Court after Queen Mary’s death, he steps out of historical notice -for a while, spending his time in the quiet discharge of episcopal -functions, and relieving himself in hours of leisure, amidst the -flowers and shrubs of his beautiful garden at Fulham, with botanical -studies, which brought him into scientific correspondence with Ray, -Petiver, and Plunkenet. Other letters of his indicate the active and -zealous part he took in electioneering affairs, seeking to promote -the return of Church candidates;<a id="FNanchor_385" href="#Footnote_385" class="fnanchor">[385]</a> and a charge he delivered -soon after the Revolution, deals largely in warnings against heresy -and schism, Popery and Dissent—with a few milder words at the end -relative to a kind treatment of loving brethren, if “found humble and -of a quiet spirit.”<a id="FNanchor_386" href="#Footnote_386" class="fnanchor">[386]</a> Burnet speaks of Compton as “a generous<span class="pagenum" id="Page_310">[310]</span> -and good-natured man, but easy and weak, and much in the power of -others,”<a id="FNanchor_387" href="#Footnote_387" class="fnanchor">[387]</a>—an estimate of his character, copied by Birch and -repeated since; but as to Compton’s imputed weakness, it is right to -remember that Burnet, after his right reverend brother’s alliance with -the High Church party, cannot be regarded as an impartial witness. The -fragment of a Greek inscription upon Compton’s tombstone at Fulham, if -placed there by his request, would indicate a devout appreciation of -the redemptive nature of the Gospel, for the letters which remain are -part of the Apostle’s memorable words, “God forbid that I should glory, -save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>The tergiversations of Trelawny, successively Bishop of Bristol and -Exeter, modify the traditionary laudation of his courage and alacrity, -magnanimity and address, in defence of the just rights and privileges -of the Church; yet I am not aware of anything which contradicts the -statement, that “he was friendly and open, generous and charitable, a -good companion, and a good man.”<a id="FNanchor_388" href="#Footnote_388" class="fnanchor">[388]</a> Atterbury seems to have greatly -admired him, and in the dedication of his own sermons to the Prelate, -he delicately praises him for manifold virtues. The virtue of loyalty -to the existing Government he certainly did not possess.<a id="FNanchor_389" href="#Footnote_389" class="fnanchor">[389]</a></p> - -<p>Of the politics of Sprat, Bishop of Rochester, I have spoken before. It -will suffice to notice him now as a preacher. His style of composition -secured the applause of contemporaries, and Dunton, in one of his -extravagant flights, eulogized the Bishop by saying—</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_311">[311]</span></p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“Nature rejoic’d beneath his charming power,</div> - <div>His lucky hand makes everything a flower,”</div> - </div> - - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“On earth the King of wits (they are but few)</div> - <div>And, though a Bishop, he’s a preacher too.”<a id="FNanchor_390" href="#Footnote_390" class="fnanchor">[390]</a></div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>Respecting his oratory, an amusing anecdote is related by Dr. Johnson. -Burnet and Sprat were rivals. “On some public occasion they both -preached before the House of Commons. There prevailed in those days -an indecent custom; when the preacher touched any favourite topic in -a manner that delighted his audience, their approbation was expressed -by a loud hum, continued in proportion to their zeal or pleasure. -When Burnet preached, part of his congregation hummed so loudly and -so long, that he sat down to enjoy it, and rubbed his face with his -handkerchief. When Sprat preached, he likewise was honoured with the -like animating hum; but he stretched out his hand to the congregation -and cried, ‘Peace, peace, I pray you peace.’”<a id="FNanchor_391" href="#Footnote_391" class="fnanchor">[391]</a></p> - -<p>Let the story pass for what it is worth. Both Burnet and Sprat were -men of power; both had at command a flowing and, when they pleased, -a rhetorical style; and both delivered sermons marked by superior -instruction and fervent appeal. Each attended to the method of -delivery, as well as to the substance of thought, a matter to which -Sprat devotes considerable space in an episcopal charge. After urging -the Clergy to set forth the public prayers to “due advantage, by -pronouncing them leisurely, fitly, warmly, decently,” he tells them to -utter their discourses “in a natural, comely, modest, yet undaunted -force of pronunciation;” but he reprobates extempore preaching, no less -than extempore prayer.<a id="FNanchor_392" href="#Footnote_392" class="fnanchor">[392]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_312">[312]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Nathaniel Crew, Bishop of Durham, fifth son of the first Lord who bore -that name, succeeded upon the death of his last surviving brother to -the family estate and the title, and therefore was entitled to a seat -in Parliament both as Prelate and Baron. Committed to the worst policy -of James, and for a time excepted from pardon by William, he narrowly -secured his See by taking the oath of allegiance at the last moment, -and was scarcely admitted to Court during the reign of the last-named -Monarch. Handsome features, imposing presence, winning manners, and -princely munificence—although commending him to the affection of -friends and the gratitude of dependants—could not redeem his character -from the consequences incurred by his political conduct, or render him -either a strong or an ornamental pillar of the English Church.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">BISHOPS.</div> - -<p>I pass over Bishops altogether obscure,<a id="FNanchor_393" href="#Footnote_393" class="fnanchor">[393]</a> to notice one who -attained an unenviable notoriety. This was Thomas Watson, Bishop of -St. David’s, who experienced the singular fate of being proceeded -against in the Court of Arches, when he received a sentence of -deprivation. He was convicted of applying to his own use offerings -given at ordinations; receiving what had been bestowed on servants -as gratuities; not administering oaths required by law; ordaining at -other times than the Sundays next<span class="pagenum" id="Page_313">[313]</span> Ember weeks; conferring orders -on a candidate below the canonical age; exacting illegal fees; and -demanding excessive procurations. There must have been at the bottom -of these proceedings much more than appears on the surface. He is -reported to have been coarse and violent in his language and conduct, -and to have thereby exposed himself to popular odium; but these were -not the things for which he was tried, nor was he formally accused of -Popish opinions, though, in public estimation, he stood suspected of -Romanist sympathies. He had been made a Bishop by James II., whose -policy he approved, and this circumstance seems to have had much to do -with the issue of his trial. He appealed to the House of Lords against -the sentence of the spiritual court, but the sentence was confirmed. -The case made much noise at the time, and excited a good deal of -controversy. In a <i>Review</i><a id="FNanchor_394" href="#Footnote_394" class="fnanchor">[394]</a> of it published by a friendly -hand, the charges brought against him are pronounced to be false, -the veracity of the witnesses is impugned, and the whole process is -described as a conspiracy carried on by “subordination,” and inspired -by “political motives and inducements of pique and revenge.” The writer -intends to suggest the animus of Watson’s prosecutors, by stating that -he was asked what Papists and Nonjurors came to his house, and whether -he had not drunk the health of King James; and I also find one deponent -declaring that, in the oath of allegiance administered by the Bishop -at an ordination, neither William nor Mary were mentioned by name. I -cannot but think that political feeling<span class="pagenum" id="Page_314">[314]</span> prompted the prosecution; -yet, if we look at the characters of such men as Tenison, Patrick, and -others, who united in his condemnation, we must suppose that he had -been guilty of great irregularities in his episcopal office.<a id="FNanchor_395" href="#Footnote_395" class="fnanchor">[395]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>There were to be found distinguished clergymen occupying parochial -cures—clergymen eminent for learning, godliness, and zeal, amidst -the bustle of a London life. Some were Anglican. William Beveridge, -Rector of St. Peter’s, Cornhill, united with a profound reverence -for antiquity, an attachment to doctrinal truths dear to Puritans. -He insisted upon Episcopacy, Sacraments, the observance of Lent, and -fellowship with the Church of England, and he did this often in a -narrow, hard, exclusive spirit; yet he sometimes preached sermons such -as would be admired by modern Evangelicals.<a id="FNanchor_396" href="#Footnote_396" class="fnanchor">[396]</a> Those published in -six octavo volumes, were regarded at the time as forming a valuable -theological library. They exhibit no closeness of reasoning or sagacity -of remark, no command of illustration, or felicity of style, yet they -are sensible, unaffected, and somewhat forcible, from the manifest -sincerity and earnestness of the author. Beveridge’s <i>Thoughts on -Religion</i> are perhaps the most edifying, certainly the best known of -his works, though they were written when he was a young man; but as to -terseness of expression—not as to breadth of thought—he appears, in -my judgment, to more advantage in his <i>Ecclesia Anglicana, Ecclesia<span class="pagenum" id="Page_315">[315]</span> -Catholica</i>, a posthumous work on the Articles. In the exposition of -the XI. Article, on Justification, he decidedly follows the Puritan -lead, saying, “It is not by the inhesion of grace in us, but by the -imputation of righteousness to us, that we are justified; as it is -not by the imputation of righteousness to us, but by the inhesion of -grace in us, that we are sanctified.” As to the XVII. Article, on -Predestination, he is cautious, and his quotations would not satisfy, -but they do not condemn, Calvinistic Divines.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.</div> - -<p>Down in the pleasant county of Gloucester, at the Rectory of Avening, -George Bull—besides his literary labours, which before the end of -the century won for him such high renown, that he was complimented by -Bossuet—showed himself to be indefatigable in discharging pastoral -duties, putting down country revels, and otherwise aiming at the -improvement of his parishioners.</p> - -<p>In Wiltshire, John Norris, an English disciple of Malbranche, held the -living of Bemerton; and, while he practised the quiet virtues of the -parish priest, he selected for the pulpit, subjects of a moral and -spiritual nature, rather than the more distinctive truths connected -with our redemption by Christ; not but that there is a tone in Norris’s -teaching in unison with habits of thought cultivated by modern -Evangelicals.<a id="FNanchor_397" href="#Footnote_397" class="fnanchor">[397]</a> His published discourses, for the most part, are -plain and practical; yet sometimes his handling of topics is such as -to make his readers think that he shot over the heads of the Wiltshire -farmers and peasantry. In Suffolk, William Burkett, Rector of Milden, -added to his ministerial excellence, large-hearted efforts for the -French refugees, and for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_316">[316]</span> preaching the Gospel in America. He secured -a long reputation by his <i>Expository Notes on the New Testament</i>, -which strongly reflect the opinions of others, and whilst decidedly -Arminian, are more practical than critical. Of a well-known Kentish -clergyman, Stanhope, Vicar of Lewisham, in no sense a party man, Evelyn -remarks: “He is one of the most accomplished preachers I ever heard, -for matter, eloquence, action, and voice.”<a id="FNanchor_398" href="#Footnote_398" class="fnanchor">[398]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>In closing this list of distinguished clergymen, I would refer to two -men known as ecclesiastical archæologists, rather than as preachers -and pastors. John Strype, Incumbent of Low Leyton, in Essex, then -between fifty and sixty years of age, was just beginning that career -as a biographer and historian, which he prolonged for so many years -afterwards, and for which he had so laboriously amassed materials -during the previous portion of his life. His memoirs of Cranmer, -Smith, and Aylmer, which issued from the press under William III., -and the large correspondence of the author at the time, preserved in -the University Library at Cambridge, indicate, in connection with his -diligence of research, his busy care respecting ecclesiastical affairs. -Working hard upon black-letter books and hardly decipherable MSS., he -was ready as a rural Dean, at the call of his Diocesan, to arrange -for clerical meetings, or to preach visitation sermons.<a id="FNanchor_399" href="#Footnote_399" class="fnanchor">[399]</a> Henry -Wharton at the same time, though a young man, was closing his course -as a laborious editor and critic, in fact, a martyr to excessive<span class="pagenum" id="Page_317">[317]</span> -study; and, in turning over the <i>Strype Correspondence</i>, I was -much touched by the following passage, in a letter written to Strype -by one of Wharton’s friends, in reference to a visit paid him at -Canterbury:—“One day he opened his trunk and drawers, and showed me -his great collections concerning the state of our Church, and with a -deep sigh told me that all his labours were at an end, and that his -strength would not permit him to finish any more of the subject.”<a id="FNanchor_400" href="#Footnote_400" class="fnanchor">[400]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.</div> - -<p>One clergyman claims separate notice as a foreigner, a poor pluralist, -and an exceedingly popular preacher. Dr. Horneck, a native of -Bacharach—so familiar to all Rhine tourists—held, in conjunction with -a stall at Exeter worth only twenty pounds a year, the preachership -of the Savoy, which afforded but a miserable income. His poverty -ended three years before his death, when, through the united kindness -of Queen Mary and Archbishop Tillotson, he was made Prebendary of -Westminster. But from first to last his ministry was exceedingly -popular; it was no easy matter for him to get through the crowd to -his pulpit. So great was the number of communicants at his church, -that he had to seek the help of clergymen in the delivery of the -bread and wine, “and with such assistance it was very late before the -congregation could be dismissed.”<a id="FNanchor_401" href="#Footnote_401" class="fnanchor">[401]</a> His virtues are extolled in the -epitaph inscribed on his monument in the Abbey.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Leaving men of honourable renown, in order to throw in truthful shadows -amidst grateful lights, I will mention a case of their fanaticism. -It appears in the life of John Mason, Rector of Walter Stratford, -in Buckinghamshire.<a id="FNanchor_402" href="#Footnote_402" class="fnanchor">[402]</a><span class="pagenum" id="Page_318">[318]</span> Holding Predestinarian opinions to such -an extent as to acknowledge no other difference between Judas and -St. Peter than what proceeded from absolute decrees and irresistible -grace; and further believing that it was all one whether a man kept the -commandments or broke them, inasmuch as Christ observed the whole law -on behalf of His people; this strange mortal, who had drunk the dregs -of Antinomianism, added to his absurd caricatures of Calvinism, other -ideas equally extravagant respecting the personal reign of Christ—a -reign which he expected would instantly be set up. So far as extreme -Predestinarianism and Millenarianism are concerned, he may be taken -as typical of a small section of religious teachers living then, not -entirely extinct even now; but he proceeded to the excess of regarding -himself as a favoured recipient of celestial visions. Not long before -his death, he fancied he saw Christ clothed in a crimson garment, His -countenance exceedingly beautiful, with an abundance of sweetness and -great majesty. Relatives indignantly denied a charitable report that -he was mad, and did not doubt he would prove the prophet of the age—a -Noah to warn the world, a John the Baptist to herald in the Messiah, an -Elijah sent before the just and terrible day. Beyond his own circle, -belief in his predictions spread, until nigh a hundred followers from -the country ten miles round came to the rectory, and took up their -abode within and around it, waiting for a revelation, which it was -said came on the 16th of April, 1694, in the manner described. “When -I entered the house,” relates one who wrote an account of his visit, -“a more melancholy scene of a spiritual Bedlam presented itself. Men, -women, and children running up and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_319">[319]</span> down, onewhile stretching their -arms upwards to catch their Saviour coming down, others extending them -forward to meet His embraces; a third, with a sudden turn, pretends to -grasp Him; and a fourth clapping their hands for joy they had Him; with -several other antic postures, which made me think that Bedlam itself -was but a faint image of their spiritual frenzies. All this while they -were singing as loud as their throats would give them leave, till they -were quite spent and looked black in the face.”<a id="FNanchor_403" href="#Footnote_403" class="fnanchor">[403]</a> Fanaticism, more -insane than ever possessed any of the Roundhead preachers in Oliver -Cromwell’s camp, thus raged in the person of an episcopal clergyman -under William III. Country folks crowded about his house, his barn, -and his garden; hundreds more are said to have venerated his character -and believed in his prophecies. The story affords an instance of the -wild enthusiasm which it is in the power of extravagant visionaries -to excite, even in an age commonly considered as rationalistic and -cold.<a id="FNanchor_404" href="#Footnote_404" class="fnanchor">[404]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">DISTINGUISHED CLERGYMEN.</div> - -<p>It is very remarkable, in casting one’s eye over these sketches, to -notice the absence of the old Puritan party. Hall, of Oxford, as -already noticed, was the only Divine of that class on the Bishops’ -Bench; and amongst names<span class="pagenum" id="Page_320">[320]</span> of repute belonging to the rest of the -Clergy, not one of the same kind can be produced. I do not deny that -there may be clerical publications of the period marked by Puritan -divinity; I only say that the celebrated authors were of another -description.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Vigorous and commanding Puritanic thought, such as moved the religious -intellect of England a generation or two earlier, for a time quite -died out in the Establishment. Low Churchmanship had been of the -Puritan type. Montague, Laud, and the like, found their opponents in -Calvinistic clergymen. Now Low Churchmanship took what some would call -a rationalistic form; at any rate its advocates were inspired by a -philosophical theology, rather than by the institutes of Calvin, or the -genius of Geneva. Sancroft and Hicks found their opposites in Tillotson -and Burnet. The Act of Uniformity had clearly done its work, and shut -or kept out teachers akin to Calamy and Marshall. Their theological -spirit, their distinctive evangelical teaching, disappears, so far as -the Established Church is concerned, like the stream of Arethusa, and -flows underground for a considerable space, to burst out once more in a -strong current, a century afterwards.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_321">[321]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XIV.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Attempts were not wanting on the part of some of the Bishops to -maintain ecclesiastical discipline. There are papers amongst the -<i>Tanner MSS.</i> which indicate what went on amidst the throes of the -Revolution, in the diocese of Norwich, before the ejectment of Bishop -Lloyd. John Gibbs, Rector of Gissing, had been a convert to the Church -of Rome; but on the 14th of November, nine days after the landing of -the Prince of Orange, when Protestant East Anglicans would be exulting -at the advent of the Deliverer, this recusant is referred to as wishing -to be reconciled with the Church of his fathers; and a report is given -of the sermon which he preached on the occasion.<a id="FNanchor_405" href="#Footnote_405" class="fnanchor">[405]</a> A little while -afterwards an instance occurs of clerical immorality, and of that kind -of trouble which has often disturbed episcopal peace: a Norwich rector -was accused of “lewdness,” amounting to a capital crime.</p> - -<p>The case was undoubted. It came to the Bishop’s knowledge. To conceal -the fact would have been to connive at the sin, to make it known to -endanger the culprit’s life. Indeed, to conceal it was no longer -possible, and to stifle the charge was felt to be a scandal to -religion. Under these circumstances, Lloyd, Bishop of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_322">[322]</span> Norwich, asked -the Archbishop whether, by a judicial monition, he might not require -the offender to abstain from clerical functions till he could purge -himself from the terrible accusation brought against him.</p> - -<p>The Canon law, he said, did not deal with the offence in question, and -he felt himself in much difficulty as to the course of proceeding. As -capital punishment might follow conviction, the Bishop feared lest it -should prove a <i>causa sanguinis</i>—an affair with which he wished -to have nothing to do. The common tactics of defence were adopted by -the accused. He appealed to the Archdeacon, with the view of gaining -time, and by such means he cunningly slipped entirely out of the hands -of the Consistory at Norwich; but the Bishop comforted himself by -hoping that the criminal would meet with justice at Doctors’ Commons.</p> - -<p>On the 30th of August, 1689, when Lloyd had been himself suspended, he -wrote to Sancroft, saying, “It is too late for me now to meddle further -in the matter.”<a id="FNanchor_406" href="#Footnote_406" class="fnanchor">[406]</a></p> - -<p>After the Revolution, we meet with a case in which moral discipline -was exercised by Patrick, Bishop of Ely. The Incumbent of Great -Eversden had, by intemperance, drowned his reason and scandalized -his profession. Grieved at what he heard, the Bishop required him to -preach two penitential sermons, one in each of the churches where -he officiated, from the words, “He that covereth his sins shall not -prosper; but whoso confesseth and forsaketh them shall have mercy.” He -did so, and concluded with the words: “You see, beloved, what a black -indictment I have here drawn up against myself, wherein I have not been -favourable or partial to my fatal miscarriages, but have dissected and -ripped up my many<span class="pagenum" id="Page_323">[323]</span> enormous crimes, and exposed them to public view. -I beseech you not to be too censorious and uncharitable, since I have -passed so severe a censure upon myself.”<a id="FNanchor_407" href="#Footnote_407" class="fnanchor">[407]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORSHIP.</div> - -<p>A passing remark is required touching the manner of worship. Nothing -like what is now called Ritualism had then any existence. Things -continued much as they were before. No coloured vestments were worn -by Anglicans either within or without the Establishment, nor were -there any attempts at extraordinary ornamentation of either altars -or churches. Æsthetic culture, apart from distinctive ecclesiastical -opinions, may powerfully affect psalmody, and other accompaniments of -devotion, as well as the structure and adornment of the House of God; -but the reign of William was not at all an age in which such culture -prevailed. Some religious people have a keen sense of propriety as to -outward observances; others have none. It matters not to them, though -the adoration of the High and Lofty One be marked by slovenliness of -arrangement and irreverence of behaviour. There were many persons of -this kind amongst Clergy and laity during the last ten, as there had -been during the previous fifty years of the seventeenth century.</p> - -<p>The use of the surplice in the pulpit, now a common practice with -almost all sections in the Established Church, was within our own -recollection very rare, and when first prominently introduced, produced -excitement and confusion. It seems to have been a novelty in the reign -of William III. “Yesterday,” says the writer of a letter in 1696, “I -saw in Low Leighton Church, that which to my remembrance I never did -see in a church in England but once, and that is a minister preach in a -surplice for Mr. Harrison (whereas other ministers on Fast-days do<span class="pagenum" id="Page_324">[324]</span> not -so much as wear any surplice), he, by way of supererogation, preached -in his. The sight did stir up in me more of pity than anger to see the -folly of the man; but if he preach in a fool’s coat we will go and hear -him.”<a id="FNanchor_408" href="#Footnote_408" class="fnanchor">[408]</a></p> - -<p>Low Leighton (or Leyton), it will be remembered, was the parish in -which John Strype fulfilled his ministry, and therefore it was in the -pulpit of that distinguished ecclesiologist, that the writer of the -extract beheld the phenomenon which startled him out of his propriety; -if the surplice was worn by the Incumbent, or with his sanction, the -circumstance would indicate that he regarded the usage as canonical, -however it might have fallen into abeyance.</p> - -<p>Amongst the Lambeth archives is a very long letter by Edmund Bowerman, -Vicar of Codrington, who gives a curious account of his parish, of -the extreme ignorance and irreligion of the people, and of their -desecration of the church. They played cards on the communion-table, -and when they met to choose churchwardens, sat with their hats on, -smoking and drinking—the clerk gravely saying, with a pipe in his -mouth, that such had been the practice for the last sixty years. Not -ten persons in the place had ever received the Sacrament; one used to -take it by himself in brown bread and small beer.<a id="FNanchor_409" href="#Footnote_409" class="fnanchor">[409]</a></p> - -<p>An important change took place in the psalmody of the Church of -England. The archaic version of the Psalms, by Sternhold and Hopkins, -kept possession in cathedral and parish congregations until the middle -of the reign of William III. Attempts had been made at improving the -versification. <i>A Century of Select Psalms</i>, in verse, for the -use of the Charterhouse, by Dr. Patrick, appeared in 1679. Richard -Goodridge followed him by a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_325">[325]</span> similar effort in 1682. Dr. Simon Ford, -not to mention others, attempted something of the same kind in 1688. -But a more successful enterprise was accomplished by Nicholas Brady -and Nahum Tate, who, in 1695, published a tentative <i>Essay</i>, -and in 1696 a <i>Complete New Version</i>, differing from such as -they themselves had previously prepared. This version, afterwards so -popular, did not escape criticism; but was most determinately opposed -by Dr. Beveridge, who preferred the old rhymes of the Reformation to -any modern rendering of the Songs of David. His course of argument, if -it had any force, would be fatal to any attempt at improving scripture -translations of all kinds.<a id="FNanchor_410" href="#Footnote_410" class="fnanchor">[410]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.</div> - -<p>The character of the Clergy at that time has been drawn by different -hands. Samuel Wesley, in the <i>Athenian Oracle</i>, said, that out of -fifty or threescore parishes with which he was acquainted, he could not -think of above three or four clergymen who disgraced their office.</p> - -<p>The Nonjurors represented their brethren in the Establishment as -newsmongers and busy-bodies, guilty of non-residence, faulty in their -morals, and negligent of their duties. Some were often seen frequenting -ale-houses and taverns, where they behaved disorderly. The communion -in the London parish churches, before largely attended, was, according -to the same authority, unfrequented; and in cathedral churches things -were worse, so that the alms collected did little more than pay for the -bread and wine.<a id="FNanchor_411" href="#Footnote_411" class="fnanchor">[411]</a></p> - -<p>Nonjurors looked through a prejudiced medium at those who took the -oaths. They regarded most of them as indifferent to a matter of -immense importance, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_326">[326]</span> not a few as deliberately dishonest, swearing -to that which they did not believe. The amount of false swearing at -that period must have been prodigious; and the fact could not fail to -produce mischievous results—it demoralized such as indulged in it, and -impressed people with an idea of the falseness of their instructors. -Men looking at the subject from another point of the compass, also came -to an unfavourable conclusion. Whiston declared how well he remembered -that by far the greater part of University members and clergymen took -the oaths with a doubtful, if not an accusing, conscience. Considering -the doctrines of passive obedience and non-resistance in which they had -been educated, he thought it could not be otherwise; and he scarcely -knew who were the worst, some who imposed or some who submitted to the -new law of allegiance.<a id="FNanchor_412" href="#Footnote_412" class="fnanchor">[412]</a></p> - -<p>As the Nonjurors judged of ministers through the medium of the oath -question, so Whiston, who rejected the Athanasian Creed, judged of -ministers through the medium of that formulary. No doubt he was -prejudiced, and his conclusions were exaggerated; but it is hard -to understand how men of latitudinarian views could, with thorough -honesty, repeat an intensely orthodox formulary imbued with an -intensely exclusive spirit. What Whiston says of a rather later -period, may be applied here. Conversing with Lord Chief Justice King, -about signing articles not believed, in order to secure preferment, -he heard his Lordship observe, “We must not lose our usefulness for -scruples.” “In your Courts do they allow of such prevarication?” asked -the Presbyter. “Certainly not,” rejoined the lawyer. “Suppose then,” -returned Whiston, “God Almighty should be as just in the next<span class="pagenum" id="Page_327">[327]</span> world as -my Lord Chief Justice is in this, where are we then?”<a id="FNanchor_413" href="#Footnote_413" class="fnanchor">[413]</a> Whiston’s -estimate of some of the Clergy is corroborated by Burnet, who mourns -over the inconsistency of men described as practically contradicting -the oaths they had taken and the prayers they preferred.<a id="FNanchor_414" href="#Footnote_414" class="fnanchor">[414]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">CHARACTER OF THE CLERGY.</div> - -<p>De Foe acknowledged that there were in England a great many religious -persons, both among the gentry and Clergy; but he remarked upon -the inconsistency of many in both classes. “The parson preaches a -thundering sermon against drunkenness, and the justice of peace sets -my poor neighbour in the stocks; and I am like to be much the better -for either, when I know, perhaps, that this same parson and this same -justice were both drunk together but the night before. A vicious parson -that preaches well, but lives ill, may be likened to an unskilful -horseman, who opens a gate on the wrong side, and lets other folks -through, but shuts himself out.”<a id="FNanchor_415" href="#Footnote_415" class="fnanchor">[415]</a> In judging of the Clergy of those -days, we must take into account indirect evidence. The Convocation -controversy, degenerating into a contemptible feud between class and -class, or into a despicable squabble between clergyman and clergyman, -proved the extensive existence of prejudice, obstinacy, and resentment, -and must have drawn off the minds of many from the discharge of their -proper duties. Neither was the method of conducting controversy on more -important points—the doctrine of the Trinity, for example—at all -calculated to preserve ministers of religion from injurious habits; -for the temper shown in books and tracts on this subject is most -irreverent, most conceited, most uncharitable, most unchristian.</p> - -<p>It should also be noticed, that after religious freedom<span class="pagenum" id="Page_328">[328]</span> to some extent -had been legalized by the Toleration Act, a clerical reaction violently -set in. Low Churchmen had been the principal advocates for granting -liberty of worship to their Nonconforming brethren; but beyond their -circle were some who, during appearances of Popery under James II., had -looked with sympathy upon fellow Protestants outside their own pale, -and had afterwards hailed them with a kindly welcome to the enjoyment -of their rights. When the no-Popery tempest subsided, and when -political fears, raised by Royal despotism, passed away, some of these -persons relapsed into their previous state, and together with those who -had been bigoted throughout, looked at Nonconformists with bitterness -and hatred.<a id="FNanchor_416" href="#Footnote_416" class="fnanchor">[416]</a> A wide current of intolerant feeling returned, of -which the result became visible enough after the accession of Queen -Anne.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.</div> - -<p>Turning from the character of the Clergy to notice their circumstances, -we meet with an interesting picture of domestic life in the case of -the father of the Wesleys. He was a rector upon £50 a year at South -Ormsby, a little village in Lincolnshire, skirting the parks and -woodlands of a goodly mansion. We find the same clergyman shortly -afterwards established in the same county at the Rectory of Epworth, -described, in a survey of the period, as consisting of “five bays built -all of timber and plaister, and covered with straw thatch, the whole -building being contrived into three stories, and disposed into seven -chief rooms, namely—a kitchen, a hall, a parlour, a buttery, and three -large upper rooms, besides some others of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_329">[329]</span> common use, and also a -little garden impaled between the stone wall and the south.”<a id="FNanchor_417" href="#Footnote_417" class="fnanchor">[417]</a> This -minute description brings before us a humble, but pleasant parsonage -of the end of the seventeenth century; and it is added that to the -dwelling stood attached one barn of six bays, likewise built of clay -and thatch; also one dovecote of timber and plaister, and one hempkiln. -The glebe was stocked. Cows fed in the meadows, and pigs in the stye. -A nag and two fillies occupied the stable, and flax and barley waved -in the fields. The parishioners were, according to Wesley’s daughter, -“unpolished wights,” “dull as asses,” and with heads “impervious -as stones.” The clerical dress, the rustic manner, and the lowly -employments of the Rector, are portrayed by another member of the -gifted family:</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“To rub his cassock’s draggled tail,</div> - <div>Or reach his hat from off the nail,</div> - <div>Or seek the key to draw the ale,</div> - <div>When damsel haps to steal it;</div> - <div>To burn his pipe, or mend his clothes,</div> - <div>Or nicely darn his russet hose,</div> - <div>For comfort of his aged toes,</div> - <div>So fine they cannot feel it.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>The outlay upon taking the new living amounted to £50—just one-fourth -of the annual income of the living. It was a practice for parish -officers to compel people to lighten parochial burdens by taking, as -apprentices, the children of paupers; and one of these unfortunates -was actually palmed on the Epworth Incumbent, who said he supposed he -must teach the boy “to beat rhyme.” These items are worth mentioning -as illustrations of the times, and in this case they are interesting -in connection with the early life of the founder of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_330">[330]</span> Methodism and the -master of English psalmody. The two boys played in the rectory garden; -and from their parents derived some of the power and peculiarity of -their mature life. The parents, it is curious to remember, differed on -the Jacobite question; and a story is told to the effect that Wesley, -observing that his wife did not pray for William, and hearing her -declare she could regard him only as Prince of Orange, told her, in -sorrowing words, “If that be the case, you and I must part; for if we -have two Kings, we must have two beds.” It is added that he took horse -and rode to London; and being “Convocation man” for the diocese of -Lincoln, resided in the Metropolis a whole year without corresponding -with his family. The anecdote perhaps has in it much of exaggeration, -and it has been questioned of late more than once, yet one would think -there must be some truth in it, since it rests on the authority of John -Wesley.<a id="FNanchor_418" href="#Footnote_418" class="fnanchor">[418]</a> At that time a mean-looking parsonage was the rule, not -the exception: and even in the parish of Kensington, though honoured by -the presence of Royalty, the vicarage is described as having been of -a very humble character, with lattice windows. A large proportion of -the livings were very poor, some as low as £14 or £15 per annum.<a id="FNanchor_419" href="#Footnote_419" class="fnanchor">[419]</a> -Wesley’s first income was £30 a year from a curacy in London; and if -so small a sum was paid in the Metropolis, what must it have been in -some of the provinces! The pitiful condition of clergymen under Charles -II. could have undergone no great improvement under William III. Of -course in places of importance, if clerical incomes happened to reach -a large amount, a handsome rectory or vicarage might be found, of -which a few, built in Sir Christopher Wren’s time, with more regard -to convenience<span class="pagenum" id="Page_331">[331]</span> than taste, still remain. Of nearly the same date, -deaneries and prebendal houses still linger amongst us—and long may -they linger—snugly ensconced amidst pleasant gardens, in those most -pleasant of all English precincts—our cathedral closes—so green and -quiet, solemn and quaint.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">CONDITION OF THE CLERGY.</div> - -<p>As in the reign of Charles II., so in the reign of William III., the -office of chaplain in the families of the great was not enviable. -The salary was small, the position undignified, the treatment often -disrespectful, and the means of usefulness limited and questionable. In -the <i>Athenian Oracle</i>, the chaplain of a family not very regular -or religious—forced to see Misses drinking and gaming, and afraid -to open his mouth on the subject—complains of the miseries of his -situation; he inquires what he ought to do, so as neither to betray -religion nor give offence. He could not believe that to say grace and -read prayers, when his patron was at leisure, constituted his duty, -yet he found his brethren thought they had done enough when they had -done no more than that.<a id="FNanchor_420" href="#Footnote_420" class="fnanchor">[420]</a> Thomas Wilson, afterwards Bishop of -Sodor and Man, certainly took a different view, for when chaplain and -tutor to Lord Derby, he, with commendable faithfulness, rebuked his -pupil’s extravagance, so as to restore his reputation and relieve his -creditors. Once, as the young nobleman was about to sign his name, he -felt some melted sealing-wax dropped on his finger by this eccentric -mentor, who remarked, that the pain ought to impress him with a -resolution never to sign what he had never examined.<a id="FNanchor_421" href="#Footnote_421" class="fnanchor">[421]</a></p> - -<p>Clerical costume is a trifle worth only a passing sentence,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_332">[332]</span> and it may -be observed that it remained the same after the Revolution as before. -But Archbishop Tillotson introduced a novelty. He is the first Prelate -represented in a wig. The wig is of moderate dimensions, and not much -unlike a head of natural hair. It is curious to find him remarking -upon this innovation in one of his sermons. “I can remember, since the -wearing the hair below the ears was looked upon as a sin of the first -magnitude; and when ministers generally, whatever their text was, did -either find or make occasion to reprove the great sin of long hair; -and if they saw anyone in the congregation guilty in that kind, they -would point him out particularly, and <i>let fly at him</i> with great -zeal.”<a id="FNanchor_422" href="#Footnote_422" class="fnanchor">[422]</a></p> - -<p>Partly as the result of causes at work ever since the Restoration—such -as the poverty, the imperfect education, and the unexemplary character -of many incumbents and curates—the Clergy, as a class, were in low -esteem. What has been related of the profession in the reign of Charles -II. produced effects which lasted long, and the conduct of a number of -Constitutionalists, as well as of Jacobites, contributed to deepen the -unpopularity of the order. Good men, lamenting the evils of the age, -traced to them this state of feeling, and Robert Nelson speaks of the -great contempt of the Clergy, than which he thought nothing could be a -greater evidence of the decayed state of religion.<a id="FNanchor_423" href="#Footnote_423" class="fnanchor">[423]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">STATE OF SOCIETY.</div> - -<p>Whatever may be the relation between social corruption and clerical -unpopularity, it is certain the two things co-existed. Nelson deplored -a decay of the spirit and life of devotion;<a id="FNanchor_424" href="#Footnote_424" class="fnanchor">[424]</a> Thoresby declared that -God seemed angry with the nation, as well He might, and so hid counsel<span class="pagenum" id="Page_333">[333]</span> -from men, and left them to take such courses as would be neither for -their own nor the public good;<a id="FNanchor_425" href="#Footnote_425" class="fnanchor">[425]</a> and Burnet relates, that profane -wits were delighted at the circulation of books against the Trinity; -that it became a common thing to treat mysteries in religion as -priestly contrivances; and that, under cover of popular expressions, -the enemies of religion vented their impieties.<a id="FNanchor_426" href="#Footnote_426" class="fnanchor">[426]</a> Patrick lamented -the prevalent coldness and carelessness in religion, “scarce an handful -of people appearing in many churches at Divine Service, when the -playhouses were crowded every day with numerous spectators;”<a id="FNanchor_427" href="#Footnote_427" class="fnanchor">[427]</a> and -John Norris referred to the decay of Christian piety and the universal -corruption of manners. Christ seemed to him, asleep in the sacred -vessel, while the tempest raged, and the waves almost overwhelmed the -bark. Students of prophecy, regarding the state of Christianity as -<i>anti-christianized</i>, anticipated the outpouring of the vials of -wrath, the breaking-up of Christendom, and the replacement of God’s -chosen people, the Jews, on the ruins of the Gentile Church.<a id="FNanchor_428" href="#Footnote_428" class="fnanchor">[428]</a></p> - -<p>Profane swearing so far prevailed, that it is said in many circles -a man’s discourse was hardly agreeable without it;<a id="FNanchor_429" href="#Footnote_429" class="fnanchor">[429]</a> and it is -remarkable that the instances given of John Howe’s courtesy, and the -wisdom with which he administered reproof, relates to the frequent -utterance of oaths. On one occasion, a gentleman addicted to this -practice expatiated at great length on the merits of Charles I. Howe -remarked that in his enumeration of the excellencies of the unfortunate -Sovereign, he had omitted one—that he was never known to utter an oath -in common discourse. On another occasion, he heard two gentlemen<span class="pagenum" id="Page_334">[334]</span> in -the street damning each other. The Divine, taking off his hat with a -polite bow, exclaimed, “I pray God save you both!” Meeting a nobleman -in the park, who, in speaking of the Occasional Conformity Bill, -burst into a rage and said, “Damn the wretches! for they are mad, and -will bring us all into confusion!” Howe replied, “My Lord, it is a -great satisfaction to us, who in all affairs of this nature desire to -look upwards, that there is a God who governs the world, to whom we -can leave the issues and events of things; and we are satisfied, and -may thereupon be easy, that He will not fail in due time of making a -suitable retribution to all, according to their present carriage. And -this great Ruler of the world, my Lord, has among other things also -declared, He will make a difference between him that sweareth and him -that feareth an oath.” “Sir, I thank you for your freedom,” was the -reply; “I understand your meaning: I shall endeavour to make a good -use of it.” “My Lord,” added Howe, “I have a great deal more reason -to thank your Lordship for saving me the most difficult part of a -discourse, which is the application.”<a id="FNanchor_430" href="#Footnote_430" class="fnanchor">[430]</a></p> - -<p>Intemperance, increasing from the time of the Restoration, continued -to extend its curses towards the close of the eighteenth century; old -public-houses attracted more customers than ever, and many new ones -were opened, the money spent in this way by the lower classes reaching -an incredible amount.<a id="FNanchor_431" href="#Footnote_431" class="fnanchor">[431]</a> Sober people lamented that their neighbours -were, with temperance, losing also that kindliness of temper which had -been prevalent amongst Englishmen.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_335">[335]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">SUPERSTITION.</div> - -<p>The shock of an earthquake in September, 1692, alarmed the nation, and -made “those who studied apocalyptical matters imagine that the end of -the world drew near.” Burnet tells us it brought people “to more of -an outward face of virtue and sobriety;” but, in his apprehension, -they “became deeply corrupted in principle; a disbelief of revealed -religion, and a profane mocking at the Christian faith and the -mysteries of it, became avowed and scandalous.” Orders were given to -execute the laws against drunkenness, swearing, and the profanation of -the Lord’s-day; and, consequently, loud complaints arose of Puritanical -regulations, savouring of John Knox’s doctrine and discipline. Blame -for this was laid on the Bishop of Salisbury’s shoulders; and to make -the whole thing appear ridiculous, a noble commentator on the right -reverend historian, relates that hackney-coaches were not allowed to -be used on the Sabbath, and constables were directed to take away -pies and puddings from anybody who might be carrying them through the -streets.<a id="FNanchor_432" href="#Footnote_432" class="fnanchor">[432]</a></p> - -<p>Popular opinion in reference to supernatural agencies requires some -notice, and presents signs of both mental stagnation and mental -progress. Many were in a state of superstition as immovable as that -of their fathers, believing in the reality, and smitten with the -terrors, of diabolical possession and infernal witchcraft. Even towards -the end of William’s reign, the diocese of Worcester was infected -with this kind of faith; and the Bishop, Dr. Lloyd—who succeeded -Stillingfleet—urged his Clergy to preach against errors respecting -Satanic agency, indicating to them his own views on the subject. He did -not doubt the extraordinary power of the Devil over heathen nations in -ancient and modern times; but he thought<span class="pagenum" id="Page_336">[336]</span> the Gospel had diminished -his power; that those who were in the covenant of grace could not be -injured by him, either in their persons, their possessions, or their -children; nevertheless he admitted that a man, by profligacy, might -yield himself to the great enemy, but could not receive from him -supernatural help to hurt anybody else.<a id="FNanchor_433" href="#Footnote_433" class="fnanchor">[433]</a></p> - -<p>Lancashire continued the home of such beliefs, and in the middle of -King William’s reign, a place in that county called Surrey became -powerfully agitated by the case of a lad, who stood upon his head, -danced upon his knees, scrambled about on all fours, barked like a -dog, talked shreds of Latin, ran into the water, and told things at -a distance—all, it was said, the result of selling his soul to the -Devil, in hopes of thereby becoming a first-rate dancer. The neighbours -treated it as a real possession, and so did certain Presbyterian -ministers, who appointed days of fasting and prayer on the youth’s -behalf, and continued them weekly for a twelvemonth. Folks from the -country flocked in to see and hear the marvels going on, and made -themselves merry at the expense of the fruitless intercessors; they, -in their turn, laid their want of success at the door of the boy’s -family, saying the witches were in league with Satan, and therefore -supplication could not avail. The supposed demoniac named three Popish -priests as likely to cure him—a circumstance which led the discomfited -Presbyterians to say that the Devil had more mind to let the Popish -priests have “the credit of casting him out, because his ends would be -better served by Popery than by them.”</p> - -<p>The Episcopal Clergy in the neighbourhood stood aloof<span class="pagenum" id="Page_337">[337]</span> from this -stupid credulity. That the boy had been given to tricks from his -early days was shown by witnesses; and collusions with his sister in -pretended intercourse with the spirit-world were also proved. Foolish -and wretched creatures now began to trade upon what had been a genuine -belief, and their conduct, whilst it showed that sincerity was parting -company with superstition, helped to undermine faith in all such things.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">SUPERSTITION.</div> - -<p>In London, similar but still more disgusting exhibitions were made by -people pretending to be possessed; and in one case a miserable woman, -through an accusation for witchcraft, had her hair torn off her head, -and after being kicked and trampled on, was thrown into a horse-pond. -A new result followed: instead of the supposed witch being punished, -the pretended victim was. All sorts of pretences were shown up, and -pretenders suffered the punishment they deserved, whilst poor old -crones, bent double with age, escaped the river, the gallows, and the -stake. Between 1640 and 1680, many unhappy creatures were punished -for witchcraft. Between 1680 and 1691, three were hanged at Exeter, -the last instance of capital punishment inflicted in England for this -offence; three were imprisoned in Somersetshire; and several in other -counties were ducked in horse-ponds.</p> - -<p>An accused widow, really insane, died in Beccles Gaol; another, -represented as having black and white imps, which turned out to -be a white lock of wool in a basket, throwing a deep shadow, was -acquitted. Afterwards, acquittals became common; indeed, I find no -more convictions in England during the reign of William III.; on the -other hand, I notice cases of people put in the pillory for pretending -to be possessed.<a id="FNanchor_434" href="#Footnote_434" class="fnanchor">[434]</a> Very much of this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_338">[338]</span> change must be ascribed to -the course pursued by Lord Chief Justice Holt. The wise and humane -Sir Matthew Hale had retained through life a belief in the black act. -His wisdom and humanity did not prove sufficient to penetrate to the -delusion which from boyhood lay all around him; but Sir John Holt came -into the world at a later period, and when he reached manhood, old -prejudices had less power, the atmosphere of superstition was less -dense; his shrewdness led him to see the falsehood of the theory, and -to him belongs the honour of having swept the dust and dirt of the -whole business clean out of English courts for ever.</p> - -<p>The merit of Sir John Holt is all the greater in that a belief in -bewitchment kept ground in many religious minds; and it was still -common in other lands to punish people accused of the offence. One of -the last books Baxter wrote contained notices of diabolical agencies, -which he pressed upon atheists, sadducees, and infidels, with a view -to their conversion. Many of the stories were communicated by such men -as the Duke of Lauderdale, Lord Broghill, Dr. Daniel Williams, and the -Rev. Thomas Evelyn, of Dublin, the last two being by no means persons -of a superstitious turn. Making allowance for incorrect information, -clever imposture, and the operation of natural causes, we find -mentioned some things which must be referred to the operation of occult -influences, never yet explained. The idea that there are no mysteries, -evil as well as good, in the universe, is quite as much a prejudice, as -the idea current in the days of Baxter; and the words which Shakespeare -puts into the lips of Hamlet are profoundly wise—</p> - -<p> -“There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, -Than are dreamt of in <i>our</i><a id="FNanchor_435" href="#Footnote_435" class="fnanchor">[435]</a> philosophy.” -</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_339">[339]</span></p> - -<p>Yet to make use of such stories as Baxter tells for religious purposes -is vain. “If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they -be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.” His book no doubt proved -to be labour lost, but he had plenty of people still to keep him in -countenance. Samuel Wesley wrote in defence of the doctrine,<a id="FNanchor_436" href="#Footnote_436" class="fnanchor">[436]</a> and -in Scotland witch finding went on with vigour. In 1697 no less than -twenty-eight people were accused, and seven of them were executed.<a id="FNanchor_437" href="#Footnote_437" class="fnanchor">[437]</a> -Nineteen were hanged within sixteen months (1692–3) in New England; -eight more were condemned; one hundred and fifty were imprisoned; above -two hundred were accused, of whom many fled the country to save their -lives.<a id="FNanchor_438" href="#Footnote_438" class="fnanchor">[438]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">SUPERSTITION.</div> - -<p>One piece of superstition maintained by English Sovereigns received a -vigorous check, but not a death-blow. I have described the ceremony of -touching for the “king’s evil,” so ostentatiously revived by Charles -II. His brother perpetuated the practice. The pecuniary benefit of -submitting to the operation, no doubt, made it very popular, since -it cost £10,000 a year for silver coins to be hung round the necks -of patients. When, at the close of Lent, crowds besieged his doors, -William exclaimed, “It is a silly superstition; give the poor<span class="pagenum" id="Page_340">[340]</span> -creatures some money, and send them away.” Once only could he be -prevailed upon to touch a suppliant, when he added, “God give you -better health, and more sense.” There were not wanting some to reproach -the King as cruel and impious, for refusing to exercise a Divine gift; -but the Jacobites turned his conduct to account by saying, he did not -dare to pretend to a power which only belonged to the Lord’s anointed.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_341">[341]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XV.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Courses of lectures on doctrinal and devotional themes had been -fashionable with the Puritans. Robert Boyle, looking at the spread of -infidelity, provided, by his will, for the appointment of a lecturer, -to preach eight sermons in a year upon the Evidences of Christianity; -and thus set an example which has been followed by Bampton, Hulse, and -others. The trustees—Tenison, then Bishop of Lincoln, and John Evelyn -being two of them—selected for the first performance of the duty a -rising clergyman, already known in University circles by his vast -attainments, and afterwards famous throughout the world of letters. -Evelyn records the appointment in his <i>Diary</i>, by saying “he -made choice of one Mr. Bentley, chaplain to the Bishop of Worcester;” -and the comparatively obscure student, so described, regarded it in -after-life as the greatest honour with which he was ever invested. He -determined to follow Cudworth and Cumberland without imitating them, -to go down to the basis of all theology, and to confute the opinions -of Hobbes and Spinoza. Bentley’s Lectures, entitled, <i>A Confutation -of Atheism</i>, after exposing the folly of a godless belief, aimed at -demonstrating the Divine existence from an inquiry into the faculties -of the human soul, the structure of the body, and the frame of the -world. It was a movement<span class="pagenum" id="Page_342">[342]</span> along the line of rational thought. The -Revolution had appealed to reason in matters of government. Without -throwing aside traditions—even while appealing to constitutional -forms—Englishmen were seeking after fundamental political principles; -and reason came now to be earnestly invoked in the service of religion. -Philosophy had been employed in attacking Christian beliefs; philosophy -now came to the rescue. Faith in an infinite cause, shaken by the human -intellect, was to be reinforced by a more vigorous exercise of the same -faculty.</p> - -<p>Boyle, the founder of the Lecture, had collected scientific facts -available for the lecturer’s purpose. Locke, by illustrating the -essential difference between matter and mind, had become a pioneer -in the path along which Bentley pushed parts of his argument; and -Newton, by his <i>Principia</i>, had prepared for him methods by which -to demonstrate the Creator’s providence and goodness. Thus assisted, -Bentley showed himself possessed of original genius; and having at -command satire as well as logic, with a style adapted to give effect -to his thoughts, he produced a deep impression by his discourses. The -first he delivered at St. Martin’s—the second at Bow Church; when -Evelyn, ensconced in a tall-backed pew, listened with delight to the -preacher, and immediately admitted him to his friendship. Before he -published his work he wrote to the great philosopher, then resident in -Trinity College, Cambridge. Newton corrected and modified Bentley’s -opinions upon some points, but he confirmed his views respecting most, -and supplied him with additional arguments.<a id="FNanchor_439" href="#Footnote_439" class="fnanchor">[439]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">BOYLE LECTURE.</div> - -<p>Bentley soon afterwards obtained a stall in Worcester Cathedral, -probably through the influence of Stillingfleet,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_343">[343]</span> his patron. If we are -to believe his words, he had what was a better reward, for he says: -“The Atheists were silent since that time, and sheltered themselves -under Deism.” It is a pity that historical justice requires it to be -said that this advocate of natural theology did not possess the primary -virtue of religion, and the chief ornament of all learning. A nobleman -happening one day to sit near Stillingfleet at dinner, observed to him, -“My Lord, that chaplain of yours is certainly a very extraordinary -man.” “Yes,” he replied; “had he but the gift of humility, he would be -the most extraordinary man in Europe.”<a id="FNanchor_440" href="#Footnote_440" class="fnanchor">[440]</a></p> - -<p>According to the terms of Boyle’s will, which authorized the -appointment of the same lecturer for three years, Bentley might have -delivered another course of sermons; but owing, as it is said, to the -favouritism of one of the trustees, and in opposition to Evelyn’s -wishes, Kidder, Bishop of Bath and Wells, delivered the second -series, entitled, <i>A Demonstration of the Messias</i>. Williams, -afterwards made a Bishop, exhibited in his lectures <i>A General Idea -of Revealed Religion</i>. Gastrell, subsequently Bishop of Chester, -a friend to Atterbury, and one who pleaded for him in Parliament, -insisted upon <i>The Certainty and Necessity of Divine Religion</i>. -Dr. Harris refuted the objections of Atheists to the existence and -attributes of God; a superfluous task, it would seem, if we are to -admit what has been said of the effect of Bentley’s dissertations. -Bradford, “the little ebony doctor,” as he was called—an enemy -of Atterbury’s—discoursed upon the credibility of the Christian -Religion. Blackall, afterwards a Bishop, established and illustrated -the sufficiency and perfection of the Old and New Testaments;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_344">[344]</span> and Dr. -Stanhope defended the truth and excellence of the Christian Religion -against Jews, Infidels, and Heretics.<a id="FNanchor_441" href="#Footnote_441" class="fnanchor">[441]</a></p> - -<p>In 1695, Locke anonymously published his <i>Reasonableness of -Christianity</i>. Again the appeal was made, not to authority, -tradition, or history, but to reason. The main object was to present -the simplest and most rational form of religion. He concluded, from -his study of the Gospels, that the primary requirement is, that men -should believe Jesus to be the Messiah, the anointed and sent of God; -that such a belief makes everyone a Christian; and that upon it the -superstructure of Christian piety must ever rest. Every reader of this -work must see how hardly he labours to establish his point, how he -repeats over and over again his fundamental principle. He objects to -the enforcement of particular creeds, and he is opposed to all Church -authority in reference to religion; though he speaks in general terms -of salvation through Christ, he enters into no definition whatever of -evangelical doctrines, indeed such definitions he regards as foreign to -his purpose.</p> - -<p>Whilst teaching of this kind, with a continuous appeal to reason, -runs through the larger part of the book, towards the close he -enters upon the supernatural evidences of Christianity. Locke was an -apostle of human reason as opposed to human authority, but he was -no rationalist in the sense of opposing revelation. Revelation he -recognized as a form of supernatural wisdom, and in advocating it he -appealed to supernatural wonders. He dwelt upon the miracles of Christ -as conclusive proofs of His Messianic office—a topic which he also -largely treated in a distinct essay, which will be noticed hereafter.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_345">[345]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.</div> - -<p>The book was attacked not by infidels but by believers, not by those -who objected to Christianity but by those who, attaching importance -to certain truths passed over by Locke, thought that he presented -an objectionable view of the Gospel. He appeared to them to be a -rationalist. Dr. Edwards, a clergyman of the Church of England, son -of the famous Presbyterian who wrote the <i>Gangræna</i>, assailed -the treatise with bitterness; and so great was its unpopularity in -some quarters, that a Prelate, who thought of it favourably, candidly -confessed: “If I should be known to think so, I should have my lawn -sleeves torn from my shoulders.” Foreign divines, however, hailed it -with applause, especially Dutch friends of the Remonstrant school, Le -Clerc and Limborch. It found numerous readers abroad, and a Dorsetshire -rector, named Samuel Bold, though thoroughly orthodox on the subject of -the Trinity—respecting which Locke laboured under some suspicion—took -up his pen in defence of the lay theologian. Locke’s idea of faith, as -a simple belief that Jesus is the Messiah, will be regarded by most -theologians as very defective; nor is the account which he gives of -Christianity one likely to afford satisfaction to any reader who has -mastered the contents of the New Testament, whether he believes them -or not. Absorbed in the effort to enforce his own view of the Gospel, -Locke merely ignores, without disproving, certain doctrines, which by -evangelical teachers of Christianity are identified with the system -itself. I plainly see that with his habits of close philosophical -thinking, he could not but be repelled by the manner in which those -doctrines were urged by some warm-hearted divines. Yet however -objectionably or offensively presented, they require to be noticed -and disposed of in some way. They are true or false—if true, they -must be taken into full account<span class="pagenum" id="Page_346">[346]</span> before any conclusion can be drawn -respecting the reasonableness of revelation; if false, they need to be -refuted, ere such a notion of Christian faith as is propounded by our -philosopher can be placed upon a sufficient basis. But Locke’s defects -or mistakes relative to the extent of faith do not invalidate his main -reasoning. His proofs of the truth and divinity of the Gospel, drawn -from the miracles of Jesus, and from the necessity of an authoritative -revelation of truth and morals, remain the same; and I would add, that -of the devout faith of the author there can be no doubt, when we are -assured that “he admired the wisdom and goodness of God in the method -found out for the salvation of mankind, and when he thought upon it, -he could not forbear crying out, ‘O the depth of the riches of the -goodness and knowledge of God.’”<a id="FNanchor_442" href="#Footnote_442" class="fnanchor">[442]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.</div> - -<p>Locke, in his <i>Essay on the Human Understanding</i>, enters -at large upon the question of the boundaries between reason and -revelation—a question involved in what he says on the Reasonableness -of Christianity. He asserts most plainly the principle, that revelation -cannot be admitted against the clear evidence of reason, but then, -immediately afterwards, he adopts the distinction between things -contrary to reason and things above reason—citing, as examples of the -latter, the fall of angels and the resurrection of the dead. Anything -not contrary to reason, he contends, is to be believed if taught by -revelation; “whatever proposition,” he says, “is revealed, of whose -truth our mind, by its natural faculties and notions, cannot judge, -that is purely matter of faith, and above reason.” Revelation in -such matters “ought to be hearkened unto.” Indeed, Locke goes so far -as to say, that in those things concerning which the mind “has but<span class="pagenum" id="Page_347">[347]</span> -an uncertain evidence, and so is persuaded of their truth only upon -probable grounds, which still admit a possibility of the contrary -to be true, without doing violence to the certain evidence of its -own knowledge and overturning the principles of all reason: in such -probable propositions, I say, an evident revelation ought to determine -our assent, even against probability.” Afterwards dwelling upon the -evils of enthusiasm, of which he had a great horror, he goes on to -remark: “Reason must be our last judge and guide in everything;” which, -strictly taken, would mean that no revelation can be a final authority; -but he proceeds in the next sentence to tell us: “I do not mean that -we must consult reason, and examine whether a proposition revealed -from God can be made out by natural principles, and if it cannot, -that then we may reject it, but consult it we must, and by it examine -whether it be a revelation from God, or no. And if reason finds it to -be revealed from God, reason then declares for it, as much as for any -other truth, and makes it one of her dictates.”<a id="FNanchor_443" href="#Footnote_443" class="fnanchor">[443]</a> This explanation -restricts the office of reason to an inquiry into evidence, as to -whether what is thought to be revealed is really such, and leaves faith -to rest ultimately, not in the apparent truth of a doctrine, but on the -revelation making it known. To some, Locke in all this will not appear -to have diverged from an orthodox treatment of evidences; to others, he -will seem to have vacillated a little, leaning now in a rationalistic, -and then in an opposite direction; by none, I think, can he be fairly -regarded as holding the modern doctrine of a verifying faculty—a -doctrine based on a philosophy different from his, and leading to -conclusions at variance with his belief. Whatever might be Locke’s -abstract<span class="pagenum" id="Page_348">[348]</span> opinions, it is quite clear that he had no sympathy with -the Socinian party, of whom he speaks as “positive and eager in their -disputes;” “forward to have their interpretations of Scripture received -for authentic, though to others in several places they seem very much -strained;” impatient of contradiction, treating their opponents with -“disrespect and roughness.” “May it not be suspected,” he asks, “that -this so visible a warmth in their present circumstances, and zeal for -their orthodoxy, would (had they the power) work in them as it does in -others? They, in their turn, would, I fear, be ready with their set of -fundamentals, which they would be as forward to impose on others, as -others have been to impose contrary fundamentals on them.”<a id="FNanchor_444" href="#Footnote_444" class="fnanchor">[444]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.</div> - -<p>Bentley and Locke added what was of the highest value to the literature -of the Evidences. On a far lower<span class="pagenum" id="Page_349">[349]</span> intellectual level appeared Leslie, -the Nonjuror, who, eschewing paths of reason, prepared to enter the -path of history, and addressed himself to those of his countrymen who -have little time for study and less capacity for reflection. In 1696 -he published <i>A Short and Easy Method with the Deists</i>, in which -are laid down certain rules as to the truth of historical statements; -and he contends that when they all meet, statements cannot be false. -The rules are: “That the matter of fact be such, as that men’s outward -senses, their eyes and ears, may be judges of it; that it be done -publicly, in the face of the world; that not only public monuments be -kept up in memory of it, but some outward actions to be performed; that -such monuments and such actions or observances be instituted and do -commence from the time that the matter of fact was done.” These rules, -Leslie insists, could be successfully applied to the facts connected -with the origin of the religion of Moses and the religion of Christ, -pointing to the institution and observance of Baptism and of the Lord’s -Supper as memorials of the latter. Mohammedanism, he said, lacks such -evidence, and he challenged Deists to show any action that is fabulous, -in support of which all the four marks can be alleged. The work is of -a very slight description, and is composed in a loose and inaccurate -style. It could not meet the case of any who have adopted the -principles of historical inquiry laid down by Voltaire and developed by -Niebuhr, and by them applied to classical annals; nor could the method -be applied by any critical student without great modification, and at -the expense of an amount of learning, which would render the argument -useless for popular purposes.</p> - -<p>Charles Blount, after a side thrust at Christianity in his <i>Notes -on Philostratus’s Life of Apollonius Tyanæus</i>, left<span class="pagenum" id="Page_350">[350]</span> behind him -papers, which were published in a book, entitled, <i>The Oracles of -Reason</i>, containing desultory attacks on revelation, chiefly in a -covert form. Indeed, Blount quaintly observes: “Undoubtedly, in our -travels to the other world, the common road is the safest; and though -Deism is a good manuring of a man’s conscience, yet certainly, if sowed -with Christianity, it will produce the most plentiful crop.” It is a -curious fact that the editor and publishers of these posthumous essays -afterwards became convinced of their true character, and, with a view -to counteracting their effect, issued the <i>Deist’s Manual</i>.</p> - -<p>John Toland—who, after being educated a Roman Catholic, whilst still -a boy rushed out of gross superstition into what was to him the more -congenial region of scepticism—began his career as an author by -writing his <i>Christianity not Mysterious</i>, a discourse showing -that there is nothing in the Gospel contrary to reason nor above it, -and that no Christian doctrine can be properly called a mystery. In -this work he does not appear as an antagonist of Christianity; perhaps -he had not yet begun to regard himself otherwise than as a Christian; -yet the tendency of his opinions is to undermine the authority of -revelation. His book, which attracted wide attention, and was, as we -have seen, condemned by the Lower House of Convocation, engaged the pen -of the Bemerton Rector, John Norris, whose extraordinary metaphysical -genius found scope for its exercise in examining Toland’s lucubrations. -His <i>Account of Reason and Faith, in Relation to the Mysteries -of Christianity</i>, is one of the ablest books of the period, and -displays a power of analysis, and a determination to reduce the powers -of the human mind to their simplest form, such as reminds one of the -subtle originality of Dr. Thomas Browne.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">WORKS ON CHRISTIAN EVIDENCES.</div> - -<p>Metaphysics are made to do duty in the service of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_351">[351]</span> orthodoxy. Norris -dwells upon the distinction of things contrary to reason and above -it, showing that there is a valid ground for the distinction, that -human reason is not the measure of truth; that, therefore, a thing -being incomprehensible by reason, is of itself no conclusive argument -of its being untrue; that if the incomprehensibility of a thing were -an argument against it, human reason would become the measure of -truth; and, therefore, he concludes that incomprehensibility should -not militate against faith. Of course the terms of a proposition must -be intelligible and not contradictory, for no man can accept what is -plainly nonsensical or obviously false; but the mysterious nature of a -fact asserted in a proposition, Norris proves to be no valid objection -to the veracity of the proposition. His mode of handling this subject, -though extremely skilful and effective, is not always such as to bear a -very close scrutiny; and some modification of his argument is required, -in order to a safe entrenchment against inimical attacks. But he -successfully establishes this point—the fundamental one throughout the -controversy—that it is perfectly reasonable and perfectly consonant -with the laws and constitution of the human mind, to believe upon -the authority of revelation, in other words, upon the authority of -infinite wisdom. Norris does not treat Toland’s doctrine as a form of -Deism; his particular application of the principles laid down in this -account of reason and faith is to the Socinian system, but much of the -reasoning is strictly applicable to a form of Deism very prevalent in -the present day. A great deal of what he says goes to the heart of -certain modern theories, and several pages upon the nature and degrees -of mental assent deserve careful study in connection with existing -controversies.<a id="FNanchor_445" href="#Footnote_445" class="fnanchor">[445]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_352">[352]</span></p> - -<p>It will be sufficient to complete this sketch if I observe that Toland -made a decided attack on the New Testament Canon in his <i>Amyntor</i>, -published in 1698; and that the formidable controversialist, Samuel -Clark, the next year commenced his polemical career by a successful -encounter in defence of the canonicity of the Gospels.</p> - -<p>In the course of this work I have had repeated occasions for noticing -the theological literature of the period—dogmatical, practical, and -polemical. It will not be impertinent, as we wind up the subject, to -remark respecting its form and style.</p> - -<p>The Renaissance had been at work in art and poetry, and had gradually -supplanted the old romantic school. Gothic churches disappeared -in the fire of London; those built on their ruins were classical -reproductions. A new St. Paul’s arose on Ludgate Hill, in contrast with -old St. Peter’s on Thorney Island. Multiplicity of parts, angularity -of form, picturesqueness of detail, brilliancy of hue, gave place -to regularity of outline, a mathematical exactness of proportion, -smoothness of ornament, and absence of colour. No more pointed arches, -no more niches, no more finials and crockets, no more richly-stained -windows;—all became round, uniform, pale, cold.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">LITERARY STYLE.</div> - -<p>A similar change came over poetry. It were an indignity to the -great bard of the seventeenth century to compare him with any other -than the great bard of the sixteenth. Milton’s name is linked with -Shakespeare’s, but in the way of contrast, just as St. Paul’s Cathedral -is associated with Westminster Abbey. The poet of the Renaissance -succeeds the poet of romance. The architectural character of the two -buildings symbolize the characteristic differences of the two masters -of English song. And this same Renaissance spirit worked its way into -theological literature. Taylor and Bunyan, indeed, all the great<span class="pagenum" id="Page_353">[353]</span> -religious writers of the Commonwealth and the Restoration, appear -more or less romancists in the style of their thoughts, regarded from -a literary point of view. Divisions, pointedness, quaint expression, -warmth of sentiment, such as arrests us in mediæval buildings, are -reproduced in the books of that picturesque age. The two authors just -mentioned belong to the class of romancist prose poets. But all is -changed when we turn to the theological literature of King William’s -days—Tillotson, Burnet, Bentley, Locke. We miss Anglican and Puritan -sweep of thought, minuteness of detail, intensity of utterance, and -glow of passion. There is no depth of colour, all is pale; no flash of -fire, all is cold. We meet with regularity, order, smoothness. It is -the age of Renaissance in Divinity.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_354">[354]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XVI.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Roman Catholicism, during the Middle Ages, had given scope to the -institution, and had paid attention to the culture, of voluntary -societies. Such societies had sprung up in different parts of Europe -amongst the Clergy and amongst the Laity, being placed in subjection -to the laws, animated by sympathy with the spirit, and directed to the -promotion of the interests of the Church. Monks praying in cloisters, -friars preaching in streets, secular fraternities in towns and cities -visiting the poor and sick, had engaged in spontaneous activity, yet -had remained faithful to their spiritual mother. English Protestantism, -at first, did not produce or encourage any such forms of operation. -Cathedral and parochial clergymen, in dignified or humble routine, -were its only authorized agents. Missionary efforts, foreign and -domestic, as well as lay associations for spiritual improvement, were -unknown. In one ascertained exceptional instance, under Edward VI., an -unordained person was allowed to preach; but it was the rule to exclude -all but men in orders from every kind of public or socially organized -usefulness. Not only were Anglicans destitute of any association of -lay helpers in Christian work at home, and of any means for carrying -on Missions abroad, but Puritans were in the same predicament, since -meetings for prophesying, catechizing,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_355">[355]</span> and lecturing, and plans for -purchasing presentations to livings, did not constitute the kind of -co-operation now in view. Presbyterians, and many Independents also, -not only from necessity, but from that neglect of unclerical enterprise -which characterized the age, confined themselves, with few exceptions, -to pulpit teaching and pastoral influences. High Church and Low Church, -the Establishment and the sects, exhibited disregard of a principle in -full play in other portions of Western Christendom. A clerical jealousy -of laymen, a fear of schism, and a dislike of everything approaching to -irregularity, lay at the bottom of the Anglican aversion to lay agency. -Prejudices of a similar kind influenced Puritans; for although there -existed abundant religious irregularity during the Commonwealth, there -were not a few amongst Nonconformists wedded to their own notions of -church order. They were High Churchmen in their own way, regarding the -ecclesiastical principles of the New Testament as so comprehensive in -their direct application, as to render all associations distinguished -from the Church itself as perfectly needless.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>This state of things prevailed during three-fourths of the seventeenth -century, when a movement began, opening the way to consequences which -ever since have been unfolding themselves. At present, the vast number -of our religious societies—some in slender connection with churches, -some in no connection with them at all—form phenomena worth the study -of social philosophers; and the rise of them may be distinctly traced -in those combinations for certain purposes, just before and during the -reign of William III., which are now to be described. The outburst of -zeal at that time has received much less notice than its importance -deserves.</p> - -<p>It was about the year 1678—sixty years after the first<span class="pagenum" id="Page_356">[356]</span> establishment -in Paris of the societies by St. Vincent de Paul—that a few young men -in London, belonging to the congregations of Dr. Horneck, the popular -preacher at the Savoy, and of Mr. Smithies, an impressive lecturer at -St. Michael’s, Cornhill, came under one of those inspirations which -mark epochs of revival. They agreed to meet weekly for religious -conference, prayer, and scripture reading. When, under James II., -signs of Papal outgrowths were visible, they sought to check returning -superstition, and promoted the use of daily common prayer at the -church of St. Clement Danes, as a sort of protest against the use of -daily mass at the Chapel Royal. Feeling a more than ordinary desire -for the Communion, they frequented the Lord’s-table whenever they had -an opportunity, and stimulated clergymen to celebrate, not only upon -Sundays but upon holidays; and on the vigils of feasts they met for -preparation at one another’s houses. They thus fell in with a current -of sacramental feeling, which became prevalent and powerful at the -opening of the eighteenth century—promoted by the writings of Robert -Nelson and others, and by the example of distinguished persons amongst -both Clergy and Laity.<a id="FNanchor_446" href="#Footnote_446" class="fnanchor">[446]</a> They also raised money for the payment -of clergymen who read prayers, for the relief of the poor, for the -support of schools, and for the spread of Christianity abroad and at -home. They laid down rules of conduct, drawn from their own religious -and ecclesiastical principles, “To love one another; when reviled -not to revile again; to speak evil of no man; to wrong no man; to -pray, if possible, seven times a-day; to keep close to the Church of -England; to transact all things peaceably and gently; to be helpful -to each other; to use themselves to holy thoughts<span class="pagenum" id="Page_357">[357]</span> on coming in and -going out; to examine themselves every night; to give every one his -due; to obey superiors, both spiritual and temporal.” Controverted -points of Divinity were banished from discussion, no prayers were used -but those in the Prayer-Book, or sanctioned by clergymen; the strong -Church element in these societies further manifesting itself in careful -abstinence from a lay use of absolution. Resembling in some respects, -in others differing from, Young Men’s Christian Associations, they must -be regarded as harbingers of the latter institutions; and, so regarded, -they in certain minds acquire an interest beyond that which inherently -belongs to them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>The societies, developed in the way described, attained vigour and -prosperity in the middle of King William’s reign, being promoted by the -approval of Queen Mary, who took a deep interest in their proceedings. -Thirty-nine of them were instituted in London and Westminster. -They spread into the midland and western counties; we find them at -Nottingham and Gloucester, and we follow them across the Channel to -Ireland, to Kilkenny and Drogheda, especially to Dublin, where no less -than ten of them arose under the sanction and help of the Bishops and -Clergy.<a id="FNanchor_447" href="#Footnote_447" class="fnanchor">[447]</a></p> - -<p>Tillotson, Compton, and other Prelates, at an early period looked -favourably upon the associations and aided their endeavours; but some -at first were shy. Archbishop Sharpe, for example, and other clergymen, -both Bishops and Presbyters, frowned upon all movements of the kind, -as violations of order and as productive of schism. Amongst the lay -promoters of these societies,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_358">[358]</span> Robert Nelson becomes conspicuous after -the year 1700, when he abandoned the Nonjuring party.</p> - -<p>Another kind of society, originated about the year 1691—not intended, -like the Young Men’s Associations, for personal religious improvement, -but for checking public immorality—was formed so as to include -Nonconformists. The methods of operation were manifold. The most -prominent was to enforce the execution of the laws against vice and -profanity; and to stir up people to join in this enforcement, the -utmost ingenuity and the most plausible eloquence were employed. An -abstract of the statutes against the profanation of the Lord’s-day, -drunkenness, swearing and cursing, blasphemy, lewd and disorderly -practices, and gaming, was published and circulated, with a list of -penalties annexed; and all good subjects were exhorted, on grounds of -patriotism and religion, to aid in executing these statutes. Other -associations were formed for the same purpose. Persons of eminence, -members of Parliament, justices of the peace, and London citizens, -constituted one division of the army enlisted in the service of public -morals; they chiefly furnished the supplies for carrying on the war. -About fifty persons, including tradesmen and others, composed a second -band, to promote, by individual efforts, the prosecution of the design. -A third detachment embraced constables, who were “to meet to consider -of the most effectual way to discharge their oaths, to acquaint one -another with the difficulties they met with, to resolve on proper -remedies, to divide themselves in the several parts of the city so as -to take in the whole to the best advantage for inspecting of disorderly -houses, taking up of drunkards, lewd persons, profaners of the -Lord’s-day, and swearers out of the streets and markets, and carrying -them before the magistrates.” A fourth rank of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_359">[359]</span> men, described as the -corner-stone of the undertaking, contained as many as were disposed -to inform against delinquents; the money arising from informations -being devoted to the help of the poor, except a third part of the -penalty against Sabbath-breaking, which the magistrate had the power to -distribute, but which had never, so it was said, been bestowed upon the -informers themselves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>The necessity of laws for the punishment of offences against society -and individual rights is plain, but the efficacy of legislation for -the suppression of immorality and irreligion is more than questioned. -Fines and imprisonments can only produce a skin-deep reformation, and -when relaxed are followed by fresh outbursts of vicious indulgence; -and if the least objectionable part of the plan now under review -was defective, the encouragement given to informers was adapted to -produce bad results, only second to those which were assailed. To stir -up people to lay informations against their neighbours, must breed -mutual suspicion; and with the honest intention of destroying one -evil, provoke another into fiercer rage. The laws against drunkenness, -houses of ill-fame, and gambling, were wise and good, and deserved to -be put in force; but the laws against some kinds of conduct, called -Sabbath-breaking, and profaneness, and blasphemy, were of a different -class and of a doubtful character. Blasphemy included the denial of -the doctrine of the Trinity, so that any honest and upright Socinian -came under the scourge, it being sophistically added as a note at the -bottom of the published abstract, “This statute punishes not the error, -but the impudence of the offender.” It should be stated further, that -over the enforcement of the law against immorality and irreligion -an even-handed justice did not preside. The bandage<span class="pagenum" id="Page_360">[360]</span> sometimes fell -from the eyes of that impartial lady. The cases of rich and poor, of -high and low, were not always weighed in the same scales. The crusade -against sinners in the valleys and low lands of social life was most -vigorously carried on; the sinners on the hills were left to do very -much as they liked. De Foe exposed this kind of double-dealing.</p> - -<p>But the result of the prosecutions was such that the good people, -working in this way, regarded themselves as very successful. Seventy -or eighty warrants a week were executed upon street swearers, so -that the constables “found it difficult to take up a swearer in -divers of our streets.” Sunday markets ceased; drovers and carriers -were stopped; bakers did not dare to appear with their baskets, or -“barbers with their pot, basin, or periwig-box;” hundreds of bad -houses became closed; and “thousands of lewd persons were imprisoned, -fined, and whipped, and the Tower end of the town much purged from -that pestilential generation of night-walkers, forty or fifty of them -being sent in a week to Bridewell, from whence, at their own desire, -they were transported to America, to gain an honest livelihood in the -plantations.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>Means of another and an unexceptionable nature were employed for the -furtherance of the general object. The distribution of tracts—now -become so conspicuous and powerful an agency—was then systematically -commenced, and we notice in the scanty but gradually increasing -list, <i>Kind Caution to Profane Swearers</i> and <i>The Soldier’s -Monitor</i>, the last of these publications indicating the interest -taken in the spiritual welfare of the army. A hundred thousand short -tracts against drunkenness and other vices were distributed throughout -the country, and we meet with the statement that especial care was -taken to present them to culprits after their conviction. Connected -with this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_361">[361]</span> enterprise appears the germ of another usage, exceedingly -popular in our own times—the preaching of sermons on particular -occasions in behalf of societies. Episcopal clergymen advocated them -from the pulpit of Bow Church, Nonconforming ministers from the pulpit -of Salter’s Hall. With eloquence, or with varying degrees in the want -of it; with spirit, or with dulness; with a pleasant voice, as of one -who can play well on an instrument, or with an unmusical delivery, -which grated harshly on sensitive ears,—did these divines stand up -before congregations, crowded or scanty, charmed or disappointed, -enthusiastic or critical; after which a collection was made, yielding -a goodly amount of gold and silver, or the reverse. Then, as now, -secretaries would be filled with anxiety, committees would listen -with a feeling of responsibility, praises and censures would follow -the appeals, complacency would be inspired, mortification would -be provoked, thanks would be returned; and the good and evil, the -grace and the frailty, the virtues and the infirmities incident to -such occasions would begin to manifest themselves on a small scale, -in prophetic type of what obtains in the May anniversaries of the -nineteenth century.</p> - -<p>The meetings at Bow Church, graced by the presence and assisted by the -advocacy of such men as Patrick, Burnet, Trelawny, Kidder, Williams, -Stanhope, and Bray, were held once a quarter; and, besides sermons -delivered on behalf of these societies, there were sermons preached, -exposing the vices of the age. In different parts of the country -efforts of this kind were made. Stratford, the Bishop, and Fog, the -Dean of Chester, warmly took up the new cause, and the picturesque old -city in the north became head-quarters for the new crusade.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_362">[362]</span></p> - -<p>Societies for the reformation of manners gradually multiplied, and -within a few years they existed numerously, not only in England, but -in Scotland and Ireland; and the undulations of the excitement rolled -over Europe, touched Flanders, Holland, Germany, Switzerland, Denmark, -Sweden, and also reached as far as the West Indies and North America.</p> - -<p>There were not wanting Churchmen who fixed a jealous eye on these -proceedings, seeing that they combined Conformists and Nonconformists -in works of charity. The goodness of the object did not prevent -disapproval of union with schismatics. Archbishop Sharpe, whose -suspicions as to the Young Men’s Societies have been already mentioned, -refused to countenance in any way those on a broader basis; and Henry -Newcome, son of the eminent Presbyterian of that name, when preaching -a Reformation Lecture, railed against Dissenters, a circumstance which -led Matthew Henry to say, “The Lord be judge between us. Perhaps it -will be found that the body of Dissenters have been the strongest -bulwarks against profaneness in England.” The practice of laying -informations sometimes produced bad blood in Church circles. “My -brother Hulton,” Henry records in his <i>Diary</i>, “on Lord’s-day was -seven-night, observing the churchwardens of St. Peter’s with a strange -minister and others, go to Mr. Holland’s alehouse, and sit there three -hours, told the Recorder of it. The Bishop came to hear of it, and -Mr. Hulton desired his Lordship to admonish them. They set light by -the Bishop, and challenged the magistrates to fine them; whereupon -Mr. Hulton was summoned to inform against them, and did so, and they -were fined, but they were very abusive to him.” The co-operation of -Churchmen and Dissenters excited political suspicion; and Vernon, -Secretary of State, by no means<span class="pagenum" id="Page_363">[363]</span> friendly to such movements, told the -Duke of Shrewsbury that the Archbishop apprehended their design was -to undermine the Church, and that the Lord Chancellor thought they -rather aimed at discrediting the Administration. Even William approved -of a watch being kept over the movement, and Somers was for finding -out all ways of getting into their secret, and by clandestine means -to defeat clandestine objects. Not that Dissenters were suspected of -treason, but his Lordship wished to know “what discontented Churchmen -or discarded statesmen meant by insinuating themselves into their -familiarities.”<a id="FNanchor_448" href="#Footnote_448" class="fnanchor">[448]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>In one instance the activity of the reformers occasioned a riot. May -Fair reached its zenith in the reign of William III., when, in addition -to the sale of leather and cattle, all sorts of exhibitions took place -adapted to high and low, rich and poor. Graceful dancers attracted -noblemen; duck-hunting in a pond at the back of a wooden house—which -then, in rural simplicity, stood in what is now the heart of a west-end -population—drew together crowds of the vulgar; and for the curious of -all ranks there was provided a model of the City of Amsterdam, carved -in wood; and, amongst other wonders, a body was shown with the words -<i>Deus Meus</i> written on the pupil of one eye, and on the other a -Hebrew inscription, which had to be taken on trust. Want of loyalty -was not one of the vices of the place, for a play-bill informed the -public that during the time of May Fair an excellent droll would be -performed, called, “King William’s Happy Deliverance, and Glorious -Triumph over his Enemies.” Even ecclesiastical zeal penetrated this -multifarious assemblage, for the bill gave as a second title of the -piece, “The Consultation of the Pope, Devil, French King, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_364">[364]</span> the -Grand Turk.” <i>Vivat Rex</i> closed the advertisement.<a id="FNanchor_449" href="#Footnote_449" class="fnanchor">[449]</a> Not -confining themselves to the quiet distribution of tracts, the friends -of morality who visited the Fair in 1702 were bent upon executing -the law. Informers, constables, and magistrates were busy at their -work, apprehending the worst offenders, and no doubt plenty they -found to do, for it is stated by a contemporary that young people, by -the temptation they met with here, committed much sin, and fell into -much disorder. “Here they spent their time and money in drunkenness, -fornication, gaming, and lewdness, whereby were occasioned oftentimes -quarrels, tumults, and shedding of blood.”<a id="FNanchor_450" href="#Footnote_450" class="fnanchor">[450]</a> The consequence of -the excitement produced by the reformers was, that a set of ruffians, -including a number of soldiers, swore at the constables, drew swords, -made an assault, killed one, and wounded several. The man who slew the -constable was hanged.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>At the close of the year 1698 an organization more important than -any of the preceding took its rise. Dr. Bray and four distinguished -friends, consisting of Lord Guildford, Sir Humphrey Mackworth, Mr. -Justice Hook, and Colonel Maynard Colchester, met, and drew up a -document, by which they agreed as often as conveniently, to consult -together how they might be able, by due and lawful methods, to promote -Christian knowledge. The last words pointed to the general object -contemplated, and gave a distinctive name to the institution arising -out of these circumstances, <i>The Society for Promoting Christian -Knowledge</i>. As the purpose was comprehensive, and the means -remained to be arranged, a principle of selectness appeared essential -to success; and, accordingly, the possession of “noted humility, -condescension, and charity,”<span class="pagenum" id="Page_365">[365]</span> was laid down as essential to membership. -It was determined to have a chairman to preserve order, and the members -were urged, first, to “prevent heats and to allay such as may arise,” -and then “to exercise discretion in talking of their affairs.” Prayers -were to be offered upon commencing business. Members were to be -carefully elected, no payment of money or possession of office being -recognized as a qualification. A candidate was proposed at two meetings -before admission, and in the minutes for June, 1699, it is recorded -on the 27th, that the Lord Bishop of Gloucester was proposed for the -first time, and on the 29th that he was proposed a second time. Eminent -persons, including Prelates, Presbyters, and Laymen, soon joined the -new association. Amongst the Prelates were Patrick, Fowler, Williams, -Kidder, Lloyd, and Burnet. Amongst Presbyters were Shute, Manningham, -Wheeler, and Mapletoft, the latter two being clergymen of Nonjuring -principles, and their association with such men as Fowler and Burnet -in this kind of work is very remarkable. Amongst the Laymen were -Richard Blackmore, William Melmoth, and Robert Nelson; the last, who -joined in 1699, whilst still a Jacobite, and a non-communicant with the -Established Church, further illustrates the toleration of political -and ecclesiastical differences. Besides members in London, who could -meet for personal conference, there were corresponding associates. -John Strype, at Low Leyton, turned aside from his ancient rolls and -faded manuscripts to unite in this movement, and Samuel Wesley formed a -branch at Epworth.</p> - -<p>Manifold were the methods adopted at the beginning, and various schemes -being from time to time discussed, the Society pursued diversified -forms of action, according to circumstances. It was primarily a Book -and Tract<span class="pagenum" id="Page_366">[366]</span> Society. The establishment of parochial libraries in America -to aid the work of the Clergy, and of lending catechetical libraries -in market towns of this kingdom, together with the distribution of -good books, as the Society should direct, are amongst the decisions -mentioned in the minutes. At an early period we find in its list of -publications, <i>Bradford on Regeneration</i>, <i>Scougal’s Life of God -in the Soul of Man</i>, <i>Melmoth’s Great Importance of a Religious -Life</i>, and <i>Bull’s Corruptions of the Church of Rome</i>. Thirty -thousand copies of <i>The Soldier’s Monitor</i> were sent to the army -in Holland. Admiral Benbow and Sir George Rooke caused similar tracts -to be circulated throughout the fleet; and <i>Cautions to Watermen</i> -were sent down to the West for distribution amongst people employed on -rivers and canals. It was also a School Society upon Church principles. -Catechetical schools in and about London received attention; and before -the end of the year 1699 it was reported that in Whitechapel, Poplar, -St. Martin’s, Cripplegate, Shadwell, Shoreditch, and Bishopsgate, -they had been set up through the Society’s operations. Other similar -efforts were made, as appears from a report by Lord Guildford, as to -teaching paupers in workhouses and instructing them in the Catechism; -and further, it may be stated that resolutions were passed to induce -the parents of scholars to attend catechetical lectures. It is also -worth noticing, as a curiosity, that Mr. Symons, schoolmaster at -Cripplegate, discovered a secret, by which he could teach twenty or -thirty boys the alphabet in a day. Allusions occur, in the months of -July and August, 1699, to efforts at instruction in the parish of St. -George’s, Southwark, being “much obstructed,” when it was ordered that -the agents should immediately treat with a schoolmaster, the Society to -ensure him one half-year’s<span class="pagenum" id="Page_367">[367]</span> pay; but the measure was postponed in hopes -of an agreement with the parish officers, who seemed to have thrown -difficulties in the way.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>Whilst the promotion of Christian knowledge, by means of publications -and schools, formed the main object of the Society, other purposes were -incidentally contemplated, and we find these good men anticipating the -labours of John Howard by seeking to improve the state of prisons, -and the modern condemnation of duelling, by giving thanks to Sir John -Phillips for his noble Christian example in refusing a challenge. -Numerous references occur in the earliest proceedings to efforts for -the conversion of Quakers, and, as they are so singular, they claim -notice and require explanation.</p> - -<p>There was a man named George Keith, a native of Aberdeen, and a -fellow-student with Gilbert Burnet at the University of that city. He -went over to America, and there pursued a distinguished course as a -preacher amongst the Quakers; but disputes arose between him and the -Pennsylvanian Friends, which ended in their disowning him, and in his -resisting them. They could not retain a person who openly declared -that he “trampled their judgments under his feet as dirt;” who charged -those who opposed him, with apostacy from Quakers’ principles; and who -established a separate meeting for such as sympathized in his views. -Strange to say, after protesting against American Friends as untrue to -the doctrine of their Society, this energetic person became a member of -the Church of England, and, on his return to this country, entered into -holy orders. He now became a zealous opponent of the people with whom -he had been identified, and being brought into intimate connection with -Dr. Bray, that gentleman considered him a suitable agent for the new -Society. Whether the Society<span class="pagenum" id="Page_368">[368]</span> originally designed him for the purpose -or not, certainly Keith deemed it his vocation to do all in his power -to bring Quakers within the pale of the English Church, and the records -of the Society endorse his efforts in this respect. They “report about -the Quakers, and give a satisfactory account of Keith’s designs,” -bestowing upon him a certificate or recommendation, to protect him -in his travels and procure him encouragement from the justices of -the peace, at the same time resolving to circulate his narrative and -catechism. A little later a resolution was adopted “respecting Keith’s -progress into the country to convert the Quakers,” and the sum of -£10 12s. was voted for the purchase of publications, which he was -to distribute in his tour. Reports were sent in by him stating the -result of his mission in Bristol and elsewhere; and it seems that, as -the Quakers at an earlier period had been in the habit of entering -parish churches, to bear witness there against what they considered a -departure from the spirit of the Gospel, so now their former friend, -George Keith, carried on his labours against them in a strictly -retaliative form.</p> - -<p>It is stated in the Society’s minutes, that the Quakers opposed his -attempts to preach in their meeting-houses; and one is surprised -to find, after the Act of Toleration had passed, the following -entry:—“Resolved, that Mr. Keith attempts again, and, if opposed, that -he pursue his remedy according to law.”</p> - -<p>Quakers are not the only persons whose conversion was specially -contemplated; particular attention was paid to Roman Catholics, and -it was agreed that the members of the Society should endeavour to -inform themselves of the practices of priests to pervert His Majesty’s -subjects. I do not find any mention made of special endeavours to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_369">[369]</span> -bring back to the Church any other section of Nonconformists than the -people called Quakers.<a id="FNanchor_451" href="#Footnote_451" class="fnanchor">[451]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>The Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge was the parent of another -society of not less importance. Dr. Bray was deeply interested in -Missions abroad; with extraordinary efforts for the diffusion of the -Gospel in England, he combined extraordinary efforts for the diffusion -of the Gospel in the American colonies. He went out to Maryland -at his own expense, as Ecclesiastical Commissary to the Bishop of -London, and did not return to England until after he had exhausted -his resources. It appears that in March, 1697, when a Bill was being -read in Parliament respecting estates devoted to superstitious uses, -he presented a petition, praying that a portion of such estates might -be set apart for the propagation of the reformed religion in Maryland, -Virginia, and the Leeward Isles, or that some other provision should -be made for the purpose. Animated by this spirit, he induced the -Society to approve of libraries in North America for the use of the -Clergy. He visited Holland to obtain from His Majesty a grant in aid, -and reported the design of Sir Richard Bulkeley to settle on his Irish -estate a rent-charge of £20 a year, and his gift of a share in certain -mines for the furtherance of this object. At length, floating desires -assumed definite shape, and steps were taken to secure a charter -for Propagating the Gospel in Foreign Parts. Dr. Bray, through the -instrumentality of Archbishop Tenison and Bishop Compton, succeeded in -accomplishing this object, and in May, 1701, the draft of a charter -“was read and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_370">[370]</span> debated, and several amendments made, and the names -of the secretary and other officers proposed and agreed to.”<a id="FNanchor_452" href="#Footnote_452" class="fnanchor">[452]</a> -Repeated conferences took place at the meetings of the Society, -touching points connected with the new undertaking; and on the 9th of -June, Dr. Bray stated that His Majesty in Council had signed an order -for incorporating the Society. Convocation had turned its thoughts to -Foreign Missions, but relinquished further proceedings upon finding -this charter was granted. The instrument described the objects of the -new Society as being, first, the providing of learned and orthodox -ministers for the administration of God’s word and sacraments amongst -the King’s loving subjects in the plantations, colonies, and factories -beyond the seas. So far the enterprise was strictly colonial, intended -for the spiritual instruction and welfare of English emigrants to -distant shores. The charter, secondly, contemplated the making of -such other provision as might be necessary for the propagation of -the Gospel in those parts; and this, read in the light of subsequent -operations, might be interpreted to signify the diffusion of Christian -knowledge amongst such of the heathen as lived in the neighbourhood of -English colonists. Still the objects remained limited; it was confined -to the British dominions, and took no account of pagan countries -lying outside. Now that our Indian dominion is so extensive, the old -charter may be construed as pointing to an immense field of labour -there; but the charter at first—when our colonial dependencies were -of comparatively narrow extent—contemplated, consistently with its -nature as an incorporation under the English crown, a range of effort -far within the wide sweep which Missions since have happily<span class="pagenum" id="Page_371">[371]</span> taken. -Power was given to hold property, to carry on legal proceedings, to -make bye-laws, and to collect subscriptions. To stamp the whole with -a Church of England character, the Archbishops of Canterbury and -York, the Bishops of London and Ely, the Lord Almoner, the Deans of -Westminster and St. Paul’s, the Archdeacon of London, and the Regius -and Margaret Professors of Divinity at Oxford and Cambridge for the -time being, were constituted trustees, the selection of some of these -dignitaries at first being doubtless determined on personal grounds.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>Under the presidency of his Grace of Canterbury, a meeting of members -took place within one of the apartments of Lambeth Palace on the 27th -of June, 1701; and we can fancy Compton, Williams, Fowler, Sherlock, -and others, coming in barges along the Thames, or in coaches, on -horseback, or a-foot through the narrow streets, to the well-known -gateway of the Archiepiscopal abode. The charter was read. Five hundred -printed copies of it were ordered. Melmoth was chosen treasurer, and -Chamberlayne secretary. According to a vote on the occasion, there was -prepared a symbolical seal, representing a ship in full sail, with a -gigantic clergyman, half-mast high, standing by the bowsprit with an -open Bible in his hands, whilst diminutive negroes, in an attitude -of expectancy, are sprinkled over a hilly beach. Overhead is one of -those awkward scrolls, devised to convey words uttered by the persons -introduced; and here it contains in Latin the Macedonian prayer, which -the little blacks are supposed to be offering: “Come over and help -us.” At the top is a face surrounded by sun rays, apparently intended -to denote the presence and benediction of God vouchsafed to the -undertaking.</p> - -<p>Meetings afterwards were held at the Cockpit, in Whitehall, or in the -vestry of Bow Church, and afterwards<span class="pagenum" id="Page_372">[372]</span> in Archbishop Tenison’s library, -in St. Martin’s-in-the-Fields. Soon the secretary prepared parchment -rolls for the use of members deputed to receive subscriptions, amongst -whom were Bishop Patrick, Archdeacon Stanley, and others. The Society -for Promoting Christian Knowledge had at least contemplated missionary -work in our western colonies; but now that a new Society had been -incorporated for extending the Gospel in foreign parts, these fields of -labour were placed under its care.</p> - -<p>As a precursor of publications in religious literature, issued within -a short time in such numbers as would fill a library, there was -presented, at the close of the first year’s operations, a report, from -which it is worth while to extract a passage or two illustrating the -way in which such documents were then drawn up, and of the nature of -the work accomplished by the Society.</p> - -<p>Mention is made of “one missionary for the service of the Yeomansee -Indians to the South of Carolina;” of regard had to infidels amongst -English settlers in North America; and of the determination also to -resist the progress of “Quakerism, Antinomianism, ignorance, and -immorality, which have hitherto fatally overspread those infant -churches.” Provision was made for “some of the islands by a supply -of two ministers;” further, there had been “a settlement compassed -for a congregation at Amsterdam, with the consent of the magistrates -of the place;” and encouragement had been given to commence a church -at Moscow, of which the Czar had laid the foundation. The expense of -these undertakings was paid out of a fund of about £800, aided by -subscriptions amounting to £1,700.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">RELIGIOUS SOCIETIES.</div> - -<p>In an appendix of the year 1701 is found a plan, proposed by Patrick -Gordon, for establishing seminaries on the verge of the Indian -territory, where boys from London<span class="pagenum" id="Page_373">[373]</span> charity-schools should be sent; -the main object being to “induce Indian children to play with these -boys, that marriages might be promoted among them, and a mixed race of -Christians might thus arise.”<a id="FNanchor_453" href="#Footnote_453" class="fnanchor">[453]</a></p> - -<p>It is a curious fact that in the year 1703 overtures were made by White -Kennet on behalf of the Society to Thomas Hearne, to settle in Maryland -in a parochial cure. He was to be ordained at the charge of Dr. Bray, -to have a library of books to the value of £50, to receive for his cure -£70 per annum, and by degrees to be better preferred. He was to be -librarian to the province, at an additional salary of £10 a year; and -it was added: “When you have been there any time, you have liberty to -return with money in your pocket and settle here in England, if you are -not more pleased with all the good accommodations of that place.” The -offer was not accepted. Hearne felt no vocation to colonial work.<a id="FNanchor_454" href="#Footnote_454" class="fnanchor">[454]</a> -By his refusal, the Society lost one who might have been no very -successful missionary, and Oxford gained an illustrious archæologist.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_374">[374]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XVII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">A bold step taken by the Nonjurors in the year 1694 deepened and -perpetuated their schism, and some circumstances tainted their -proceedings with more disloyalty than could be involved in the mere -refusal of an oath. Sancroft, as if copying Romish pretensions, -had appointed Lloyd, ex-Bishop of Norwich, his “Vicar,” “Factor,” -“Proxy-General,” or “Nuncio.” Lloyd accordingly proceeded, in concert -with the deprived Prelates of Peterborough and Ely, to appoint two -Bishops. To soften appearances and to avoid collisions, they gave the -persons appointed the titles of Suffragans of Thetford and of Ipswich, -and, in keeping with their own Jacobitism, they consulted the Royal -Exile respecting those who should fill the offices. Dr. Hickes was -despatched on a visit to St. Germains, with a list of the Nonjurors, to -ask James to exercise the prerogative by nominating two clergymen for -these posts. He graciously received the delegate, who spent six weeks -in travelling that short distance, and in overcoming the difficulties -of access to his Court. Having consulted the Pope, the Archbishop -of Paris, and Bossuet of Meaux, whether it would be consistent with -loyalty to the Church to do what was asked, James, with their sanction, -nominated Hickes as Suffragan of Thetford, and Wagstaffe as Suffragan<span class="pagenum" id="Page_375">[375]</span> -of Ipswich.<a id="FNanchor_455" href="#Footnote_455" class="fnanchor">[455]</a> It is plain that James made capital out of this to -further his own designs, for he was at that time deep in plans of -invasion, and his correspondence with Hickes and the Bishop of Norwich -points to them as accredited agents.<a id="FNanchor_456" href="#Footnote_456" class="fnanchor">[456]</a> On the 24th of February, -1694, Hickes and Wagstaffe were admitted into the Episcopal order by -the three deprived Bishops, and the ceremony took place in a private -house in London, where the Bishop of Peterborough lodged, the Earl of -Clarendon being present on the occasion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Great care was taken by some of the Nonjurors to ascertain the number -and circumstances of clergymen included within their party. It is the -effect of such ecclesiastical divisions to bring into bonds of closest -acquaintance those who agree upon some distinctive principle. Amongst -the <i>Baker MSS.</i> is a document containing a long list of those -who forfeited their preferment rather than take the new oath,<a id="FNanchor_457" href="#Footnote_457" class="fnanchor">[457]</a> -and among them the following names occur, with some indications of -character and position appended:—</p> - -<p>“Mr. Milner, Vicar of Leeds and Prebendary of Ripon, a very learned, -worthy person, is thought well able to live; hath a son preferred to -a good living in Sussex by the late Bishop of Chichester, his uncle, -and a daughter yet unmarried. Mr. Yorke, one of the Vicars Choral of -the Cathedral Church of York, and Curate of St. Belfrey’s, a sober, -loyal person, and zealous for our Church. He hath a wife and child, -but low in worldly circumstances; his losses might amount unto about -£80 per annum.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_376">[376]</span> Mr. Cressey, Vicar of Sheriff Hutton (of the yearly -value of about £50), a gentleman well born, of good principles, and -sober conversation; he married old Mr. Thinscrosse’s niece; hath with -her two children; little to live on, save the charity of relations, -and that Sir Henry Slingsbie at present retains him for his domestic -chaplain. Mr. Winshup, Curate of Malton and Prebendary of York (his -loss may be computed about £80); a very learned, good and brisk man; -hath a wife but no child, and some pretty temporal estate, and, as I am -told, is now at London, bending his studies towards the law; a great -acquaintance of late Baron Ingleby. Mr. Symms, Rector of Langton (value -about £80 per annum), a truly loyal and firmly-principled Church of -England man; was lately imprisoned through malice, when the Papists -were secured, the grief whereof (as thought) broke his wife’s heart, -who was a devout gentlewoman; he hath a daughter, and may be an object -worthy of compassion and charity. Mr. Holmes, Rector of Burstwicke and -Vicar of Paul (value about £100 per annum), a gentleman of good family, -(fellow-sufferer with Mr. Symms), sober and well deserving; hath a wife -(who was Dr. Stone’s daughter of York) and many children, and now makes -very hard shift to live. Mr. Rosse, Vicar of Scawby (valued at £40 per -annum), a man of very good parts and learning, but given to excess of -drinking, even to scandal, yet hath a wife and charge of children, and -is an object of pity and charity (if he could be reformed), and very -right in his principles. Mr. Mawburn, Minister of Crake, though within -ours, yet of the jurisdiction of the Diocese of Durham; one who is -master of too much learning, except he made better use of it, a great -complier with all the designs of the late reign, and too scandalous -in his conversation upon all accounts. I do not know of any charge he -hath, nor what is<span class="pagenum" id="Page_377">[377]</span> become of him, but his living was commonly reported -about £100 per annum.”</p> - -<p>Many other names are given, some reported as “poor,” others “not poor,” -or “well to pass.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>The Nonjurors fixed their head-quarters in the Metropolis. There -Kettlewell settled after leaving his incumbency. With all his ardour -and decision he did not practically go so far as some of his brethren. -He objected to the clergy attending parish churches, because, as -he said, if only two or three joined them in private, they might -canonically minister, and have Christ in the midst of them; but he did -not object to the laity uniting in worship with clergymen who took -the oaths. Upon examining the ground of this concession, however, we -find it rests on the idea that the ministration of the ordained is -essential to the Divine acceptance of social service, and the public -devotion in which he allowed the laity to participate only consisted of -common prayer on ordinary occasions, not of special prayer connected -with national festivals.<a id="FNanchor_458" href="#Footnote_458" class="fnanchor">[458]</a> He would in no way sanction the use of -intercession for William and Mary, and was himself very particular in -praying not only for King James, but in obeying the order issued before -the Revolution, for supplications on behalf of the Prince of Wales. He -reached, by a confused logical process, the high ecclesiastical ground, -“that the determination of the Church of England, so solemnly given -in her prayers, was on his side, and was so binding as it could not -be reversed by a superior authority, or even reversed at all, without -making the public voice of this Church to contradict itself.”<a id="FNanchor_459" href="#Footnote_459" class="fnanchor">[459]</a> He -pushed his views of the individual responsibility of clergymen—and, -if I understand him aright, of laymen as well—to such an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_378">[378]</span> extent that -he reached a position of thorough independency, for he says, true and -faithful pastors are not so strictly bound to keep up external unity -and peace, as to maintain truth and righteousness and the unpolluted -worship of the Church; and that however private persons are bound to -use modesty and caution in following the “venerable ecclesiastical -judicatories on earth, yet it is not any <i>implicit dependence</i> -on men, or a <i>blind obedience</i> to any human sentence or decision -whatsoever, but observance of the truth itself, and of what God hath -in His Word decided, that must justify them in determining themselves -whom they are to follow.”<a id="FNanchor_460" href="#Footnote_460" class="fnanchor">[460]</a> This is the very protestantism of the -Protestant Religion, the very dissidence of dissent, and it affords an -example of the inconsistency which comes in the wake of circumstances, -and of the odd way in which extremes meet. Kettlewell, in fact, had -become a Nonconformist, and he justified himself only by arguments -of the same description as those which other Nonconformists employ. -From the same cause he was led to declare, there might be ground for -breaking off from any Church without incurring schism, “there being -some things not to be borne with, nor others to be parted with, for the -sake of an external union;”<a id="FNanchor_461" href="#Footnote_461" class="fnanchor">[461]</a> so far he made common cause with John -Robinson and John Owen.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Kettlewell entered with sympathy into the poverty and sufferings of -his brethren. They had many of them lost all, and this benevolent -man, anxious to assuage their distress, drew up a plan for collecting -and distributing a fund for their relief, directing inquiries as to -the income and expenditure of the deprived, with a view to prevent -impositions upon charity. He proposed that the Clergy in London, who -had no business there, but remained only<span class="pagenum" id="Page_379">[379]</span> because it was the best -place for obtaining gifts, should be sent where they would be better -maintained at less expense, and where they might make themselves of -some service. Then, touching upon a notorious evil, he remarked, that -others would then have no excuse for frequenting coffee-houses and -hunting after benefactions, but would have time to promote their own -improvement, and he advised those who sought relief, simply to note -their sufferings, without making reflections.<a id="FNanchor_462" href="#Footnote_462" class="fnanchor">[462]</a> He did not confine -himself to sectarian charity, but sought also to promote the welfare of -persons not of his own communion, of which a monument remained after -his death, in a comprehensive trust, of which he was the founder.<a id="FNanchor_463" href="#Footnote_463" class="fnanchor">[463]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Kettlewell remained a Nonjuror to the last, and on his death-bed -expressed his distinctive principles; but he did something better, and -beautifully uttered the language of Christian hope.</p> - -<p>He expired April the 12th, 1695, in London, and was buried in the -parish church of All Hallows, near the Tower, in the same grave which -had contained the remains of Archbishop Laud from his death till the -Restoration. Ken was permitted by the Incumbent to read Evening Prayers -on the occasion, and to attend in his episcopal robes to perform the -burial service.</p> - -<p>Kettlewell’s scheme of charitable relief received the sanction of the -Nonjuring Bishops, who wrote a letter in its favour. The proceeding -was laudable; yet such was the political antipathy to the Nonjurors -by those in power, that Ken had to appear before the Privy Council to -account for putting his name to the appeal; and of the interrogations -he received and the answers he gave, there remains a report under his -own hand.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_380">[380]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Dodwell threw his whole soul into the Nonjuring cause, and continued -on its behalf, after the schism had occurred, the advocacy he had -undertaken at the beginning. His pen was busy with denunciations and -encouragements; in private letters to those whom he suspected of -timidity, he deplored the general apostacy from Church principles; -described the apostates as pretending to the name of the Church of -England, whilst acting on the principles of its adversaries; spoke of -latitudinarian notions as tincturing those of the laity who were so -warm for what they call liberty of conscience; and expressed his deep -sorrow for what he considered vacillation and cowardice.</p> - -<p>No multitude of apostates, he declared, could ever be pleaded as an -authoritative example against a small number continuing firm. The -doctrine and practice of these faithful Abdiels, he added, had been -maintained by the Church in all the cases which had occurred from -the beginning of the Reformation to that very day. In the case of -Queen Mary and the Lady Jane Grey, in the case of Cromwell and King -Charles II., nay, in the present case, and in opposition to republican -adversaries. He believed there were few of these great lapsers but -would, a few years before, have resented it, like Hazael, as a great -calamity and scandal had they been charged with doing the things which -they had since actually done.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>He denounced all compliance, eschewed all compromise, and reprobated -all “carnal politics;” warned against balancing expediency with -conscience, and against seeking to promote Protestantism by a sacrifice -of Church principles.<a id="FNanchor_464" href="#Footnote_464" class="fnanchor">[464]</a> He set aside reasons for taking the oaths, -by saying there is no cause so bad<span class="pagenum" id="Page_381">[381]</span> but something may be said in its -support, and by referring to Carneades’ <i>Oration on Injustice</i>, -Burgess and Barnet’s <i>Defence of Sacrilege</i>, and the Hungarian’s -<i>Vindication of Polygamy</i>. As an illustration of the lengths to -which party spirit will carry people, I may cite the following passage -from Dodwell’s vehement lucubration: “It is not a particular sect or -opinion that we contend for, but the very being of a Church and of -religion. Whether there shall be any faith that shall oblige to our -own hindrance? Whether religion, which ought to add to its sacredness, -shall be made a pretence for violating it? Whether our Holy Mother, the -Church of England, which hath been famous for her loyalty, shall now be -as infamous for her apostacy? Whether there be any understanding men -who, in this incredulous age, can find in their hearts to venture the -greatest worldly interest for their religion; that is, indeed, whether -there be any that are in earnest with religion?”<a id="FNanchor_465" href="#Footnote_465" class="fnanchor">[465]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Yet Dodwell wrote from Shottesbrook, August 29th, 1700, to Archbishop -Tenison, requesting him to use his influence in providing Bishops -for the colonies. “The occasion of this present address,” he says, -“is not to beg any favour for myself, nor for our dear fathers and -brethren whom I follow in this excellent cause; it is for that very -body which is headed by you against us, which, we hope, will at length -unite with us on the old terms, when worldly concerns are removed. -You have an opportunity put into your hands of doing God service in -the plantations, and of entitling yourself thereby to greater rewards -from God than you can expect from any of your worldly designs.” And -in November of the same year I discover him corresponding with the -same distinguished<span class="pagenum" id="Page_382">[382]</span> person as to healing the Church’s wound. First, -he despatched a <i>feeler</i> on the subject, which was civilly -received, with a request for further communication, and then he -propounded certain terms of recommunion. He thought the Clergy who had -taken the oaths might agree with the Nonjurors so far as to maintain, -in opposition to all Commonwealth’s-men, the doctrine of passive -obedience “to the lawful Prince for the time being,” each party being -left to apply the principle in his own way. As to the doctrine of the -Church’s independency, he proposed there should be “expressions as -full as possible disowning the validity of the Lay Act with regard to -conscience, and protesting against what had been done in this matter -as unfit to pass into a precedent.” As to prayers for the reigning -family, so strongly objected to by Kettlewell, he did not regard -them as obliging a separation. He took, he says in obscure language, -the right of public offices to belong to governors who might <i>bona -fide</i> differ in opinion from their subjects, and, notwithstanding, -be included by them in their intercessions. He did not mean that men -might own those opinions as true which they believed false, yet they -might let them pass as the sense of the community of which they were -members. At the beginning Dodwell suggested, if the reconciliation -could be effected, that the remaining deprived Bishops should “hold -their places, with a third part of the profits, without taking the -oaths;” and in the end, “If you will do nothing on your part to qualify -you for union with us, our fathers will have performed their part, and -you alone must be answerable for the consequences of it.”<a id="FNanchor_466" href="#Footnote_466" class="fnanchor">[466]</a></p> - -<p>Hickes, Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, resided in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_383">[383]</span> Ormond Street, -exerting an influence very different from that of Ken, Kettlewell, and -Nelson; for whilst they kept aloof from political intrigues, he plunged -deeply into the eddying whirlpool, and whilst they allowed the laity to -attend parish churches, he denounced those who did so. He most absurdly -maintained that even when no State prayers occurred in the service, -simply to hold fellowship with schismatics—and such he denominated all -except Nonjurors—was a flagrant betrayal of Christian principle.<a id="FNanchor_467" href="#Footnote_467" class="fnanchor">[467]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>On another point he was at variance with Kettlewell. Hickes thought it -lawful to wear a military disguise that he might escape detection, and -once was introduced, in Kettlewell’s presence, as Captain or Colonel -Somebody, for which a patriotic precedent was characteristically -alleged, by quoting the case of a certain Bishop of old, who, amidst an -Arian persecution, assumed a military title. Nor did Turner object to -the practice of absconding under borrowed names. But against everything -of this kind the severely truthful Kettlewell set his face like a -flint, and would not have swerved a hair’s-breadth from the straightest -line of honesty to save his life.<a id="FNanchor_468" href="#Footnote_468" class="fnanchor">[468]</a></p> - -<p>Eccentric individuals might be found amongst those who, by Nonjuring -sympathies, were drawn together in a city then, as now, containing -social worlds, scarcely by any chance touching each other. Such -precisians cut themselves off from general intercourse and form -narrow-minded habits, which satisfy their own consciences, but provoke -the ridicule of other people.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Amongst those who in William’s reign often met together and talked over -the affairs of the deprived Clergy, occurs the name of Dr. Francis -Lee—Rabbi Lee, as he<span class="pagenum" id="Page_384">[384]</span> came to be called, because of his Jewish -learning. He had been deprived of a fellowship at St. John’s College, -Oxford, and after travelling abroad and practising as a physician in -Venice for a couple of years, had returned to London in 1694, when he -joined a company of Mystics, and married the prophetess of the sect—a -wild sort of lady, who imagined that she received revelations from -God and from angels, and had been taught by them the finite duration -of future punishment. Besides this species of modern Montanism, Lee -adopted peculiar opinions on other subjects, and published proposals -to Peter the Great, Czar of Muscovy, for the better framing of his -extensive government.<a id="FNanchor_469" href="#Footnote_469" class="fnanchor">[469]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>No layman attained such a position amongst the Nonjurors as Robert -Nelson, pupil of the Anglican Dr. George Bull, and friend of Dr. -Mapletoft, who had been educated in the family of his great-uncle, -Nicholas Farrer, of Gidding. He early imbibed influences favourable -to the adoption of High Church views. His friendship with the -Latitudinarian Archbishop Tillotson, and with the half-Puritan Bishop -Kidder, might hold in check for awhile prior tendencies, but could not -prevent their ultimately producing effect. His personal regard for -Tillotson lasted till death; he held the Primate in his arms at the -moment he expired; yet then all Nelson’s deference to his opinions had -ceased, for from the crisis of the Revolution he had been a Nonjuring -Jacobite. The conversion to Popery of his wife—an aristocratic widow, -the Lady Theophila Lucy, who had become violently enamoured of his -handsome person—did not incline him at all towards Rome, though it -could not prove inimical to the development of his Catholic tendencies. -Of his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_385">[385]</span> intense devoutness and religious zeal there can be no doubt, -nor of his respectable abilities; and the importance of such an -accession to the new sect was heightened by other circumstances. No -one can look at his portrait without admiring the taste of Lady Lucy. -His fine features, set off to advantage by a good complexion and the -adventitious decoration of a magnificent wig, must have given him an -imposing presence. That presence was further aided by the taste and -expensiveness of his apparel, to which should be added the recollection -of his wealth and his aristocratic connections. Thus fitted to make his -way in society, he naturally became amongst poor and persecuted people -a commanding personage—an oracle with some, a counsellor with all. He -associated with Lloyd; corresponded with Frampton; was acquainted with -Ken; for Kettlewell he felt a warm attachment; Collier and Spinckes -were numbered amongst his friends; and Hickes lived close neighbour to -him in Ormond Street, Red Lion Fields.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>In his previous residence at Blackheath Nelson wrote books by which -he has become well known to posterity. Few may have heard of <i>The -Practice of True Devotion</i>, which he anonymously published in 1698, -or of his <i>Exhortation to Housekeepers</i>, which appeared in 1702; -but a lasting fame has followed his <i>Companion for the Festivals and -Fasts</i>, which issued from the press in 1704. Bodies of divinity, -founded upon the Apostles’ Creed and upon the Thirty-Nine Articles, -bearing distinguished names, were popular at the time, and books -explanatory of Church offices had attained some reputation;<a id="FNanchor_470" href="#Footnote_470" class="fnanchor">[470]</a> but no -book aiming to explain<span class="pagenum" id="Page_386">[386]</span> theological doctrine, through ecclesiastical -associations, could vie with this in the extent of its immediate -circulation. The design struck in with tendencies then beginning to -unfold—not ritualistic in the modern acceptation of the term; but -sacramental—in the way of frequent celebration of the Eucharist and a -strict observance of sacred seasons. The production is pervaded with -a cast of thought which, though pre-eminently cherished by Nonjurors, -was not peculiar to them. Nelson believed that the Episcopal Church of -England is the great conservator of orthodoxy; that her Prayer-Book is -an unparalleled help to devotion; that Sacraments lie at the centre -of Christianity; and that holy days are seasons of blessed revival. -He wrote accordingly; and what he wrote was acceptable to members -outside his own circle, not only on account of their sympathy with -his Church views, but because there lay at the bottom of it this true -idea, that theology should be the handmaid of devotion; that faith -finds expression in worship; that religion is not a metaphysical idea, -but a life which pours itself out in prayer and praise before God, -and in justice and charity towards man. I must add, however, that the -popularity of Nelson’s publication seems in some degree due to the -patronage it received, the eulogiums pronounced upon it, and the means -adopted by religious societies for its circulation. In a literary -point of view it can pretend to little, if any merit. The form of -question and answer, as bare as any catechism, gives it no attraction. -The remarks are commonplace, without any attempt at illustration. For -whatever learning may be found in its pages the reader is indebted not -to Robert Nelson, but to Dr. Cave.</p> - -<p>The book, prepared I presume at Blackheath, was published whilst Nelson -lived in Ormond Street, where<span class="pagenum" id="Page_387">[387]</span> he received the congratulations of -his friends, especially of the Nonjurors, who naturally regarded the -popularity of the work as a signal service to their cause.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Nonjuring circles in the Metropolis must often have been agitated -by rumours of plots, real or imagined. In the saloons of Jacobite -nobles, in the back rooms of city shops, in the garrets of Little -Britain, stories would be whispered of preparations made for restoring -the legitimate Sovereign. In the autumn of 1698 such tales reached -the ears of the Duke of Shrewsbury’s Secretary. A Jacobite party had -provided sixty horses: these were dispersed in Kent and about town, -some in the hands of jockeys. They had engaged a Canterbury innkeeper -to help onward their project, had raised a fund of above £1,000, were -on the tiptoe of expectation, and only waited for a signal to mount -their steeds and be off like the wind. So the Secretary heard, and, -in connection with the retailing of all this talk, he stated, that -he was on the point of apprehending a person who dealt in policies -of insurance upon James’s restoration. He paid a guinea—so runs the -letter—to receive fifty if the King or his son should reascend the -throne by the following Michaelmas—certainly a strange scheme for -promoting his return, since it became the interest of everyone who -received the guinea to keep the Royal refugee away.<a id="FNanchor_471" href="#Footnote_471" class="fnanchor">[471]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Centres of Nonjuring influence and activity existed in the country. -Shottesbrook Park, near Maidenhead, with its beautiful church of -decorated Gothic, and its manor-house full of convenience and -comfort—the home of Francis Cherry, a country gentleman, both handsome -and accomplished, “the idol of Berkshire”—offered a<span class="pagenum" id="Page_388">[388]</span> pleasant retreat -for the deprived.<a id="FNanchor_472" href="#Footnote_472" class="fnanchor">[472]</a> Many could be accommodated within the spacious -Hall, for it contained not less than seventy beds; and the owner -was as free in his hospitality as he was rich in his resources. His -heart went with the exiled King, and a story is told to the effect -that once, in a hunting-field, when closely pressed by William’s -steed, he plunged into the Thames where the river was deep and broad, -hoping that the piqued monarch might be induced to follow through the -uncomfortable if not perilous passage. To Shottesbrook House, Robert -Nelson often repaired. There the Nonjuror Charles Leslie found a -welcome, and at a later period than this volume embraces, disguised -in regimentals, when, in danger of apprehension, he obtained shelter -in a neighbouring house until by Cherry’s help he made his escape, -and set out to Bar-le-duc to attempt the conversion of the Pretender. -Many a scene of excitement, many a flush of hope, many a flutter of -fear, many a pang of disappointment must have occurred under the roof -of the Shottesbrook squire, as persons deep in political intrigues -met for conference. Bowdler, Nelson’s neighbour in Ormond Street, -accompanied by his family, was a visitor to this spot; Brokesby, a -deprived clergyman of Rowley, near Hull, found in it a resting-place; -and the learned Prussian Lutheran, Dr. Grabe, who had come over to -receive orders in the Episcopal Church, cultivated friendships at -the agreeable mansion—convenient for him because not very far from -Oxford, where treasures of learning excited his curiosity and increased -his erudition. Hickes delighted in his company, and after his death -compared him to a great and mighty prince, who, dying, leaves<span class="pagenum" id="Page_389">[389]</span> behind -many plans of noble and curious buildings, some half, some almost, -and others entirely finished.<a id="FNanchor_473" href="#Footnote_473" class="fnanchor">[473]</a> In the same place, there also -resided the famous Henry Dodwell, whose views distinguished him from -Kettlewell, and still more from Hickes. Entering into ecclesiastical -subtleties, Dodwell would say “that if there had been a synodical -deprivation of the orthodox and faithful fathers of the Church, however -in itself unjust, yet the Clergy and laity ought to have complied -with the greater obligation of owning the Episcopal College than with -the less obligation of owning any particular Bishop.” In this respect -he differed from Kettlewell, who would no more allow of a synodical -than of a secular deprivation, making, as we have seen in reference -to this question, individual conscientiousness the paramount rule of -action. And further in the same line he differed from Kettlewell, for -Kettlewell made the Church throughout subserve religion, but Dodwell -made religion subserve the Church.<a id="FNanchor_474" href="#Footnote_474" class="fnanchor">[474]</a> Dodwell was really in principle -a higher Churchman, though in practice lower, than Kettlewell—much -lower than Hickes; for Hickes would not attend parish worship at all, -and Kettlewell discountenanced it in the Clergy; but Dodwell would -join in morning and evening prayer, childishly satisfying his scruples -when the name of the reigning Sovereign occurred by sliding off his -knees and sitting down on the hassock. It is amusing to notice the -methods of protest against prayers for the reigning family adopted -by Nonjurors. Some rose from their knees and stood up in the face of -the congregation; some shut their books; some turned over the leaves -so as to make a noise; some satisfied themselves by declining to say -<i>Amen</i>, or by mentally substituting the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_390">[390]</span> names of the exiled -Stuarts. Dodwell, whilst living with Mr. Cherry, had a remarkable pupil -in Thomas Hearne, who was patronized by the generous host, supported -at his cost, and prepared at his expense for the University, as if he -had been his own son. Hearne, as we are informed on his own authority, -was instructed “in the true principles of the Church of England”—an -expression we can easily understand; and we learn from the same -source how busily the incipient archæologist engaged at Shottesbrook -in studies and work subsidiary to literary schemes carried on by the -eminent Nonjurors there congregated together.<a id="FNanchor_475" href="#Footnote_475" class="fnanchor">[475]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Within a few miles of Frome, in Somersetshire, stands Longleat House, a -palatial abode, surrounded by gardens, in the midst of a wooded park, -worthy of the beauty and magnificence of the mansion. Just outside -the park paling rises the old church of Horningsham, and hard by is a -little Dissenting meeting-house, the most ancient in our island. The -place is not above twenty miles from Wells, and part of the domain -comes within the diocese. There the most eminent and the most admirable -of Nonjurors, Thomas Ken, took up his abode, at the request of Lord -Weymouth, the possessor of Longleat; and if social gatherings like -those of Shottesbrook did not occur there, the residence of the Prelate -rendered it a source of the purest Nonjuring influence. He occupied a -room at the top of the house, removed from the noise and bustle of an -English hall, “open to all comers of fashion and quality.” Surrounded -by his large library, “he wrote hymns, and sang them to his viol, and -prayed, and died.”<a id="FNanchor_476" href="#Footnote_476" class="fnanchor">[476]</a> The most popular of all his sacred lays—the -Morning<span class="pagenum" id="Page_391">[391]</span> and Evening Hymns—were composed on the top of a hill, which, -from the prospect it commands through a break in the woods, is well -known throughout the neighbourhood by the beautiful name of “the Gate -of Heaven.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Whether he attended the services at the parish church is matter of -controversy. One of his biographers thinks that up to the accession -of Queen Anne he enjoyed, in Lord Weymouth’s private chapel, “the -privilege of pure services, without alloy of the State prayers;” but -it is added, “During his visits to his nephew at Poulshot, or when he -was in other places where he could not find any Nonjuring assembly, we -may conclude, from what he himself says, that, rather than be debarred -the solace of Christian communion, he went to church.”<a id="FNanchor_477" href="#Footnote_477" class="fnanchor">[477]</a> At all -events, Ken was distressed at the idea of perpetuating schism; he -had no sympathy with the spirit of Hickes; though he allowed excuses -for clandestine consecration, he declared his own judgment to be -against them; and though his scruples compelled him to retire from his -bishopric, he longed earnestly for the reunion of the Church.</p> - -<p>Ken survived King William some years, but two of the Nonjuring -Prelates, in addition to those already deceased, expired before the -Sovereign whose rights they would not acknowledge.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>White, Bishop of Peterborough, died in 1698. Bishop Turner sent to -the Dean of St. Paul’s to bury the deceased Bishop in St. Gregory’s -churchyard; the Dean had it intimated to him “that any clergyman -conformable to the Church and Government might bury him.” “Bishop -Turner, who was one that carried up the pall, with thirty or forty -more of the Clergy, and some few laymen, attended him from the house -where he died, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_392">[392]</span> being come into the churchyard almost as far as -the grave, they espied Mr. Standish, one of the Minor Canons, in -his surplice, ready to read the office. At the sight of him they -immediately made a halt, and, after they had conferred amongst -themselves a little while, all the Clergy opened on each side to let -the corpse pass along to the grave, and went, every one of them, -back again, so that only two or three of the laity stayed to see him -interred. It seems the party renounced all manner of communion with any -person conformable to the Church and Government.”<a id="FNanchor_478" href="#Footnote_478" class="fnanchor">[478]</a> I have already -pointed out that there were two classes of Nonjurors: the practically -moderate, represented by Ken and others, even indeed by Dodwell—and -the extreme, represented by Hickes; and it is apparent that the persons -who attended White’s funeral were of the latter description, and would -not in any way hold fellowship with any but their own party.</p> - -<p>In the month of November, 1700, the Bishop who attended that funeral -followed his episcopal brother into the invisible world. Turner was -very poor—“in very needy circumstances,” says Bishop Nicholson, -“having a large family, and no support out of the common bank of -charity.” He lived in extreme retirement, and was buried in the chancel -of Therfield Church, Hertford, where he had once been rector, a single -word only being inscribed on the stone which covered his mortal -remains, but that word most expressive—<i>Expergiscar</i>.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>Samuel Pepys, who lost his official appointment upon the accession of -William and Mary, and consequently at that time retired into private -life, wearied in his last days with<span class="pagenum" id="Page_393">[393]</span> cares and jaded with pleasures, -sought relief in the duties of religion, and inquired through Nelson -for a spiritual adviser. Nelson’s reply to his request throws a -curious light upon the circumstances of the Nonjurors’ condition: -“After the strictest inquiry, I find none of our Clergy placed in your -neighbourhood nearer than Mitcham, where lives one Mr. Higden, a very -ingenious person, who married the late Lord Stowell’s sister; but I -believe you may have one with greater ease from London, by reason of -the conveniency of public conveyances. Our friend, Dean Hickes, is at -present at Oxford; but if you will be pleased whenever your occasions -require it to send to Mr. Spinckes, who has the honour of being known -to you, he will be sure to wait upon you, and take such measures -that you may always be supplied whenever you stand in need of such -assistance. He lodges at a glazier’s in Winchester Street, near London -Wall.”<a id="FNanchor_479" href="#Footnote_479" class="fnanchor">[479]</a></p> - -<p>Pepys died in the summer of 1703, and, in a letter to Dr. Charlett, -Hickes described the services he rendered the dying man, and the effect -which they produced upon him.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>Some Jacobites who took the oaths with certain qualifications repented -afterwards, and openly threw in their lot with such as refused to -swear. One of them drew up a penitential confession, in which, with -morbid conscientiousness, he dwelt upon what he called his sinful -compliance. Acknowledgment after acknowledgment of minute particulars, -expanded in terms which magnified each, occurs in the document, closing -with the reiterated prayer: “I accuse, and judge, and condemn myself: -God be merciful to me a penitent!” Retraction was accompanied by a -petition to the ejected Bishop, in which the writer exclaims: “Blessed -Jesu! though I cannot now glory<span class="pagenum" id="Page_394">[394]</span> in my not having fallen, yet I will -take all the shame of my fall to myself, that I may give Thee glory; -and though I cannot now rejoice in my innocence, I desire to cause -joy in heaven (and if Thou pleasest, many penitents on earth) by my -repentance.”<a id="FNanchor_480" href="#Footnote_480" class="fnanchor">[480]</a> No one who is at the trouble of perusing this tedious -composition can doubt the sincerity of the writer, but nobody of common -sense can fail to perceive his weakness, not to speak of the mischief -he did to morality and religion by exaggerations of minor casuistical -points. For though this man mentions his “first dismal step of taking -the sacred name of God in vain,” he does not dwell upon the sin of -perjury, but expatiates upon the wickedness of having connived at, -though he never used, the prayers introduced at the Revolution.</p> - -<p>Another clergyman did what was still more astonishing: he publicly -retracted his oath, and preached upon the words: “I have sinned greatly -in that I have done; and now, I beseech Thee, O Lord, take away the -iniquity of Thy servant; for I have done very foolishly,” at the same -time he exhorted his congregation to renew their allegiance to James, -for whom, as the King of England, and for his family, he publicly -prayed. Such an act was downright rebellion, and no wonder the man got -into trouble. Being tried for his offence, he was sentenced to stand -in the pillory and to pay a fine of £200; but the Government wisely -treated him as a lunatic, and offered a pardon if he would confess his -fault. This he declined to do; consequently he remained in confinement.</p> - -<p>Not only did other clergymen retract compliance, but a layman who -had qualified himself for office by taking the oaths, solemnly, on -his death-bed, in the presence of witnesses, signed a declaration of -penitence. The political<span class="pagenum" id="Page_395">[395]</span> feeling mixed up with the confession is -plain, and all these people, while professing the utmost piety, proved -themselves to be unfaithful subjects.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>The political views of the Nonjurors were narrow in the extreme, and -though to be irreligious was a thing they dreaded most of all, their -views of the State were of a very irreligious kind. They took away from -it all moral and religious life, and if they consistently followed -out their own theory, they took away all conscience from the subjects -of a legitimate and anointed King. Their system exalted such a person -to the highest point of favour, and degraded the people to the lowest -step of slavery. Denuding them of political rights, they denied them -political duties, and annihilated all their political responsibilities. -In the death-blow aimed at popular power, morality and religion, in -reference to political life, were blindly smitten. Yet whilst their -creed only left scope for patience in suffering, numbers of them -did not practice this patience, but were everlastingly plotting a -counter-revolution. To them the State appeared as an instrument in the -hands of the Church—to be controlled for its use, to afford revenues -for its support, to supply means for the enforcement of its laws. The -civil power, according to their theory, has been described as “a body -constituted, it would seem, of three principal elements—an absolute -king, money-bags, and a hangman.”<a id="FNanchor_481" href="#Footnote_481" class="fnanchor">[481]</a> It must be said, to the credit -of the Nonjurors, that however slavishly loyal to an absolute king, -they showed an indifference to the “money-bags” and a contempt for the -“hangman”—a fact worthy of imitation by some who entertain a different -theory from them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>To Sancroft, the Nonjurors, the ecclesiastical Tories<span class="pagenum" id="Page_396">[396]</span> of the period, -and all men of that stamp who clung to the notion of the divine right -of kings, may be applied the remark: “The great crises in the history -of nations have often been met by a sort of feminine positiveness and -a more obstinate reassertion of principles which have lost their hold -upon a nation. The fixed ideas of a reactionary politician may be -compared to madness. He grows more and more convinced of the truth of -his notions as he becomes more isolated, and would rather await the -inevitable than in any degree yield to circumstances.”<a id="FNanchor_482" href="#Footnote_482" class="fnanchor">[482]</a></p> - -<p>The Nonjuring movement took a narrow and troublesome political -form, yet, notwithstanding all we have said, it was animated by -an intensely religious spirit. This movement did not proceed from -any principle founded upon reason, observation, or experience, -but from a theological dogma about the divine right of kings, -and the consequent duty, religious as it appeared to them, that -subjects should unresistingly obey the Lord’s annointed. The scheme -tended to the political enslavement of the country; it sapped the -liberties of our constitution; yet it appears to have been an honest -endeavour—prejudiced and ignorant, still an honest endeavour—to serve -God: one of a multitude of instances in which false opinions have -perverted true sentiments, and good motives have given sincerity and -disinterestedness to bad actions. No philosophy of history, but one so -wretchedly narrow as to forfeit all title to the name, will deny the -co-existence of right and wrong in the same men, however hard it may be -to untie the knot between them.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>High Church theology of the Thorndike type had no adequate -representative amongst the Nonjurors. They<span class="pagenum" id="Page_397">[397]</span> included no one of -intellectual mark. Bull, the most distinguished scholar and the ablest -divine of the old Anglican school, remained in the Establishment; -so did all the chief theologians who leaned in the same direction -with him. But High Church sentiment of the Laudean order, and such -as belonged to Cosin and Seth Ward, drained off almost entirely into -Nonjuring channels. The Nonjurors also went beyond their predecessors -in this respect. They cast off all the Erastian trammels which were -willingly worn by the Bishops of the Restoration.</p> - -<p>Gladly would the Nonjurors have wrought out a method of parochial -discipline which would have kept in order not merely such religionists -as agreed in their views, but the population at large, reducing -everybody to a Procrustean bed of belief and practice. No Presbyterians -under the Commonwealth could have been more rigorous apostles of -uniformity than the Nonjurors would have proved, had they but obtained -permission to do as they pleased. They would have gone beyond their -predecessors; for though Milton says presbyter is priest writ large, -a mere presbyter has not the same element of despotic force at his -command as is possessed by the genuine priest. The priest, as a steward -of mystical sacraments, becomes more potent than preacher or pastor. He -is constituted lord of a domain beyond the borders of reason and moral -authority; he carries keys which open and shut what the superstitious -imagine to be gates of heaven. The Nonjurors were priests, not with -limitations, like some of their episcopalian brethren, but out and out. -Their ministers offered sacrifice upon an altar, they did not merely -commemorate one at the Lord’s-table. Laymen imbibed their views—they -were maintained by Robert Nelson.<a id="FNanchor_483" href="#Footnote_483" class="fnanchor">[483]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_398">[398]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1694–1702.</div> - -<p>As to modes of worship, the Nonjurors were in circumstances which -precluded ritualistic magnificence. They were proscribed, as -Nonconformist confessors had been, and therefore were forced to -serve God in obscurity. Cathedrals and churches were closed against -them—they were driven into barns and garrets. Pomp, such as is now -so fashionable, was to them an impossibility; not that I find them -manifesting any cravings in that direction. They did not follow -Archbishop Laud. High sacramental views are by no means necessarily -connected with Ritualism. Ritualism may be purely æsthetical, and quite -separate from peculiar doctrinal opinions; at the same time a belief in -the Real presence and in the Sacrifice of the Lord’s Supper may wear an -outward form not more artistic than that which obtains in a Dissenting -meeting-house.<a id="FNanchor_484" href="#Footnote_484" class="fnanchor">[484]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONJURORS.</div> - -<p>With all the political and ecclesiastical passions of that age, there -existed comparatively little of what may be properly called religious -excitement. The principal amount of religious excitement in the reign -of William III. must not be sought in the Established Church, or -amongst Presbyterians, Independents, or Baptists. It must be divided -between Nonjurors and Quakers. Dismissing the latter for the present, -it may be said that the former exhibited abundant enthusiasm. Hickes -was as much a spiritual fanatic as any of the Presbyterian army -chaplains, or any of Cromwell’s troopers. Some who reviled the madness -of the sects during the Civil Wars and the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_399">[399]</span> Commonwealth, were as mad -themselves after the Revolution. Of that kind of devout fervour, which -though not healthy is free from worldliness, and which draws its main -inspirations from the world to come, Kettlewell is a fair example. In -intensity of religious feelings, he resembled a staunch Methodist of -the eighteenth century.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_400">[400]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XVIII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The last ten years of the seventeenth century witnessed the -consolidation of Dissent. Growing in confidence, Dissenters made -bolder ventures. If some old congregations melted away in villages, -where an ejected clergyman had worn out his days, or where the -original supporters had died without bequeathing their opinions, -together with their property, new congregations were formed in towns, -where population gave scope for activity, and social freedom aided -religious effort. Preachers with a roving commission settled down -into local pastors, and a spirit of enterprise appeared in building -places of worship. Nonconformists had for some time amidst hindrance -and irritation been digging again the wells of their fathers, stopped -by the Philistines; but the days of strife were so far over that -they could say: “Now the Lord hath made room for us, and we shall be -fruitful in the land;” yet such names as Rehoboth and Beersheba, so -often ridiculed, were not used by them as by some of their descendants -of later date.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>As to the erection of religious edifices in London, it may be -mentioned that about the era of the Revolution one was erected in Zoar -Street, another in Gravel Lane, and a third in Hare Court.<a id="FNanchor_485" href="#Footnote_485" class="fnanchor">[485]</a> The -neglected Halls of City<span class="pagenum" id="Page_401">[401]</span> Companies had become available for Dissenting -worship, and by economical alterations were transformed into houses -of prayer. Turners’ Hall fell into the hands of the General Baptists -about the year 1688; soon afterwards the Presbyterians erected “a -large substantial brick building of a square form, with four deep -galleries, and capable of seating a considerable congregation.”<a id="FNanchor_486" href="#Footnote_486" class="fnanchor">[486]</a> -Chapels, as we should call them—but the name was not used by the early -Nonconformists—arose in Fair Street, Southwark; in Meeting-house -Court, Blackfriars; in the Old Barbican, beyond Aldersgate; and over -the King’s Weigh-House, Little Eastcheap. At the end of the century, -the Presbyterians provided a moderate-sized wooden building with one -gallery in King John’s Court, in the parish of St. Mary Magdalen, -Bermondsey. About the same period, the Independents provided a place of -worship in Rosemary Lane; and soon afterwards a large and substantial -edifice was built by Presbyterians in the Old Jewry, Aldgate. It is -remarkable that, after the Act of Toleration had been passed some -years, liberty seemed of so precarious a nature, that to enjoy it -concealment was necessary. Private houses, therefore, were in this case -erected between the meeting-house and the street, that the former might -be screened from public view.<a id="FNanchor_487" href="#Footnote_487" class="fnanchor">[487]</a></p> - -<p>Nonconformists in the provinces imitated Nonconformists in London. -Bath, then at the head of English watering-places, though still a city -much occupied by clothiers, had a congregation which before had been -wont to meet in “a shear-shop,” but now dared to come into open day, -and to build in Frog Lane, afterwards New Bond Street. In the pleasant -neighbourhood of Shepton Mallet, people who had assembled in the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_402">[402]</span> -green woods now erected chapels in the town and adjacent villages. The -Warminster people raised a meeting-house at the cost of £487 2s. 7d., -the sum being obtained partly by subscription and partly by the sale of -pews and seats, which became the property of the purchasers, and were -accordingly sold and bequeathed.<a id="FNanchor_488" href="#Footnote_488" class="fnanchor">[488]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Turning to midland counties, we find that at Nottingham—where -Nonconformists had met in rock cellars such as honeycombed the sand -formation, and are now formed into a cemetery—Presbyterians registered -rooms in Bridlesmith Gate, and the Independents sought shelter in -Postern Place. A few months after William’s accession, the former set -to work upon a meeting-house in the High Pavement, and the latter -cautiously attempted a smaller edifice at Castlegate. Little leaded -windows admitted light through diamond panes; two pillars sprang from -the floor to support the ceiling; stairs rising within led up to a -small front gallery; a sounding-board covered the pulpit; and square -pews, with other accommodation, provided for about 450 people.<a id="FNanchor_489" href="#Footnote_489" class="fnanchor">[489]</a></p> - -<p>At Chester a new edifice, still in existence, carefully<span class="pagenum" id="Page_403">[403]</span> preserved, -and not long ago tastefully restored, cost £532 16s. 1d. It was opened -in August, 1700, when Matthew Henry preached from a text indicating an -apologetic spirit for what was thought a daring enterprise: “The Lord -God of Gods, the Lord God of Gods, He knoweth, and Israel He shall -know, if it be in rebellion, or if it be in transgression against the -Lord, that we have built us an altar.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>At Daventry, in Northamptonshire, Dissent made a humble advance, but -under circumstances so interesting as to deserve notice. The origin -of the church there forms one of the legends which in the following -century became dear to many. When Charles II. was on the throne, it -happened that a minister put up on his way to London at the sign of the -Old Swan. He was taken ill and detained for more than a week, during -which period the host and his family paid him kind attentions and -completely won his heart. The traveller, restored to health, summoned -into his room the kind-hearted people, thanked them for their great -civility, and expressed his satisfaction at the order maintained in -the house—an exceptional instance in days when hostelries were given -over to unrestrained indulgence and boisterous merriment. He added: -“Something leads me to suspect there is not the fear of God among you, -and it grieves me to see such honest civility, economy, and decency, -and yet religion wanting—the one thing needful.” He entered into -conversation, and closed by telling them he had in his saddlebag a -little book, which he begged them to accept, requesting that they would -carefully read it. Having presented them with Baxter’s <i>Poor Man’s -Family Book</i>, he went on his way without telling them who he was, -nor did they ever ascertain his name, but they felt a suspicion the -stranger was no other than Baxter himself. The result<span class="pagenum" id="Page_404">[404]</span> of reading this -and other works by the same author was that the innkeeper and some of -his family became Nonconformists. Weary of his mode of life and having -acquired a competence, he retired to a house having a close behind -it, at the extremity of which stood some humble outbuildings. These -after the Revolution he converted into a legalized meeting-house. His -neighbours came, a congregation was established, and a pastor chosen.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Places of worship were put in trust. Presbyterians drew up their deeds -in general terms, not enumerating articles of faith or referring to -any ecclesiastical standard. In many cases, Congregational edifices -were secured in a similar way, some schedule being annexed to the deed, -declaring that the structure should be used by such Protestants in -the neighbourhood as could not conform to the established religion. -Whatever might be the policy ruling the arrangement, the selection of -ministers, and the character of their preaching, in numerous cases -still easily ascertained, betrayed no indifference as to what is -esteemed orthodoxy of sentiment.<a id="FNanchor_490" href="#Footnote_490" class="fnanchor">[490]</a></p> - -<p>Energies which resisted persecution did not expire in the midst of -freedom, although Bishop Burnet predicted “that Nonconformity could not -last long, and that after Baxter, Bates, and Howe were laid in their -graves, it would die of itself.” The last of these, on hearing the -prophecy, remarked to the Bishop, “that its existence depended much -more on principles than persons”—an opinion verified by subsequent -facts.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The Presbyterians formed the largest, and, in point of social position, -the most respectable branch of English Nonconformists in the reign of -William. What most<span class="pagenum" id="Page_405">[405]</span> indicated their persistency and hope is discovered -in their numerous ordinations. Down to the time of the Revolution -they had been privately conducted. Just as the Prince of Orange was -being driven back to his native shores by untoward storms, a young man -named Joseph Hussey, who had been preaching for eight years, sought -the rite from the hands of Dr. Annesley and other Presbyterians. Not -in the meeting-house of Little St. Helen’s did the parties dare to -assemble, but at the Doctor’s “private dwelling in Spitalfields, in an -upper chamber.” There, on the 24th of October, 1688, the candidate, -as he himself reports, was examined “in the parts of learning by -the Elder, who took the chair and spoke in Latin.” The next day he -defended a thesis against the Papacy. Upon the 26th he was ordained. -The proceedings were begun and finished within the same chamber, in -a neighbourhood then losing the last vestiges of rural life under -the encroachments of weavers, driven from France by the revocation -of the Edict of Nantes.<a id="FNanchor_491" href="#Footnote_491" class="fnanchor">[491]</a> As another instance of the privacy of -Nonconformist services, I would mention that the Lord’s Supper was -not publicly celebrated in the new chapel in Leeds until the month of -October, 1692.<a id="FNanchor_492" href="#Footnote_492" class="fnanchor">[492]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Ordinations emerged from private habitations when, in September, -1689, five ministers were ordained by Oliver<span class="pagenum" id="Page_406">[406]</span> Heywood and four of -his brethren, after a notice had been given that the service would -be held in the meeting-house at Alverthorpe, “to which whoever had a -desire might repair.” One of the candidates stood behind a chair, and -poured out a Latin discourse, which seemed to be <i>extempore</i>, but -which Heywood believed to be <i>memoriter</i>, upon the validity of -Presbyterian orders. This person behaved in an extraordinary manner the -next day, for he was seen “walking in a lane, reading a book,” whilst -the ordaining ministers were waiting for his appearance. After he had -arrived, and had given in his confession, “running through the whole -body of Divinity, according to Mr. Baxter’s <i>Methodus Theologiæ</i>, -we proceeded,” says Heywood, “to setting the candidates apart. I came -down, and there being a void space made, we made them kneel down, one -by one, while we all prayed over them.” This was succeeded by the -imposition of hands, the delivery of a Bible, the grasp of fellowship, -a charge to the ordained, and a sermon to the congregation. The -ministers assembled at eight o’clock, waited till ten for the eccentric -youth, and did not terminate the service before five in the afternoon, -when a dinner followed, at the charge of the ordained.</p> - -<p>Another service occurred in 1690, with accompaniments still more -unseemly, the misbehaviour now being on the part of ordainers. The -service took place at Rathmel in Yorkshire. Oliver Heywood and other -Presbyterians came to share in the solemnity with two Independent -ministers. Strange as it appears, those who thus met had not agreed -what should be done; and one of the Independents, as Heywood reports, -urged objections which the Presbyterians undertook to answer. He -objected, amongst other things, that messengers from neighbouring -churches were not present, and that the minister in this<span class="pagenum" id="Page_407">[407]</span> case would -not be, as he ought, ordained in the midst of the congregation he -intended to serve. Both the Independents were desired to pray, -but they refused, “and sat by the whole day taking no part in the -proceedings.” The service, however, was decorously enough conducted -by the Presbyterians, who, touching the heads of the candidates, -offered prayer, and after presenting a Bible, gave the right hand of -fellowship. Heywood preached to the candidates and to the people, -and the whole ended with singing and prayer. If anybody had wished -to prejudice orderly people against Nonconformity, he could not have -followed a more effectual method than we find pursued by Independents -on this occasion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>A few Presbyterians attempted to revive synodical action, and a -meeting with that view at Newbury created much stir—displeasing -Nonconformists, who regarded it as injudicious, and provoking -Churchmen, who urged it was unjust. Convocation remained in shackles; -why, then, should Presbyterian Synods be free?<a id="FNanchor_493" href="#Footnote_493" class="fnanchor">[493]</a> This question was -asked, in forgetfulness of the obvious difference relative to the state -of voluntary churches on the one hand, and endowed churches on the -other.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>As ministers could not continue by reason of death, it became -necessary to reinforce the ranks. One young<span class="pagenum" id="Page_408">[408]</span> student of honourable -descent made his appearance in public life at this juncture. Edmund -Calamy—grandson of the Divine of the same name, who had been -Incumbent of Aldermanbury—after studying in Holland, where he had -accumulated stores of Dutch theology, returned to his native land, -and went down to Oxford, where he devoted himself to the study of -the question, whether he should enter the Church, or continue his -lot with Dissenters? Certainly if anybody ever gave himself to the -investigation of the subject, young Edmund did—for, first, he studied -the Bible; then he read several of the Fathers, with all sorts of -critical helps; then he perused Pearson, on the Ignatian Epistles, -as well as Monsieur Daillé and Larroque on the other side; then he -betook himself to the examination of Chillingworth’s <i>Religion of -Protestants</i>, which he carefully epitomized; then he attacked -Hooker’s <i>Ecclesiastical Polity</i>, and went through it book by -book, setting down the arguments with such remarks as they suggested; -then he turned to Jeremy Taylor’s <i>Ductor Dubitantium</i>, dealing -with this as he had done with the rest; and, lastly, with care he -read over the Articles, Liturgy, Homilies, and Canons of the Church -of England.<a id="FNanchor_494" href="#Footnote_494" class="fnanchor">[494]</a> Such an amount of reading for the settlement of -opinion was very well for a youth of twenty-one, and, making allowance -for a bias derived from family traditions and from the ugly memories -of 1662, we must credit him with candour in looking at the subject -on all sides. According to his own account, his reading was chiefly -in favour of Episcopacy; yet his conclusion was decidedly in favour -of Nonconformity. The Nonconformity which he adopted, however, was -moderate; it shrunk neither from Episcopal orders, Liturgical worship, -nor the Establishment<span class="pagenum" id="Page_409">[409]</span> principle, but from certain things enforced by -the Church of England. He tells us himself that he would have received -ordination at the hands of a Bishop, “could he have found anyone that -would not have demanded a subscription and engagement to conformity, -and a subjection to the present ecclesiastical government.”<a id="FNanchor_495" href="#Footnote_495" class="fnanchor">[495]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>It is remarkable to find how much this young man engaged in preaching -when he had made up his mind upon ecclesiastical points. He occupied -pulpits wherever they were open. He seems to have been welcomed -everywhere—now officiating at the opening of a meeting-house, and -once at least preaching in a parish church.<a id="FNanchor_496" href="#Footnote_496" class="fnanchor">[496]</a> He had conflicting -invitations. He describes a visit to Andover, where the meeting-house -was in a back yard, through which he had to pass, the people making a -lane for him and presenting their acknowledgments for his good sermon; -and how he found the parlour full of men, women, and children—amongst -them was a grave old woman with a high-crowned hat, who thanked him -civilly for his pains, telling him she thought a special Providence -had sent such a shepherd to such neglected sheep. The conversation, -however, as it went on proved less and less satisfactory, since -it turned out that these Andover folks were divided into parties, -the old lady’s Calvinistic sentiments being loftier even than her -steeple headgear.<a id="FNanchor_497" href="#Footnote_497" class="fnanchor">[497]</a> Calamy travelled down to Bristol, the great -Nonconformist stronghold in the west, to preach to a congregation -of 1,500 people, and was met at Bath by a couple of gentlemen, -“with a man and horse,” to conduct him to his destination. Upon the -road others came to welcome the stranger, like the brethren who met -Paul at Appii-Forum, and brought him<span class="pagenum" id="Page_410">[410]</span> on his way “in a manner very -respectful.” Many of the congregation were wealthy, and they offered -him £100 a year and a house to live in, as assistant to their infirm -pastor. But, upon returning to London, Calamy decided on accepting -an invitation to assist Mr. Sylvester upon an allowance of £40 per -annum.<a id="FNanchor_498" href="#Footnote_498" class="fnanchor">[498]</a> He had there the counterbalancing advantage of mixing in -the best Nonconformist society. He spent many an evening at the house -of Dr. Upton, in Warwick-court, where he met his colleague and Mr. -Lorimer, Mr. John Shower, Mr. Nathaniel Taylor, Mr. Thomas Kentish, Mr. -Nathaniel Oldfield—names now little known, but celebrities in their -own day. Other ministerial meetings were kept up in Dr. Annesley’s -vestry, Little St. Helen’s, where once a month Latin disputations took -place. Whilst thus engaged, Calamy remained unordained. Desirous of -this rite, he successively requested Howe and Bates to take part in it. -But no public ordination had yet been held within the city precints. -Howe at first seemed pleased with the proposal, but afterwards -demurred, saying he must wait upon Lord Somers, and inquire whether -such a proceeding would not be taken ill at Court. Bates decidedly -declined, and continued to do so for reasons he would not communicate. -Matthew Mead was indirectly asked, but begged to be excused, because, -as an Independent, he feared he might offend some of his brethren by -joining in a Presbyterian ordination. The whole of the transaction is -enveloped in mystery; perhaps Bates had not given up all hopes of a -comprehension, and thought a public ordination might bar the way to it; -perhaps he had given some pledge not to engage in any such service; -perhaps Howe was not quite free from similar determents, and both might -for<span class="pagenum" id="Page_411">[411]</span> personal reasons be unwilling to do what they had no objection -should be done by others. My own impression is that both, especially -Howe, clung with tenacity to the idea of one united church in England, -and though they had little hope of seeing the idea turned into fact, -they shrunk from a service like public ordination as perpetuating a -separation they would fain have seen come to an end.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>At length Calamy and six others were publicly set apart to the -ministry, at Dr. Annesley’s meeting-house, by the Doctor himself, -Vincent Alsop, of Princes Street, Westminster, Daniel Williams, pastor -at Hand Alley, Bishopsgate Street, Richard Stretton, of Haberdashers’ -Hall, Matthew Sylvester, of Carter Lane, and Thomas Kentish of the -Weigh-House. Annesley began with prayer; Alsop preached; Williams, -after another prayer, delivered a second sermon; then he read the -testimonials in favour of the candidates; next each of them delivered a -profession of faith; and then, one after another, different ministers -prayed; Sylvester followed with a charge, and concluded with a psalm -and a prayer.<a id="FNanchor_499" href="#Footnote_499" class="fnanchor">[499]</a> The service lasted from before ten o’clock until -past six.</p> - -<p>As vacancies in Nonconformist pastorates occurred, successors had to be -appointed; and it is amusing to meet in the Diaries of the day, cross -lights thrown upon the choice of ministers. The famous antiquarian -Thoresby was in 1693 a leading member of the old Dissenting Church at -Leeds. When deprived of its excellent instructor, Mr. Sharp, “we had -several meetings to consult in order to the choice of a successor. I -had the usual hap of moderators, to displease both the extremes. In -the interim I wrote to several ministers to supply his place. We rode -to Ovenden, and made our first application to<span class="pagenum" id="Page_412">[412]</span> Mr. Priestly, a person -of moderate principles, learned, ingenious, and pious; but the people -about Halifax and Horton could not be prevailed upon to resign their -interest in him, without which he was not willing to desert them. I -afterwards rode with some of the people to Pontefract, to solicit Mr. -Manlove, who was at first very compliant, yet after relapsed, but in -the conclusion accepted the call and removed to Leeds.”<a id="FNanchor_500" href="#Footnote_500" class="fnanchor">[500]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Glimpses are caught of meeting-house politics. Thoresby received -from his cousin a discouraging account of Mr. Manlove; but when this -candidate visited the people, Thoresby found an unanimous desire for -the man’s coming, testified by proffered subscriptions.<a id="FNanchor_501" href="#Footnote_501" class="fnanchor">[501]</a> After this -person’s settlement at Leeds, the love of Thoresby towards him and the -old Dissent began to cool. His archæological pursuits brought him into -the society of ecclesiastical dignitaries, and he frequently attended -the parish church. By degrees his sympathy with Episcopalians deepened; -he received the sacrament with them—a proceeding which offended -old friends, and produced alienation. Attracted on the one side and -repelled on the other, after hanging for awhile in suspense between -the opposite communities, he found himself drawn into the bosom of the -Establishment. The Corporation elected him one of their fraternity, and -not long afterwards we find him saying: “I received a most comfortable -letter from my Lord Archbishop of York, answering many objections -against my Conformity, and gave me great satisfaction.”<a id="FNanchor_502" href="#Footnote_502" class="fnanchor">[502]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Fallings-off from Dissent happened in one place, accessions occurred in -another. A clergyman, named Michael<span class="pagenum" id="Page_413">[413]</span> Harrison, who had usually preached -at the church in Caversfield, gathered a congregation of Dissenters at -Potterspury, near Stony Stratford, and died a Nonconformist minister at -St. Ives.<a id="FNanchor_503" href="#Footnote_503" class="fnanchor">[503]</a> Amidst the reproaches of High Churchmen at the growth -of Dissent, from Low Churchmen there were received expressions of -goodwill. Hough, Vicar of Halifax, stepped into Heywood’s new place of -worship at Northowram, and putting off his hat, exclaimed: “The good -Lord bless the Word preached in this place!”<a id="FNanchor_504" href="#Footnote_504" class="fnanchor">[504]</a></p> - -<p>The education of boys, and the theological training of those designed -for the ministry, were matters of great anxiety during the reigns of -Charles II. and James II., and afterwards received increasing attention.</p> - -<p>Seminaries for Dissenters did not in the seventeenth century attain -the dignified title of colleges. They were schools where youths were -educated for secular vocations, and only by degrees did they become -the resort of candidates for the ministry. There was no trust-deed, -no constituency, no council, but the entire management rested with -the person responsible for opening the institution. In the romantic -district of Craven, Richard Frankland, a learned ejected minister, -received pupils, but the Five-Mile Act drove him to Attercliffe. First -and last he educated three hundred youths for the professions of law -and of medicine, and for the work of the Christian ministry.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_414">[414]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Archbishop Sharpe was requested by some of the Clergy to prevent -Frankland from proceeding in his labours. He consulted Tillotson as to -the best method of procedure, and received from him this reply: “His -instructing young men in so public a manner in University learning is -contrary to his oath to do, if he hath taken a degree in either of our -Universities, and I doubt, contrary to the Bishop’s oath to grant him -a licence for doing it; so that your Grace does not, in this matter, -consider him at all as a Dissenter. This I only offer to your Grace -as what seems to me the fairest and softest way of ridding your hands -of this business.” To explain this advice, it is proper to remark, -that in the Middle Ages, factions arose at Oxford and Cambridge, and -hosts of students, under some favourite professors, would march off -to Northampton or Stamford to set up rival schools and grant degrees. -Hence an oath came to be required of the University graduates, that in -no other places than in the favoured retreats on the Isis and the Cam -would they ever establish a scholastic lecture. It was in harmony with -Tillotson’s characteristic wariness to give such counsel, but it is -hardly worthy of his reputation for gentleness and Catholicity to put -the disconcerted Prelate up to the trick of masking the batteries of -intolerance under the specious cover of obsolete precedents.</p> - -<p>It should be added, that Archbishop Sharpe behaved very courteously to -Frankland throughout this unpleasant business;<a id="FNanchor_505" href="#Footnote_505" class="fnanchor">[505]</a> and also that other -Dissenting tutors in different ways were hindered by the opposition of -Churchmen.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Two other academies sprung out of Richard Frankland’s—one at -Attercliffe under the superintendence of<span class="pagenum" id="Page_415">[415]</span> Timothy Jollie, another -at Manchester under the care of John Chorlton. In the old town of -Shrewsbury, Francis Tallents established a seminary about the time -of the Revolution. At Taunton, Matthew Warren educated several young -gentlemen for the pastorate and for secular occupations. So did Samuel -Birch at an earlier period in Shilton. Joshua Oldfield also kept a -school at Coventry. John Woodhouse, of Sheriff Hales, Shropshire; -George Burden, of Somersetshire; Edmund Thorpe, of Sussex; Joseph -Bennet, of the same county; and Josiah Bassett, of Warwickshire, may be -added to the list of Nonconformist schoolmasters at different dates, -between the ejectment and the end of the century.</p> - -<p>The Metropolis drew towards it several learned men in this capacity, -and Newington Green became “the favourite seat of the Dissenting -Muses.” There the learned Theophilus Gale, and the less known but -erudite and able Charles Morton, educated a number of young men. Edward -Veal had a school at Stepney, and Samuel Wesley, after having been a -pupil of Veal’s, became a student under Morton. Violent opposition to -the Established Church is said to have been fostered under Veal’s roof, -and this young man, who possessed a lively poetical talent, answered -invectives against Dissent by invectives against the Church, until, -from some cause which has been differently explained, he abandoned -Nonconformity, and one August morning in 1683, with forty-five -shillings in his pocket, walked all the way to Oxford, and entered -himself as a servitor of Exeter College. Samuel Wesley, in a letter -published in the year 1703, reflected upon the Dissenting academies, -and afterwards defended what he said in a reply to Mr. Palmer. Much -bitterness appeared in Wesley’s pamphlet, and he was accused of -ingratitude for assailing institutions, to one of which he had been<span class="pagenum" id="Page_416">[416]</span> -indebted for a gratuitous education. Palmer vindicated the academies -from the charge brought against them; but, by a curious coincidence, -he like Wesley gave up all connection with Dissent, and obtained the -living of Maldon, in Essex.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Thomas Doolittle, of Pembroke Hall, Cambridge, and Thomas Vincent, -of Christ Church, Oxford, united in conducting, until within a short -time before his death in 1708, an academy at Islington. Thither Philip -Henry sent his son Matthew, and immediately after his arrival the -young man wrote to his sisters, informing them that in his tutor’s -meeting-house “there are several galleries. It is all pewed, and a -brave pulpit a great height above the people,” adding, in the same -letter: “I perceive that Mr. Doolittle is very studious and diligent, -and that Mrs. Doolittle and her daughter are very fine and gallant.” -During Matthew Henry’s stay at Islington he pursued a course of reading -which bore upon the Christian ministry, but when he left that place he -studied law for a time at Gray’s Inn, although it does not appear that -he ever thought of entering the legal profession. The fact is, that the -elder educated Nonconformists of that day valued all kinds of learning, -and were anxious that their children, especially if designed for the -ministry, should traverse the widest curriculum of study. Further, it -may be mentioned that Ralph Button, fellow and tutor of Merton, Oxford, -who died in 1680, conducted another academy at Islington.</p> - -<p>Dissenting academies could not resemble national Universities. A -variety of professors, extensive libraries, aristocratic society were -beyond their reach, and polite literature and the graces of composition -were but little cultivated. Too much time was given to the study of -dead languages—a mistake, indeed, shared by the Universities.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_417">[417]</span> A keen -observer, Daniel De Foe, noticed this defect, and pointed out how -absurd it was, that all the time should be spent on the languages which -learning was to be <i>fetched from</i>, and none on the language it was -to be <i>delivered in</i>. To this error he attributed the fact that -many learned, and otherwise excellent, ministers preached away their -congregations, “while a jingling, noisy boy, that had a good stock -in his face, and a dysentery of the tongue, though he had little or -nothing in his head, should run away with the whole town.”<a id="FNanchor_506" href="#Footnote_506" class="fnanchor">[506]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Youths of all sorts were admitted into these academies, as into modern -boarding-schools; hence some pupils might be of doubtful character. -Also prejudices against the Church of England would naturally arise. -Amongst the elder pupils the controversies of other days would be -revived, and enthusiastic spirits would tilt a lance on the side -of “the good old cause.” Charles I. and Charles II. would be no -favourites; James II.’s Popery would be denounced; Cromwell would be -excused and praised; and William III. lauded to the skies. In the -common room where students unbent, there might be fun and laughter; -in the private study there might be other volumes than classical and -theological text-books; levity and idleness probably existed in these -gatherings of great boys and young men; and damaging charges, no -doubt, could be substantiated against some of them; but the character -of these maligned institutions must, after all, be judged by their -courses of study, by the character of their professors, and by their -educational results. These tests being applied, lead to a favourable -conclusion. The studies combined logic, metaphysics, and ethics, with -readings in Colbert, Le Clerc, Suarez, More, Cicero,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_418">[418]</span> and Epictetus; -natural and political philosophy, with the use of Aristotle, Descartes, -and Vossius; and the perusal of Latin and Greek historians and poets. -Candidates for the pastoral office read Divinity, and studied the Greek -Testament with such critical helps as were afforded in those times. We -are assured that in lectures the Church of England was treated with -respect, the Predestinarian controversy was discussed with moderation, -and Monarchical maxims of government were upheld.<a id="FNanchor_507" href="#Footnote_507" class="fnanchor">[507]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>What the most distinguished teachers were, and what many of the pupils -became, may be seen in preceding pages.</p> - -<p>I must not conclude this chapter without stating that as these -academies were interrupted by intolerant laws, common schools also -were subject to the same inconvenience. Cunning methods were sometimes -adopted by schoolmasters, or were alleged to be so, with the view of -overcoming clerical opposition,<a id="FNanchor_508" href="#Footnote_508" class="fnanchor">[508]</a> and occasion was given<span class="pagenum" id="Page_419">[419]</span> for the -display of an unseemly spirit even by Bishops otherwise exemplary; -bad mutual relations consequently in many quarters existed between -Churchmen and Nonconformists.</p> - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_420">[420]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XIX.</h2> -</div> - - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">During the Civil Wars, heartburnings existed between Presbyterians and -Independents. They continued under the Protectorate, they diminished -after the Restoration, and it might have been hoped would then have -died out for ever; but unhappily they revived when the Revolution had -set both parties at liberty. When old persecutions ended in England, it -could not be said, as it was when Saul of Tarsus ceased to breathe out -threatenings and slaughter, “then had the Church rest.” Whatever might -be the dispositions of some—and certainly Howe and others were lovers -of peace—ancient animosities exploded afresh. What happened at the -Rathmel ordination indicated this; other proofs will appear.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>An effort at union was, however, made in 1690, under the form of -articles agreed to by the Dissenting ministers. They were published, -under the title of “<i>Heads of Agreement</i>, assented to by the -united ministers in and about London, formerly called Presbyterian -and Congregational.” This document is worth attention, not only -as an experiment to bring together different parties, but also as -indicating modifications of opinion on both sides. The Presbyterians -and Independents, who after the Revolution adopted these Articles, -could not have held exactly the same views as did Presbyterians -and Independents before<span class="pagenum" id="Page_421">[421]</span> the Restoration. The former must now have -abandoned all notions of parish presbyteries and provincial synods, -and must have approximated to the Congregational idea of what used to -be called “gathered churches,” or limited communities, resting on a -principle of mutual choice. Reference is made to parochial bounds as -not being of divine right; yet for common edification, the members -of a particular church, it is said, ought, as far as convenient, to -live near each other. A great deal was conceded by Presbyterians, when -they allowed that each church has a right to choose its own officers, -and that no officers of any one church shall exercise any power -over any other church.<a id="FNanchor_509" href="#Footnote_509" class="fnanchor">[509]</a> The Independents also must have passed -through a change, inasmuch as they now ceased to insist upon the duty -of church members entering into formal covenants, and allowed that, -in the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastor and -elders to <i>rule</i> and <i>govern</i>, and to the brotherhood to -<i>consent</i>, according to the rule of the Gospel. They also tacitly -admitted that a man might be ordained to the work of the ministry -without having a specific pastoral charge, and that the pastors or -bishops of neighbouring churches should concur in the ordination of a -new pastor or bishop over a particular congregation.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>In the chapter relative to the communion of churches, the Independents -of the Revolution showed more disposition towards unity than their -predecessors had done, and the chapter indicates an approach to -Presbyterian government.<a id="FNanchor_510" href="#Footnote_510" class="fnanchor">[510]</a> Seeds of concord between the two -denominations bore some fruit in the provinces. An association -combining them grew up in Devon and Cornwall, and Flavel preached and -presided at its first meeting. In Hampshire and Norfolk the plan met -with favour. So it<span class="pagenum" id="Page_422">[422]</span> did in Nottinghamshire, and in the neighbourhood of -Manchester, where, however, Independents were few. It was warmly taken -up in the West Riding of Yorkshire, and at Wakefield a united meeting -was held, when Heywood preached from Zech. xiv. 9: “In that day shall -there be one Lord, and His name one.” It seems that the townspeople at -Wakefield were alarmed at the influx of ministers walking through their -streets—the fashionably-dressed people of the reign of William III., -in their jaunty costume, looking with curiosity and suspicion upon -the Puritan garb and the staid demeanour of their visitors. Yet these -reverend gentlemen did not amount in number to more than twenty-four, -and “when the service at Mrs. Kirby’s” was over, “they thought it -prudent to go apart, and by several ways, to the house at which they -dined.”<a id="FNanchor_511" href="#Footnote_511" class="fnanchor">[511]</a></p> - -<p>A violent controversy—which, before its close, ran through both -Calvinistic and Socinian questions, and gathered up personal -entanglements—started into life soon after the Act of Toleration -had been passed. The doctrines of Justification, the Atonement, and -Christ’s Divinity came successively within its range. Combatant after -combatant entered the field, and although the antagonists, for the -most part, were Nonconformists, they managed, before they had done, to -involve one or two distinguished Churchmen within the coils of their -dispute.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The scene of the first stage was the little town of Rowell, in -Northamptonshire, where a devoted Puritan, named John Beverley, had -created a considerable sensation in the days of the Commonwealth, and -out of this a church had sprung. After the Revolution, Richard Davis,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_423">[423]</span> -from the Principality, became minister; and as an indication of his -narrow and jealous independence, it is mentioned that he was “installed -in the office of pastor or bishop” by the church itself, and by that -church alone, some pastors of other congregations, who had come “to -behold their faith and order,” withdrawing from the assembly, because -there was nothing for them to do. Brooking no restraint, he made the -whole county of Northampton his diocese, and went from place to place -preaching and gathering converts into his fold. He enflamed others with -ardour like his own, and became the centre of a wide circle of lay -agency. People living at a great distance were brought into fellowship -with the band at Rowell, and they would, lantern in hand, trudge twenty -miles along dirty roads on winter mornings to hear him preach, and in -the same way go back at night. Offshoots from this vigorous community -became in time distinct societies. These proceedings soon excited -jealousy, and the jealous were not slow to accuse the lay agents of -ignorance, and their superintendent of great imprudence.<a id="FNanchor_512" href="#Footnote_512" class="fnanchor">[512]</a> A noisy -revival broke out in February, 1692, and the press was soon employed -in giving what is called <i>A Plain and Just Account of a most Horrid -and Dismal Plague at Rowell</i>, in which tract the “visions and -revelations” of Richard Davis and his “emissaries, the shoemakers, -joiners, dyers, tailors, weavers, farmers, &c.,” are odiously -exhibited. Tidings of this reached London, and attracted the attention -of respectable Presbyterian ministers, who were as much shocked as -it was possible for any Episcopalians to be. What was worse, heresy, -as reported, mingled with wildfire, and Davis stood charged with -maintaining that believers always appear before God<span class="pagenum" id="Page_424">[424]</span> without sin; that -if they do wrong they are still without spot; that prayers are offered -more for the sake of discovering guilt to their own consciences, than -for securing forgiveness from God; and that Christ fulfilled the -covenant of grace, “and believed for us as our representative.” Oddly -enough, this Antinomian preacher is said to have entertained an idea -that baptism in the parish church is invalid, for this, amongst other -reasons, that the administrators are not of Christ’s sending. Davis -defended himself as best he could, and the church of which he was -pastor vindicated his character, denying some ridiculous stories, yet -speaking of his ministry in terms corroborative of its high Calvinistic -type.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>The second stage of this controversy appears in London. The Calvinism -of the Commonwealth had by no means perished. Old books bearing its -impress, old preachers repeating its echoes, remained, and wherever -sympathies with it continued to thrive, of course the Northamptonshire -pastor found advocates. Just at this moment an insignificant incident -fanned the flame. A son of the noted Dr. Tobias Crisp reprinted his -father’s works, with additions from unpublished papers; and very -artfully, the editor procured the names of some well-known Divines, -simply, as he said, to attest the genuineness of the MSS.—a thing -perfectly superfluous—really, as he must have meant, to promote the -sale of the new edition. Crisp was a Predestinarian of the first water, -and maintained the doctrine of Election and the limitation of the -Atonement in the narrowest and most repulsive form.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The excitement produced by this book, in connection with the -disturbance created by Davis, was wonderful. The advocates of High -Calvinism hailed it as the commencement of a millennium; they talked -and preached and wrote with renewed vigour, and those who opposed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_425">[425]</span> them -were denounced as legalists. On both sides bitterness increased. The -more Crisp’s book was condemned, the more it was read. Its circulation -was greatest amongst the uneducated, who praised the author up to the -skies. The editor informs us that, in so unlikely a place as Guildhall, -at one of the livery meetings, he was accosted by a citizen, who -wrung him by the hand, and, with tears in his eyes, thanked him for -reprinting his father’s sermons.</p> - -<p>Daniel Williams, a Presbyterian minister, formerly of Dublin, and at -the time of the Revolution presiding over a numerous congregation at -Hand Alley, in Bishopsgate Street, was then rising into eminence; and -being a moderate Calvinist, he determined to oppose the circulation -of Crisp’s work. Consequently, in 1692, he published his <i>Gospel -Truth Vindicated</i>, in which Crisp’s dogmas are arranged, errors -are separated from truths, and confutations supplied, not only from -Scripture, but also from other writings of that very Divine. Prefixed -to Williams’ book is a list of approving theologians, including Bates, -Howe, Alsop, and Lorimer.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>This publication led to unpleasant complications, and to understand -them we must refer to the celebrated lectures delivered in Pinners’ -Hall. Lectures in the heart of the Metropolis had been popular when -Puritanism was at its zenith. Merchants turned from their walk in -the Exchange and their seats in the counting-house, to listen to a -favourite preacher as he meted out his message by the hour-glass. -When Indulgence came, Pinners’ Hall happened to be vacant, and being -conveniently situated in Broad Street, it was hired for a Wednesday -morning exercise. Four Presbyterians and two Independents undertook -to officiate in succession. Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, Mr. Baxter, and -Mr. Jenkyn, had as their associates Dr.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_426">[426]</span> Owen and Mr. Collins. From -the beginning, however, unfortunate bickerings appeared, and at the -Revolution dogmatic differences became increasingly manifest—the -Independents were more Calvinistic than their Presbyterian brethren. -The circumstances of this Lecture perhaps had something to do with the -way in which the Northamptonshire quarrel was taken up, certainly it -added fuel to the fire kindled by the republication of Crisp’s works. -In 1692, of the old Pinners’ Hall lecturers only Bates remained, his -new colleagues being Williams and Alsop. The other new lecturers were -Mead and Cole, decidedly Independent, and John Howe, who, although -previously reckoned amongst Independents, seems by this time to have -associated chiefly with Presbyterians, and to have had more sympathy in -their temper than in that manifested by some of his active Independent -brethren. Attempts at union entirely failed. Storms of feeling could -not be allayed by verbal incantation, and a contemporary, who narrowly -watched the proceedings, deplored the absence of a healing spirit.<a id="FNanchor_513" href="#Footnote_513" class="fnanchor">[513]</a> -Williams, by his book against Crisp, offended some of the supporters -of the Lecture—a circumstance which led to discussion amongst the -lecturers; and in 1694, Williams was voted out, and three of the -number—Bates, Howe, and Alsop—withdrew from Pinners’ to Salters’ -Hall, and commenced a distinct lecture there. Cole and Mead, the two -Independents, remained in the old place, and associated with themselves -four other Independents—Mather, Cruso, Lobb, and Gouge.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>But I must hasten to the third stage of this intricate dispute, when, -in 1695, Stephen Lobb, “the Jacobite Independent,” charged Williams -with implicitly denying<span class="pagenum" id="Page_427">[427]</span> the commutation of persons between Christ and -believers, because he had denied such a relation as Crisp maintained, -who went so far as to declare Christ to be by imputation as sinful as -man, and the believer to become through faith as righteous as Christ. -This led to explanations too wearisome for notice. If anyone will take -the trouble to look into what Williams wrote, he will be astonished to -find a man, who went so far in his notions of the union between the -Mediator and His people, suspected of not believing in the Atonement; -and he will discover a signal instance of the intolerable demands which -some will make upon others, in order to enlist from them a full amount -of prescribed orthodoxy.</p> - -<p>The battle raged hotter and hotter. Williams was even accused of -Socinianism, and not content with robbing him of all claim to -orthodoxy, his exasperated opponents tried to filch from him his -virtuous reputation. But he kept them at bay, and at last completely -overcame them.<a id="FNanchor_514" href="#Footnote_514" class="fnanchor">[514]</a></p> - -<p>Towards the end, two distinguished Churchmen came upon the stage—Dr. -Jonathan Edwards, Principal of Jesus College, Oxford, and Bishop -Stillingfleet—both of whom were appealed to by the disputants as to -the doctrine of Commutation, and the charge of Socinianism brought -against Williams. The Bishop, of course, contradicted Crisp’s absurd -notion, and pronounced Williams innocent of heterodoxy.</p> - -<p>It is said that the number of Antinomians amongst Nonconformists -diminished after the close of the controversy.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_428">[428]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XX.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">Dissenters cannot be charged with an absorbing attachment to their -distinctive system; they valued more the common truths of Christianity, -but they were prepared to vindicate their own ecclesiastical views -and to repel aspersions. David Clarkson, who had before published -books on Episcopacy, in answer to Stillingfleet, sent forth in 1689 -his discourse on Liturgies. The charge of being schismatical, laid -at the doors of Nonconformists, led Matthew Henry to publish in the -same year a <i>Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism</i>, in which -he endeavoured to prove, that there may be schism where there is no -separation, and that there may be separation where there is no schism. -The discourse being attacked, William Tong, in the year 1693, came -forward in its defence, maintaining that the want of charity, not the -want of particular ministerial orders, creates sinful schism; and -that to charge the crime upon such Dissenters as cultivate candour, -liberality, and love, is “a piece of diabolism which the Gospel abhors, -and of which humanity itself will be ashamed;” and complained at the -end, “that non-resistance and passive obedience was the universal cry -in the Church, and squeezed till the blood came: but the mischief was, -when they had nursed the prerogative, till it had stung some of them -and hissed<span class="pagenum" id="Page_429">[429]</span> at all the rest, they presently let the world see they -never brewed this doctrine for their own drinking.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>James Owen, a learned Presbyterian minister, published in 1694 a plea -for Presbyterian ordination, and afterwards composed another essay -in support of his views, showing that neither Timothy nor Titus were -diocesan rulers; that the presbyters of Ephesus, not Timothy and Titus, -were successors to the Apostles in the government of the Church; -that the First Epistle to Timothy was written before the meeting at -Miletus; and that the ancient Waldenses did not acknowledge diocesan -prelates. This course of reasoning is a specimen of the manner in which -Presbyterians were wont to state and defend their own system.</p> - -<p>But Nonconformist polemics were not confined to the maintenance of a -common cause; they took an internecine turn, not only in connection -with the Crisp affair, but in connection with occasional conformity.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>By the Corporation Act, everyone holding a municipal office was -required to receive the Lord’s Supper in the Church of England. Sir -John Shorter, a Presbyterian, had by such conformity qualified himself -to act as Lord Mayor of the city of London in the reign of James II., -and two distinguished Dissenters in the following reign occupied the -same civic post and adopted the same policy. Sir Humphrey Edwin was -Lord Mayor in 1697, and, dressed in a gown of crimson velvet, carried -the city sword before William, as, on his return from the Continent, he -passed through London with the customary pomp of a public procession. -He not only conformed at certain times during his mayoralty, but he -also, on one occasion when he attended Divine Service at Pinners’ Hall -Meeting-house, caused the civic paraphernalia to be carried before him. -I am not aware whether any other Lord<span class="pagenum" id="Page_430">[430]</span> Mayor did this. Sir Humphrey -Edwin might be said to bring the State over to Nonconformity, as at -other times, when he knelt at the altars of the Establishment, he -brought Nonconformity over to the State. At all events, his conduct -subjected him to annoying criticism. He was attacked by a clergyman who -preached before the Corporation in St. Paul’s Cathedral. Ballads and -lampoons, caricaturing what he had done, were hawked about the streets, -and Swift, in his <i>Tale of the Tub</i>, satirized Sir Humphrey in his -well-known reference to Jack’s tatters coming into fashion, and his -getting upon a great horse and eating custard. Tragical exclamations -were uttered in High Church circles, and in a publication of later -date it is declared, that “to the great reproach of the laws, and of -the city magistracy,” the Mayor “carried the sword with him to a nasty -conventicle, that was kept in one of the City Halls, which horrid -crime one of his own party defended by giving this arrogant reason for -it, that by the Act of Parliament by which they have their liberty, -their religion was as much established as ours.”<a id="FNanchor_515" href="#Footnote_515" class="fnanchor">[515]</a> The Lord Mayor’s -proceeding did not meet with the approbation of his co-religionists. -They felt the injustice of the attacks which it had occasioned; it -seemed to them inconsistent and arrogant for Churchmen to speak in the -way they did of a religion which had the same object of worship, the -same rule of faith and life, and the same end and aim as their own; yet -they saw that Sir Humphrey’s conduct had been such as naturally to lead -to misapprehension and to produce annoyance. Calamy lamented that “this -measure drew unhappy consequences after it, both in this reign and in -that which succeeded.”<a id="FNanchor_516" href="#Footnote_516" class="fnanchor">[516]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_431">[431]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Sir Thomas Abney, a Presbyterian, became Lord Mayor of London in the -year 1701. Prior to that date he had favoured occasional Conformity. -When in office he attended church. This occasioned a controversy -between two Nonconformists, who regarded the conduct of Abney and Edwin -from different points of view.</p> - -<p>Daniel De Foe, who had been educated in Mr. Morton’s academy with a -view to becoming a Presbyterian minister, and then found the study of -politics and the pursuits of literature more congenial to his taste, -distinguished himself by a firm attachment to Nonconformist principles, -and carried them out to an extreme extent. He had written about half -a dozen clever pamphlets in about fifteen years, and was on the point -of commencing that career as an author which made him so notorious -among contemporaries, so popular with posterity, when, in 1697, he -published anonymously an <i>Enquiry into the Occasional Conformity of -Dissenters</i>. In his own trenchant style, with vigorous Anglo-Saxon -idioms, employed after a rasping fashion, he declared that none but -Protestants halt between God and Baal; none but Christians of an -amphibious nature could believe one way, and worship another.</p> - -<p>In the year of Sir Thomas Abney’s mayoralty, De Foe republished -his <i>Enquiry</i>, and prefixed to it a preface addressed to John -Howe. John Howe was Sir Thomas’s pastor, and addressing him, De Foe -demanded that Howe should declare to the world, whether the practice -of alternate communion was allowed either by his congregation, or by -Dissenters in general. The practice, he said, should be defended if -defensible, otherwise “the world must believe that Dissenters do allow -themselves to practice what they cannot defend.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Howe being dragged before the public, referred to his<span class="pagenum" id="Page_432">[432]</span> own moderate -views in points of difference between Conformists and Nonconformists, -but denied having advised Sir Thomas as to his conduct; he declined to -enter upon the question, and only contended that occasional conformity -to one communion, if a fault, should not exclude a person from habitual -fellowship with another. De Foe had taken up occasional Conformity as -a qualification for holding office, and had shown that so regarded it -is incapable of vindication; but Howe regarded the question generally, -and proved that a person who, apart from worldly motives, communes -with one church on particular occasions, and with another church on -common occasions, does nothing which impeaches his conscientiousness or -destroys his consistency.</p> - -<p>The author’s calm temper becomes ruffled towards the close, when he -alludes to the “stingy and narrow spirit” of his opponent, and to his -seeking to impose upon the world a false impression of the English -Puritans. He declared that in 1662 “most of the considerable ejected -London ministers met and agreed to hold occasional communion with the -now re-established Church, not quitting their own ministry or declining -the exercise of it as they could have opportunity.”<a id="FNanchor_517" href="#Footnote_517" class="fnanchor">[517]</a></p> - -<p>De Foe replied, vindicating his own character, and animadverting upon -Howe’s want of zeal. The latter having reluctantly taken part in this -business, could not be induced to say another word. The spirit of -Howe had greatly the advantage over the temper of De Foe; nothing but -one-sided partizanship could induce any man to charge the advocate of -occasional communion with disloyalty to Nonconformist principles.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Nonconformist preaching was orthodox. The existing<span class="pagenum" id="Page_433">[433]</span> generation, -however, deviated from their father’s footsteps. Sermons differed -from those of an earlier period in form: divisions were less numerous -and perplexing, bones were not so visible, there was more symmetry -of proportion, and more roundness of style. In spirit some preachers -diverged from their predecessors—betraying a lack of fire, unction, -and healing power. Nevertheless, there were pastors who caught the -mantle and spirit of the departed. Anyone visiting “the ancient and -fair city of Chester” found a specimen of this in the ministry of -Matthew Henry. At a meeting-house in Crook Street—still in existence, -as I have already said, with the original pulpit and sounding-board, -from which the good man delivered his homilies—he had a congregation -so large, that ultimately it contained as many as 350 communicants, -including a few city magnates. They assembled in their large oaken -pews at 9 o’clock on a Sunday morning, the richer men in curly wigs, -lace ruffles, and ample broad cloth suits; their wives and daughters -with long stomachers, hoops, and lofty head-dresses; but beneath -costumes fashioned by the fancies of the age, they carried in their -hearts wants, cares, and desires belonging to all ages, and such as the -worship and ministry upon which they attended were adapted to meet and -satisfy.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>The service began with the hundredth psalm, according to the version of -Sternhold and Hopkins; and then we can easily image the pastor beneath -the huge sounding-board, standing erect—portly in form, dignified in -mien, comely in face, his person set off to advantage by a curled wig -and a flowing gown—offering prayer and next expounding a lesson in -the Old Testament. The matter and manner may be learnt from perusing -his <i>Commentary</i>, where, in the picturesque quaintness of his -thoughts, he aims not at singularity, but at fixing Divine truth in<span class="pagenum" id="Page_434">[434]</span> -people’s memories and hearts. Another psalm and a longer supplication -succeeded, and judging from his book on prayer, he must have excelled -in that form of spiritual exercise. Then followed a sermon full of -useful practical thought, arranged in singular devices, after Puritan -precedents; for Matthew had great reverence for the ways of his father -Philip, and of his father’s friends. What is said of the sire may be -said of the son: “Many a good thought has perished because it was not -portable, and many a sermon is forgotten, because it is not memorable; -but like seeds with wings, the sayings of Henry have floated far and -near, and like seeds with hooked prickles, his sermons stuck in his -most careless hearers. His tenacious words took root; and it was his -happiness to see, not only scriptural intelligence but fervent and -consistent piety spreading among his parishioners.”<a id="FNanchor_518" href="#Footnote_518" class="fnanchor">[518]</a> Singing and -praying wound up the service, after it had lasted some three hours. -This protracted worship would be deemed sufficient for one day; but in -the afternoon the same thing was repeated, the exposition of the New -Testament being substituted for that of the Old. We are apt to pity men -who performed or endured such lengthened duties, but really the duty -cannot be regarded as having involved much hardship for them. Such long -services were their own choice. Some might fancy that under the weight -of these prayers, these expositions, and these sermons, every Sabbath -regularly for twenty-four years, the pastor’s strength would break -down; yet the good man seems to have borne the wear and tear of it all -remarkably well.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The Lord’s Supper he celebrated monthly, remarking that “among the -Jews, the beginning of the month was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_435">[435]</span> esteemed sacred; and although -he did not consider the Jewish law as to the new moons still in -force, yet from general reasoning he thought the conclusion a safe -one, that whatsoever may be our divisions of time, it is always good -to begin such divisions with God—seeking first His kingdom and its -righteousness.”<a id="FNanchor_519" href="#Footnote_519" class="fnanchor">[519]</a></p> - -<p>He was impressive in his mode of administering baptism, which he -likened to the taking of a beneficial lease for a child while in -the cradle, and putting his life into it. He used the Assembly’s -Catechism, and when “he perceived in any of his catechumens symptoms of -thoughtfulness upon religious subjects, he specially noticed them, and -as soon as there was a competent number, conversed with them severally -and apart upon their everlasting interests; afterwards in the solemn -Assembly, he catechised them concerning the Lord’s Supper, by a form -which he printed.” He next appointed a day in the week preceding the -monthly sacrament, in which, before the congregation, he was their -intercessor at the Heavenly Throne: a sermon was addressed to them, -and the following Sabbath they were welcomed to the Lord’s-table. -“Such in his judgment, as in that of his father also, was the true -<i>confirmation</i>, or transition into a state of adult and complete -church membership.” He considered the ordinances of Christ as -mysteries, of which His ministers are the stewards, and in admitting -any to membership, “they were entrusted with the keys.”<a id="FNanchor_520" href="#Footnote_520" class="fnanchor">[520]</a> Holding -this view, he kept in his own hands the exercise of discipline; and -on one occasion he pronounced sentence of excommunication on three -persons, the act being accompanied by a congregational fast.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_436">[436]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Neighbouring villages were visited, and periodical lectures -established. Twice a year county unions met, when ecclesiastical -matters came under discussion. “Affairs of the State or the Established -Church were never meddled with.”<a id="FNanchor_521" href="#Footnote_521" class="fnanchor">[521]</a></p> - -<p>The account I have given applies particularly to Presbyterians, but -association meetings were also held by Independents. They did not, -however, at these gatherings ordain ministers; ordinations amongst them -generally took place in the presence of the church members by whom -the pastor was chosen. Orders—technically speaking—maintained by -Presbyterians as well as Episcopalians, could scarcely be said to be -recognized by Congregationalists, who considered ordination simply as -an acknowledgment of the church’s act in electing ministers. The key to -the difference between the two denominations is found, on the one hand, -in the Presbyterian idea of power being lodged in the ministry, and, -on the other hand, in the Congregational idea of power being lodged in -the people; and as this distinction and difference affected the subject -of ordination, so it did that of admission and discipline. Admission -of members amongst Congregationalists depended upon a vote of the -church, after an account had been given of the candidate’s religious -character. Congregational churches were not all alike as to terms of -admission. Some were narrow and severe. They<span class="pagenum" id="Page_437">[437]</span> exacted circumstantial -proofs of conversion, and an ample confession of faith. In not a few -cases this was required to be given in writing. Others accepted the -children of members, to use their quaint language, when they took hold -of their father and mother’s covenant, and expressed their confidence -in Christ’s passion, and repentance from dead works. The Church having -nothing to object to “their walking,” they were permitted to partake of -the Ordinance of the Supper, and were confirmed.<a id="FNanchor_522" href="#Footnote_522" class="fnanchor">[522]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Yet churches less exacting in terms of admission were curiously -vigilant in the oversight of members, and would call people to -account even for lying in bed, instead of coming to the communion; -for consulting a lawyer on a Sunday afternoon; and for going to a -cock-fight when the brethren were met to seek God.<a id="FNanchor_523" href="#Footnote_523" class="fnanchor">[523]</a> Acts of -discipline depended upon church votes, and sometimes differences of -opinion arose between pastor and people.</p> - -<p>An instance of the manner in which the Independents of the village -of Guestwick, in Norfolk, invited a minister, and prepared for his -reception, is preserved in their church book. They set forward for -London about the beginning of the month of October, 1694, and from -thence to Chalfont in Buckinghamshire, with letters from the church -to the gentleman whom they wished to become their pastor. If he would -come, the church would comply with what he desired. At last they -obtained his consent, the tidings of which were forwarded to the -church. One of the deacons tarried to accompany him and his family. -They went by coach, and were met by several of the brethren<span class="pagenum" id="Page_438">[438]</span> at -Swaffham the 1st of November, and arrived at Guestwick the 2nd, at -night. The charges which the church and other friends incurred for -this expenditure amounted to nearly £20. A similar entry of later date -may be found in the Yarmouth Congregational Church-Book, relative to a -coach and four being sent for the conveyance of their new Bishop.<a id="FNanchor_524" href="#Footnote_524" class="fnanchor">[524]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>When ministers grew old and needed assistance, churches were ready to -contribute an additional income. At Cockermouth the aged pastor wished -his son to be associated with him; consequently, the people agreed to -give a call for that purpose, and a letter accordingly was drawn up -and numerously signed. Previously “they subscribed to make him £30 per -annum, with a great deal of readiness and freedom.”<a id="FNanchor_525" href="#Footnote_525" class="fnanchor">[525]</a></p> - -<p>Congregations testified their interest in public events. At the place -just mentioned, in January, 1689, the people assembled to seek the Lord -for the Convention, held that day in London for settling the nation. -The pastor spoke from Psalm lxxxii. 1. In February, 1698, “the church -passed a day of prayer for the Protestants in France;” and in the -following November they kept a solemnity for God’s deliverance of the -nation and the Church from “the Popish hellish powder-plot;” also “for -saving the nation from Popery and slavery by the landing of the Prince -of Orange.” When the pastor died, December, 1700, the church recorded -his last words: “Lord, remember my poor brethren in France.”<a id="FNanchor_526" href="#Footnote_526" class="fnanchor">[526]</a></p> - -<p>The Independent mode of conducting worship resembled the Presbyterian. -Baptism and the Lord’s Supper were observed by both much in the same -way. The latter was<span class="pagenum" id="Page_439">[439]</span> celebrated in most places once a month; in some, -once in six weeks.<a id="FNanchor_527" href="#Footnote_527" class="fnanchor">[527]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Ecclesiastical revenues of course were voluntary. The expense of -educating men for the ministry was met by parents or friends; -assistance in some cases being provided out of charitable funds. -The Fund Board was established soon after the Revolution, and from -its proceeds young candidates received grants. To this fund the -Presbyterians contributed £2,000, and the Independents nearly £1,700, -a year. Assistance also proceeded from an endowment under the will of -a Mr. Trotman, who, after the Act of Uniformity, bequeathed property -for Nonconformist purposes. The trustees were ejected ministers, -almost all of them belonging to the Independent denomination; and -they afforded small exhibitions to persons studying for the ministry. -Amongst distinguished beneficiaries were Stephen Lobb, who entered -Trinity College, Oxford, in 1679; Benjamin Chandler, who studied -at the same University; Samuel Wesley, who, for awhile, as we have -seen, contemplated being a Dissenting pastor; William Payne, of -Saffron Walden, a friend of John Owen; and the celebrated divine and -poet, Isaac Watts, the last of whom received aid from the Fund Board -also.<a id="FNanchor_528" href="#Footnote_528" class="fnanchor">[528]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>The support of Dissenting pastors depended mainly upon their flocks. -Sometimes, as we have seen, money was raised for the erection of -meeting-houses by the sale of pews, which became the property of the -purchasers;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_440">[440]</span> but in such cases, as well as others, the salary of the -minister principally arose from the subscriptions of the people. -Endowments in certain cases increased the revenues, but sometimes, -where churches had no such resources and needed sustentation, grants -were made from the Fund Board. Trotman’s Trust availed in a small -degree for ministerial support, as well as education, so long as any -of the ejected survived, and the money bequeathed to them lasted; for -by his will he left £500 to poor ministers, who had been removed from -“their employment” in the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity.</p> - -<p>We have noticed the public worship of Nonconformists. It is worth while -to advert to Sundays at home. In many a farmhouse and city dwelling, -the master called his household round him in the evening, to read a -chapter and to ask religious questions; all being catechised, from the -old servant by the door to the child who sat beside the cosy hearth, -within the folds of mamma’s ornamented apron. Perhaps a discourse was -read, a psalm sung, and a prayer offered. The young folks might have -looked sleepy before all was over, and some of the older ones might -with difficulty have kept their eyes open; but there were men and women -who could say at the end of these Puritan Sabbaths, with the Henry -family at Broad Oak: “If this be not heaven, it is the way to it.”</p> - -<p>The relation of the pastor to his flock was intimate. He was their -guide and counsellor. Families grew up calling him their own friend and -their father’s friend; for the pastoral bond was rarely broken in those -days, except by death or some very remarkable circumstance.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Of the character of the early Nonconformists, testimony is borne by -Dr. Watts, who loved to cherish memories of the old Dissent, as he had -seen it in his young days. No<span class="pagenum" id="Page_441">[441]</span> doubt we sometimes deceive ourselves -in looking down the vista of the past. A transparent haze mellows the -whole; perhaps fancy takes liberties with the details, and lays on -tints of her own. How more than halcyon were the times of the Confessor -from the distance of the reign of Rufus; yet there was truth in the -Saxon’s estimate, under a Norman dynasty, of a former generation. -Unquestionably, there is truth in Watts’ review. He refers mainly to -a period rather earlier than that embraced within this chapter, yet -the light of Puritanism’s autumn day did not expire so long as Baxter -and Howe survived; Watts mentions the reverence of Dissenters for the -name of God, of their strict observance of the Sabbath, of their habits -of religious conversation, of their regular discharge of religious -duties, of their nonconformity to the world, and of their economical -expenditure.</p> - -<p>But all was not sunshine in the old Dissent. Indeed, Watts lamented -the changes he witnessed. So did Howe; his lamentations being deepened -by the loss of early friends—“so many great lights withdrawn, both -such as were within the National Church Constitution, and such as were -without it.” And, no doubt, in connection with altered circumstances -and the advance of free ecclesiastical opinion, there came a -considerable decline of spiritual fervour. The strain and tension of -earlier religious life almost ceased. As in the Church of England there -was more calmness and moderation in Tillotson, Tenison, and Burnet, for -example, than in Cosin and Ward—so it was with Dissenters, as appears -when we compare such a man as Matthew Henry with such a man as Richard -Baxter, or when we place Edmund Calamy by the side of his grandfather.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_442">[442]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XXI.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">One by one in the reign of our third William the fathers of the old -Dissent passed away. They just saw the morning of religious liberty, -they just touched the border of the land of promise, they dwelt under -its vines and fig-trees for a very little while, and then died in peace.</p> - -<p>Philip Henry expired in the summer of 1696. A few candidates for the -ministry, who had in private academies gone through what they termed -a University course, were permitted to reside at Broad Oak, and to -listen to the instructions of its master. “You come to me,” he would -say, “as Naaman did to Elisha, expecting that I should do this and the -other thing for you, and, alas! I can but say as he did: ‘Go wash in -Jordan.’ Go study the Scriptures. I profess to teach no other learning -but Scripture learning.”</p> - -<p>Philip Henry reminds us of John Bunyan’s pilgrims in the land of -Beulah, as we read the following passage, written not long before his -death: “Methinks it is strange that it should be your lot and mine to -abide so long on earth by the stuff, when so many of our friends are -dividing the spoil above, but God will have it so; and to be willing to -live in obedience to His holy will is as true an act of grace, as to -be willing to die when He calls,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_443">[443]</span> especially when life is labour and -sorrow. But when it is labour and joy, service to His name, and some -measure of success and comfort in serving Him, when it is to stop a gap -and stem a tide, it is to be rejoiced in—it is heaven upon earth.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The shadow of death in mid-winter enveloped another scarcely less -famous Puritan home. Samuel Annesley, an older man than Philip Henry by -twelve years, with a ministerial history which ran far back into the -troubles of the Commonwealth and Civil Wars, continued to preach in -Little St. Helen’s to a congregation of wealthy citizens, amongst whom -might be seen Daniel De Foe,<a id="FNanchor_529" href="#Footnote_529" class="fnanchor">[529]</a> sometimes the eccentric John Dunton, -and at an earlier time the almost equally eccentric Samuel Wesley, the -two latter being married to two of Annesley’s daughters. Of a hardy -constitution, still more indurated by severe personal habits, Annesley -could bear the greatest cold without hat, gloves, or fire. He drank -little besides water, and to the day of his death could read small -print without spectacles.<a id="FNanchor_530" href="#Footnote_530" class="fnanchor">[530]</a> The pastor’s family was large, for Dr. -Manton, baptizing one of them, asked how many children he had. Annesley -returned for answer, that he believed it was two dozen or a quarter -of a hundred; “this reckoning children by dozens,” says Dunton, “was -a thing so very uncommon, that I have heard Dr. Annesley mention it -with a special remark.” He to the last retained great influence amongst -the Presbyterians,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_444">[444]</span> having, “the care of all the churches on his mind, -and being a great support of Dissenting ministers and of the Morning -Lecture.” He entered his pulpit for the last time, saying, “I must work -while it is day,” and died with ecstatic exclamations on his lips: “I -have no doubt nor shadow of doubt—all is clear between God and my -soul. He chains up Satan; he cannot trouble me. Come, dear Jesus! the -nearer the more precious, and the more welcome. What manner of love is -this to a poor worm! I cannot express a thousandth part of what praise -is due to Thee! We know what we do when we aim at praising God for His -mercies! It is but little I can give, but, Lord, help me to give Thee -my all. I will die praising Thee, and rejoice that there are others -that can praise Thee better. I shall be satisfied with Thy likeness! -satisfied! satisfied! Oh, my dearest Jesus, I come!” The old register -of St. Leonard’s, Shoreditch, for December, 1696, has this entry: -“Samuel Annesley was buried the seventh day, from Spittle Yard.”<a id="FNanchor_531" href="#Footnote_531" class="fnanchor">[531]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Nathaniel Vincent, when the Revolution brought him rest from spies, -informers, and constables, quietly went on with his work in St. -Thomas’s, Southwark, amidst the Presbyterian congregation which he -had gathered; but an unhappy division before his death gave him -trouble—sixty members breaking off to join another church, but no -blame attached to him for this. If the eulogium pronounced by his -friends be true, “he scarcely entered into any company, but he was -like a box of precious ointment, and left some sweet perfume from -his heavenly discourse.” Vincent’s end was sudden and premature; he -had only leisure to exclaim: “I find I am dying. Lord! Lord! Lord! -have mercy on my<span class="pagenum" id="Page_445">[445]</span> family and my congregation.” His age was but -fifty-three.<a id="FNanchor_532" href="#Footnote_532" class="fnanchor">[532]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Dr. William Bates, a close friend of Archbishop Tillotson, retained his -popularity and his renown for “silver-tongued” eloquence beyond the -Revolution of 1688. As one of the preachers at Salters’ Hall after the -establishment of the New Lecture there in 1694, although an old man of -seventy-four, he preached to a thronged assembly; but he lived in the -village of Hackney, where he ministered to a Presbyterian congregation -in Mare Street.<a id="FNanchor_533" href="#Footnote_533" class="fnanchor">[533]</a> Howe’s estimate of Bates’ character has been -quoted in a former volume; it is sufficient here to add the following -words by the same writer: “God took him, even kissed away his soul, -as hath been said of those great favourites of heaven, did let him -die without being sick, vouchsafed him that great privilege—which a -good man would choose before many—not to outlive serviceableness. To -live till one be weary of the world, not till the world be weary of -him—thus he prayed wisely, thus God answered graciously.”<a id="FNanchor_534" href="#Footnote_534" class="fnanchor">[534]</a> He died -in July, 1699.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>John Howe survived his friend about five years. It appears from -his allusion to “the great lights of the National Church,” how his -affections lingered around those who were its ornaments, and passages -occurring in his answer to De Foe, indicate Howe’s increasing -tenderness<span class="pagenum" id="Page_446">[446]</span> towards the Church of England in his last days. He had -always been a moderate Dissenter, but his moderation assumes broader -dimensions than ever in that publication—the effect, I apprehend, -partly of natural tenderness and partly of unpleasant circumstances. He -had, from the very constitution of his mind, what many great and good -men have not—a burning thirst for union, for a large fellowship of -souls on earth preparatory to the final gathering of the purified and -perfected. This passion increased in Howe the nearer he approached the -world of light and love. He longed, as his days ebbed away, to embrace -within his fellowship the good and wise of all parties; consequently -lines of distinction between church and church, between sect and sect, -became in his eyes paler and paler. And I cannot help seeing that -the disputes amongst Nonconformist ministers in London—the unhappy -divisions arising out of the Crisp controversy—vexed him exceedingly, -and loosened a little the bonds which had bound him to the Independent -body. A moderate Congregationalist in earlier life, he appears -latterly to have sympathized most with Presbyterians. The church in -Silver Street, of which he took the pastoral charge, was Presbyterian. -The Salters’ Hall Lecture, with which he identified himself, was -Presbyterian. Presbyterians were less opposed to the Established Church -than were Independents; the latter felt no wish for comprehension, -the former did; and in that wish, which the impossibility of its -gratification could not quench, John Howe to the last deeply shared.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>In his latter days he largely experienced the joys of religion. He -seemed at that period to attain a more ethereal purity of soul, a -more sublime elevation of mind, and a more seraphic glow of devotion. -The ancients believed that the nearer men approach the hour of death -the more<span class="pagenum" id="Page_447">[447]</span> divine they become, and the more piercing is their insight -into the mysteries of futurity. Howe, under the influence of a divine -enthusiasm, certainly appeared during the last year of his life as -if the veil of flesh had been parted, and his free spirit had found -a pathway which “the vulture’s eye hath never seen.” It is related -that on one occasion, at the Lord’s-table, his soul was suffused with -such rapture that the communicants thought his physical strength would -have sunk under the weight of his preternatural emotions. And another -instance of overpowering delight about the same time, is recorded by -himself in a Latin note found on the blank leaf of his study Bible. -After notice of a peculiarly beautiful and refreshing dream which he -had some years before, he adds: “But what of the same kind I sensibly -felt through the admirable bounty of my God, and the most pleasant -comforting influence of the Holy Spirit, on October 22nd, 1704, -far surpassed the most expressive words my thoughts can suggest. I -then experienced an inexpressibly pleasant melting of heart, tears -gushing out of mine eyes for joy that God should shed abroad His love -abundantly through the hearts of men, and that for this very purpose -mine own should be so signally possessed of and by His blessed Spirit.” -One trembles at criticizing such a phenomenon, and at attempting to -resolve it all into a delirium of excitement. Who that has ever mused -on the nature of the human mind, on the mystery of that unseen world -which presses close around it, on the piety of such a man as Howe, and -on the special love which God bears to those whom he makes so like -Himself, would dare to speak lightly of such an incident?</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Howe spent some of his closing days in the composition of a work <i>On -Patience in Expectation of Future Blessedness</i>, expressive of his -own religious experience;<span class="pagenum" id="Page_448">[448]</span> and it shows that such were his thoughts of -heaven, such his desire to depart, that he had to practice an unwonted -form of self-denial to reconcile himself to continuance in a world -which so many are loth to leave. Friends conversed with him to the -last, and the visit of one of them deserves special notice. Richard -Cromwell called upon him in his last illness, but the words they -interchanged have died away, save an indistinct echo lingering in a -brief sentence by Calamy: “There was a great deal of serious discourse -between them; tears were freely shed on both sides, and the parting was -very solemn, as I have been informed by one that was present on the -occasion.”<a id="FNanchor_535" href="#Footnote_535" class="fnanchor">[535]</a></p> - -<p>As a proof that Howe needed patience of an unusual kind, I may mention -that he said to his wife: “Though he thought he loved her as well as -it was fit for one creature to love another; yet if it were put to his -choice, whether to die that moment, or to live that night, and the -living that night would secure the continuance of his life for seven -years to come, he would choose to die that moment.” In the same spirit -he remarked to an attendant one morning, after being relieved from the -intense sufferings of the previous night: “He was for <i>feeling</i> -that he was alive, though most willing to die, and lay the ‘clog of -mortality aside.’” When his son, a physician, was lancing his leg to -diminish his sufferings, Howe inquired what he was doing, and observed: -“I am not<span class="pagenum" id="Page_449">[449]</span> afraid of dying, but I am afraid of pain.” Indeed, he had -a peculiar sensitiveness with regard to physical agony, which seems to -have been constitutional. All but joy soon afterwards terminated, for, -on the 2nd of April, 1705, his spirit entered those regions of repose -which he had long so fervently desired to reach.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>The passing away of the old Puritans could not but produce a great -effect. When the last of the Apostles left the world, those who -remained in the line of succession—so far as Apostles could have -any proper successors—would fail to reach the level of experience, -character, and influence which their predecessors occupied. And when -the last of the Protestant Reformers died, there would be a falling -off in the ardour and force which marked the religious leaders of the -next generation. And so, without equalizing Apostles, Reformers, and -Puritans, we may say of the last, that when they were all gone—though -their cause remained in the hands of men who had learned their -lessons—the fire no longer burned with the glowing heat it had done -before. There might be more breadth of view, there might be advancement -in some respects, but there remained not the same force which had -operated so mightily at an earlier period. Puritanism, as a creed, as a -discipline, as a form of worship, as a religious sentiment, remained; -but much of its original inspiration passed away.</p> - -<p>Another circumstance may be noticed. The Puritans of the Commonwealth -had in early life mingled socially with Anglicans. They had sat on -the same forms at school, had lived under the same college roof, had -preached in the same places of worship. Owen, Baxter, and Howe had all -shared more or less with Churchmen in the same modes of life before -the severance of 1662. Those who followed them were for the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_450">[450]</span> most part -wholly separated from the Establishment, from its universities, its -pulpits, its society, its courtesies, its atmosphere. Hence arose a -personal estrangement between two great parties, in some respects more -mischievous in its results than any of the controversies previously -waged.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>There have been influences at work in Society which rarely arrest the -attention of historians, because hidden in the obscure depths of common -life; and yet they have had a potency of effect, beyond even some -prominent events which come out as landmarks in the past. I am inclined -to ascribe to the social separation of Churchmen from Nonconformists, -which opened in the middle of the seventeenth century, and gaped so -wide at the close—much of that mutual suspicion, and that tendency -to attribute bad motives to those of a different opinion, which still -prevent, more or less, a candid and charitable consideration of each -others’ arguments. Friendly intercourse is a moral discipline which -affects our intellectual nature, and, by softening the asperities -of temper, prepares a man to meet his fellow man with less of that -prejudice so common to all, which blinds one person to phases of truth -discerned by another.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_451">[451]</span></p> - -<h2>CHAPTER XXII.</h2> -</div> - - -<p class="drop-cap p-left">The Baptists multiplied after the Revolution, and continued—what -they had been before—often obscure, but always staunch supporters -of independence and voluntaryism. In this respect they differed from -Presbyterians, and often went beyond Independents. The representatives -of more than one hundred churches met in London in the year 1689, and -continued in conference a few days. They republished a Calvinistic -confession of faith, adopted in the year 1677, but their business in -the main was with practical matters and the religious improvement -of their denomination. One doctrinal question which they discussed -was whether believers were <i>actually</i> reconciled, justified, -and adopted when Christ died; this they resolved by affirming that -reconciliation and justification have been infallibly secured by the -grace of God and the merit of Christ; but that their <i>actual</i> -possession comes as the result of individual faith. They took a gloomy -view of spiritual affairs, and, although looking at them from a very -different point of view, reached conclusions resembling those of the -Nonjurors. And this is noteworthy: they referred to the Jews, and -entreated their brethren to “put up earnest cries and supplications -to the Lord for the lineal seed of Abraham.” In furtherance of their -objects they appointed a general fast, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_452">[452]</span> directed that the causes -and reasons of it should be explained. With respect to government -and discipline, they disclaimed authority, nor did they attempt to -settle differences even in respect to communion. They projected a -sustentation fund, in aid of churches, ministers, and students; at -the same time they pronounced it expedient for small churches, in -the same neighbourhood, to unite together for the support of the -ministry. They ventured to commence an attack on the long periwigs of -men, especially ministers, and the bravery, haughtiness, and pride of -women, who walked “with stretched-out necks and wanton eyes, mincing -as they went.” They deplored worldly conformity, and though they did -not deny that ornaments were allowable, they said every ornament which -opens the mouths of the ungodly ought to be cast off. Baptists had -been reproached as Trimmers under James II. for the sake of their own -liberty; but the representatives on this occasion declared that, to -their knowledge, not one congregation had ever countenanced a power -in the King to dispense with penal tests, and that William III. was a -Divine instrument for the deliverance of England.<a id="FNanchor_536" href="#Footnote_536" class="fnanchor">[536]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>A second assembly of the same nature met in London upon the 2nd of -June, 1691, and another on the 3rd of May, 1692. They proposed to -divide their annual assembly into two—one for the east in London, and -the other for the west in Bristol, and they enjoined the making of -quarterly collections for objects specified, at the same time expressly -repudiating all idea of exercising synodical control.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Musical harmony had been a cause of discord; some of the Baptist -celebrities, including Kiffin and Keach, had plunged into disputes on -the subject, and<span class="pagenum" id="Page_453">[453]</span> it was alleged that facts had been misrepresented -and unwarrantable reflections published to the world. The matter -came under the notice of a committee, which appears to have given an -impartial decision. They declared that both parties were in the wrong; -that, granting some statements might be true, they had laid open one -another’s errors in an unbecoming spirit; that they ought to remember -how Ham, for discovering the nakedness of Noah, was accursed of God, -and how failings were forbidden to be told in Gath and Gilgal. They -recommended that all the publications produced by the dispute should -be called in and disposed of by the Assembly; and they finished their -award by entreating, as upon their knees, that the brethren would keep -the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace.<a id="FNanchor_537" href="#Footnote_537" class="fnanchor">[537]</a></p> - -<p>Kiffin and Keach were amongst the Baptist magnates at the end of the -Revolution, and were far more influential than Bunyan. Of Kiffin I -have had occasion to speak. It only remains to add, that he continued -his ministry to old age, and that his latter days were adorned by an -act of beneficence. After the French Protestants had been driven from -their own land, he took under his protection and entirely supported a -family of rank, nor would he when these refugees recovered a portion of -their fortune, accept any return for past services. He died in 1701, -leaving a reputation for piety, consistency, and theological knowledge, -and also for moderation, together with firmness in the maintenance of -Calvinistic and strict communion views.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Of Benjamin Keach I have also spoken. Although a good man, and of an -ingenious turn, he must have been rather pugnacious, for his works are -of a controversial stamp, relating to the seventh-day Sabbath and the -question<span class="pagenum" id="Page_454">[454]</span> of psalmody. He was one of those who have not the smallest -doubt of being themselves right, and of everybody else being wrong. -Adult Baptism he described as <i>Gold Refined</i>; the Athenian Society -he attacked for what it had said respecting Pædobaptism; he rectified -a Rector by proving Infant Baptism unlawful in his <i>Axe Laid to the -Root</i>, or one blow more aimed at that practice, which one blow would -beat down for ever the arguments of Mr. Flavel, Mr. Rothwell, and Mr. -Exell; finally, by <i>A Counter Antidote</i>, he strove to resist the -assaults upon what his antagonists would call <i>Anabaptism</i>. His -congregation is spoken of as the first to sing in public worship. So -cautious were they, because of the prejudices of their brethren, that -they went on step by step, for a long time restricting the practice -to the close of the Lord’s Supper, then venturing upon a hymn amidst -the exultation of a thanksgiving-day, and at last, after a struggle of -fourteen years, becoming so bold and yet so temperate, as to sing every -Sunday, after objectors to the practice had been allowed to retire.<a id="FNanchor_538" href="#Footnote_538" class="fnanchor">[538]</a></p> - -<p>The distinction between Particular and General Baptists assumed sharper -form and greater prominence after the Revolution. The General Baptists -of the county of Somerset, in the year 1691, published an original -manifesto of doctrine. These articles, upon the Will of Man, the -Work of the Spirit, God’s Decrees, and the Saints’ Perseverance, are -decidedly anti-Calvinistic, and the final chapter bears a millenarian -impress; but, to avoid being charged with the excesses of the old fifth -monarchists, the brethren declared that the “kingdom ought not to be -set up by the material sword,” that being “contrary to the very nature -of Christianity.”<a id="FNanchor_539" href="#Footnote_539" class="fnanchor">[539]</a></p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_455">[455]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Matthew Caffin was a celebrated man amongst the General Baptists. Five -times he suffered imprisonment for his Nonconformity, besides which he -was repeatedly fined under the Conventicle Act. Opposed to the doctrine -of Calvinism, like the rest of his brethren, he also distinguished -himself by opposition to the Athanasian Creed. He objected to its -definition and to its damnatory clauses, although he did not adopt -either Socinian or Arian tenets.</p> - -<p>Caffin appears to have been one of those one-sided people who, with -a repugnance to all assumption on the part of the Church, and with a -dislike of what are called dogmas, do not sufficiently consider the -importance of principles as resting-places for faith and as sources -of religious inspirations. In his horror of ultra-Calvinism, he -forgot that dangers may arise from other points of the horizon. Not -foreseeing the consequences of his course, not intending to open the -door of heresy, he, through lack of sufficient positiveness, became -the forerunner of those lax opinions which afterwards injured the -churches of the General Baptist order. Orthodoxy is not identical with -scholastic definitions; neither is it a foe or a stranger to charity. -Caffin’s forgetfulness of this involved him in disputes with his own -and with other denominations, and brought upon him suspicions which he -did not deserve. Of his pugnacity, evidence exists in the account of -his debates; and as a specimen of his wit, the following incident is -related: A Quaker called on Caffin, saying he had a message from the -Lord. “Come in then and do thy message,” replied Caffin. The Quaker -rejoined: “I am come to reprove thee for paying tithes to the priests, -and to forbid thy doing so any more.” “I think I can fully convince -thee,” said the Baptist, “that thou art deceived, and that the Lord -hath not sent thee; for I<span class="pagenum" id="Page_456">[456]</span> assure thee I never did pay any tithes, -nor am ever like to be charged with any.” The land he rented was -tithe-free.<a id="FNanchor_540" href="#Footnote_540" class="fnanchor">[540]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Turning to the Quakers, we find them placidly thankful for toleration, -yet vexed by demands for tithes and church-rates—sufferings, of which -records were drawn up and sometimes printed and circulated. When they -approached the Throne, both the King and the Lord-Keeper treated them -with respect, and gave them assurances of friendship. Parliament -listened to their expostulations, but of course the laws of the country -rendered it impossible that they should be exempted from the payments -in question any more than other people. Justified by the substitution -of affirmations for oaths, the members of their community did not -shrink from an anti-Socinian test; but the continued requirement of -oaths in various relations exposed them to much hardship, for as they -would not swear in legal exigencies, they were often defrauded of their -rights. The policy of the Revolution opposed this condition of things, -and in 1695 the complaints of Quakers and the efforts of their friends -secured a beneficial change: affirmations were substituted for oaths in -civil as well as ecclesiastical concerns.</p> - -<p>Fox and Barclay remained leaders, visiting societies and promoting the -spread of their principles. Identifying their own cause with the cause -of humanity, regarding themselves as charged with a pacific mission to -the world, they continued to serve their generation in the spirit of -the angels’ song: “On earth peace, goodwill toward men.”</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<p>Barclay died in 1690, signifying, as it is quaintly said, with a good -understanding, that it was well with him as to his soul. “God,” he -remarked to a friend, “is good still, and though I am under a great -weight of weakness<span class="pagenum" id="Page_457">[457]</span> and sickness, yet my peace flows: and this I know, -whatever exercises maybe permitted to come upon me, they shall tend to -God’s glory and my salvation; and in that I rest.”</p> - -<p>Fox died in 1691, saying to those around him: “All is well; the Seed -of God reigns over all, and over death itself. And though I am weak in -body, yet the power of God is over all, and the Seed reigns over all -disorderly spirits.” By “the Seed,” we are informed that he meant the -Divine Saviour. A few hours before his departure he exclaimed: “Do not -heed: the power of the Lord is above all sickness and death; the Seed -reigns, blessed be the Lord.”</p> - -<p>William Penn, although adhering to Quaker principles, was too much -occupied with other things to allow of his being in later life very -prominent as an apostle of the Quaker faith.</p> - -<p>Friends continued to maintain their self-government. The poor were -taken care of; widows and orphans were provided for; local meetings -were held by each congregation for the supervision of affairs every -week, fortnight, or month, according to numbers; quarterly meetings -were held in every county; and a general yearly meeting was held -in London in Whitsun-week, “not,” it is cautiously said, “for any -superstitious observation the Quakers have for that more than any -other time, but because that season of the year best suits the general -accommodation.”<a id="FNanchor_541" href="#Footnote_541" class="fnanchor">[541]</a> In the genial spring, therefore, the Friends met -in the days of King William; and with the men attired in their drab -garments, might be seen matrons and maidens clothed in the finest -raiment, like troops “of the shining ones.” Nonconformity to the -world in point of dress was an<span class="pagenum" id="Page_458">[458]</span> important article of practice, and -sorely were the spirits of the Elders vexed by the tendency of younger -members. The question was discussed: Friends were warned against the -fashions of the world, and were forbidden not only to wear but to sell -any garments of vanity. Earnest exhortations were delivered touching -religious education and simplicity of speech.<a id="FNanchor_542" href="#Footnote_542" class="fnanchor">[542]</a></p> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Mysticism, at the close of the seventeenth century, found a home -almost exclusively amongst Quakers. It had won wide sympathies at one -time; Davenant had predicted that in a hundred years religions would -come to a settlement in a kind of “<i>ingeniose</i> Quakerism;” and -Hales, as he studied writings of the mystical Familists’ school, used -to say that some time or other these fine notions would take in the -world. But, instead of a widening flow, these “fine notions” came to -be contracted within a single channel. Instead of an “<i>ingeniose</i> -Quakerism” leavening the world, the world left this leaven to ferment -all but entirely amongst the people called Friends. Norris was the -principal person outside that circle who, in the reign of William III., -cultivated a mystical spirit; and he did so in a limited degree.<span class="pagenum" id="Page_459">[459]</span> But -few of the many pieces written by him indicate any marked quietest -sentiments. In a paper entitled <i>An Idea of Happiness</i>, he speaks -mystically of the fruition of God and of seraphic love, but in the -same paper he speaks of the mystical doctrine of infused virtue as -being a paradox in Divinity, like the doctrine of occult qualities -in philosophy.<a id="FNanchor_543" href="#Footnote_543" class="fnanchor">[543]</a> Norris’s mysticism did not go beyond that of a -Platonistic divine. The Quakers had almost all the English mysticism of -the age to themselves.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">NONCONFORMISTS.</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1688–1702.</div> - -<p>Amongst them, too, there was more of religious enthusiasm than amongst -any other body of Nonconformists as a whole. Then occurred what is -a curious but not uncommon fact, that as a rationalistic spirit was -creeping over theology, sobering the spirit of most denominations, the -fires of excitement were kept burning in two extreme divisions of the -Christian camp. The Quakers and the Nonjurors were the two most fervent -religious bodies at the end of the seventeenth century.</p> - -<hr class="tb" /> - -<p>Here for the present I lay down my pen. I have endeavoured in preceding -volumes to tell the story of ecclesiastical change, theological -development, and religious life, amidst political scenes and incidents, -of which that story was partly the cause and partly the effect. -It is impossible to understand such an inner circle of thought, -experience, and conduct, without an examination of national events -occurring outside, nor can the state of one religious section be fully -understood apart from its bearing on other communities: therefore -I have interwoven the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_460">[460]</span> threads of their respective destinies, and -of their mutual relations and antagonisms. The series of struggles -portrayed present something of an Epic interest; for during the Civil -Wars there was strife for <i>Ascendency</i>, which ended in the -triumph of Puritanism, and in the treatment of Anglicans, somewhat -after a wretched fashion which had been set in former days. After the -Restoration, the resentment of Anglicans came once more into play, -and severe persecutions followed; yet efforts at <i>Comprehension</i> -were made by healing spirits on both sides without effect. At the -Revolution, as I have largely shown, experiments with a view to reunion -were attempted with no better result, but a great and most beneficial -change was accomplished by the legalising of freedom in religious -thought and ecclesiastical action. The shield of the constitution -was extended over previously persecuted Englishmen, and the age of -<i>Toleration</i>, as it is termed, then began. Local interferences -with the liberty of worship continued to occur, but they were contrary -to law. The steps by which this consummation was accomplished I have -somewhat minutely traced, and the earlier causes of the Revolution -I have endeavoured to explore. The reign of William III. was the -beginning of a new era in English History, and its ecclesiastical -consequences can be ascertained only through a careful study of the -great religious movements of the eighteenth century.</p> - - -<p>Whether I shall ever be able to pursue my investigations into that -interesting subject depends on circumstances, which I must leave in the -hands of Him whom in all the labours of my life I desire to serve.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_461">[461]</span></p> - -<h2>APPENDIX.</h2> -</div> - - -<h3>I.—P. 107.</h3> - -<p>The following is a copy of the Bill after certain omissions and -additions had been made, and the subjoined paper will give an idea of -the extent of the latter:—</p> - - -<p><i>A Bill for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant Subjects. First -reading, March 11, 1688; second reading, March 14, 1688.</i></p> - -<p>Whereas the peace of the State is highly concerned in the peace of -the Church, which therefore at all times, but especially in this -conjuncture, is most necessary to be preserved: In order therefore -to remove occasions of differences and dissatisfaccons which may -arise amongst Protestants, Be it Enacted by the King and Queen’s most -excellent Ma<sup>ties,</sup> By and with the advice and consent of the Lords -Spiritual and Temporal, and of the Commons in this present Parliam<sup>t</sup> -assembled, and by the authority of the same, That in order to y<sup>e</sup> being -a Minister of this Church, or the taking, holding, and enjoying any -Ecclesiastical Benefice or promotion in the same, noe other subscripcon -or declaracons shall from henceforward be required of any person, but -onely the Declaracon menconed in a Statute made in the thirtieth year -of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second, Intituled, An Act -for the more effectual preserving the King’s person and Governm<sup>t</sup> -by disabling Papists from sitting in either House of Parliam<sup>t</sup>, -and also the Declaration following, viz<sup>t</sup>: I, A. B., doe submit to -the prnt Constitucon of the Church of Engl. I acknowledge that the -doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary to Salvation, and -I will conforme myself to the worship and the government thereof, as -established by Law; And I solemnly promise, in y<sup>e</sup> exercise of my -Ministry, to Preach and practice according thereunto.</p> - -<p>And Be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid, that in order<span class="pagenum" id="Page_462">[462]</span> -to the being Collated or Instituted into any Benefice or promotion noe -more or other Oaths shall be required to be taken of any person than -onely the two Oaths menconed in the late Statute made in the first -year of the Reigne of King William and Queen Mary, Intituled, an Act -for removing and preventing all questions and disputes concerning the -assembling and sitting of this present Parliament, and alsoe the Oath -of Simony, and the Oath of Residence, any Statute or Canon to the -contrary notwithstanding.</p> - -<p>And Be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that the Two -Declaracons aforesaid shall be made and subscribed in y<sup>e</sup> said Oaths -menconed in the s<sup>d</sup> Stat, made in the first yeare of the Reigne of -King William and Queene Mary, shall be taken in the presence of the -Bishop or his Chancellor, or the Guardian of the Spiritualities, by -every person that is to receive any Holy orders, or keepe any public -Schoole, and alsoe the p<sup>r</sup> Oathes and Declaracon, together with the -said Oathes of Simony and residence by every person that is to have a -Lycence to preach any Lecture or that is to be Collated or Instituted -into any Benefice, or that is to be admitted into any Ecclesiastical -dignity or promotion before such his Ordination, Lycencing, Collation, -Institution, or Admission, respectively.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted, that every person that shall from -henceforward take any Degree in either of the Universities, or any -fellowship, headship, or professors place in the same, shall, before -his admission to that degree, or fellowship, or headship, or professors -place, subscribe the aforesaid Declaracons and take the said Oaths -mentioned in the said Statute, made in the first yeare of the Reigne -of King William and Queen Mary, in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor -or his Deputy. Provided that if any of the persons herein before -required to make and subscribe the said Declaracons be not in Holy -orders, such person shall not be obliged to make and subscribe all -the Declaracon hereinbefore expressed, but onely this part thereof, -viz.: I, A. B., doe submitt to the psent Constitucon of the Church of -Engld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it contains in it all things -necessary to Salvacon, and I will conforme myselfe to the worship and -the Governm<sup>t</sup> thereof, as established by law, together with the other -Declaracon aforesaid menconed in said Statute, made in the Thirtieth -year of the Reigne of the late King Charles the Second.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted, that the making and subscribing the said -Declaracons, and taking the said Oaths as aforesaid, shall be as -sufficient to all intents and purposes aforesaid as if the parties had -made all other Declaracons and subscripcons, and taken all other oaths -which<span class="pagenum" id="Page_463">[463]</span> they should have taken by vertue of any law, Statute, or Canon, -whatsoever.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted by the authority aforesaid, that from -henceforth noe Minister shall be obliged to wear a surplice in the time -of reading prayers or performing any other Religious Office—Except -onely in the King and Queen’s Ma<sup>ties</sup> Chappells, and in all Cathedral -or Collegiate Churches and Chappells of this Realme of England and -Dominion of Wales. Provided alsoe that every Minister that shall not -think fitt to wear a surplice as aforesaid shall nevertheless be -obliged to performe all y<sup>e</sup> Publick Offices of his Ministry in the -Church in a Black Gowne, suitable to his Degree. And if it be in a -place where a Gowne is not the dayly constant habit of the Minister, in -every such parish the parish shall provide a Gowne for him, to be worne -by him dureing the time of his officiating in the Church.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted, by the authority aforesaid, that no Minister -from henceforward shall be obliged to use the signe of the Crosse in -Baptisme, nor any parent obliged to have his Child Christned by the -Minister of the Parish if the said Minister will not use or omitt the -signe of the Cross, according to the desire of the parent, who in that -case may procure some other Minister of the Church of Engld to doe it.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted, by y<sup>e</sup> authority aforesaid, that noe -Minister or Ecclesiastical person shall oblige any person to find -Godfathers or Godmothers for any child to be baptized, soe as the -parents or parent or other friend of such Child shall present the same -to be Baptized, and shall answer for such child in like manner as the -Godfathers and Godmothers are now required to doe.</p> - -<p>And be it further Enacted, by y<sup>e</sup> authority aforesaid, that noe -Minister that shall officiate in the administracon of the Sacram<sup>t</sup> of -the Lord’s Supper shall deny or refuse to any person that desires to -be admitted to the same, in a pew or seate in the Church, altho’ such -person shall not receive it kneeling.</p> - -<p>And whereas the Liturgie of y<sup>e</sup> Church of England is capable of -seve<sup>ll</sup> alteracons and additions, which may free it from exception, -and may conduce to y<sup>e</sup> Glory of God and y<sup>e</sup> better Edefication of -the people, And whereas the Book of Canons is fitt to be reviewed -and made suitable to the present state of the Church, And whereas -there are divers abuses and defects in y<sup>e</sup> Ecclesiastical Courts -and Jurisdiction, and particularly for reformacon or removeing of -scandalous Ministers, And whereas it is very fitt and profitable that -Confirmacon be administred with such due preparacon and solemnity as is -directed in the late King<span class="pagenum" id="Page_464">[464]</span> Charles the Second’s Declaration concerning -Ecclesiastical affairs, issued in the yeare of our Lord 1660, And a -strict care be used in the Examinacon of such persons as desire to be -admitted into Holy Orders, both as to their learning and manners:</p> - -<p>Wee, your Ma<sup>ties</sup> most dutifull and Loyall Subjects, the Lords -Spiritual and Temporal, and the Commons in this present Parliam<sup>t</sup> -assembled, doe most humbly beseech your Majesties to issue out a -Comission under yo<sup>r</sup> Great Seale, directed to the Arch Bishops, and -such Bishops, and such others of the Clergy of the Church of England, -not exceeding the number of thirty in y<sup>e</sup> whole, impowering and -requiring them, or any twelve of them, to meet from time to time, and -as often as shall be needfull, and to make such alteracons in the -Liturgie and reformacon of the Canons and Ecclesiastical Courts as may -conduce to the Establishm<sup>t</sup> of the Church in peace and Tranquility, -and to present such alteracons and reformacons to the Convocation and -to the Parliam<sup>t</sup> that the same may be approved and established in due -forme of Law.</p> - - -<h4 class="smcap">Alterations made in Committee.</h4> - -<p class="p-left sm">COMPREHENSION.</p> - -<table summary="comprehension" class="smaller"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">1 sh.</td> - <td class="right">6 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">For (of) Reade (in).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">14 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Instead of (as containing) reade (w<sup>ch</sup> I doe acknowledge -to containe), and before (promise) add (solemnely).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">18 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Before (Oathes) insert (two), and leave out (of fidelity).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">21 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After (Symony) Add (And the Oath of Residence).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">24 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out (of fidelitye), and add (mentioned in the s<sup>d</sup> -Stat, made in the first yeare of the Raigne of King William and Queene Mary shall be).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">2 sh.</td> - <td class="right">2 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After the first (or) insert (keepe any publiq schoole, -and alsoe the s<sup>d</sup> oathes and declaracon, together -with the s<sup>d</sup> oathes of Symony and Residence by every pson).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">4 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After (admission) add (respectively).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">8 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out (of fidelity) and reade (mentioned in the -s<sup>d</sup> Stat made in the first yeare of the Raigne of -King William and Queene Mary).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">9 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out from (Deputy) to (Provided) in the 11<sup>th</sup> l.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">15 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">For (as containing) reade (w<sup>ch</sup> I doe acknowledge to containe).<span class="pagenum" id="Page_465">[465]</span></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">2 sh.</td> - <td class="right">22 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out from (And Bee it) inclusive to (And Bee it) -in the 5<sup>th</sup> l. of the 3rd sheet.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">3 sh.</td> - <td class="right">11 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out from (degree) to (And) in the 14th line.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">18 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After (Ministers) add (of the Church of Engld).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">1 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Leave out from (And) in the   to (And) in 4th l.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">4 sh.</td> - <td class="right">4 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">For (improvements) reade (additions).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">5 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">For (if) Reade (is).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">5 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Before (edificacon) reade (better).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">16 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">For (twenty) reade (thirty).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right">20 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After (Reformacon) reade (to the Convocacon and).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">1 sh.</td> - <td class="right">14 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">I, A. B., doe submit to the present Constitution of -the Church of England. I acknowledge that the -Doctrine of it contains in it all things necessary to -Salvation, and that I will conform my selfe to the -worship and the government thereof as established -by law.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr"></td> - <td class="right"></td> - <td class="cht">And I solemnely pmise, in the exercise of my ministry, -to preach and practice according thereunto.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr"></td> - <td class="right">Agreed to.</td> - <td class="cht"></td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">2 sh.</td> - <td class="right">14<sup>a</sup> 15 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">Instead of the 14<sup>th</sup> and 15<sup>th</sup> l. reade (I, A. B., doe -submit to the prsent constitucon of the Church of -Engld. I acknowledge that the doctrine of it contains -in it all things necessary for Salvacon, and I -will conforme my selfe to the worship and the government -thereof as established by Law).</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">4 sh.</td> - <td class="right">3 l.—</td> - <td class="cht">After (same) add (in a Pew or Seate in the Church).</td> - </tr> -</table> - - -<h3>II.—P. 114.</h3> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p><i>The Toleration Act, entituled, An Act for Exempting their -Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of -England from the penalties of certain Laws.</i></p> -</div> - -<div class="sidenote">1 Will. and Mary, cap. 18.</div> - -<p>Forasmuch as some ease to scrupulous consciences, in the exercise of -Religion, may be an effectual means to unite their Majesty’s Protestant -subjects in interest and affection:</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_466">[466]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">The several Laws against Dissenters repealed.</div> - -<p>I.—Be it enacted by the King’s and Queen’s most excellent Majesties, -by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, -and the Commons in this present Parliament assembled, and by the -authority of the same, That neither the Statute made in the 23<sup>rd</sup> -year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, <span class="sni">23 Eliz., cap. 1.</span><i>An Act -to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s Subjects in their due obedience</i>; -nor the Statute made in the 29<sup>th</sup> year of the said Queen, entituled, -<span class="sni">29 Eliz., cap. 6.</span><i>An Act for the more speedy and due execution of certain branches -of the Statute made in the 23<sup>rd</sup> year of the Queen’s Majesty’s -reign</i>, viz., the aforesaid Act; nor that branch or clause of -a Statute made in the 1<sup>st</sup> year of the reign of the said Queen, -entituled, <span class="sni">29 Eliz., cap. 2, f 14.</span><i>An Act for the Uniformity of Common Prayer and service -in the Church, and administration of the Sacraments</i>; whereby all -persons, having no lawful or reasonable excuse to be absent, are -required to resort to their Parish Church or Chapel, or some usual -place where the Common Prayer shall be used, upon pain of punishment -by the censures of the Church; and also, upon pain, that every person -so offending shall forfeit for every such offence twelve pence. Nor -the Statute made in the 3<sup>rd</sup> year of the reign of the late King -James the First, entituled, <span class="sni">3 Jac. I., cap. 4.</span><i>An Act for the better discovering and -repressing Popish recusants</i>. Nor that other Statute, made in the -same year, entituled, <span class="sni">3 Jac. I., cap. 5.</span><i>An Act to prevent and avoid dangers which may -grow by Popish Recusants</i>. Nor any other Law or Statute of this -realm made against Papists or Popish recusants, <span class="sni">Exception.</span>except the Statute -made in the 25<sup>th</sup> year of King Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">25 Car. II., cap. 2.</span><i>An Act -for preventing dangers which may happen from Popish recusants</i>. -And except also the Statute made in the 30<sup>th</sup> year of the said King -Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">30 Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.</span><i>An Act for the more effectual preserving -the King’s person and Government, by disabling Papists from sitting in -either House of Parliament</i>, shall be construed to extend to any -person or persons dissenting from the Church of England, that shall -take the oaths mentioned in a Statute made this present Parliament, -entituled, <span class="sni">_Supra_, cap. 1.</span><i>An Act for removing and preventing all questions and -disputes concerning the assembling and sitting of this present -Parliament</i>, and shall make and subscribe the Declaration mentioned -in a Statute made in the 30<sup>th</sup> year of the reign of King Charles -II., entituled, <span class="sni">Car. II., Stat. 2d, cap. 1.</span><i>An Act to prevent Papists from sitting in either -House of Parliament</i>. Which Oaths and Declaration the Justices of -Peace, at the General Sessions of the Peace to be held for the County -or Place where such person shall live, are hereby required to tender -and administer to such persons as shall offer themselves to <span class="sni">Taking Declaration to be Registered.</span>take, make, -and subscribe the same, and thereof to keep a Register. <span class="sni">Fee for register and Certificate.</span>And likewise, -none of the persons aforesaid shall give or pay, as any fee or reward, -to any officer or officers belonging to the<span class="pagenum" id="Page_467">[467]</span> Court aforesaid, above -the sum of 6<sup>d</sup>, nor that more than once, for his or their entry of his -taking the said oaths, and making and subscribing the said Declaration; -nor above the further sum of 6<sup>d</sup> for any certificate of the same, to be -made out and signed by the Officer or officers of the said Court.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Persons convicted, &c. taking the oaths, &c. shall be -discharged.</div> - -<p>II.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That all -and every person and persons already convicted, or prosecuted in -order to conviction of Recusancy, by Indictment, Information, Action -of Debt, or otherwise grounded upon the aforesaid Statute; or any of -them that shall take the said Oaths mentioned in the said Statute, -made this present Parliament, and make and subscribe the Declaration -aforesaid in the Court of Exchequer, or Assizes, or General or Quarter -Sessions, to be held for the county where such person lives, and to be -thence respectively certified into the Exchequer, shall be thenceforth -exempted and discharged from all the Penalties, Seizures, Forfeitures, -Judgments, and Executions, incurred by force of any the aforesaid -Statutes, without any composition, fee, or further charge whatsoever.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Ecclesiastical Court.</div> - -<p>III.—And be it further enacted, by the Authority aforesaid, That all -and every person and persons that shall, as aforesaid, take the said -Oaths, and make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, shall not be -liable to any pains, penalties, or forfeitures, mentioned in an Act -made in the 35<sup>th</sup> year of the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, -entituled, <span class="sni">35 Eliz., cap. 1.</span><i>An Act to retain the Queen’s Majesty’s Subjects in their -due obedience</i>. Nor in an Act made in the 22<sup>nd</sup> year of the reign -of the late King Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">22 Car. II., cap. 1.</span><i>An Act to prevent and -suppress seditious Conventicles</i>. <span class="sni">Ecclesiastical Court.</span>Nor shall any of the said persons -be prosecuted in any Ecclesiastical Court, for, or by reason of, their -Non-Conforming to the Church of England.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Private Meetings excluded.</div> - -<p>IV.—Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, -<span class="sni">Private Meetings excluded.</span>That if any assembly of persons, dissenting from the Church of England, -shall be had in any place for Religious worship, with the doors locked, -barred, or bolted, during any time of such meeting together, all and -every person or persons that shall come to, and be at such meeting, -shall not receive any benefit from this Law, but be liable to all the -pains and penalties of all the aforesaid Laws recited in this Act, -for such their meeting, notwithstanding his taking the Oaths, and his -making and subscribing the Declaration aforesaid.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Tithes saved.</div> - -<p>V.—Provided always, that nothing herein contained shall be construed -to exempt any of the persons aforesaid from paying of Tithes, or other -Parochial Duties, or any other duties to the Church or Minister, nor -from any prosecution in any Ecclesiastical Court, or elsewhere, for the -same.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_468">[468]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">Officers scrupling Oaths, &c. allowed to act by Deputy.</div> - -<p>VI.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That if -any person dissenting from the Church of England, as aforesaid, shall -hereafter be chosen, or otherwise appointed to bear the office of -High-Constable, or Petit-Constable, Church-Warden, Overseer of the -Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, and such person shall -scruple to take upon him any of the said offices, in regard of the -Oaths, or any other matter or thing required by the law to be taken -or done, in respect of such office, every such person shall and may -execute such office or employment by a sufficient deputy, by him to -be provided, that shall comply with the laws on this behalf. Provided -always, the said deputy be allowed and approved by such person or -persons in such manner as such officer or officers respectively should -by law have been allowed and approved.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Persons in Orders, how exempted from 17 Car. II., cap. 2, -13, 14 Car. II., cap. 4.</div> - -<p>VII.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That -no person dissenting from the Church of England in Holy Orders, or -pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, nor any Preacher -or Teacher of any congregation of dissenting Protestants, that shall -make and subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, and take the said Oaths, -at the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for the -County, Town, Parts, or Division where such person lives, which Court -is hereby empowered to administer the same; and shall also declare his -approbation of, and subscribe the Articles of Religion mentioned in -the Statute made in the 13<sup>th</sup> year of the reign of the late Queen -Elizabeth, except the 34<sup>th</sup>, 35<sup>th</sup>, and 36<sup>th</sup>, and these words of -the 20<sup>th</sup> Article, viz. <span class="sni">13 Eliz., cap. 12.</span>[<i>The Church hath power to decree Rites or -Ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith, and yet</i>] shall -be liable to any of the pains or penalties mentioned in an Act made in -the 17<sup>th</sup> year of the reign of King Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">17 Car. II., cap. 2.</span><i>An Act -for restraining Non-Conformists from inhabiting in Corporations</i>; -nor the penalties mentioned in the aforesaid Act, made in the 22<sup>nd</sup> -year of his said late Majesty’s reign, for or by reason of such -persons preaching at any meeting for the exercise of Religion; nor -to the penalties of £100 mentioned in an Act made in the 13<sup>th</sup> and -14<sup>th</sup> of King Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 4.</span><i>An Act for the Uniformity -of public prayers, and administration of Sacraments, and other rites -and ceremonies; and for establishing the form of making, ordaining, -and consecrating of Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, in the Church of -England</i>, for officiating in any Congregation for the exercise of -religion permitted and allowed by this Act.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Taking the oaths, &c., to be registered.</div> - -<p>VIII.—Provided always, that the making and subscribing the said -Declaration, and the taking the said Oaths, and making the Declaration<span class="pagenum" id="Page_469">[469]</span> -of approbation and subscription to the said Articles, in manner -as aforesaid, by every respective person or persons hereinbefore -mentioned, at such General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace as -aforesaid, shall be then and there entered of Record in the said Court, -for which 6<sup>d</sup> shall be payed to the Clerk of the Peace, and no more. -Provided that such person shall not at any time preach in any place but -<span class="sni">Meeting doors to be unlocked.</span>with the doors not locked, barred, or bolted, as aforesaid.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Anabaptism.</div> - -<p>IX.—And whereas some Dissenting Protestants scruple the baptizing of -infants, be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every person -in pretended Holy Orders, or pretending to Holy Orders, or Preacher -or Teacher, that shall subscribe the aforesaid Articles of Religion, -except before excepted; and also except part of the 27<sup>th</sup> Article -teaching Infant baptism, and shall take the Oaths, and make and -subscribe the Declaration aforesaid, in manner aforesaid, every such -person shall enjoy all the privileges, benefits, and advantages, which -any other Dissenting Minister, as aforesaid, might have or enjoy by -virtue of this Act.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Teachers exempt from Offices.</div> - -<p>X.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That every -Teacher or Preacher in Holy Orders, or pretended Holy Orders, that is -a Minister, Preacher, or Teacher of a Congregation, that shall take -the Oaths herein required, and make and subscribe the Declaration -aforesaid; and also subscribe such of the aforesaid Articles of the -Church of England, as are required by this Act in manner aforesaid, -shall be thenceforth exempted from serving upon any Jury, or from being -chosen or appointed to bear the Office of Church-Warden, Overseer of -the Poor, or any other Parochial or Ward Office, or other Office in any -Hundred of any Shire, City, Town, Parish, Division, or Wapentake.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Justices of Peace may tender the Oaths, &c.</div> - -<p>XI.—And be it further enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That any -Justice of the Peace may at any time hereafter require any person that -goes to any meeting for exercise of Religion, to make and subscribe the -Declaration aforesaid, and also to take the said Oaths or Declaration -of fidelity hereinafter mentioned, in case such person scruples the -taking of an oath, and <span class="sni">Penalty for refusing.</span>upon refusal thereof such Justice of the Peace -is hereby required to commit such person to prison without bail or -mainprize, and to certify the name of such person to the next General -or Quarter Sessions of the Peace, to be held for that County, City, -Town, Part, or Division, where such person then resides; and if such -person so committed, shall, upon a second tender at the General -or Quarter Sessions, refuse to make and subscribe the Declaration -aforesaid, such person refusing shall be then and there recorded, and -shall be taken thenceforth, to all intents and purposes, for a Popish -Recusant convict,<span class="pagenum" id="Page_470">[470]</span> and suffer accordingly, and incur all the penalties -and forfeitures of all the aforesaid laws.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Quakers, how exempted.</div> - -<p>XII.—And whereas there are certain other persons, Dissenters from the -Church of England, who scruple the taking of any oath, be it enacted -by the authority aforesaid, <span class="sni">Altered as to Quakers by 8 Geo. I., cap. 6.</span>That every such person shall make and -subscribe the aforesaid Declaration; and also this Declaration of -Fidelity following:</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Declaration of Fidelity.</div> - -<p><i>I, A. B., do sincerely promise, and solemnly declare, before God and -the world, that I will be true and faithful to King William and Queen -Mary; and I do solemnly profess and declare that I do from my heart -abhor, detest, and renounce, as impious and heretical, that damnable -Doctrine and Position, That Princes excommunicated, or deprived by the -Pope, or any authority of the See of Rome, may be deposed or murthered -by their subjects, or any other whatsoever. And I do declare, that no -foreign Prince, Person, Prelate, State, or Potentate, hath, or ought to -have, any Power, Jurisdiction, Superiority, Pre-eminence, or Authority, -Ecclesiastical or Spiritual, within this Realm.</i></p> - -<p class="p-left">And shall subscribe a Profession of their Christian Belief -in these words:</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Profession.</div> - -<p><i>I, A. B., profess Faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His -eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for -evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New -Testament to be given by Divine Inspiration.</i></p> - -<p class="p-left">Which Declaration and Subscription shall be made and -entered of Record at the General Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the -County, City, or Place, where every such person shall then reside. And -every such person that shall make and subscribe the two Declarations -and Profession aforesaid, being thereunto required, shall be exempted -from all the pains and penalties of all and every the afore-mentioned -Statutes made against Popish Recusants, or Protestant Nonconformists; -and also from the penalties of an Act made in the 5<sup>th</sup> year of -the reign of the late Queen Elizabeth, entituled, <span class="sni">5 Eliz., cap. 1.</span><i>An Act for the -Assurance of the Queen’s Royal Power over all Estates and Subjects -within her Dominions</i>, for or by reason of such persons not taking, -or refusing to take, the Oath mentioned in the said Act; and also -from the penalties of an Act made in the 13<sup>th</sup> and 14<sup>th</sup> years of -the reign of King Charles II., entituled, <span class="sni">13 and 14 Car. II., cap. 1.</span><i>An Act for preventing -mischiefs that may arise by certain persons called Quakers refusing to -take lawful oaths</i>, and enjoy all the other Benefits, Privileges, -and Advantages, under the like Limitations, Provisions, and Conditions, -which any other Dissenters should or ought to enjoy by virtue of this -Act.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_471">[471]</span></p> - -<div class="sidenote">How purged after Refusal of the Oaths.</div> - -<p>XIII.—Provided also, and be it enacted by the authority aforesaid, -That in case any person shall refuse to take the said Oaths when -tendered to them, which every Justice of the Peace is hereby impowered -to do, such person shall not be admitted to make and subscribe the two -Declarations aforesaid, though required thereunto, either before any -Justice of the Peace, or at the General or Quarter Sessions, before or -after any conviction of Popish Recusancy, as aforesaid, unless such -person can, within thirty-one days after such tender of the Declaration -to him, produce two sufficient Protestant witnesses to testify upon -oath, that they believe him to be a Protestant Dissenter, or a -Certificate under the hands of four Protestants, who are conformable -to the Church of England, or have taken the oaths, and subscribed the -Declaration above mentioned, and shall produce a certificate under the -hands and seals of six or more sufficient men of the congregation to -which he belongs, owning him for one of them.</p> - -<p>XIV.—Provided also, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, That -until such certificate, under the hands of six of his Congregation, as -aforesaid, be produced, and two Protestant witnesses come to attest his -being a Protestant Dissenter, or a certificate under the hands of four -Protestants, as aforesaid, be produced, the Justice of the Peace shall, -and hereby is required to take a Recognizance, with two Sureties, in -the penal sum of fifty pounds, to be levied of his goods, chattels, -lands, and tenements, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, -their heirs and successors, for his producing the same; and if he -cannot give such security, to commit him to prison, there to remain -until he has produced such certificates, or two witnesses, as aforesaid.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Laws for Divine Service in force.</div> - -<p>XV.—Provided always, and it is the true intent and meaning of this -Act, That all the laws made and provided for the frequenting of Divine -Service on the Lord’s Day, commonly called Sunday, shall be still in -force, and executed against all persons that offend against the said -laws, except such persons come to some Congregation, or Assembly of -Religious Worship, allowed or permitted by this Act.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Papists, &c., excepted.</div> - -<p>XVI.—Provided always, and be it further enacted by the Authority -aforesaid, that neither this Act, nor any Clause, Article, or thing, -herein contained, shall extend, or be construed to extend, to give -any ease, benefit, or advantage, to any Papist or Popish Recusant -whatsoever, or any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing -the Doctrine of the blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid -Articles of Religion.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Disturbers of Religious Worship.</div> - -<p>XVII.—Provided always, and be it enacted by the Authority aforesaid, -<span class="pagenum" id="Page_472">[472]</span>That if any person or persons, at any time or times, after the 10<sup>th</sup> -day of June, do, <span class="sni">How punished. See 1 Geo. 1, stat. 2, cap. 5, f 4.</span>and shall willingly, and of purpose, maliciously, or -contemptuously, come into any Cathedral, or Parish Church, Chapel, or -other Congregation, permitted by this Act, and disquiet or disturb the -same; or misuse any Preacher or Teacher, such person or persons, upon -proof thereof, before any Justice of Peace, by two or more sufficient -witnesses, shall find two sureties to be bound by recognizance in the -penal sum of fifty pounds, and in default of such sureties shall be -committed to prison, there to remain till the next General or Quarter -Session; and upon conviction of the said offence, at the said General -or Quarter Sessions, shall suffer the pain and penalty of twenty -pounds, to the use of the King’s and Queen’s Majesties, their Heirs and -Successors.</p> - -<div class="sidenote">Place for Worship to be certified.</div> - -<p>XVIII.—Provided always, That no Congregation or Assembly for religious -worship shall be permitted or allowed by this Act until the place of -such meeting shall be certified to the Bishop of the Diocese, or to the -Archdeacon of that Archdeaconry, or to the Justices of the Peace, at -the General or Quarter Sessions of the Peace for the County, City, or -Place, in which such meeting shall be held and registered in the said -Bishop’s or Archdeacon’s Court respectively, or recorded at the said -General or Quarter Sessions; the register or clerk of the Peace whereof -respectively is hereby required to register the same, and to give -certificate thereof to such person as shall demand the same, for which -there shall be no greater fee nor reward taken than the sum of sixpence.</p> - - -<h3>III.—P. 229.</h3> - -<p class="center"><i>Extracts from Macpherson’s Original Papers.</i></p> - -<p>To prevent the possibility of misapprehension, it may be proper to -remark that the extracts I have given from <i>Macpherson’s Original -Papers</i>, are intended simply to show what was reported and desired -by the Jacobite party. Many statements in the correspondence are -utterly untrustworthy. History has to do not only with what has been -actually accomplished or attempted, but with what has been thought -and said; for rumour and falsehood have been powerful factors in the -affairs of this world.</p> - -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_473">[473]</span></p> - - -<h3>IV.—P. 263.</h3> - -<p class="center"><i>The Writ summoning a Bishop to Parliament.</i></p> - -<p>Victoria, by the Grace of God of the United Kingdom of Great Britain -and Ireland, Queen, Defender of the Faith, to the * * * * * Greeting. -Whereas by the advice and assent of our Council for certain arduous and -urgent affairs concerning us, the state and defence of our said United -Kingdom and the Church, we have ordered a certain Parliament to be -holden at our City of Westminster on the * day of * next ensuing, and -there to treat and have conference with the Prelates, Great Men, and -Peers of our Realm. We strictly enjoining command you, upon the faith -and love by which you are bound to us, that the weightiness of the said -affairs and imminent perils considered (waiving all excuses) you be at -the said day and place personally present with us, and with the said -Prelates, Great Men, and Peers, to treat and give your counsel upon the -affairs aforesaid. And this, as you regard us and our honour, and the -safety and defence of the said United Kingdom and Church, and despatch -of the said affairs, in no wise do you omit. Forewarning the Dean and -Chapter of your Church of * * and the Archdeacons and all the Clergy of -your Diocese, that they the said Dean and Archdeacons, in their proper -persons, and the said Chapter by one, and the said Clergy by two, meet -Proctors severally, having full and sufficient authority from them, -the said Chapter and Clergy, at the said day and place, be personally -present to consent to those things which then and there by the Common -Council of our said United Kingdom (by the favour of the Divine -clemency) shall happen to be ordained. Witness ourself at Westminster, -the * of * in the * * year of our Reign.</p> - -<p>To the Right Reverend Father in God.</p> - -<p>A writ of Summons to Parliament, to be <sup>*</sup>holden<sup>*</sup> the * day of * next.</p> -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<p><span class="pagenum" id="Page_475">[475]</span></p> - -<h2>INDEX.</h2> -</div> - -<ul> - <li>Abney, Sir Thomas, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, - <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - - <li>Aikenhead, Thomas, - <a href="#Footnote_271">225, note</a></li> - - <li>Aldrich, Dean of Christchurch, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li> - - <li>Alex or Allix, - <a href="#Footnote_145">114, note</a></li> - - <li>Allybone, Justice, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> - - <li>Alsop, Vincent, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, - <a href="#Page_425">425</a>, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Anne, Princess, Daughter of James II., - <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a>, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - - <li>Annesley, Dr. Samuel, - <a href="#Page_405">405</a>, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li> - <li class="i1">Account of him, - <a href="#Page_443">443</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_444">444</a></li> - - <li>Arundel, Archbishop, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - - <li>Ashton, John, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - - <li>Ashurst, Dr., - <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - - <li>Atterbury, Francis, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, - <a href="#Page_285">285</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Correspondence, - <a href="#Footnote_338">271, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a>, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Meetings of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_273">273</a>, - <a href="#Page_290">290–293</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Baptists, their Hopes in William III., - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Views regarding Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocates of Toleration, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">Protected by Toleration Act, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - <li class="i1">Present an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Numbers Increase, - <a href="#Page_451">451</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Conferences, - <a href="#Page_451">451–453</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Ministers, - <a href="#Page_453">453</a></li> - <li class="i1">Distinction between Particular and General, - <a href="#Page_454">454</a></li> - - <li>Barclay, Robert, - <a href="#Page_456">456</a></li> - - <li>Barrington, Sir Charles, - <a href="#Footnote_385">309, note</a></li> - - <li>Barrow, Dr. Isaac, - <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_230">193, note</a></li> - - <li>Bassett, Josiah, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Bates, Dr. William, - <a href="#Page_425">425</a>, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> - <li class="i1">Favourable to Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuses to take Part in Calamy’s Ordination, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_445">445</a></li> - - <li>Baxter, Richard, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_416">328, note,</a></li> - <li class="i1">Desires Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Explication of the Doctrinal Articles, - <a href="#Page_178">178</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Last Days, - <a href="#Page_179">179</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_180">180</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Book on Witchcraft, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anecdote of, - <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - - <li>Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, - <a href="#Footnote_393">312, note</a></li> - - <li>Benbow, Admiral, - <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - - <li>Bennet, Joseph, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Bentinck, William, - <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li> - - <li>Bentley, Richard, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Boyle Lectures, - <a href="#Page_341">341–343</a></li> - - <li>Beveridge, Archdeacon of Colchester, - <a href="#Page_277">277</a>, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, - <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches before Convocation, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declines the See of Bath and Wells, - <a href="#Page_172">172</a>, - <a href="#Page_173">173</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Meetings of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_288">288–292</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_314">314</a></li> - - <li>Beverley, John, - <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - - <li>Biddle, John, his Tracts, - <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - - <li>Binckes, Dr., - <a href="#Footnote_328">263, note</a></li> - - <li>Bingham, Joseph, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - - <li>Birch, Colonel, - <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li> - - <li>Birch, Samuel, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Bishops, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned by King James, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">First Meeting with the King, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - <li class="i1">Second Meeting, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> - <li class="i1">Collects drawn up by them, - <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - <li class="i1">Charges against them, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - <li class="i1">Third Meeting, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> - <li class="i1">Fourth Meeting, - <a href="#Page_31">31–33</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Popularity, - <a href="#Page_33">33</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Interviews with Clarendon, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li> - <li class="i1">Meetings at Lambeth, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - <li class="i1">Desire a Regency, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Their Reluctance to take the Oath of Allegiance, - <a href="#Page_96">96</a></li> - <li class="i1">Some of them Support Toleration Bill, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Ten appointed as Ecclesiastical Commissioners, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - <li class="i1">Nonjurors amongst them, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prayers for James II. ascribed to them, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - <li class="i1">Some of them Ejected, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">An Assembly Convened by Tillotson for Drawing up Ecclesiastical Regulations, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a></li> - <li class="i1">Tenison addresses Circular to them, - <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Declaration, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Responsibility of Nominating Dignitaries of the Church left to them, - <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Meetings of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_271">271–276</a>, - <a href="#Page_277">277–282</a></li> - <li class="i1">Account of some of them, - <a href="#Page_298">298–314</a></li> - - <li>Blackhall, - <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - - <li>Blackhead, Stephen, - <a href="#Footnote_222">188, note</a></li> - - <li>Blackmore, Richard, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Blagge, Margaret, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> - - <li>Blount, Charles, - <a href="#Page_349">349</a></li> - - <li>Bold, Samuel, - <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li> - - <li>Bostaquet, Isaac Dumont de, - <a href="#Page_34">34</a>, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a>, - <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - - <li>Bowdler, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - - <li>Bowerman, Edmund, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> - - <li>Boyle, Charles, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - - <li>Boyle, Robert, Lectures Founded by, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, <i>et seq.</i></li> - - <li>Boyne, Battle of the, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_161">161</a>, - <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - - <li>Bradford, Dr., - <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - - <li>Brady, Nicholas, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - - <li>Bray, Dr., his Interest in the S.P.C.K., - <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - <li class="i1">And in Foreign Missions, - <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, - <a href="#Page_370">370</a>, - <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - - <li>Broghill, Lord, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - - <li>Brokesby, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - - <li>Browne, Dr. Thomas, - <a href="#Page_350">350</a></li> - - <li>Browne, Sir William, - <a href="#Footnote_373">303, note</a></li> - - <li>Bryan, Dr., - <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> - - <li>Bulkeley, Sir Richard, - <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - - <li>Bull, George, Archdeacon of Llandaff, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, - <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> - - <li>Bunyan, John, Popularity as a Preacher, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - - <li>Burden, George, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Burkett, William, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Burnet, Gilbert, Bishop of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_51">51</a>, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, - <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li> - <li class="i1">At the Hague, - <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - <li class="i1">William’s Declaration Revised by him, - <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - <li class="i1">Comes over with William, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, - <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches at Exeter, - <a href="#Page_40">40</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interview with Clarendon, - <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches before the Commons, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Opposes the idea of making William sole King, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Bishop of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches Coronation Sermon, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_129">129–133</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Meetings of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_139">139–143</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Liberalism, - <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Dispute with Dr. Jane, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> - <li class="i1">Extols Tillotson, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches on Thanksgiving-Day, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preceptor to the Duke of Gloucester, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a>, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li> - <li class="i1">Supports the Bill against Popery, - <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His <i>Exposition of the XXXIX. Articles</i> censured by Lower House of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_277">277–282</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Quarrel with Woodward, - <a href="#Page_291">291</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Impressions of William’s Character, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, - <a href="#Page_299">299</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Influence, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Estimate of Compton’s Character, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anecdote of, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - <li class="i1">Mourns over Inconsistency of the Clergy, - <a href="#Page_327">327</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Predicts the Speedy Decline of Nonconformity, - <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - - <li>Bury, Dr., - <a href="#Footnote_253">213, note</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_261">218, note</a></li> - - <li>Busby, Dr., - <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - - <li>Busher, Leonard, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> - - <li>Button, Ralph, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Caffin, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_455">455</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Calamy, Dr., Edmund, junior, - <a href="#Page_136">136</a>, - <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a>, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a>, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Student at Utrecht, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Reading, - <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Nonconformity, - <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Preaching, - <a href="#Page_409">409</a></li> - <li class="i1">Accepts an Invitation to assist Sylvester, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Ordination, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li> - - <li>Calvin, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a></li> - - <li>Carey, Lady, - <a href="#Footnote_47">38, note</a></li> - - <li>Carstairs, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, - <a href="#Page_37">37</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Cartwright, Thomas, Bishop of Chester, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li>Chadwick, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - - <li>Chamberlayne, - <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - - <li>Chandler, Benjamin, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - - <li>Charles I., - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - - <li>Charles II., - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> - - <li>Charnock, Robert, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - - <li>Cherry, Francis, his Hospitality, - <a href="#Page_387">387–390</a></li> - - <li>Chicheley, Archbishop, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - - <li>Chorlton, John, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Clarendon, Henry Hyde, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, - <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, - <a href="#Page_58">58</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">Joins the Prince of Orange, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Private Conference with William, - <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interviews with Burnet, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Interviews with Bishops, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - <li class="i1">His remark about Churchmen, - <a href="#Page_267">267</a></li> - - <li>Clarges, Sir Thomas, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_133">106, note</a></li> - - <li>Clark, Samuel, - <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li> - - <li>Clarkson, David, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> - - <li>Clergy,</li> - <li class="i1">Present an Address to William III., - <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> - <li class="i1">Uphold the Cause of Hereditary Monarchy, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuse to Read James II.’s. Declaration, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - <li class="i1">Question of Requiring Oaths from the Clergy, - <a href="#Page_89">89</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their manner of Taking the Oath, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Many of them Oppose the Toleration Bill, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">Nonjurors who Voluntarily left their Cures, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - <li class="i1">Accounts of some of the Clergy, - <a href="#Page_314">314–320</a></li> - <li class="i1">Character of the, - <a href="#Page_325">325–328</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Circumstances, - <a href="#Page_328">328–331</a></li> - <li class="i1">Costume, - <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preach on Behalf of Societies, - <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - - <li>Cobham, Lord, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - - <li>Cogan, Richard, - <a href="#Page_41">41</a></li> - - <li>Colchester, Colonel Maynard, - <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - - <li>Collier, Jeremy, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - <li class="i1">Absolves Friend and Parkyns at Tyburn, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - <li class="i1">Defends what he did, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a>, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> - - <li>Collinges, Dr. John, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - - <li>Commission, Ecclesiastical</li> - <li class="i1">Appointment of, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Proceedings, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - <li class="i1">Discussions concerning the Apocrypha, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prayer-book Version of Psalms, - <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> - <li class="i1">Liturgy, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - <li class="i1">Manner of receiving the Sacrament, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Godfathers, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Calendar, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a></li> - <li class="i1">Athanasian Creed, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Ordination, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a></li> - <li class="i1">Daily Prayer, - <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> - <li class="i1">Communion Service, - <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> - <li class="i1">Baptism, - <a href="#Page_135">135</a></li> - <li class="i1">Catechism and Confirmation Service, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Visitation of the Sick, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Burial Service, - <a href="#Page_136">136</a></li> - <li class="i1">Sittings of Commission Ends, - <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Labour Lost, <i>ib.</i></li> - - <li>Commons, House of, Assemble, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declare the Throne Vacant, - <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li> - <li class="i1">Provisions for Securing Religious Liberty, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - <li class="i1">Conference with the Lords, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declare William and Mary King and Queen, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Their Comprehension and Toleration Bills, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_133">106, note</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Appeal to the King to Suppress Books against the Trinity, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> - <li class="i1">Debate on the Bill for Fenwick’s Attainder, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - - <li>Comprehension Bill, - <a href="#Page_101">101–109</a></li> - <li class="i1">Difficulties of Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_112">112</a></li> - <li class="i1">Tillotson’s Views on Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - - <li>Compton, Bishop of London, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, - <a href="#Page_33">33</a>, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend James II., - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">Signs the Invitation to the Prince of Orange, - <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Interviews with James, - <a href="#Page_29">29–31</a></li> - <li class="i1">Accompanies Princess Anne in her Flight, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - <li class="i1">Presents an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> - <li class="i1">Wishes Mary to be Queen Regent, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Assists at the Coronation of William and Mary, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="i1">Promotes Union, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Note to Strype, - <a href="#Footnote_146">115, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Liberalism, - <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Discontent at not being made Primate, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches at Opening of St. Paul’s, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - <li class="i1">Becomes a Tory, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a>, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interest in Foreign Missions, - <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, - <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - - <li>Con, Father, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - - <li>Convention, The, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, - <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> - - <li>Convocation, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> - <li class="i1">Meets, - <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - <li class="i1">Houses differ about the Address, - <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - <li class="i1">Effect little, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - <li class="i1"><i>Letter to a Convocation Man</i>, - <a href="#Page_261">261–264</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Little Resemblance between English Convocations and Early Synods, - <a href="#Page_268">268</a></li> - <li class="i1">Restored to its Sessional Rights, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a></li> - <li class="i1">Contests between the Two Houses, - <a href="#Page_272">272</a></li> - <li class="i1">Disagree about Prorogation, <i>ib.</i>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a></li> - <li class="i1">Present an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - <li class="i1">Examine Toland’s Book, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prorogued, - <a href="#Page_276">276</a></li> - <li class="i1">Reassembles, - <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - <li class="i1">Lower House Censures Burnet’s Book, - <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Incidents connected with Presentation of Censure to the Upper House, - <a href="#Page_278">278–282</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prorogued, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> - <li class="i1">Dissolved, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Kennet’s Book on Convocation, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - <li class="i1">Reassembles, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> - <li class="i1">Fresh Contentions, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a></li> - <li class="i1">Illness and Death of Prolocutor, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, - <a href="#Page_293">293</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prorogued, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - <li class="i1">Interest in Foreign Missions, - <a href="#Page_370">370</a></li> - - <li>Cook, a Nonjuring Clergyman, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - - <li>Cornbury, Edward, Viscount, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - - <li>Cranburne, Charles, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - - <li>Cressey, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Crew, Nathaniel, Bishop of Durham, Present at Interview of Bishops with James II., - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, - <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li> - - <li>Crisp, Dr. Tobias, His Works, - <a href="#Page_424">424–427</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Cromwell, Richard, Visits Howe in his last Illness, - <a href="#Page_448">448</a></li> - - <li>Crowther, Joseph, - <a href="#Footnote_404">319, note</a></li> - - <li>Cudworth, Dr., - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a>, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - - <li>Cumberland, Bishop of Peterborough, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li>Currency, Debased State of, - <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>D’Adda, the Papal Nuncio, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - - <li>Danby, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a>, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appointed President of the Council, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> - - <li>Dartmouth, Lord, - <a href="#Footnote_23">21, note</a></li> - - <li>Davis, Richard, - <a href="#Page_423">423</a></li> - - <li>De Foe, Daniel, - <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, - <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, - <a href="#Page_417">417</a>, - <a href="#Page_443">443</a></li> - <li class="i1"><i>His Enquiry</i>, - <a href="#Page_431">431</a></li> - - <li>Devonshire, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - - <li>De Witt, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, - <a href="#Page_3">3</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - - <li>Dodwell, Henry, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocates Nonjuring Cause, - <a href="#Page_380">380</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interest in the Colonies, - <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Correspondence with Tenison, - <a href="#Page_381">381</a>, - <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Ecclesiastical Opinions, - <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Pupil Hearne, - <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - - <li>Doolittle, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - - <li>Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury, - <a href="#Page_130">130</a>, - <a href="#Page_131">131</a></li> - - <li>Dunton, John, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, - <a href="#Page_443">443</a></li> - - <li>Dyer, - <a href="#Footnote_145">114, note</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Edward I., - <a href="#Page_262">262</a>, - <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - - <li>Edwards, Dr. Jonathan, - <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> - - <li>Edwin, Sir Humphrey, - <a href="#Page_429">429</a>, - <a href="#Page_430">430</a></li> - - <li>Elizabeth, Queen, - <a href="#Page_11">11</a>, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> - - <li>Entwich, Sir Edward, - <a href="#Page_170">170</a></li> - - <li>Evelyn, John, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Letter to Sancroft, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - <li class="i1">Meets the Bishops at Lambeth, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - <li class="i1">Boyle’s Trustee, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appoints Bentley as Lecturer, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a>, - <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - - <li>Evelyn, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Fairclough, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Fenwick, Sir John, a Conspirator against William III., - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - <li class="i1">Arrested, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Disclosures, - <a href="#Page_235">235–238</a></li> - <li class="i1">Bill of Attainder against, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attempts to Save his Life, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, - <a href="#Page_240">240</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Execution, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - - <li>Ferguson, Robert, - <a href="#Page_35">35</a>, - <a href="#Page_40">40</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_51">41, note</a></li> - - <li>Firman, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_212">212</a></li> - - <li>Flavel, John, - <a href="#Page_177">177</a></li> - - <li>Fleetwood, - <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - - <li>Fog, Dean of Chester, - <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - - <li>Ford, Dr. Simon, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - - <li>Fowler, Bishop of Gloucester, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Fox, George, - <a href="#Page_456">456</a>, - <a href="#Page_457">457</a></li> - - <li>Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Moderator Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_149">149</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ejected, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - - <li>Frankland, Richard, - <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> - - <li>Freeman, Dean of Peterborough, - <a href="#Page_272">272</a>, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a>, - <a href="#Page_290">290</a></li> - - <li>Friend, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Gailhard, John, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - - <li>Gale, Theophilus, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Galmoy, Lord, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li> - - <li>Gastrell, - <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - - <li>George, Prince of Denmark, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a></li> - - <li>Gibbons, Grinling, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - - <li>Gibbs, John, - <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li> - - <li>Gilbert, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - - <li>Gleanes, Sir Peter, - <a href="#Footnote_433">336, note</a></li> - - <li>Gloucester, Duke of, Son of Princess Anne, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anecdote of His Childhood, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Education, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li> - <li class="i1">Burial in Westminster Abbey, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">His Death Mourned by the Nation, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - - <li>Goodall, Charles, - <a href="#Footnote_416">328, note</a></li> - - <li>Gooderick, Sir Henry, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - - <li>Goodridge, Richard, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> - - <li>Goodwin, John, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a></li> - - <li>Gordon, Patrick, - <a href="#Page_372">372</a></li> - - <li>Grabe, Dr., - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - - <li>Grafton, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - - <li>Griffith, - <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - - <li>Grove, Dr., - <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - - <li>Guildford, Lord, - <a href="#Page_364">364</a>, - <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - - <li>Gwyn, Nell, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Hale, Sir Matthew, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - - <li>Halifax, Lord, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_86">86</a></li> - - <li>Hall, John, Bishop of Bristol, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a></li> - - <li>Hall, Timothy, Bishop of Oxford, - <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li>Hardwick, Lord Chancellor, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - - <li>Harris, Dr., - <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - - <li>Harrison, Michael, - <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> - - <li>Hearne, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - - <li>Henry V., - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - - <li>Henry VIII., - <a href="#Footnote_244">204, note</a></li> - - <li>Henry, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, - <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Preaches at Opening of the Chapel at Chester, - <a href="#Page_403">403</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Education, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His <i>Discourse concerning the Nature of Schism</i>, - <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Ministry, - <a href="#Page_433">433–435</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_521">436, note</a></li> - - <li>Henry, Philip, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - <li class="i1">Desires Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_442">442</a></li> - - <li>Herbert, Admiral, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> - - <li>Heywood, Oliver, takes part in Ordinations, - <a href="#Page_405">405–407</a></li> - <li class="i1">His New Place of Worship, - <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preaches at Wakefield, - <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Footnote_534">445, note</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Hickes, George, Dean of Worcester, a Nonjuror, his Character and Writings, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a>, - <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, - <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to Him, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - <li class="i1">Protests against his Ejectment, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - <li class="i1">Suspected of Treasonable Intrigues, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Visit to St. Germains, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - <li class="i1">Nominated Suffragan Bishop of Thetford, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Friendship for Dr. Grabe, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attends Pepys in his Last Illness, - <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Spiritual Fanatic, - <a href="#Page_398">398</a></li> - - <li>Hobbes, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a>, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a>, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - - <li>Holcroft, Francis, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_182">182</a></li> - - <li>Holmes, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>Holt, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - - <li>Hooper, Dr., Chaplain to Princess Mary, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, - <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Prolocutor of Lower House of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_271">271–282</a></li> - - <li>Hopkins, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, - <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> - - <li>Horneck, Dr., - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, - <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Hough, John, Bishop of Oxford, Translated to Lichfield and Coventry in 1699, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a>, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li>Horton, Lord, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - - <li>Howard, John, - <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li> - - <li>Howe, John, - <a href="#Page_184">184</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a>, - <a href="#Page_404">404</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Accompanies Clergy to present an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - <li class="i1">Desires Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Conversation with the King on Indulgence and Comprehension Bills, - <a href="#Page_113">113, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anxious for Union, - <a href="#Page_175">175</a></li> - <li class="i1">Takes part in Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li> - <li class="i1">Reproves Profane Swearers, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - <li class="i1">Objects to take part in Calamy’s Ordination, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - <li class="i1">Lecturer at Pinners’ Hall, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Answer to De Foe’s <i>Enquiry</i>, - <a href="#Page_432">432</a></li> - <li class="i1">Laments the Change in Dissent, - <a href="#Page_441">441</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Last Days, - <a href="#Page_445">445–448</a></li> - <li class="i1">Richard Cromwell Visits him, - <a href="#Page_448">448</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_449">449</a></li> - - <li>Hulton, - <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Humphreys, Humphrey, Bishop of Bangor, - <a href="#Page_279">279</a>, - <a href="#Page_280">280</a>, - <a href="#Page_282">282</a></li> - - <li>Hussey, Joseph, - <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Inch, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a></li> - - <li>Independents, their Hopes in William III., - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Meeting with Presbyterians, - <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Views regarding Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocate Toleration, - <a href="#Page_115">115</a>, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">Protected by Toleration Act, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Political Views, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Places of Worship, - <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - <li class="i1">Efforts at Union with Presbyterians, - <a href="#Page_420">420</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Difference between Presbyterians and Independents, - <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Reception of a New Minister, - <a href="#Page_437">437</a></li> - <li class="i1">Mode of Conducting Worship, - <a href="#Page_438">438</a></li> - - <li>Ireland, James lands in, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - <li class="i1">James’ Declaration to his Subjects in, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - <li class="i1">Battle of the Boyne, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_164">164</a></li> - - <li>Irish Night, The, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a>, - <a href="#Page_55">55</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li class="hangingindent">Jacobites, their Form of Prayer ascribed to Nonjuring Prelates, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Conspiracy, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - <li class="i1">Exult in Death of Mary, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - <li class="i1">Trouble the Church, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Hatred of Sherlock, - <a href="#Page_216">216</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Their Correspondence with the Court of St. Germains, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Conspiracy against William, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - <li class="i1">Executions of, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Intrigues, - <a href="#Page_236">236–241</a>, - <a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> - <li class="i1">Some who had taken Oaths Retract, - <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> - - <li>James II., his Misgovernment, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - <li class="i1">Birth of a Son, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - <li class="i1">The Child is Baptized in the Romish Church, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">James Disbelieves in Rumours of Dutch Invasion, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Conduct after the Bishops’ Acquittal, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Proceedings in Reference to the Church, - <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Declaration, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summons the Bishops, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Interviews with the Bishops, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a>, - <a href="#Page_31">31–33</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Concessions, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> - <li class="i1">Approves of the Bishops’ Collects, - <a href="#Page_24">24</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Authorises Mew to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Alarm at William’s Declaration, - <a href="#Page_29">29</a></li> - <li class="i1">Receives Loyal Addresses from Scotland, - <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> - <li class="i1">Goes to Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advised to Treat with William, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">His Faith in the Bishops, - <a href="#Page_44">44</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Deserted by his Daughter Anne and many others, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Return to London, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - <li class="i1">Issues New Proclamations, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Flies to Sheerness, - <a href="#Page_53">53</a></li> - <li class="i1">Returns to London, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - <li class="i1">Forced to Surrender, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> - <li class="i1">Goes to Rochester, <i>ib.</i>,</li> - <li class="i2">and to France, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">His Letter to Sancroft, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li> - <li class="i1">Lands at Kinsale, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a></li> - <li class="i1">Issues a Declaration to his Irish Subjects, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - <li class="i1">Scheme for his Restoration, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Declaration, - <a href="#Page_227">227</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Court at St. Germains, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Knowledge of Insurrection, and Assassination Plot, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">His Religious Sincerity, - <a href="#Page_252">252</a></li> - <li class="i1">Last Words to his Son, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - <li class="i1">Louis XIV. visits him, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, <i>ib.</i></li> - - <li>James, Prince of Wales, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Birth, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - <li class="i1">Suspected to be Supposititious, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Baptism, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proclaimed King of England by Louis XIV., - <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - - <li>Jane, Dr. William, Dean of Gloucester, - <a href="#Footnote_338">271, note</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a>, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Prolocutor, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Dispute with Burnet, - <a href="#Page_142">142</a></li> - - <li>Jefford, or Gifford, Mayor of Exeter, - <a href="#Footnote_16">16, note</a></li> - - <li>Jeffreys, Sir George, - <a href="#Footnote_46">38, note,</a>, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a>, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - <li class="i1">Elected Chancellor of Oxford by James II., - <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - <li class="i1">Falls into the Hands of the Mob, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> - - <li>Johnson, Dr., - <a href="#Footnote_373">303, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Anecdote of Burnet and Sprat, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - - <li>Jollie, Timothy, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Jurieu, a French Theologian, - <a href="#Page_138">138</a></li> - - <li>Juxon, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Keach, Benjamin, - <a href="#Page_452">452–454</a></li> - - <li>Keith, George, - <a href="#Page_367">367</a>, - <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - - <li>Ken, Thomas, Bishop of Bath and Wells, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_379">379</a></li> - <li class="i1">Chaplain to the Princess Mary, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preserves his Allegiance to James, - <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuses to take the Oath, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_147">147</a>, - <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Moderate Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ejected, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Departure from Wells, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">A Letter finding Fault with Tenison ascribed to him, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - <li class="i1">Troubled by the Abjuration Bill, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Receives Half the Income from the See of Bath and Wells, from Kidder, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Retirement at Longleat, - <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - - <li>Kennet, White, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a>, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a>, - <a href="#Page_373">373</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Book on Ecclesiastical Synods, - <a href="#Page_284">284–286</a></li> - - <li>Kentish, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li> - - <li>Kettlewell, John, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_383">383</a>, - <a href="#Page_399">399</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to him, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Ecclesiastical Opinions, - <a href="#Page_377">377</a>, - <a href="#Page_389">389</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Benevolence, - <a href="#Page_378">378</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_379">379</a></li> - - <li>Keyes, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - - <li>Kidder, Richard, - <a href="#Page_126">126</a>, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Bishop of Bath and Wells, - <a href="#Page_304">304</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_305">305</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">Boyle Lecturer, - <a href="#Page_343">343</a></li> - - <li>Kiffin, William, - <a href="#Page_452">452</a></li> - - <li>King, Lord Chief Justice, - <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li class="hangingindent">Lake, Bishop of Chichester, a Nonjuror, Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - - <li>Lamplugh, Thomas, Bishop of Exeter, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - <li class="i1">Created Archbishop of York by James II., - <a href="#Page_39">39</a></li> - - <li>Landen, Battle of, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - - <li>Laud, Archbishop, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, - <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> - - <li>Lauderdale, Duke of, - <a href="#Page_338">338</a></li> - - <li>Le Clerc, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, - <a href="#Page_345">345</a>, - <a href="#Page_417">417</a></li> - - <li>Lee, Dr. Francis, - <a href="#Page_383">383</a></li> - - <li>Leeds, Duke of, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - - <li>Le Neve, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - - <li>Leslie, Charles, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_349">349</a>, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - - <li>Licensing Act, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - - <li>Limborch, - <a href="#Page_117">117</a>, - <a href="#Page_345">345</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Litany, Alterations made in, by Ecclesiastical Commissioners, - <a href="#Page_134">134</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Lloyd, William, Bishop of Norwich, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Letters to Sancroft, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, - <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, - <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appointed Sancroft’s Vicar, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - <li class="i1">Assured of James’ Favour, - <a href="#Page_230">230</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Non-Compounder, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - <li class="i1">Discipline exercised by him, - <a href="#Page_321">321</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Lloyd, William, Bishop of St. Asaph, calls on Patrick, - <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">At Meetings with Clarendon and Bishops, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a></li> - <li class="i1">Votes for a Regency, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - <li class="i1">Takes part in the Coronation, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Member of Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Made Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry 1692; Translated to Worcester, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, - <a href="#Page_335">335</a></li> - <li class="i1">Practical Joke played by him, - <a href="#Footnote_384">308, note</a></li> - - <li>Lobb, Stephen, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a>, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - - <li>Locke, John, Advocates Toleration, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_344">344–348</a></li> - - <li>Lords, House of, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - <li class="i1">Vote for a Protestant Succession, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Dispute with the Commons about the Throne being Vacant, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declare William and Mary King and Queen, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Prosecute Author and Printer of a Book on the Trinity, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li> - - <li>Louis XIV., - <a href="#Page_2">2</a>, - <a href="#Page_7">7</a>, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a>, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, - <a href="#Page_144">144</a>, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - <li class="i1">Visits James on his Death-bed, - <a href="#Page_253">253</a></li> - <li class="i1">Acknowledges Prince of Wales, King, <i>ib.</i></li> - - <li>Lovelace, Lord, - <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - - <li>Lowick, Edward, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - - <li>Lowth, Dr., - <a href="#Page_172">172</a></li> - - <li>Lucy, Lady Theophila, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - - <li>Lumley, Lord, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - - <li>Luther, Martin, - <a href="#Page_215">215</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a>, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Macclesfield, - <a href="#Footnote_142">111, note</a></li> - - <li>Mackworth, Sir Humphrey, - <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - - <li>Macpherson, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - - <li>Magdalen College, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - - <li>Manlove, - <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - - <li>Manningham, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Manton, Dr., - <a href="#Page_425">425</a>, - <a href="#Page_443">443</a></li> - - <li>Mapletop, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Marlborough, John Churchill, Duke of, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a></li> - - <li>Mary, Princess, Daughter of Charles I., - <a href="#Page_1">1</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Mary, Princess, Daughter of James II., - <a href="#Page_28">28</a>, - <a href="#Page_66">66</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, - <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Marriage, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Chaplains, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Low Church Principle’s, - <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li> - <li class="i1">Burnet’s Counsels to, - <a href="#Page_8">8</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Affection for the Church of England, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proposals to make her Queen Regent, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declared Queen by the Lords, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a>,</li> - <li class="i2">and by the Commons, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proclaimed Queen, - <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> - <li class="i1">Sends to Sancroft for his Blessing, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Her Coronation, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="i1">Receives Tidings of William’s Wound, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - <li class="i1">Highly esteems Tenison, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attacked by Small-Pox, - <a href="#Page_196">196</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Death, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Her Last Hours, - <a href="#Page_196">196–199</a></li> - <li class="i1">Her Funeral, - <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - <li class="i1">General Sorrow, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">A Lock of her Hair found on William III. after his Death, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> - - <li>Mason, John, his Fanaticism, - <a href="#Page_317">317</a>, - <a href="#Page_319">319</a></li> - - <li>Mawburn, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>May Fair, Riot in, - <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - - <li>Maynard, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> - - <li>Mayo, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - - <li>Mead, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, - <a href="#Page_426">426</a></li> - - <li>Meggot, Dean of Winchester, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - - <li>Melmoth, William, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, - <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - - <li>Mew, Peter, Bishop of Winchester, - <a href="#Page_22">22</a>, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">Authorised to Settle Troubles at Magdalen, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Letters to Sancroft, - <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - - <li>Middleton, Charles, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a></li> - <li class="i1">Takes part in Jacobite Intrigues, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - <li class="i1">At the Death-bed of James II., - <a href="#Footnote_316">254, note</a></li> - - <li>Mill, Dr. John, - <a href="#Page_139">139</a></li> - - <li>Milner, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> - - <li>Milton, John, - <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> - - <li>Monmouth, James, Duke of, - <a href="#Footnote_46">38, note</a></li> - - <li>Montague, - <a href="#Page_320">320</a></li> - - <li>Moore, John, Bishop of Norwich, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Extensive Library, - <a href="#Page_303">303</a></li> - - <li>Mordaunt, Lord, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_142">111, note</a></li> - - <li>More, Henry, - <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - - <li>Morley, Bishop of Worcester, - <a href="#Footnote_23">21, note</a></li> - - <li>Morton, Charles, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Namur Besieged by William, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - - <li>Nelson, Robert, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a>, - <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_356">356</a>, - <a href="#Page_385">385</a>, - <a href="#Page_397">397</a></li> - <li class="i1">Abandons Nonjuring Party, - <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character and Appearance, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Guest at Shottesbrook, - <a href="#Page_388">388</a></li> - - <li>Newcome, Henry, - <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - - <li>Newton, Sir Isaac, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">His <i>Principia</i>, - <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - - <li>Nicholson, Bishop of Carlisle, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> - - <li>Niebuhr, - <a href="#Page_349">349</a></li> - - <li>Noncompounders, - <a href="#Page_238">238</a>, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - - <li>Nonconformists, - <a href="#Page_18">18</a>, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_106">106</a>, - <a href="#Page_137">137</a>, - <a href="#Page_358">358</a></li> - <li class="i1">Present Addresses to William, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_60">60</a>, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Opinions concerning the Revolution, - <a href="#Page_70">70–72</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Failure of Efforts in their Favour made in Parliament, - <a href="#Page_93">93</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Differences of Opinion with regard to Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_109">109</a></li> - <li class="i1">Toleration Act passed for their Relief, - <a href="#Page_114">114–121</a></li> - <li class="i1">Thankful for the Revolution, - <a href="#Page_174">174</a></li> - <li class="i1">Deaths amongst their Ministers, - <a href="#Page_175">175–183</a></li> - <li class="i1">Preach Sermons on Behalf of Societies, - <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Places of Worship, - <a href="#Page_400">400</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ordinations, - <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ministers, - <a href="#Page_408">408</a></li> - <li class="i1">Seminaries, - <a href="#Page_413">413</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attempt at Union amongst them, - <a href="#Page_420">420</a></li> - <li class="i1">Antinomian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_422">422</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Worship, - <a href="#Page_433">433</a></li> - <li class="i1">The Fund Board, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - <li class="i1">Trotman’s Trust, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - <li class="i1">Sundays at Home, - <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - <li class="i1">Deaths among them, - <a href="#Page_442">442–449</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Social Separation from Churchmen, - <a href="#Page_450">450</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Nonjurors, their Objection to taking the Oaths, - <a href="#Page_89">89</a>, <i>et. seq.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Their Disaffection, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prelates, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a></li> - <li class="i1">Clergy, - <a href="#Page_151">151</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Numbers, - <a href="#Page_154">154</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to them, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - <li class="i1">In Ireland, - <a href="#Page_166">166</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Sympathy with Jacobite Conspirators, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - <li class="i1">Treated with Consideration, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a></li> - <li class="i1">At last Ejected, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Find Fault with Tenison’s Funeral Sermon, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - <li class="i1">Trouble the Church, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> - <li class="i1">Join in a Conspiracy against William, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a></li> - <li class="i1">Divisions among them, - <a href="#Page_238">238</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Political Views, - <a href="#Page_259">259</a>, - <a href="#Page_395">395</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Their Judgment of Ministers who took the Oaths, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a>, - <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appoint Bishops, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - <li class="i1">Circumstances of Clergy among, - <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> - <li class="i1">Eminent Divines among, - <a href="#Page_377">377–384</a></li> - <li class="i1">Laymen, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - <li class="i1">Centres of Influence, - <a href="#Page_387">387</a></li> - <li class="i1">Deaths of Prelates, - <a href="#Page_391">391</a></li> - <li class="i1">Religious Spirit, - <a href="#Page_396">396</a></li> - <li class="i1">Modes of Worship, - <a href="#Page_398">398</a></li> - - <li>Norfolk, Duke of, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - - <li>Norris, John, his Writings, - <a href="#Page_315">315</a>, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a>, - <a href="#Page_350">350</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Mysticism, - <a href="#Page_458">458</a></li> - - <li>North, - <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - - <li>Nottingham, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_102">102</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appointed Secretary of State, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a></li> - <li class="i1">Moves Toleration Bill, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Oath of Allegiance, - <a href="#Page_80">80</a>, - <a href="#Page_88">88–97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Coronation Oath, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - - <li>Oglethorpe, Sir Theophilus, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - - <li>Oldfield, Joshua, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Oldfield, Nathaniel, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - - <li>Overall, Bishop, his <i>Convocation Book</i>, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - - <li>Owen, James, - <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - - <li>Oxford University, Supports the Prince of Orange, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - <li class="i1">William’s Visit to, - <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Condemns the Doctrines of Sherlock and Bingham on the Trinity, - <a href="#Page_222">222</a></li> - <li class="i1">Presents an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Palmer, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a>, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - - <li>Paman, Dr., - <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> - - <li>Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Parkyns, Sir William, a Jacobite Conspirator, his Execution, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - - <li>Parliament, Debates on Oaths of Allegiance, - <a href="#Page_88">88</a></li> - <li class="i1">Bill for Repealing Corporation Act, - <a href="#Page_92">92</a></li> - <li class="i1">Coronation Oath, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Comprehension Bill, - <a href="#Page_101">101–107</a></li> - <li class="i1">Requests William to Summon Convocation, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> - <li class="i1">Comprehension Bill dropped, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> - <li class="i1">Passes Toleration Act, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a></li> - <li class="i1">Excitement at Election of New Parliament, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">In 1698 passes Act against anyone Denying the Doctrine of the Trinity, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - <li class="i1">Repealed in 1813, - <a href="#Page_226">226</a></li> - <li class="i1">Passes Bill against Roman Catholics, - <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li> - <li class="i1">Succession Bill, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - <li class="i1">Abjuration Bill, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Patrick, Dr. Simon, receives Tidings of William’s Intention to come to England, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - <li class="i1">Visited by Tenison and Lloyd, - <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> - <li class="i1">An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, - <a href="#Page_127">127</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Bishop of Chichester, - <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - <li class="i1">Translated to Ely, - <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_301">301</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">Discipline Exercised by, - <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> - <li class="i1">His <i>Century of Select Psalms</i>, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> - <li class="i1">Deplores Carelessness in Religion, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Letter to the Rector of Dodington, - <a href="#Footnote_508">418, note</a></li> - - <li>Payne, William, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a></li> - - <li>Pelham, Sir Nicholas, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a></li> - - <li>Penn, William, - <a href="#Page_71">71</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, - <a href="#Page_457">457</a></li> - - <li>Pepys, Samuel, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a>, - <a href="#Page_393">393</a></li> - - <li>Petiver, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - - <li>Phillips, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_367">367</a></li> - - <li>Plunkenet, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - - <li>Pool, his <i>Annotations</i>, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - - <li>Portland, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> - - <li>Powle, - <a href="#Page_74">74</a></li> - - <li>Prayers for King James ascribed to Nonjurors, - <a href="#Page_157">157</a></li> - <li class="i1">Authorship Denied by them, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Attributed to Hickes, Kettlewell, or Sherlock, <i>ib.</i></li> - - <li>Presbyterians, their Hopes in William III., - <a href="#Page_10">10</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Meeting with Independents, - <a href="#Page_60">60</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocates of Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_110">110</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Present an Address of Condolence to William on the Death of Mary, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Political Views, - <a href="#Page_257">257</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Places of Worship, - <a href="#Page_401">401</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ordinations, - <a href="#Page_405">405</a></li> - <li class="i1">Synods, - <a href="#Page_407">407</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attempts at Union with Independents, - <a href="#Page_420">420</a></li> - <li class="i1">Lord Mayors, - <a href="#Page_429">429–431</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Difference between Independents and Presbyterians, - <a href="#Page_436">436</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Preston, Richard Graham, Viscount, Head of the Jacobite Conspiracy, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - <li class="i1">Tried and Convicted, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Pardoned, - <a href="#Page_167">167</a></li> - - <li>Psalms, Prayer-book Version, - <a href="#Page_126">126</a></li> - <li class="i1">Other Versions, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - - <li>Pullin, - <a href="#Page_234">234</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Quakers, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, - <a href="#Page_398">398</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocates of Toleration, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">Protected by Toleration Act, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - <li class="i1">Special Provision for their Relief, - <a href="#Page_121">121</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Political Views, - <a href="#Page_258">258</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attempts to Convert them, - <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - <li class="i1">Benefited by the Revolution, - <a href="#Page_456">456</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Leaders, - <a href="#Page_456">456</a></li> - <li class="i1">Self-government, - <a href="#Page_457">457</a></li> - <li class="i1">Mysticism, - <a href="#Page_458">458</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Rapin-Thoyras, - <a href="#Page_35">35–36</a></li> - - <li>Ray, - <a href="#Page_309">309</a></li> - - <li>Reresby, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - - <li>Richard I., - <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a></li> - - <li>Robartes, Francis, - <a href="#Footnote_37">30, note</a></li> - - <li>Rochester, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - - <li>Roman Catholics, Bill against them, - <a href="#Page_245">245</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Political Views, - <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attempts to Convert them, - <a href="#Page_368">368</a></li> - - <li>Rooke, Sir George, - <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - - <li>Rookwood, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - - <li>Rosse, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, - <a href="#Page_145">145</a></li> - - <li>Russell, Lady Rachel, - <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - - <li>Russell, Lord William, - <a href="#Page_152">152</a>, - <a href="#Page_252">252</a></li> - - <li>Ryswick, Peace of, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Sacheverel, - <a href="#Footnote_133">107, note</a></li> - - <li>Sackville, Major-General, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - - <li>Saint Germains, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> - <li class="i1">James’ Court at, - <a href="#Page_228">228</a>, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - - <li>St. Paul’s Cathedral, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a>, - <a href="#Page_352">352</a></li> - - <li>St. Vincent de Paul, - <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, - <a href="#Page_5">5</a>, - <a href="#Page_25">25</a>, - <a href="#Page_42">42</a>, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a>, - <a href="#Page_229">229</a></li> - <li class="i1">Trelawny’s Letter to him, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a></li> - <li class="i1">Admonitions to his Clergy, - <a href="#Page_18">18</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Scheme of Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">Excuses himself, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - <li class="i1">Signs Paper of Advice, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interviews with the King, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, - <a href="#Page_31">31–33</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Denies Signing Invitation to William, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_38">31, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">Mew’s Letters to him, - <a href="#Page_45">45</a>, - <a href="#Page_56">56</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Discourse with Clarendon and Tenison, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - <li class="i1">Favours a Regency, - <a href="#Page_66">66–68</a>, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a>, - <a href="#Page_91">91</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuses to Attend the Convention, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Reprimands his Chaplain for Praying for William and Mary, - <a href="#Page_2">2</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Objects to Burnet being made Bishop of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_85">85</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuses to take Oath of Allegiance, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Favours Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_108">108</a></li> - <li class="i1">Shuts himself up at Lambeth, - <a href="#Page_147">147</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Lloyd’s Letters to him, - <a href="#Page_155">155</a>, - <a href="#Page_165">165</a>, - <a href="#Page_166">166</a>, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, - <a href="#Page_170">170</a>, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_322">322</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ejected from Lambeth, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - <li class="i1">Retires to Freshingfield, - <a href="#Page_187">187</a></li> - <li class="i1">Suspected of Intrigues against William, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Hatred against the Establishment, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Appoints Lloyd his Vicar in Ecclesiastical Matters, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a>, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - <li class="i1">Last Days, - <a href="#Page_190">190</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Tory, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - - <li>Sanderson, - <a href="#Footnote_444">348, note</a></li> - - <li>Sawyer, Sir Robert, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - - <li>Schomberg, Count of, - <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - - <li>Scot, Dr., - <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, - <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - - <li>Scotland, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> - <li class="i1">Scotch Bishops Send an Address to James II., - <a href="#Page_43">43</a></li> - <li class="i1">Constitutions for the Church of, - <a href="#Footnote_242">204, note</a></li> - - <li>Searle, - <a href="#Footnote_48">39, note</a></li> - - <li>Seymour, Sir Edward, - <a href="#Footnote_48">39, note,</a>, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a></li> - - <li>Sharpe, Dean of Norwich, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_414">414</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proposes Tillotson as Prolocutor, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Archbishop of York, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">Objects to Religious Societies, - <a href="#Page_357">357</a>, - <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - - <li>Sheldon, Gilbert, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a></li> - - <li>Sherlock, Dr. William, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_70">70</a>, - <a href="#Page_158">158</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_161">161</a></li> - <li class="i1">Change in his Opinions, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Takes the Oaths, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a></li> - <li class="i1">Outcries against him, - <a href="#Page_163">163</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Takes part in the Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_214">214–222</a></li> - - <li>Shorter, Sir John, - <a href="#Page_429">429</a></li> - - <li>Shower, Sir Bartholomew, - <a href="#Footnote_328">263, note</a></li> - - <li>Shower, John, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - - <li>Shrewsbury, Duke of, - <a href="#Page_10">10</a>, - <a href="#Page_83">83</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, - <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Letters to William III., - <a href="#Page_234">234</a>, - <a href="#Page_237">237</a>, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a></li> - <li class="i1">Fenwick’s Accusations against him, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a>, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - - <li>Shute, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Slingsbie, Sir Henry, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>Smith, John, - <a href="#Page_300">300</a></li> - - <li>Smithies, - <a href="#Page_356">356</a></li> - - <li>Snatt, a Nonjuring Clergyman, - <a href="#Page_232">232</a>, - <a href="#Page_233">233</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Societies for Religious Purposes, their Origin and Development, - <a href="#Page_354">354–357</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocated from the Pulpit, - <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - <li class="i1">S.P.C.K., - <a href="#Page_364">364</a></li> - <li class="i1">S.P.G., - <a href="#Page_369">369</a></li> - - <li>Somers, Lord, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a>, - <a href="#Page_363">363</a></li> - - <li>Sophia, Princess, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a>, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - - <li>South, Dr. Robert, - <a href="#Page_160">160</a>, - <a href="#Page_194">194</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_267">223, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">Joins in the Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_216">216–221</a></li> - - <li>Speke, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> - - <li>Spinoza, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - - <li>Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Present at the Interview of the Bishops with the King, - <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - <li class="i1">Extract from his Account, - <a href="#Footnote_39">32, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">Takes Part in Coronation, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="i1">An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, - <a href="#Page_126">126–128</a></li> - <li class="i1">Arrested on Charge of Conspiracy, - <a href="#Page_188">188</a></li> - <li class="i1">Exposes Falsehood of his Accusers, - <a href="#Page_189">189</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Want of Principle, - <a href="#Page_284">284</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Popularity as a Preacher, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a>, - <a href="#Page_311">311</a></li> - - <li>Stamford, Earl of, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - - <li>Stancliffe, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a>, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - - <li>Standish, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> - - <li>Stanhope, Dr., - <a href="#Page_344">344</a></li> - - <li>Sternhold, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a></li> - - <li>Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul’s, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a>, - <a href="#Page_427">427</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, - <a href="#Footnote_152">125, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_131">131</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132</a></li> - <li class="i1">Bishop of Worcester, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a>, - <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_299">299</a>, - <a href="#Page_302">302</a></li> - <li class="i1">Bentley’s Patron, - <a href="#Page_342">342</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop of Chester, - <a href="#Page_306">306</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a>, - <a href="#Page_361">361</a></li> - - <li>Stretton, Richard, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li> - - <li>Strutwick, - <a href="#Page_176">176</a></li> - - <li>Strype, John, - <a href="#Footnote_146">115, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a>, - <a href="#Page_324">324</a>, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Sunderland, Earl of, - <a href="#Footnote_22">20, note</a></li> - - <li>Swift, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - - <li>Sylvester, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_179">179</a>, - <a href="#Page_180">180</a>, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a>, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a></li> - - <li>Symms, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>Symons, - <a href="#Page_366">366</a></li> - - <li>Synods, - <a href="#Page_268">268</a>, - <a href="#Page_269">269</a>, - <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Tallard, the French Ambassador, - <a href="#Footnote_304">244, note</a></li> - - <li>Tallents, Francis, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Tate, Nahum, - <a href="#Page_325">325</a></li> - - <li>Taunton, Maids of, - <a href="#Footnote_46">38, note</a></li> - - <li>Taylor, Jeremy, Advocates Toleration, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - - <li>Taylor, Nathaniel, - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> - - <li>Temple, Sir William, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a>, - <a href="#Page_265">265</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Tenison, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, - <a href="#Page_381">381</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interviews with Patrick, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a>, - <a href="#Page_58">58</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Discourse with Sancroft and Clarendon at Lambeth, - <a href="#Page_65">65</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Library, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - <li class="i1">Made Archbishop of Canterbury, - <a href="#Page_195">195</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Funeral Sermon for Queen Mary, - <a href="#Page_196">196–199</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Censured in a Letter supposed to have been Written by Ken, - <a href="#Page_200">200</a></li> - <li class="i1">Defended in another Letter, - <a href="#Page_201">201</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Circular to his Bishops, - <a href="#Page_205">205</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appointed one of the Lords Justices, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Urged to Plead with William for Fenwick’s Life, - <a href="#Page_239">239</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Pastoral Letter, - <a href="#Page_246">246</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">At Meetings of Convocation, - <a href="#Page_271">271</a>, - <a href="#Page_277">277–281</a>, - <a href="#Page_287">287–295</a></li> - <li class="i1">Presents an Address to William, - <a href="#Page_274">274</a></li> - <li class="i1">Prorogues Convocation, - <a href="#Page_276">276</a>, - <a href="#Page_294">294</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attends William on his Death-bed, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_298">298</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">One of Boyle’s Trustees, - <a href="#Page_341">341</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interest in Foreign Missions, - <a href="#Page_369">369</a>, - <a href="#Page_371">371</a></li> - - <li>Test Act, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - - <li>Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a>, - <a href="#Page_128">128</a>, - <a href="#Page_146">146</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - - <li>Thomond, Earl of, - <a href="#Footnote_175">148, note</a></li> - - <li>Thoresby, Ralph, - <a href="#Page_322">322</a>, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, - <a href="#Page_412">412</a></li> - - <li>Thorpe, Edmund, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Tillotson, John, - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, - <a href="#Page_101">101</a>, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a>, - <a href="#Page_181">181</a>, - <a href="#Page_261">261</a>, - <a href="#Page_353">353</a>, - <a href="#Page_357">357</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Views on Comprehension, - <a href="#Page_122">122</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Committee, - <a href="#Page_124">124</a></li> - <li class="i1">An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, - <a href="#Page_129">129</a>, - <a href="#Page_132">132</a>, - <a href="#Page_133">133</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proposed as Prolocutor, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a></li> - <li class="i1">Rejected, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Made Archbishop of Canterbury, - <a href="#Page_162">162</a>, - <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - <li class="i1">Account of him, - <a href="#Page_184">184–187</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Archiepiscopal Career, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a>, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_204">204</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death and Character, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_382">382</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Writings, - <a href="#Page_193">193–195</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Latitudinarian, - <a href="#Page_192">192</a>, - <a href="#Page_384">384</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Influence, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Wig, - <a href="#Page_332">332</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Toland, John, his <i>Christianity not Mysterious</i> Examined by Convocation, - <a href="#Page_275">275</a>, - <a href="#Page_277">277</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Works, - <a href="#Footnote_444">348, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_350">350–352</a></li> - - <li>Toleration Bill, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a>, - <a href="#Page_114">114</a>, - <a href="#Page_211">211</a></li> - <li class="i1">Locke’s Letters on Toleration, - <a href="#Page_116">116</a></li> - <li class="i1">Advocates of, <i>ib.</i></li> - <li class="i1">Causes of the Bill being Passed, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> - <li class="i1">What it Accomplished, - <a href="#Page_119">119</a>, - <a href="#Page_120">120</a></li> - - <li>Tong, William, - <a href="#Page_428">428</a></li> - - <li>Tories, - <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_142">110, note,</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Discussions with Whigs, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - - <li>Trapp, Dr., - <a href="#Footnote_373">303, note</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, Translated from Bristol, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a>, - <a href="#Page_75">75</a>, - <a href="#Page_270">270</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Letter to Sancroft, - <a href="#Page_16">16</a>, - <a href="#Page_17">17</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Denies that the Bishops Invited the Prince of Orange, - <a href="#Footnote_37">30, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_283">283</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_310">310</a></li> - - <li>Trenchard, Secretary, - <a href="#Footnote_51">41, note</a></li> - - <li>Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_211">211–226</a>, - <a href="#Page_327">327</a>, - <a href="#Page_333">333</a></li> - - <li>Trotman’s Trust, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, - <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_64">64</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_76">76</a>, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interview with the King, - <a href="#Page_21">21</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Letter to Trelawny, - <a href="#Page_52">52</a></li> - <li class="i1">Holds a Meeting at Ely House, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li> - <li class="i1">A Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_148">148</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Accused of Joining in the Jacobite Conspiracy, - <a href="#Page_168">168</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Unitarians</li> - <li class="i1">Join in Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_211">211</a>, - <a href="#Page_220">220</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Their Doctrines Condemned by the House of Lords, - <a href="#Page_221">221</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">William urged to Deprive them of the Liberty of the Press, - <a href="#Page_225">225</a></li> - - <li>Upton, Dr., - <a href="#Page_410">410</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Veal, Edward, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Vernon, Secretary of State, - <a href="#Page_362">362</a></li> - - <li>Vincent, Nathaniel, - <a href="#Page_444">444</a></li> - - <li>Vincent, Thomas, - <a href="#Page_416">416</a></li> - - <li>Voltaire, - <a href="#Page_349">349</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Wagstaffe, Thomas, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_169">169</a>, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a>, - <a href="#Page_374">374</a></li> - - <li>Wake, Dr., - <a href="#Page_19">19</a>, - <a href="#Page_285">285</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Answer to <i>Letter to a Convocation Man</i>, - <a href="#Page_264">264</a>, - <a href="#Page_266">266</a></li> - - <li>Walgrave, Lady, - <a href="#Page_235">235</a></li> - - <li>Wallis, Dr., his Pamphlet on the Trinity, - <a href="#Page_213">213</a>, - <a href="#Page_218">218</a></li> - - <li>Walter, Hubert, Archbishop, - <a href="#Page_207">207</a>, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - - <li>Ward, Seth, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> - - <li>Warren, Matthew, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Warton, - <a href="#Footnote_373">303, note</a></li> - - <li>Watson, Bishop of St. David’s, - <a href="#Page_30">30</a>, - <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Trial and Deprivation, - <a href="#Page_312">312</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Footnote_395">314, note</a></li> - - <li>Watts, Dr., Isaac, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, - <a href="#Page_440">440</a></li> - - <li>Wesley, John, - <a href="#Page_330">330</a></li> - - <li>Wesley, Samuel, - <a href="#Page_87">87</a>, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a>, - <a href="#Page_439">439</a>, - <a href="#Page_443">443</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Eulogy on Queen Mary, - <a href="#Footnote_236">200, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">His <i>Athenian Oracle</i>, - <a href="#Page_325">325–331</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Domestic Life, - <a href="#Page_328">328</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anecdotes of, - <a href="#Page_330">330</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_430">334, note</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Enters himself as a Servitor at Exeter College, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Weymouth, Lord, - <a href="#Page_390">390</a></li> - - <li>Wharton, Henry, - <a href="#Page_316">316</a></li> - - <li>Wharton, Lord, - <a href="#Page_46">46</a>, - <a href="#Page_63">63</a>, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - - <li>Wheeler, - <a href="#Page_365">365</a></li> - - <li>Whigs, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a>, - <a href="#Page_93">93</a>, - <a href="#Page_96">96</a>, - <a href="#Footnote_142">110, note</a>, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">Invite William to come to England, - <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - <li class="i1">Recover Power, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - <li class="i1">Their Discussions with Tories, - <a href="#Page_251">251</a></li> - <li class="i1">Pleased with the King’s Speech, - <a href="#Page_255">255</a></li> - - <li>Whiston, - <a href="#Page_307">307</a>, - <a href="#Page_326">326</a></li> - - <li class="hangingindent">White, Bishop of Peterborough, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_23">23</a>, - <a href="#Page_53">53</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a>, - <a href="#Page_69">69</a>, - <a href="#Page_240">240</a>, - <a href="#Page_308">308</a></li> - <li class="i1">Summoned to Attend the King, - <a href="#Page_20">20</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Interview with the King, - <a href="#Page_31">31</a></li> - <li class="i1">Refuses to take the Oath, - <a href="#Page_97">97</a></li> - <li class="i1">Ejected, - <a href="#Page_171">171</a></li> - <li class="i1">Attends Fenwick on the Scaffold, - <a href="#Page_241">241</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death and Funeral, - <a href="#Page_391">391</a>, - <a href="#Page_392">392</a></li> - - <li>Wickart, Dean of Winchester, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li> - - <li>William III.</li> - <li class="i1">His Early Days, - <a href="#Page_1">1–3</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Character, - <a href="#Page_3">3</a></li> - <li class="i1">Marriage, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - <li class="i1">Religious Opinions, - <a href="#Page_4">4</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Protestantism, - <a href="#Page_6">6</a>, - <a href="#Page_7">7</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Interest in England, - <a href="#Page_8">8</a>, - <a href="#Page_9">9</a></li> - <li class="i1">Invited to England, - <a href="#Page_11">11</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Diplomatic Negotiations Abroad, - <a href="#Page_12">12</a></li> - <li class="i1">Military Preparations at Home, - <a href="#Page_13">13</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Declaration, - <a href="#Page_27">27</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appeals to the Army, - <a href="#Page_28">28</a></li> - <li class="i1">Sets Sail, - <a href="#Page_34">34</a></li> - <li class="i1">Lands at Torbay, - <a href="#Page_36">36</a></li> - <li class="i1">Marches with his Army to Exeter, - <a href="#Page_38">38</a></li> - <li class="i1">At Wells, - <a href="#Page_42">42</a></li> - <li class="i1">Takes Possession of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_47">47</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Private Conference with Clarendon, - <a href="#Page_48">48</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Popularity, - <a href="#Page_49">49</a></li> - <li class="i1">False Declaration in his Cause, - <a href="#Page_50">50–51</a></li> - <li class="i1">Deputation waits upon him, - <a href="#Page_54">54</a></li> - <li class="i1">Forces James to Surrender, - <a href="#Page_57">57</a></li> - <li class="i1">Clergy Present him with an Address, - <a href="#Page_59">59</a></li> - <li class="i1">Sancroft’s Proposal to make him Regent, - <a href="#Page_67">67</a>, - <a href="#Page_68">68</a></li> - <li class="i1">He Summons a Meeting, - <a href="#Page_72">72</a></li> - <li class="i1">Entrusted with Administration of Affairs, - <a href="#Page_73">73</a></li> - <li class="i1">Declared King by the Lords, - <a href="#Page_77">77</a></li> - <li class="i1">By the Commons, - <a href="#Page_78">78</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Speech at Whitehall, - <a href="#Page_80">80</a></li> - <li class="i1">Proclaimed King, - <a href="#Page_81">81</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Appointments to Office, - <a href="#Page_82">82</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Nominates Burnet to the Bishopric of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_84">84</a></li> - <li class="i1">Desires Alteration in Test Act, - <a href="#Page_94">94</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Coronation, - <a href="#Page_99">99</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Requested by Parliament to Summon Convocation, - <a href="#Page_107">107</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Conversation with John Howe, - <a href="#Footnote_144">113, note</a></li> - <li class="i1">An Advocate of Liberty, - <a href="#Page_118">118</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appoints the Ecclesiastical Commission, - <a href="#Page_125">125</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Desires to make Tillotson Archbishop of Canterbury, - <a href="#Page_140">140</a>, - <a href="#Page_186">186</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Message to Convocation, - <a href="#Page_141">141</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Answer to their Address, - <a href="#Page_143">143</a></li> - <li class="i1">Disgusted with his Position, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">Resolves to go to Ireland, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">Assembles a New Parliament, - <a href="#Page_156">156</a></li> - <li class="i1">Wounded at the Battle of the Boyne, - <a href="#Page_159">159</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Esteem for Tillotson, - <a href="#Page_191">191</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Sympathy with him on the Death of his Queen, - <a href="#Page_199">199</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Articles Published in his Name for Ecclesiastical Reform, - <a href="#Page_203">203</a>, - <a href="#Page_209">209</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Frequent Absence from England, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> - <li class="i1">Appoints Lords Justices, - <a href="#Page_206">206</a></li> - <li class="i1">Administers Foreign Affairs, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Return to England after Surrender of the Castle of Namur, - <a href="#Page_208">208</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">His Injunctions Relative to the Trinitarian Controversy, - <a href="#Page_209">209</a>, - <a href="#Page_210">210</a>, - <a href="#Page_223">223</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Inconsistency, - <a href="#Page_224">224</a></li> - <li class="i1">Conspiracy against him, - <a href="#Page_231">231</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Perilous Position in England, - <a href="#Page_236">236</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Recognised as a Constitutional King by the Peace of Ryswick, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Entry into London, - <a href="#Page_242">242</a>, - <a href="#Page_243">243</a></li> - <li class="i1">Obliged to give up his Dutch Guards, - <a href="#Page_244">244</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Devolves Part of Responsibility of Bestowing Church Preferment on others, - <a href="#Page_247">247</a></li> - <li class="hangingindent1">Provides for Education of the Duke of Gloucester, - <a href="#Page_248">248</a>, - <a href="#Page_249">249</a></li> - <li class="i1">Anxious about the Succession, - <a href="#Page_250">250</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Speech on Opening Parliament, - <a href="#Page_254">254</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Declining Health, - <a href="#Page_256">256</a></li> - <li class="i1">Instability of his Throne, - <a href="#Page_259">259</a></li> - <li class="i1">His Death, - <a href="#Page_295">295</a></li> - <li class="i1">Character, - <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> - <li class="i1">Objects to Touching for King’s Evil, - <a href="#Page_339">339</a></li> - - <li>Williams, Solicitor-General, - <a href="#Page_14">14</a></li> - - <li>Williams, Daniel, - <a href="#Page_411">411</a>, - <a href="#Page_425">425–427</a></li> - - <li>Williams, Bishop of Chichester, - <a href="#Footnote_152">125, note</a></li> - - <li>Willis, Dr., - <a href="#Page_296">296</a></li> - - <li>Willoughby, Lord, - <a href="#Page_50">50</a></li> - - <li>Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man, - <a href="#Page_331">331</a></li> - - <li>Winchester, Marquis of, - <a href="#Page_103">103</a>, - <a href="#Page_105">105</a></li> - - <li>Winshup, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_376">376</a></li> - - <li>Witchcraft, - <a href="#Page_335">335–339</a></li> - - <li>Woodhouse, John, - <a href="#Page_415">415</a></li> - - <li>Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, - <a href="#Page_288">288</a>, - <a href="#Page_289">289</a>, - <a href="#Page_292">292</a></li> - - <li>Wren, Sir Christopher, - <a href="#Page_287">287</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Yorke, a Nonjuror, - <a href="#Page_375">375</a></li> - - <li>Young, Robert, - <a href="#Footnote_222">188, note</a></li> -</ul> - -<ul> - <li>Zulestein, Count of, - <a href="#Footnote_6">6, note</a></li> -</ul> - - -<hr class="chap x-ebookmaker-drop" /> - -<div class="chapter"> -<h2>CORRIGENDA.</h2> -</div> - -<table summary="corrigenda"> - <tr> - <td class="ctr">Page</td> - <td class="right1">144,</td> - <td class="ctr1">line</td> - <td class="right1">13,</td> - <td class="cht2"><i>for</i> Kingsale <i>read</i> Kinsale.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right1">222,</td> - <td class="ctr1">„</td> - <td class="right1">1,</td> - <td class="cht2"><i>for</i> Unitariam <i>read</i> Unitarian.</td> - </tr> - - <tr> - <td class="ctr">„</td> - <td class="right1">343,</td> - <td class="ctr1">„</td> - <td class="right1">30,</td> - <td class="cht2"><i>for</i> Blackall <i>read</i> Blackhall.</td> - </tr> -</table> - -<p class="center xs p4">UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND CHILWORTH.</p> - - -<div class="footnotes"><h2>FOOTNOTES:</h2> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_1" href="#FNanchor_1" class="label">[1]</a> For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see <i>The -Life of William III.</i> 8vo., Lond., 1703; <i>The Hist. of King -William III.</i>, 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; <i>The Life of William, Prince of -Orange</i>, 8vo., Lond., 1688.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_2" href="#FNanchor_2" class="label">[2]</a> <i>Own Times</i>, ii. 305, i. 689.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_3" href="#FNanchor_3" class="label">[3]</a> <i>Own Times</i>, i. 691.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_4" href="#FNanchor_4" class="label">[4]</a> Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of -a Churchman as possible.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_5" href="#FNanchor_5" class="label">[5]</a> These anecdotes are found in a MS. <i>Life of Hooper</i>, -by Prouse. See <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 101–3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_6" href="#FNanchor_6" class="label">[6]</a> <i>Hawkins’ Life of Ken</i>, 7. In the <i>Life of Ken, -by a Layman</i>, 105, we are told that William was much offended at -the marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced—which -marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s -displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with -Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that -one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused -to marry her. Which is right?</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_7" href="#FNanchor_7" class="label">[7]</a> <i>Dalrymple’s Memoirs</i>, i. 183.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_8" href="#FNanchor_8" class="label">[8]</a> <i>Clarendon Correspondence</i>, ii. 484.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_9" href="#FNanchor_9" class="label">[9]</a> <i>Calamy’s Hist. Account</i>, i. 147. He describes the -prophetic dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, -in his <i>Hist. of the Quakers</i>, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic -letter (containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a -Quaker at London to his friend, as a forgery.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_10" href="#FNanchor_10" class="label">[10]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, iii. appen. part i. 228.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_11" href="#FNanchor_11" class="label">[11]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 238.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_12" href="#FNanchor_12" class="label">[12]</a> See curious correspondence in <i>Dalrymple</i>, iii. -appen. i. 240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_13" href="#FNanchor_13" class="label">[13]</a> <i>Patrick’s Works</i>, ix. (autobiography) 513.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_14" href="#FNanchor_14" class="label">[14]</a> <i>Macpherson’s Hist.</i>, i. 510.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_15" href="#FNanchor_15" class="label">[15]</a> <i>Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa</i>, i. 393–397.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_16" href="#FNanchor_16" class="label">[16]</a> My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I -find the Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, -as it is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a -dyer. In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order -of the Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to -surrender their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and -well-beloved,’ commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. -Snell) and other members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit -‘our well-beloved Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of -November, 1687. Jenkins, our local historian, says, ‘that not only -the Mayor, but the other members of the newly-created Chamber, were -Presbyterians. When the Corporation sent up an address to the King, -congratulating him on the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the -honour of knighthood. When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, -one of the fruits of his repentance was the restoration of their -charters to corporate towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from -his corporate dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I -have not been able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the -Mayor was a Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s -allusion to the Conventicle.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_17" href="#FNanchor_17" class="label">[17]</a> Aug. 16, 1688. <i>Bodleian, Tanner MSS.</i>, xxviii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_18" href="#FNanchor_18" class="label">[18]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, 28, 113, printed in <i>Gutch’s -Collectanea</i>, i. 404.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_19" href="#FNanchor_19" class="label">[19]</a> July 27, 1688. <i>Wilkin’s Concilia</i>, iv. 618.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_20" href="#FNanchor_20" class="label">[20]</a> <i>D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, i. 326–8. I am very -sceptical about this report.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_21" href="#FNanchor_21" class="label">[21]</a> <i>London Gazette</i>, 2384.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_22" href="#FNanchor_22" class="label">[22]</a> Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) -to the Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman -for an impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in -fear, yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery. -Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so -careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the -“foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation, -he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his -Episcopal income being desperately poor. <i>Facsimiles of National -MSS.</i>, iv. 92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_23" href="#FNanchor_23" class="label">[23]</a> <i>Clarendon Correspondence.</i> Lord Dartmouth says, -“Not long before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his -chamber), my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not -above twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the -Duke, and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that -if ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find -himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though -there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to -contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My -father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s -last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer -was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.” -<i>Dalrymple</i>, iii. appen. 289.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_24" href="#FNanchor_24" class="label">[24]</a> <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 317.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_25" href="#FNanchor_25" class="label">[25]</a> <i>Clarendon Correspondence.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_26" href="#FNanchor_26" class="label">[26]</a> <i>Gazette</i>, 2386.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_27" href="#FNanchor_27" class="label">[27]</a> <i>Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, i. -339–344.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_28" href="#FNanchor_28" class="label">[28]</a> <i>D’Oyley</i>, i. 345.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_29" href="#FNanchor_29" class="label">[29]</a></p> - -<p class="center"><i>For the King.</i></p> - -<p>O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble -supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in -this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give -Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health -and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels; -prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good -success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his -people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true -allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together -to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in -their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy -most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed -to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. <i>Amen.</i></p> - - -<p class="center"><i>For Repentance.</i></p> - -<p>Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here -humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least -of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our -souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders -of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have -hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our -amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed; -for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast -hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to -repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly -sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; -that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest -rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of -Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. <i>Amen.</i></p> - -<p>There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His -Majesty to be printed.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_30" href="#FNanchor_30" class="label">[30]</a> Macpherson (<i>Hist.</i> i. 518) succinctly and -completely refutes the assertion.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_31" href="#FNanchor_31" class="label">[31]</a> <i>Gutch</i>, i. 414.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_32" href="#FNanchor_32" class="label">[32]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, vol. xxviii. 153. There is another -letter on the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_33" href="#FNanchor_33" class="label">[33]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 210.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_34" href="#FNanchor_34" class="label">[34]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with -James, remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the -commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince -comes only to maintain the Protestant religion—he will do no harm to -England.’” p. 358.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_35" href="#FNanchor_35" class="label">[35]</a> <i>D’Oyley</i>, i. 355.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_36" href="#FNanchor_36" class="label">[36]</a> Compton’s own account. <i>Gulch</i>, i. 443.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_37" href="#FNanchor_37" class="label">[37]</a> The following passage in a memorandum, written by -Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these -Bishops was afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with -bringing William over to England:—“Having in a discourse with Mr. -Francis Robartes, a little time after the coronation of King William, -resented to him the impudence of the person, whoever he was, that -insinuated in the Prince of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had -invited him to come over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly -false; he replied, ‘I took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord -about the particular, and asked him whether it was true; his answer -was, No, damn ’em, they were not so honest, but I caus’d it to be -put in, to raise a jealousy and hatred on both sides, that the King, -believing it, might never forgive them, and they, fearing that he did -believe, might be push’d for their own safety to wish and help on his -ruin.’”—<i>First Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS.</i>, 52.</p> - -<p>There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated -25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the -Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester -to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c., -‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”—See -same <i>Report</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_38" href="#FNanchor_38" class="label">[38]</a> Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced -by Sancroft of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper -is in existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there -hath been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince -of <i>Orange</i> hath an <i>intention</i> to invade this kingdom -in hostile manner; and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his -attempt, that he hath been thereunto invited by several <i>English</i> -Lords, both temporal and spiritual; <i>I William</i>, Archbishop of -<i>Cant.</i>, do for my own discharge profess and declare That I never -gave him any such invitation by word or writing or otherwise, nor do I -know, nor can believe, that any of my reverend brethren, the Bishops, -have in any such wise invited him. And all this I aver upon my word, -and in confirmation [for which word in MS. <i>attestation</i> is -substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here at Lambeth, this 3rd -day of November, 1688, W. C.” <i>Gutch</i>, ii. 366.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_39" href="#FNanchor_39" class="label">[39]</a> The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in -the original document: “Here also something was added which I (the -Bp. of Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this -effect, that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves -might be a thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and -properties of the subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we -begged His Majesty would require no more of us in particular, but would -rest contented with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” -<i>Tanner MSS.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_40" href="#FNanchor_40" class="label">[40]</a> <i>Gutch</i>, i. 426–440.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_41" href="#FNanchor_41" class="label">[41]</a> <i>Smiles’ Huguenots</i>, 232.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_42" href="#FNanchor_42" class="label">[42]</a> <i>Smiles’ Huguenots</i>, 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_43" href="#FNanchor_43" class="label">[43]</a> <i>Rapin</i>, iii. 285.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_44" href="#FNanchor_44" class="label">[44]</a> <i>Macaulay</i>, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I -have quoted, refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. <i>State -Papers, Lectures on the Church of Scotland</i>, 116.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_45" href="#FNanchor_45" class="label">[45]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 789.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_46" href="#FNanchor_46" class="label">[46]</a> “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is -said to have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and -locket, are still preserved in the family.”</p> - -<p>“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who -assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden -from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they -could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having -an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent -to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some -time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed -when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night, -and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house -stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_47" href="#FNanchor_47" class="label">[47]</a> <i>Harl. Miscell.</i>, i. 449.</p> - -<p>“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of -their provision; and instead of ‘<i>Votre serviteur, Monsieur</i>,’ -they were entertained with ‘<i>Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken</i>,’ upon -which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old -servants.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_48" href="#FNanchor_48" class="label">[48]</a> “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under -the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his -grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to -state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over -ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his -master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of -apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.</p> - -<p>“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first -person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however -believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly -gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the -borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known -as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council. -The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired -spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to -Newton.” <i>MS. Information.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_49" href="#FNanchor_49" class="label">[49]</a> <i>Le Neve’s Archbishops</i>, 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_50" href="#FNanchor_50" class="label">[50]</a> Quoted in <i>Smiles’ Huguenots</i>, 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_51" href="#FNanchor_51" class="label">[51]</a> I give this story as it is found in the <i>Harleian -Miscellany</i>, and <i>Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches</i>. -Ferguson was first a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for -some time he acted as assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the -authority of Burnet, gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in -<i>Palmer’s Nonconf. Memorial</i>, and by Wilson in his <i>Dissenting -Churches</i>, i. 284.</p> - -<p>It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a -different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may -be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and -violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after -the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own -extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a -full account of it.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_52" href="#FNanchor_52" class="label">[52]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 225.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_53" href="#FNanchor_53" class="label">[53]</a> Note in <i>Wilson’s Life of Defoe</i>, i. 110.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_54" href="#FNanchor_54" class="label">[54]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_55" href="#FNanchor_55" class="label">[55]</a> <i>Ken’s Life, by a Layman</i>, 324.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_56" href="#FNanchor_56" class="label">[56]</a> See <i>Gazette</i>, Nov.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_57" href="#FNanchor_57" class="label">[57]</a> <i>Life of James II.</i>, ii. 209–212.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_58" href="#FNanchor_58" class="label">[58]</a> <i>Sprat’s History of the Desertion</i>, 62. Macpherson -mentions a meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince -of Orange, at which Compton was present. <i>Hist. of Great Britain</i>, -i. 530. <i>Original Papers</i>, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an -authority, but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_59" href="#FNanchor_59" class="label">[59]</a> Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, -xxviii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_60" href="#FNanchor_60" class="label">[60]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, i. 1073.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_61" href="#FNanchor_61" class="label">[61]</a> <i>Gazettes</i> under dates.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_62" href="#FNanchor_62" class="label">[62]</a> <i>Clarendon’s Diary</i>, Dec. 3; ii. 214.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_63" href="#FNanchor_63" class="label">[63]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Dec. 5, 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_64" href="#FNanchor_64" class="label">[64]</a> <i>Reresby</i>, 363, 364.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_65" href="#FNanchor_65" class="label">[65]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 793.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_66" href="#FNanchor_66" class="label">[66]</a> <i>Life of William III.</i>, 1703.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_67" href="#FNanchor_67" class="label">[67]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, i. 1051.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_68" href="#FNanchor_68" class="label">[68]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 793.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_69" href="#FNanchor_69" class="label">[69]</a> See <i>Sprat’s History of the Desertion</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_70" href="#FNanchor_70" class="label">[70]</a> <i>Wilson’s Life of De Foe</i>, i. 159.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_71" href="#FNanchor_71" class="label">[71]</a> <i>Tour through Great Britain</i>, ii. 64–70. The -excitement extended into Essex.</p> - -<p>“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and -in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish -soldiers that were coming, they said.” <i>Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals -of Coggeshall</i>, 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_72" href="#FNanchor_72" class="label">[72]</a> <i>Thoresby’s Diary</i>, i. 188–191.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_73" href="#FNanchor_73" class="label">[73]</a> <i>Diary and Correspondence</i>, ii. 506.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_74" href="#FNanchor_74" class="label">[74]</a> These notes are preserved amongst the <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, -xxviii. 285, 286.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_75" href="#FNanchor_75" class="label">[75]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 248. <i>Memoirs of James II.</i>, -ii. 270.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_76" href="#FNanchor_76" class="label">[76]</a> Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, <i>Works</i>, ix. -514. The Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have -been the 18th.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_77" href="#FNanchor_77" class="label">[77]</a> This account is taken from a Diary in what is called -the <i>Historical Register Entering Book</i>, vol. ii. 383. <i>Morice -MSS.</i>, Dr. Williams’ Library.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_78" href="#FNanchor_78" class="label">[78]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, i. 1073.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_79" href="#FNanchor_79" class="label">[79]</a> <i>Diary and Correspondence</i>, ii. 235.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_80" href="#FNanchor_80" class="label">[80]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 234.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_81" href="#FNanchor_81" class="label">[81]</a> <i>Stuart Papers</i>, quoted in <i>D’Oyley</i>, i. 410.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_82" href="#FNanchor_82" class="label">[82]</a> <i>Diary and Correspondence</i>, ii. 237.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_83" href="#FNanchor_83" class="label">[83]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 238.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_84" href="#FNanchor_84" class="label">[84]</a> <i>Diary and Correspondence</i>, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. -240.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_85" href="#FNanchor_85" class="label">[85]</a> <i>D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, i. 415.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_86" href="#FNanchor_86" class="label">[86]</a> “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there -were meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before -and after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they -were even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision, -were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.” -<i>Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll.</i>, 987, 151.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_87" href="#FNanchor_87" class="label">[87]</a> <i>D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, i. 424.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_88" href="#FNanchor_88" class="label">[88]</a> <i>Diary</i>, Jan. 15, 1689.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_89" href="#FNanchor_89" class="label">[89]</a> <i>Diary and Correspondence</i>, ii. 247.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_90" href="#FNanchor_90" class="label">[90]</a> <i>Patrick’s Life. Works</i>, ix. 515.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_91" href="#FNanchor_91" class="label">[91]</a> <i>Hunter’s Life of Heywood</i>, 358.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_92" href="#FNanchor_92" class="label">[92]</a> <i>Life of Philip Henry</i>, 187.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_93" href="#FNanchor_93" class="label">[93]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 24.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_94" href="#FNanchor_94" class="label">[94]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, -Rochester, Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, -Peterborough, Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_95" href="#FNanchor_95" class="label">[95]</a> Quoted in <i>Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation</i>, 317.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_96" href="#FNanchor_96" class="label">[96]</a> <i>Journals of Lords.</i> Compare <i>Clarendon’s Diary -and Correspondence</i>, ii. 257.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_97" href="#FNanchor_97" class="label">[97]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_98" href="#FNanchor_98" class="label">[98]</a> The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, -who acknowledged them, repeating expressions of attachment to -Protestantism, which they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable -both to Popery and arbitrary power.” <i>Gutch</i>, i. 447.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_99" href="#FNanchor_99" class="label">[99]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 59.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_100" href="#FNanchor_100" class="label">[100]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 267.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_101" href="#FNanchor_101" class="label">[101]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 75.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_102" href="#FNanchor_102" class="label">[102]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 818.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_103" href="#FNanchor_103" class="label">[103]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 269.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_104" href="#FNanchor_104" class="label">[104]</a> <i>Hallam’s Const. Hist.</i>, ii. 256.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_105" href="#FNanchor_105" class="label">[105]</a> It is not my province to discuss the political aspect -of the Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the -following passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it -is gratifying to all Englishmen and Americans:—“I call restorative -the Government of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, -because these great, good men have established society on respect for -right, and have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, -that is to say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the -contrary, anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary <i>régime</i>, -whether it be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more -dangerous the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it -disposes at its pleasure.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_106" href="#FNanchor_106" class="label">[106]</a> <i>Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France.</i> -<i>Works</i>, v. 103.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_107" href="#FNanchor_107" class="label">[107]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. iii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_108" href="#FNanchor_108" class="label">[108]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 111–113.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_109" href="#FNanchor_109" class="label">[109]</a> <i>Church of the Restoration</i>, ii. 42.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_110" href="#FNanchor_110" class="label">[110]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 803.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_111" href="#FNanchor_111" class="label">[111]</a> <i>Hist. of his Own Time</i>, ii. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_112" href="#FNanchor_112" class="label">[112]</a> <i>Birch’s Life of Tillotson</i>, 330.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_113" href="#FNanchor_113" class="label">[113]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 129–131. Feb. 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_114" href="#FNanchor_114" class="label">[114]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, ii. 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_115" href="#FNanchor_115" class="label">[115]</a> <i>Memoirs of Sir John Reresby</i>, 398. It must be -remembered that his sympathies were with James.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_116" href="#FNanchor_116" class="label">[116]</a> <i>Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family</i>, i. 320.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_117" href="#FNanchor_117" class="label">[117]</a> See <i>Commons’ Journals</i>, March 7, April 1, and -<i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 137.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_118" href="#FNanchor_118" class="label">[118]</a> <i>Lords’ Journals</i>, March 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_119" href="#FNanchor_119" class="label">[119]</a> <i>Journals</i>, March 23.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_120" href="#FNanchor_120" class="label">[120]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 9, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_121" href="#FNanchor_121" class="label">[121]</a> <i>Commons’ Journals</i>, April 13.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_122" href="#FNanchor_122" class="label">[122]</a> <i>Reresby</i>, 401. March 28.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_123" href="#FNanchor_123" class="label">[123]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 217, 218.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_124" href="#FNanchor_124" class="label">[124]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 199–206.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_125" href="#FNanchor_125" class="label">[125]</a> <i>Macaulay</i>, iv. 121. <i>Stanley’s Memorials of -Westminster Abbey</i>, &c., 94, and <i>Bufton’s Diary</i> in <i>Dale’s -Annals of Coggleshall</i>, 270.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_126" href="#FNanchor_126" class="label">[126]</a> See <i>Church of the Restoration</i>, ii. 145.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_127" href="#FNanchor_127" class="label">[127]</a> <i>Autobiography</i>, 516.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_128" href="#FNanchor_128" class="label">[128]</a> <i>Somer’s Tracts</i> (old edition), i. 380. There is -a scheme of Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways -amongst the <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, 290, 242, without date. Also another -for indulgence that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration -that their Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in -no way through crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the -peace of Church or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are -openly profane, the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in -the judgment of charity, they may be comprehended within the number of -conscientious Dissenters. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, 80, 108.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_129" href="#FNanchor_129" class="label">[129]</a> March 23. <i>MSS. Journal</i> (<i>Historical Register, -Entering Book</i>, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_130" href="#FNanchor_130" class="label">[130]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting -Diarist reports (<i>Entering Book</i>, ii. 511) a “variety of debates -in the House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop -of Lincoln would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for -the Church had established it, and the taking of it away would be a -reflection upon the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The -Archbishop of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, -for they refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the -Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and -other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not -to be comprehended or indulged.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_131" href="#FNanchor_131" class="label">[131]</a> See <i>Lords’ Journal</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_132" href="#FNanchor_132" class="label">[132]</a> <i>Entering Book</i>, April 13. The following entry -appears on the 20th:—“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting -Protestant subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before -them a Bill of their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects -and for giving indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The -Commons’ Bill for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered -to be read a second time this day fortnight.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_133" href="#FNanchor_133" class="label">[133]</a> April 13. <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 217. The following -passage occurs in the <i>Entering Book</i>, 217, Wednesday, May -15:—“Commons proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for -Dissenters. The anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; -and Sir Thomas Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence -seemed very grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very -well content it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ -own Indulgence Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills -being committed, they might take anything that was good out of their -own Bill and insert it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. -Sacheverel.” It is added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage -in it that is not in the Lords’ Bill, <i>i.e.</i> it repeals all the -penal statutes against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill -does only suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings -alone, but leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_134" href="#FNanchor_134" class="label">[134]</a> The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant -subjects will be printed in the Appendix.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_135" href="#FNanchor_135" class="label">[135]</a> “The party which was now beginning to be formed against -the Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their -apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the -Earl of Nottingham.”—<i>Birch’s Tillotson</i>, 178.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_136" href="#FNanchor_136" class="label">[136]</a> <i>Reresby</i>, 390.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_137" href="#FNanchor_137" class="label">[137]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_138" href="#FNanchor_138" class="label">[138]</a> <i>Somerville’s Political Transactions</i>, 275: -<i>Smith’s remarks—Lathbury’s Nonjurors</i>, 158.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_139" href="#FNanchor_139" class="label">[139]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, ii. 73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_140" href="#FNanchor_140" class="label">[140]</a> <i>Life, by Matthew Henry</i>, 181.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_141" href="#FNanchor_141" class="label">[141]</a> There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but -they looked with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. -“The truth of the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House -of Parliament was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the -State. And the House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred -voices to reform things amiss in the State than in the Church, and -therefore, in such a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and -weak friends to Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or -giving impunity to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be -prostituted and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to -be by those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so -to do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting -of Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better -opportunity.”—April, 1689. <i>Entering Book</i>, 534.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_142" href="#FNanchor_142" class="label">[142]</a> The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth -insertion:—“Although in history the causes of events should be -pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary -method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of -these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous -in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the -State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament, -returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to -protect the Church from the invasion—as they called it—which was -making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in -defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived -connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies -with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both -were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords, -particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their -speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her -treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the -Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of -religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour -of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion -to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters -themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should -weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest; -and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of -honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain, -and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in -Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that -the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as -the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition -and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions -should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the -State itself.”—<i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 318.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_143" href="#FNanchor_143" class="label">[143]</a> <i>Hunter’s Life of Heywood</i>, 200.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_144" href="#FNanchor_144" class="label">[144]</a> The following entries in the <i>Hist. Register, -Williams’ MSS.</i>, relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on -the subject:—Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, -had some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, -was pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose: -‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe -answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty -their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should -do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good -affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned -in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His -Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might -also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be -of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty, -‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst -others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as -is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never -concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides, -in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by -Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good -suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they -did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this -kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”—Saturday, June -22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill -for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the -Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr. -John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the -son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of -what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he -fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen. -They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till -1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then, -and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat -unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside, -or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows -himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should -pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_145" href="#FNanchor_145" class="label">[145]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented -that the debates on many important questions of the period are totally -lost, and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be -in some cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here -noticed. Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, -named Dyer, was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for -reporting their proceedings.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_146" href="#FNanchor_146" class="label">[146]</a> See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage -occurs in the <i>Entering Book</i>, May 25:—“I do not understand the -mystery of it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those -Lords and Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say -the Bishops passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have -been stopped in the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, -because then the imputation of persecution would have been laid upon -them. But I think there was some greater reason, that at that time -induced them to pass it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call -for it, and did promote the passing of it. <i>Nota.</i>—And its as -certain, that they do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if -it were not passed they would stop it.”</p> - -<p>Amongst the Camb. MSS. (<i>Strype Cor.</i>, iii. 191) I find this note -addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that -I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of -this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act -of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and -he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and -brother,</p> - -<p class="smcap r2 p-min">“H. London.</p> - -<p class="p-min">“<i>June 19, 1689.</i>”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_147" href="#FNanchor_147" class="label">[147]</a> <i>Life</i>, by <i>Lord King</i>, 341. Preface to -<i>Letters on Toleration</i>, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated -June 6, 1689, “You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration -is at length established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, -and such as you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would -desire; but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a -beginning, I trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid -on which the Church of Christ was at first established.”—<i>Familiar -Letters</i>, 330.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_148" href="#FNanchor_148" class="label">[148]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, ii. 225.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_149" href="#FNanchor_149" class="label">[149]</a> <i>Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers</i>, iii. 232–235.</p> - -<p>Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks -respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers -acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”—<i>Hist.</i>, -ii. 357.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_150" href="#FNanchor_150" class="label">[150]</a> <i>Birch’s Life of Tillotson</i>, 182–184.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_151" href="#FNanchor_151" class="label">[151]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 180.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_152" href="#FNanchor_152" class="label">[152]</a> Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he -was prevented from attending by a fit of the gout. <i>Life of -Stillingfleet</i>, 75.</p> - -<p>Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of -the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a <i>Copy of the -Alterations</i>, is printed in a <i>Parliamentary Return</i>, 1854. To -this <i>Return</i> I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers -printed in it had long been desired by historical students.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_153" href="#FNanchor_153" class="label">[153]</a> Spelt Aldridge in the <i>Parliamentary Return</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_154" href="#FNanchor_154" class="label">[154]</a> <i>Return</i>, 98.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_155" href="#FNanchor_155" class="label">[155]</a> <i>Return</i>, 15. It would be beside the mark to -enter upon a discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would -call attention to a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend -Professor Swainson, and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer -to the <i>Fourth Report of the Ritual Commission</i>. The theological -part of the Creed I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but -how any charitable Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me -inexplicable.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_156" href="#FNanchor_156" class="label">[156]</a> Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; -Friday, Nov. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_157" href="#FNanchor_157" class="label">[157]</a> So in <i>Return</i>, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_158" href="#FNanchor_158" class="label">[158]</a> <i>De Trinitate</i>, l. 15. c. 27.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_159" href="#FNanchor_159" class="label">[159]</a> <i>Calamy’s Abridgment</i>, 448. The alterations cover -90 pages, and amount to 598 in number.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_160" href="#FNanchor_160" class="label">[160]</a> <i>See Letter to a friend containing some queries</i>, -and also <i>Vox Cleri</i>.</p> - -<p>The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational -rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any -change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says -Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better -times.”—<i>Triennial Visitation Charges</i>, 1704.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_161" href="#FNanchor_161" class="label">[161]</a> This is noticed by <i>Macaulay</i>, v. 112.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_162" href="#FNanchor_162" class="label">[162]</a> <i>Tillotson’s Life</i>, 202. Jane, it should be -recollected, was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached -at his consecration.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_163" href="#FNanchor_163" class="label">[163]</a> <i>Cardwell’s Conferences</i>, 434, 451. -<i>Synodalia</i>, 692–700.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_164" href="#FNanchor_164" class="label">[164]</a> <i>Kennet Hist.</i>, iii. 552.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_165" href="#FNanchor_165" class="label">[165]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to -Sancroft, March 31, 1689.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_166" href="#FNanchor_166" class="label">[166]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, i. 322.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_167" href="#FNanchor_167" class="label">[167]</a> <i>Macpherson’s Hist.</i>, i. 630.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_168" href="#FNanchor_168" class="label">[168]</a> <i>Oldmixon</i>, iii. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_169" href="#FNanchor_169" class="label">[169]</a> <i>House of Commons’ Journals.</i> Amongst the <i>Tanner -MSS.</i>, xxvii. 161, is a <i>Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s -College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating -the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_170" href="#FNanchor_170" class="label">[170]</a> <i>Salmon’s Lives</i>, 388.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_171" href="#FNanchor_171" class="label">[171]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 199.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_172" href="#FNanchor_172" class="label">[172]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 203.</p> - -<p>The original declaration is in the <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvii. 77. The -signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand.</p> - - -<p class="center"><i>Witnesses.</i></p> - -<ul> - <li>Thos. Greene, D.D., the Bishop’s Chaplain.</li> - <li>G. Hickes, D.D.</li> - <li>R. Jenkyn, Precentor.</li> - <li>Nat. Powell, Not. Pub.</li> - <li>John Wilson, Not. Pub.</li> -</ul> - -<p>MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one -in my possession.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_173" href="#FNanchor_173" class="label">[173]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April -23, 1689.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_174" href="#FNanchor_174" class="label">[174]</a> <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_175" href="#FNanchor_175" class="label">[175]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 366. The following extracts respecting -Turner are curious:</p> - -<p>He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial -of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower, -when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual -recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a -wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian -Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed, -and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived -that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was -Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon -was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond -sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He -asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one -Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr. -Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England, -and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when -certainly he knew him very well.”—<i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll.</i>, -987, 138.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_176" href="#FNanchor_176" class="label">[176]</a> I state this on the authority of a paper in the same -collection, 987, 310.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_177" href="#FNanchor_177" class="label">[177]</a> <i>An examination of the case of the suspended -Bishops.</i> 1690, p. 12.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_178" href="#FNanchor_178" class="label">[178]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell.</i> Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.</p> - -<p>The following note to the Archbishop is among the <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, -xxvii. 101:—</p> - -<p>“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned -lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January, -reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion—2d -Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby—who, referring to a record -in Edward the Second’s time in which the word <i>menses</i> occurs, -says, ‘<i>Qui menses in Calendario computantur</i>.’</p> - -<p class="p-min r2">“27 December, 1689. <span class="smcap">W. Norw.</span>”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_179" href="#FNanchor_179" class="label">[179]</a> <i>Lathbury’s Nonjurors</i>, 85.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_180" href="#FNanchor_180" class="label">[180]</a> It occurs in the <i>Life of Kennet</i>, 47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_181" href="#FNanchor_181" class="label">[181]</a> <i>Dunton’s Life and Errors</i>, 370.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_182" href="#FNanchor_182" class="label">[182]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 152.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_183" href="#FNanchor_183" class="label">[183]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 98.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_184" href="#FNanchor_184" class="label">[184]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 134.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_185" href="#FNanchor_185" class="label">[185]</a> 19th February, 1689–90. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvii. 91, -92.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_186" href="#FNanchor_186" class="label">[186]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 39.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_187" href="#FNanchor_187" class="label">[187]</a> <i>State Tracts</i>, ii. 95.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_188" href="#FNanchor_188" class="label">[188]</a> <i>A Modest Enquiry</i>, printed in <i>State Tracts</i>, -vol. ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_189" href="#FNanchor_189" class="label">[189]</a> See <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 370–376. Compare -<i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 255–263.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_190" href="#FNanchor_190" class="label">[190]</a> <i>Dalrymple</i>, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_191" href="#FNanchor_191" class="label">[191]</a> Macaulay has graphically described all this.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_192" href="#FNanchor_192" class="label">[192]</a> <i>Birch’s Life of Tillotson</i>, 306.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_193" href="#FNanchor_193" class="label">[193]</a> <i>Life</i>, Patrick’s <i>Works</i>, ix. 529.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_194" href="#FNanchor_194" class="label">[194]</a> <i>Convocation Book</i>, b. i. c. 28. Edition in -<i>Library of Anglo Cathe. Theology</i>, 50, 51.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_195" href="#FNanchor_195" class="label">[195]</a> <i>Case of Allegiance</i>, Preface.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_196" href="#FNanchor_196" class="label">[196]</a> Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of -the Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had -spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_197" href="#FNanchor_197" class="label">[197]</a> These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet -entitled <i>Sherlock against Sherlock</i>, a long extract as given by -Ralph (ii. 270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a -specimen of the attacks on the Master of the Temple.</p> - -<p>Amongst the <i>Baker MSS.</i>, 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is -an undated letter written by</p> - -<p>“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,—</p> - -<p>“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of -Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it -as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it, -the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that -we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the -throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal -rights.”</p> - -<p>After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his -argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying: -“I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for -my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to -me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as -serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more -than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile -the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission -and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly -settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_198" href="#FNanchor_198" class="label">[198]</a> There is in the British Museum (<i>Cole MSS.</i>, xxx. -168) a curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to -some one who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he -had been brought up.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_199" href="#FNanchor_199" class="label">[199]</a> 5th August, 1690. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvii. 176.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_200" href="#FNanchor_200" class="label">[200]</a> 9th February, 1691. <i>Ibid.</i>, 247.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_201" href="#FNanchor_201" class="label">[201]</a> <i>Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland</i>, ii. -Preface.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_202" href="#FNanchor_202" class="label">[202]</a> January 20, 1691. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvii. 236.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_203" href="#FNanchor_203" class="label">[203]</a> <i>Ken’s Life</i>, 381.</p> - -<p>D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i. -461. And the author of <i>Ken’s Life</i> describes Turner as engaging -“in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_204" href="#FNanchor_204" class="label">[204]</a> 9th of May, 1691. <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvi. 84.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_205" href="#FNanchor_205" class="label">[205]</a> From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. <i>Tanner -MSS.</i>, xxvi. 59.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_206" href="#FNanchor_206" class="label">[206]</a> <i>Life</i>, 391.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_207" href="#FNanchor_207" class="label">[207]</a> Camb. Univ. Library. <i>Baker MSS.</i>, 40, 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_208" href="#FNanchor_208" class="label">[208]</a> <i>Thoresby’s Diary</i>, i. 197. <i>Calamy’s Life</i>, -i. 300.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_209" href="#FNanchor_209" class="label">[209]</a> <i>Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists</i>, iii. 230.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_210" href="#FNanchor_210" class="label">[210]</a> <i>Humble Requests, &c.</i>, inserted in <i>Calamy’s -Abridgment</i>, i. 497.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_211" href="#FNanchor_211" class="label">[211]</a> <i>Memoir by Offer.</i> Bunyan’s <i>Works</i>, iii. -lxxiii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_212" href="#FNanchor_212" class="label">[212]</a> Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told -of Flavel the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good -evidence, of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious -resemblance in the words of the two narratives.” (<i>Kingdom of -Christ</i>, ii. 344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian -in his honesty and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of -Flavel to prove anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find -it—a remarkable psychological fact.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_213" href="#FNanchor_213" class="label">[213]</a> <i>Palmer</i>, i. 354.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_214" href="#FNanchor_214" class="label">[214]</a> <i>Calamy’s Abridgment</i>, 469–475.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_215" href="#FNanchor_215" class="label">[215]</a> <i>Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c.</i>, by D. Burgess, -1691.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_216" href="#FNanchor_216" class="label">[216]</a> <i>Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland</i>, iii. -188. <i>Birch’s Tillotson</i> [2nd Edition], 18, 387.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_217" href="#FNanchor_217" class="label">[217]</a> <i>Birch’s Life of Tillotson</i>, 23. The text was 2 -Cor. v. 10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson, <i>Church -of the Commonwealth</i>, 327.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_218" href="#FNanchor_218" class="label">[218]</a> <i>Life of Tillotson</i>, 223.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_219" href="#FNanchor_219" class="label">[219]</a> <i>Life of Tillotson</i>, 340, 341.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_220" href="#FNanchor_220" class="label">[220]</a> <i>D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, ii. 4, 16.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_221" href="#FNanchor_221" class="label">[221]</a> <i>D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft</i>, ii. 25.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_222" href="#FNanchor_222" class="label">[222]</a> See “A relation of the late wicked contrivance of -Stephen Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of several -persons by forging an association under their hands, written by the -Bishop of Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relation -of what passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by a -Committee of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an account -of the two above-mentioned authors of the forgery.” In the Savoy, -1692.—<i>Harleian Missal</i> (4to.) vi. 198.</p> - -<p>Blackhead and Young seem to have been thorough-paced villains.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_223" href="#FNanchor_223" class="label">[223]</a> These letters, dated March, 1692, are amongst the -<i>Tanner MSS.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_224" href="#FNanchor_224" class="label">[224]</a> <i>Life of Sancroft</i>, ii. 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_225" href="#FNanchor_225" class="label">[225]</a> The instrument, which is very curious, is given by -<i>D’Oyley</i>, ii. 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_226" href="#FNanchor_226" class="label">[226]</a> <i>D’Oyley</i>, ii. 43, 58, 62, 64.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_227" href="#FNanchor_227" class="label">[227]</a> <i>Lives of the Bishops</i>, 234.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_228" href="#FNanchor_228" class="label">[228]</a> <i>Own Time</i>, ii. 135.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_229" href="#FNanchor_229" class="label">[229]</a> “He was, in those years, a very good scholar, an acute -logician and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. He -spoke Latin exceedingly well.”—<i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll.</i>, -949, 114.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_230" href="#FNanchor_230" class="label">[230]</a> Milman has well brought out this point in his <i>Annals -of St. Paul’s</i>. I quite agree with that distinguished critic in -placing Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should also -assign a higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literary -obligations to Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A. -Taine.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_231" href="#FNanchor_231" class="label">[231]</a> In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikes -me as much more interesting than the second.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_232" href="#FNanchor_232" class="label">[232]</a> <i>Birch’s Tillotson</i>, 348.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_233" href="#FNanchor_233" class="label">[233]</a> <i>Memoirs of the Life and Times of Tenison</i>, 20.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_234" href="#FNanchor_234" class="label">[234]</a> <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 27–31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_235" href="#FNanchor_235" class="label">[235]</a> <i>Stanley’s Westminster Abbey</i>, 182.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_236" href="#FNanchor_236" class="label">[236]</a> <i>Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge</i>, iv. 28. -<i>Thoresby’s Diary and Correspondence</i>, iii. 197.</p> - -<p>Amongst the wilder eulogists was Samuel Wesley, who thus refers to her -celestial happiness:—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“How was Heaven moved at her arrival there!</div> - <div>With how much more than usual art and care,</div> - <div>The angels, who so oft to earth had gone,</div> - <div>And borne her incense to the Eternal’s throne,</div> - <div>For her new coronation now prepare!</div> - <div class="i2">How welcome! how caressed!</div> - <div class="i2">Among the blest!</div> - <div>And first mankind’s great mother rose—</div> - <div>‘Give way, ye crowding souls,’ said she,</div> - <div>‘That I the second of my race may see!’”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>In his <i>Life of Christ</i> he couples the Queen with the Virgin -Mary.—<i>Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley</i>, 192–194.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_237" href="#FNanchor_237" class="label">[237]</a> See <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 32. and <i>Life of -Ken</i>, 418.</p> - -<p>Tenison, in a letter to Evelyn, speaks of his funeral sermon, adding, -“There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop -Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and -less malice.”—<i>Evelyn’s Diary and Corresp.</i>, iii. 345.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_238" href="#FNanchor_238" class="label">[238]</a> <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. 509, 520.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_239" href="#FNanchor_239" class="label">[239]</a> <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 42–47.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_240" href="#FNanchor_240" class="label">[240]</a> <i>Wilkin’s Concilia</i>, iv. 480.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_241" href="#FNanchor_241" class="label">[241]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 577.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_242" href="#FNanchor_242" class="label">[242]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 582. But constitutions for the Church of -Scotland of a similar kind to those of William were issued by Charles -II.—<i>Ibid.</i>, 590. There are also several documents in the King’s -name respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affect -the point now before us.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_243" href="#FNanchor_243" class="label">[243]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 612.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_244" href="#FNanchor_244" class="label">[244]</a> I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to the -Clergy of the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeed <i>unicus -dominus et supremus</i>, as we confess him in the Church daily: it -were <i>nimis absurdum</i> for us to be called <i>Caput Ecclesiæ, -representans Corpus Christi mysticum</i>.” And I am prepared to admit -that the theory of the National Church is that the Sovereign is simply -supreme ruler in <i>temporal</i> things; but certainly in practice -Sovereigns have gone beyond this, especially in the case now before us.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_245" href="#FNanchor_245" class="label">[245]</a> <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 54–59. This circular letter -is not in <i>Wilkins</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_246" href="#FNanchor_246" class="label">[246]</a> The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seems -to have been the ruling power.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_247" href="#FNanchor_247" class="label">[247]</a> <i>London Gazette</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_248" href="#FNanchor_248" class="label">[248]</a> <i>Macaulay</i>, vii. 253 (<i>note</i>).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_249" href="#FNanchor_249" class="label">[249]</a> This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to his -<i>Antitrinitarian Biography</i>, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes from -a publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any set -Meeting-house for the propagating of their doctrines.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_250" href="#FNanchor_250" class="label">[250]</a> <i>Tayler’s Religious Life in England</i>, 229.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_251" href="#FNanchor_251" class="label">[251]</a> It is impossible to notice these publications in detail. -They are very numerous. A large collection of them may be found in Dr. -Williams’ Library, and an account of some of them in the elaborate -introduction to <i>Wallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography</i>, vol. i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_252" href="#FNanchor_252" class="label">[252]</a> <i>The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_253" href="#FNanchor_253" class="label">[253]</a> The Book is entitled, <i>The Naked Gospel</i>. The -writer, Dr. Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have most -corrupted the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, by -Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_254" href="#FNanchor_254" class="label">[254]</a> <i>Journals</i>, January 3, 1694. The book so treated -was the <i>Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the -Trinity</i>. The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to give -bail for good behaviour for the next three years, and to make a public -recantation.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_255" href="#FNanchor_255" class="label">[255]</a> The pamphlet is entitled, <i>The Doctrine of the Blessed -Trinity, Briefly Explained in a Letter to a Friend</i>, 4to.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_256" href="#FNanchor_256" class="label">[256]</a> <i>Vindication</i>, &c., sect. iv.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_257" href="#FNanchor_257" class="label">[257]</a> <i>Bingham’s Works</i>, viii. 292, 319, 320.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_258" href="#FNanchor_258" class="label">[258]</a> <i>Bingham’s Memoir</i>, i. 6. <i>Dorner’s Doctrine of -the Person of Christ</i>, Div. ii. vol. iii. 355.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_259" href="#FNanchor_259" class="label">[259]</a> <i>Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book</i>, 69.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_260" href="#FNanchor_260" class="label">[260]</a> He says that God had taken the matter into His own -hands, “and made this scornful man eat his own words (the hardest diet, -certainly, that a proud person can be put to), and after all the black -dirt thrown by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it off -again with his own tongue,” p. 381.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_261" href="#FNanchor_261" class="label">[261]</a> <i>South’s Animadversions</i>, 240, and -<i>Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, -&c., written to a Person of Quality</i>. 1693. Another example of -the same kind occurs in <i>The Doctrine of the Trinity placed in its -due Light</i>. “We have seen two men that were made one Admiral by a -joint Commission; and we see every day many men incorporate into one -political body by patent, whereby they are one person in law. And in -this known sense are the Godhead and manhood joined together in one -Person, whereof comes one Christ, and very God, and very man.” The -author was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on p. 213, who was deprived of his -University preferment by the Bishop of Exeter.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_262" href="#FNanchor_262" class="label">[262]</a> On the controversy, see <i>The Distinction between -Real and Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a Socinian -Pamphlet</i>. 1696.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_263" href="#FNanchor_263" class="label">[263]</a> <i>Works</i>, v. 111.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_264" href="#FNanchor_264" class="label">[264]</a> See on this subject <i>Roger’s Life of Howe</i>, 419. -Sherlock differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it. -Howe defended himself in <i>A Letter to a Friend</i>, and <i>A View of -the late Considerations</i>, &c. <i>Works</i>, v.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_265" href="#FNanchor_265" class="label">[265]</a> <i>Lords’ Journal.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_266" href="#FNanchor_266" class="label">[266]</a> <i>Ben Mordecai’s Letters</i>, i. 70, quoted in -<i>Toulmin</i>, 182.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_267" href="#FNanchor_267" class="label">[267]</a> <i>Tenison’s Life</i>, 51. In this dispute, and the -proceedings which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse were -employed. Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgar -ballads, and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associated -with what is ridiculous and absurd. See <i>The Battle Royal, South’s -Posthumous Works</i>. <i>Memoirs</i>, 128–130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_268" href="#FNanchor_268" class="label">[268]</a> <i>Wilkin’s Concilia</i>, iv. 577.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_269" href="#FNanchor_269" class="label">[269]</a> That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shall -deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, -as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion,” <i>i.e.</i> -the XXXIX. Articles.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_270" href="#FNanchor_270" class="label">[270]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 1172. February 9, 1698.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_271" href="#FNanchor_271" class="label">[271]</a> There is a full account of this horrible affair in -<i>Arnot’s State Trials</i>, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period -remarked, respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas -Aikenhead, “I do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he -lived; but the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, -spoke and preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was published -in England in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, <i>The Blasphemous -Heresy Disproved</i>, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, by -God’s express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_272" href="#FNanchor_272" class="label">[272]</a> <i>Lindsay’s Hist. View</i>, 302.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_273" href="#FNanchor_273" class="label">[273]</a> <i>Calamy’s Abridgment</i>, 561.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_274" href="#FNanchor_274" class="label">[274]</a> <i>Lindsay’s Hist. View</i>, 304. <i>Wallace</i>, i. -388.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_275" href="#FNanchor_275" class="label">[275]</a> <i>Mazure</i>, quoted in <i>Macaulay</i>, vii. 15.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_276" href="#FNanchor_276" class="label">[276]</a> <i>An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiracies -against William III.</i>, p. 90.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_277" href="#FNanchor_277" class="label">[277]</a> 1693, October 16. <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, -i. 452.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_278" href="#FNanchor_278" class="label">[278]</a> 1693, October 16. <i>Ibid</i>, 455.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_279" href="#FNanchor_279" class="label">[279]</a> 1693, close of the year. <i>Ibid.</i>, 459.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_280" href="#FNanchor_280" class="label">[280]</a> 1693, December. <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, -467.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_281" href="#FNanchor_281" class="label">[281]</a> 1694, January. <i>Ibid.</i>, 474.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_282" href="#FNanchor_282" class="label">[282]</a> 1694, May. <i>Ibid.</i>, 484.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_283" href="#FNanchor_283" class="label">[283]</a> 1694, August. <i>Ibid.</i>, 493. Some correspondents -were more faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestants -would support him (p. 490).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_284" href="#FNanchor_284" class="label">[284]</a> <i>Lathbury’s Hist. of Nonjurors</i>, 169.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_285" href="#FNanchor_285" class="label">[285]</a> <i>Collier’s Defence.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_286" href="#FNanchor_286" class="label">[286]</a> <i>Wilkins</i>, iv. 627.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_287" href="#FNanchor_287" class="label">[287]</a> <i>Answer to Animadversions</i>, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_288" href="#FNanchor_288" class="label">[288]</a> <i>State Papers</i>: Letter from Shrewsbury to William -III., Whitehall, July 28, 1696.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_289" href="#FNanchor_289" class="label">[289]</a> See <i>Macpherson’s Orig. Papers</i>, i. 514, 595.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_290" href="#FNanchor_290" class="label">[290]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, i. 683.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_291" href="#FNanchor_291" class="label">[291]</a> It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that he -had said Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “by -the operation and consent of King James.”—<i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 1051.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_292" href="#FNanchor_292" class="label">[292]</a> <i>State Papers</i>: Shrewsbury to William III., -Whitehall, Sept. 8, 1696.</p> - -<p>In <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. 481, Captain Floyd, a -Jacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to his -mother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Prince -of Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectually -hereafter.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_293" href="#FNanchor_293" class="label">[293]</a> The substance of his discoveries is given in <i>Tindal’s -History</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_294" href="#FNanchor_294" class="label">[294]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 1127–1130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_295" href="#FNanchor_295" class="label">[295]</a> <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 62.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_296" href="#FNanchor_296" class="label">[296]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 63.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_297" href="#FNanchor_297" class="label">[297]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_298" href="#FNanchor_298" class="label">[298]</a> Lathbury (<i>Hist. of Nonjurors</i>, 178), on the -authority of the <i>State Tracts</i>, ii. 561, states that Fenwick -was permitted to seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken the -oaths, or any of the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that on -his refusal of the offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors were -mentioned, but they declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might be -tendered. Macaulay (vii. 404), however, says White was with him at the -last.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_299" href="#FNanchor_299" class="label">[299]</a> <i>Impartial Hist. of Plots</i>, 176.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_300" href="#FNanchor_300" class="label">[300]</a> Evelyn notices, “16 Nov., the King’s entry very pompous, -but is nothing approaching that of King Charles II.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_301" href="#FNanchor_301" class="label">[301]</a> <i>Evelyn’s Diary</i>, Dec. 2nd.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_302" href="#FNanchor_302" class="label">[302]</a> <i>Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s</i>, 427. Evelyn says, -“5th December was the first Sunday that St. Paul’s had had service -performed in it since it was burnt in 1666.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_303" href="#FNanchor_303" class="label">[303]</a> <i>Kennet’s Hist. of England</i>, iii. 777.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_304" href="#FNanchor_304" class="label">[304]</a> Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says the -Catholic religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in -the time of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of -England has determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure his -own.”</p> - -<p>“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here they -get into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”—<i>Vernon -Cor.</i>, ii. 193.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_305" href="#FNanchor_305" class="label">[305]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c. -4.</p> - -<p>“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture as -eluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances of -a loss of property under this law.” (<i>Hallam’s Const. Hist.</i>, ii. -333.) The Act was repealed in 1779.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_306" href="#FNanchor_306" class="label">[306]</a> <i>Memoirs of Tenison</i>, 65–73.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_307" href="#FNanchor_307" class="label">[307]</a> <i>Le Neve’s Lives</i>, part i. 247–254.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_308" href="#FNanchor_308" class="label">[308]</a> Letter from Shrewsbury to Mr. Secretary Vernon (<i>State -Papers</i>), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letter -offering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads his -many defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessary -for him to seek a warmer climate.</p> - -<div class="blockquot"> - -<p class="center">Shrewsbury to William III.</p> - -<p class="left">“<i>Whitehall, 1st Sept., 1696.</i></p> - -<p>“I have not this long while been sensible of so real a joy as I -was to find, by your Majesty’s letter of the 24th August, that -you were satisfied with my endeavours to serve you. I wish I -could please myself better with the effects and that I were not -obliged to attribute this opinion of your Majesty’s to your own -natural indulgence and my Lord Portland’s kind representation -rather than to any merit of mine, beyond sincere intention to -promote yours and the kingdom’s interest to the utmost of my -power, without being able to contribute much to either.”</p> -</div> - -<p>In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in the <i>First Report of the -Historical MSS. Commission</i>, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke of -Shrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health would -permit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laborious -diversion of fox-hunting should agree so well with his Grace.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_309" href="#FNanchor_309" class="label">[309]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 211.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_310" href="#FNanchor_310" class="label">[310]</a> <i>Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey; -Supplement</i>, 136.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_311" href="#FNanchor_311" class="label">[311]</a> Mr. Shippen.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_312" href="#FNanchor_312" class="label">[312]</a> <i>Ralph</i>, ii. 908.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_313" href="#FNanchor_313" class="label">[313]</a> <i>Stanhope’s Queen Anne</i>, 19.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_314" href="#FNanchor_314" class="label">[314]</a> <i>Clarke’s Life of James II.</i>, ii. 606.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_315" href="#FNanchor_315" class="label">[315]</a> <i>Clarke’s Life of James II.</i>, ii. 590–594.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_316" href="#FNanchor_316" class="label">[316]</a> <i>Life of James II.</i>, ii. 598, 599. <i>Memoir of -Louis XIV.</i>, ii. 184.</p> - -<p>The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicism -by this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wrought -by the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believe -that, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have been -canonized.—<i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. 595–597.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_317" href="#FNanchor_317" class="label">[317]</a> <i>Correspondence of Lord Clarendon</i>, ii. 389.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_318" href="#FNanchor_318" class="label">[318]</a> <i>Life of Calamy</i>, i. 437.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_319" href="#FNanchor_319" class="label">[319]</a> <i>Crosby</i>, iii. 357.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_320" href="#FNanchor_320" class="label">[320]</a> <i>Parl. Hist.</i>, v. 1331.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_321" href="#FNanchor_321" class="label">[321]</a> Edmund Burke.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_322" href="#FNanchor_322" class="label">[322]</a> <i>Whiston’s Memoirs</i>, 32.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_323" href="#FNanchor_323" class="label">[323]</a> <i>Lords’ Journals</i>, February 24, 1702.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_324" href="#FNanchor_324" class="label">[324]</a> <i>Life</i>, i. 440.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_325" href="#FNanchor_325" class="label">[325]</a> 1702, January. <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. -602.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_326" href="#FNanchor_326" class="label">[326]</a> <i>English Hist. Library</i>, 133.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_327" href="#FNanchor_327" class="label">[327]</a> See in Appendix the form of writ now issued.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_328" href="#FNanchor_328" class="label">[328]</a> The letter has been attributed, on the authority of -the editor of the <i>Somers’ Tracts</i> (last edit., xi. 363), to Sir -Bartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor of <i>Atterbury’s -Correspondence</i> (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar of -Leamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannot -ascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_329" href="#FNanchor_329" class="label">[329]</a> <i>The Authority of Christian Princes over their -Ecclesiastical Synods</i>, 1697.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_330" href="#FNanchor_330" class="label">[330]</a> See <i>Farrer’s Critical History of Free Thought</i>, -186.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_331" href="#FNanchor_331" class="label">[331]</a> See <i>Hallam</i>, ii. 396.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_332" href="#FNanchor_332" class="label">[332]</a> Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in his -<i>Norman Conquest</i> (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an Ecclesiastical -Synod in 1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the general -Gemotes; and, again (360), noticing that the King held his Court for -five days, and then the Archbishop held his Synod for three days -more. “Here are the beginnings of the anomalous position of the two -Convocations in England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estates -of the Realm—each character hindering the effectual working of the -other.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_333" href="#FNanchor_333" class="label">[333]</a> Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase of -its history, the results of which deserve careful study.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_334" href="#FNanchor_334" class="label">[334]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 280.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_335" href="#FNanchor_335" class="label">[335]</a> <i>Atterbury’s Corresp.</i>, iii. 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_336" href="#FNanchor_336" class="label">[336]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 11, 13, 17.</p> - -<p>An address was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Clergy -of the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that they -were advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtue -of the <i>præmunientes</i> clause.—<i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, vi. 1.</p> - -<p>But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the elected -Proctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop, -and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of the -Church on earth.”</p> - -<p>At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper was -introduced advocating the view of the <i>præmunientes</i> clause taken -by Atterbury.—<i>Gibson</i>, vi. 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_337" href="#FNanchor_337" class="label">[337]</a> The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop of -Canterbury on the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humble -submission wish there might be no license for business this first -session, for if there should be, it will be thought the effect of Mr. -A.’s book, and they will not greatly regard the strength of any answer -while they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected they -will vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as often -as the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shall -precede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meet -with more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business, -and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for their -meeting.”—<i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, 933, 41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_338" href="#FNanchor_338" class="label">[338]</a> <i>Atterbury’s Correspondence</i>, iii. 22. He says, -writing to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon -our adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made -an admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our -affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour -than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state -of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was -extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of -them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were -addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my -Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26).</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_339" href="#FNanchor_339" class="label">[339]</a> <i>Atterbury’s Correspondence</i>, 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_340" href="#FNanchor_340" class="label">[340]</a> <i>Letter to a Clergyman in the Country</i>, p. 1. -<i>Answer to the Letter</i>, p. 4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_341" href="#FNanchor_341" class="label">[341]</a> <i>The New Danger of Presbytery</i>, 3.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_342" href="#FNanchor_342" class="label">[342]</a> These extracts are given in <i>Lathbury’s History of -Convocation</i>, 351.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_343" href="#FNanchor_343" class="label">[343]</a> The main facts in the history of this Convocation -are given by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have -used, besides Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the <i>Memoirs of -Tenison</i>, <i>The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, -&c.</i>, from Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn -up by order of the House; <i>A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, -&c.</i>, and <i>The History of the Convocation</i>, drawn up from the -<i>Journal of the Upper House, &c.</i> <i>The Narrative</i> gives the -High Church view; <i>The History</i> the Lower. It is ascribed to -Kennet. A number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I -have also consulted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_344" href="#FNanchor_344" class="label">[344]</a> See Letters described in <i>First Report of Hist. MSS. -Com.</i>, 52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_345" href="#FNanchor_345" class="label">[345]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 285.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_346" href="#FNanchor_346" class="label">[346]</a> See <i>Ecclesiastical Synods</i>, 99–149, 245.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_347" href="#FNanchor_347" class="label">[347]</a> See <i>Ecclesiastical Synods</i>, 299.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_348" href="#FNanchor_348" class="label">[348]</a> <i>Atterbury’s Correspondence</i>, iii. 53.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_349" href="#FNanchor_349" class="label">[349]</a> <i>Ibid.</i> 57.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_350" href="#FNanchor_350" class="label">[350]</a> <i>Lathbury’s History of Convocation</i>, 363.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_351" href="#FNanchor_351" class="label">[351]</a> See <i>Gibson’s Synodus Anglicana</i>, 21.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_352" href="#FNanchor_352" class="label">[352]</a> <i>Lathbury’s History of Convocation</i>, 363–365.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_353" href="#FNanchor_353" class="label">[353]</a> “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it very -convenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on the -floor.”—<i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson Papers</i>, vi. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_354" href="#FNanchor_354" class="label">[354]</a> <i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, vi. 9, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_355" href="#FNanchor_355" class="label">[355]</a> <i>Present State of Convocation</i>, 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_356" href="#FNanchor_356" class="label">[356]</a> <i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, vi. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_357" href="#FNanchor_357" class="label">[357]</a> <i>Faithful account of some transactions in the three -last sessions of the present Convocation.</i> Attributed to Atterbury.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_358" href="#FNanchor_358" class="label">[358]</a> <i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, vi. 18.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_359" href="#FNanchor_359" class="label">[359]</a> <i>Faithful account, &c.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_360" href="#FNanchor_360" class="label">[360]</a> <i>Lambeth MSS., Gibson</i>, vi. 11.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_361" href="#FNanchor_361" class="label">[361]</a> <i>Burnet</i>, ii. 303.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_362" href="#FNanchor_362" class="label">[362]</a> <i>Hist. of King William III</i>, 513.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_363" href="#FNanchor_363" class="label">[363]</a> Dr. Willis, William’s Military Chaplain, who became -Bishop of Gloucester in 1714, was an extempore preacher. To this he -“was at first led, no doubt, by the temper of his master, King William, -who was accustomed to hear such kind of preaching in Holland, and could -scarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of the -pulpit at the congregation.”—<i>Anecdotes of the Wesley Family</i>, -ii. 243.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_364" href="#FNanchor_364" class="label">[364]</a> <i>Own Time</i>, ii. 305.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_365" href="#FNanchor_365" class="label">[365]</a> It would look as if the conduct of William in reference -to patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “We -cannot serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom we -commend to him, purely because they have deserved well of him, and -have no friends to make their worth known but we alone.” <i>Patrick’s -Works</i>, ix. 621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_366" href="#FNanchor_366" class="label">[366]</a> <i>The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises</i> appeared in -1695.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_367" href="#FNanchor_367" class="label">[367]</a> See <i>Life and Character of Stillingfleet</i>, 93, 104, -111, 119, and <i>Twelve Sermons preached on several occasions</i>, -between 1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopal -charges is the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on the -report of the biographer.</p> - -<p>For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, see <i>Church of -the Restoration</i>, vol. ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_368" href="#FNanchor_368" class="label">[368]</a> <i>A Discourse about Tradition. Works</i>, vol. vi.; i. -30–34; vii. 294.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_369" href="#FNanchor_369" class="label">[369]</a> Burnet, Evelyn and Dunton bear witness to Patrick’s -preaching power.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_370" href="#FNanchor_370" class="label">[370]</a> <i>Patrick’s Works</i>, vi. 156.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_371" href="#FNanchor_371" class="label">[371]</a> Preface to sixth edition.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_372" href="#FNanchor_372" class="label">[372]</a> <i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll.</i>, 987, 294.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_373" href="#FNanchor_373" class="label">[373]</a> This gave origin to the well-known epigram (attributed -by some to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in the -poetry professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’s -sending at the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress some -disturbances that had happened there.</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div>The King observing, with judicious eyes,</div> - <div>The state of both his Universities,</div> - <div>To one he sends a regiment; For why?</div> - <div>That <i>learned</i> body wanted <i>loyalty</i>.</div> - <div>To th’ other books he gave, as well discerning,</div> - <div>How much that <i>loyal</i> body wanted <i>learning</i>.</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p>It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the best -thing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician; -and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of a -Cambridge man.</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“The King to Oxford sent his troop of horse,</div> - <div>For Tories own no <i>argument</i> but <i>force</i>.</div> - <div>With equal care, to Cambridge books he sent,</div> - <div>For Whigs allow no <i>force</i> but <i>argument</i>.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -<p><i>Noble’s continuation of Granger</i> ii. 89.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_374" href="#FNanchor_374" class="label">[374]</a> <i>Observer.</i> The following note by Onslow occurs in -the Oxford edition of Burnet’s <i>Hist. of his own Time</i>. “I have -heard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man, -the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in a -newspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_375" href="#FNanchor_375" class="label">[375]</a> <i>Noble’s continuation</i>, ii. 88.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_376" href="#FNanchor_376" class="label">[376]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 87.</p> - -<p>In the <i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll.</i>, 987, 356, it is said Fowler -“had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitions -and witches.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_377" href="#FNanchor_377" class="label">[377]</a> <i>Noble</i>, ii. 101. <i>Kidder’s Autobiography</i> is -printed in <i>Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_378" href="#FNanchor_378" class="label">[378]</a> A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford for -kindness, courteousness, and charity in <i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet -Coll.</i>, 987, 304.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_379" href="#FNanchor_379" class="label">[379]</a> This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen in -<i>Le Neve’s Archbishops</i>, part ii. 286.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_380" href="#FNanchor_380" class="label">[380]</a> <i>Thoresby’s Diary</i>, i. 224.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_381" href="#FNanchor_381" class="label">[381]</a> <i>Tyerman’s Life of S. Wesley</i>, 385.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_382" href="#FNanchor_382" class="label">[382]</a> <i>Memoirs of Whiston</i>, 31.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_383" href="#FNanchor_383" class="label">[383]</a> <i>Noble’s Continuation</i>, ii. 82.</p> - -<p>Anthony Wood, in his strange <i>Autobiography</i>, relates a practical -joke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a London -citizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people, -including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “It -was a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that had -a mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, and -it made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamed -of it.”—<i>Lives of Eminent Antiquaries</i>, ii. 132.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_384" href="#FNanchor_384" class="label">[384]</a> The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimated -in <i>Tracts for the Times</i>, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great loss -of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellion -of 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrine -of Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low tone -of morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the great -Christian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been much -forgotten.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_385" href="#FNanchor_385" class="label">[385]</a></p> - -<p class="r2">“Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701.</p> - -<p>“Sir,—I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it is -my opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nation -depend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election, -and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for us -of the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now I -confess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, in -my judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our common -good, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorous -ourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. It -will be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we be -unanimous.—<span class="smcap">H. London.</span>”—<i>Strype Correspondence</i>, iii. -219. Cambridge. Other letters of the same kind are preserved.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_386" href="#FNanchor_386" class="label">[386]</a> <i>Visitation Charges</i>, 1693–4.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_387" href="#FNanchor_387" class="label">[387]</a> <i>Hist. of his own Time</i>, ii. 630.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_388" href="#FNanchor_388" class="label">[388]</a> <i>Grainger</i>, iv. 293.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_389" href="#FNanchor_389" class="label">[389]</a> “Captain Crisp assures, that the Bishop of Exeter -is entirely in the King’s (James’) interest.” January, 1694. -<i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. 474.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_390" href="#FNanchor_390" class="label">[390]</a> <i>Life and Errors</i>, ii. 668.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_391" href="#FNanchor_391" class="label">[391]</a> <i>Johnson’s Lives of the Poets.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_392" href="#FNanchor_392" class="label">[392]</a> <i>Discourse made by the Lord Bishop of Rochester at his -Visitation</i>, 1695.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_393" href="#FNanchor_393" class="label">[393]</a> There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Library -from Dr. Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of his -life—of his service in the army—his promotion in the Church—the -poverty of his See—and an interview he had with the Archbishop, at -Lambeth, in order to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through the -hall up the stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place of -reception in the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than he -came himself to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When he -told me, almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford would -die; no, my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, the -sooner for that.”—<i>Gibson Papers</i>, ii. 49.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_394" href="#FNanchor_394" class="label">[394]</a> This is entitled, “<i>A Large Review of the Articles -exhibited against the Bishop of St. David’s</i>.” There is a MS. book, -containing minutes of the charges, in the Cambridge University Library -(MSS. 757). For the trial, see <i>Lord Raymond’s Reports</i>, i. 447; -and <i>Howel’s State Trials</i>, xiv. 447. The deed of deprivation is -in the Lambeth Library, 951, 6.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_395" href="#FNanchor_395" class="label">[395]</a> In the <i>Cole MSS.</i> (Brit. Mus.), xxx. 149, it is -stated that Bishop Watson died June 3rd, 1717, at Great Wilbraham, and -was put in the ground the night following in the Chancel, under the -south wall, <i>sans</i> service, being excommunicated by the Archbishop -of Canterbury, whose officers’ fees he would not pay. On his coffin was -put, T. W. B., St. D. Aged 80, died the 3rd of June, 1717.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_396" href="#FNanchor_396" class="label">[396]</a> Compare for example Sermons iv. and xiv. <i>Works</i>, -vol. ii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_397" href="#FNanchor_397" class="label">[397]</a> My acquaintance with Norris’s writings commenced nearly -forty years ago, through a recommendation from that quarter. Dunton -speaks of him in extravagant terms.—<i>Life and Errors</i>, ii. 671.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_398" href="#FNanchor_398" class="label">[398]</a> <i>Diary</i>, Nov. 10, 1695.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_399" href="#FNanchor_399" class="label">[399]</a> “I had quite forgot to desire one to preach upon the -subject of our Conference. I beseech you try if you can get any -of our brethren to give us a quarter of an hour’s discourse upon -that subject.—<span class="smcap">H. London.</span> I preached myself June 23rd, -1689.”—<i>Strype Correspondence</i>, iii. 192.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_400" href="#FNanchor_400" class="label">[400]</a> <i>Strype Correspondence</i>, ii. 52.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_401" href="#FNanchor_401" class="label">[401]</a> <i>The Life of Dr. Horneck</i>, by Bishop Kidder, 9, 10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_402" href="#FNanchor_402" class="label">[402]</a> He is noticed in <i>Evelyn’s Diary</i>, April 24th, -1694.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_403" href="#FNanchor_403" class="label">[403]</a> <i>An impartial account of Mr. John Mason</i>, p. 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_404" href="#FNanchor_404" class="label">[404]</a> The following account of an eccentric clergyman, who -died just after the Revolution, occurs in the <i>Lansdowne MSS., Kennet -Coll.</i>, 987, 116. The person referred to is Joseph Crowther, of whom -Walker gives some account in his <i>Sufferings of the Clergy</i>, and -Wood in his <i>Athenæ Oxonienses</i>.</p> - -<p>“I remember him esteemed at Oxford a very severe disputant, and very -tenacious of the rules of logic. He would often moderate in the public -disputation in his own hall; but so fierce and passionate, that if the -opponent made a false syllogism, or the respondent a wrong answer, -he bid the next that sat by them kick their shins, and it became a -proverb, ‘kick shins Crowther.’ He was extremely hated at Tredington -(Diocese of Worcester), for his stiff contending with the people; they -obliged him to keep a boar—he got a black one to spite them. The black -pigs were called Crowthers.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_405" href="#FNanchor_405" class="label">[405]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxviii. 248, 274.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_406" href="#FNanchor_406" class="label">[406]</a> <i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxvii. 11, 78.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_407" href="#FNanchor_407" class="label">[407]</a> <i>Patrick’s Works</i>, ix. 546.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_408" href="#FNanchor_408" class="label">[408]</a> 1696, April 7. <i>Baumgartner Papers, Strype -Correspondence</i>, iii. 45.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_409" href="#FNanchor_409" class="label">[409]</a> <i>Gibson Papers</i>, v. 9. 1692, Dec. 17.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_410" href="#FNanchor_410" class="label">[410]</a> The very injudicious <i>Defence of the Old Singing -Psalms</i> may be found in the first volume of <i>Beveridge’s -Works</i>, collected by Horne.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_411" href="#FNanchor_411" class="label">[411]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 213, 214.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_412" href="#FNanchor_412" class="label">[412]</a> <i>Memoirs</i>, 30.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_413" href="#FNanchor_413" class="label">[413]</a> <i>Whiston’s Life</i>, 162.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_414" href="#FNanchor_414" class="label">[414]</a> <i>Own Time</i>, ii. 215.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_415" href="#FNanchor_415" class="label">[415]</a> <i>Wilson’s Life of De Foe</i>, i. 292.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_416" href="#FNanchor_416" class="label">[416]</a> The following extract indicates the feeling cherished -towards Richard Baxter and his admirers:—“His writings furnish great -part of the libraries of the young fanatic divines, who have sucked in -all the venom and poison of his unhappy writings, in order to propagate -them in this city and country.”—From Chas. Goodall to Mr. Strype, June -12, 1701. Brit. Mus. Addl. MSS., 5853, p. 35.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_417" href="#FNanchor_417" class="label">[417]</a> <i>Anecdotes of the Wesley Family</i>, i. 207.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_418" href="#FNanchor_418" class="label">[418]</a> See <i>Kirk’s Mother of the Wesleys</i>, 186, and -<i>Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley</i>, 251.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_419" href="#FNanchor_419" class="label">[419]</a> See <i>Ecton’s Liber Valorum</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_420" href="#FNanchor_420" class="label">[420]</a> <i>Athenian Oracle</i>, i. 542, probably written by -Samuel Wesley, and drawn from his own experience.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_421" href="#FNanchor_421" class="label">[421]</a> <i>Keble’s Life of Wilson</i>, 61. The memory of Wilson -is still cherished at Knowsley.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_422" href="#FNanchor_422" class="label">[422]</a> <i>Planche’s Hist. of British Costume</i>, 395.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_423" href="#FNanchor_423" class="label">[423]</a> Preface to <i>Companion for Fasts and Festivals</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_424" href="#FNanchor_424" class="label">[424]</a> Preface to the <i>Practice of True Devotion</i>, 1698.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_425" href="#FNanchor_425" class="label">[425]</a> <i>Thoresby</i>, iii. 153.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_426" href="#FNanchor_426" class="label">[426]</a> <i>Hist. of his Own Time</i>, ii. 211.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_427" href="#FNanchor_427" class="label">[427]</a> <i>Works</i>, viii. 451.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_428" href="#FNanchor_428" class="label">[428]</a> <i>Reason and Faith.</i> Introduction.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_429" href="#FNanchor_429" class="label">[429]</a> <i>Wilson’s Life of De Foe</i>, i. 262.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_430" href="#FNanchor_430" class="label">[430]</a> <i>Rogers’ Life of Howe</i>, 337, 309. An anecdote in -the life of Samuel Wesley illustrates the same fact. He met with a -profane officer, and so reproved him as to break for ever his habit of -swearing.—<i>Life of S. Wesley</i>, by Tyerman, 134.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_431" href="#FNanchor_431" class="label">[431]</a> Richard Dunning’s <i>Bread for the Poor</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_432" href="#FNanchor_432" class="label">[432]</a> <i>History of his Own Time</i>, ii. 101. See note by -Lord Dartmouth in the Oxford edition.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_433" href="#FNanchor_433" class="label">[433]</a> <i>Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William -III.</i>, by Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 302. I find amongst the -<i>Tanner MSS.</i>, xxviii. 162, “Case of Sir Peter Gleanes’ daughter, -supposed to be suffering from witchcraft, Aug. 17, 1688.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_434" href="#FNanchor_434" class="label">[434]</a> This information is gathered chiefly from -<i>Hutchinson’s Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_435" href="#FNanchor_435" class="label">[435]</a> Not “your,” as often quoted.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_436" href="#FNanchor_436" class="label">[436]</a> <i>Athenian Oracle</i>, i. 153.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_437" href="#FNanchor_437" class="label">[437]</a> <i>Hutchinson</i>, 62. Hume says, in his <i>Commentaries -on the Laws of Scotland</i>, ii. 556, that among the many trials for -witchcraft, he had not observed “one which proceeds upon the notion -of a vain, cheating art, falsely used by an impostor to deceive the -weak and credulous.” It is not until faith in witchcraft expires that -such a notion obtains. The Scotch were more superstitious than the -English. English believers in witchcraft regarded the witch as the -slave; the Scotch regarded her as the mistress, of the evil power. See -<i>Burton’s Criminal Trials in Scotland</i>, i. 240. Dugald Stuart, -in his <i>Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical and Ethical -Philosophy</i>, notices Malbranche’s scepticism as to sorcery, and -gives an interesting extract on the subject, p. 75.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_438" href="#FNanchor_438" class="label">[438]</a> <i>Hutchinson</i>, 58, 108.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_439" href="#FNanchor_439" class="label">[439]</a> <i>Monk’s Life of Bentley</i>, 34.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_440" href="#FNanchor_440" class="label">[440]</a> <i>Monk’s Life of Bentley</i>, 37.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_441" href="#FNanchor_441" class="label">[441]</a> <i>Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes</i>, vi. 453.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_442" href="#FNanchor_442" class="label">[442]</a> Life prefixed to <i>Works</i>, i. xii.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_443" href="#FNanchor_443" class="label">[443]</a> These passages occur in the 18th and 19th chapters of -the fourth book of the <i>Essay</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_444" href="#FNanchor_444" class="label">[444]</a> <i>Second Vindication.</i> <i>Works</i>, ii. 656.</p> - -<p>Since this volume was sent to the press, I have been reading the -interesting <i>Letters, Lectures, and Reviews</i> of Dean Mansell. -From p. 306 to 316, he dwells on the tendency of Locke’s philosophy in -the direction of theological scepticism, though at the same time he -does justice to Locke’s character, and remarks that “when challenged -on account of the relation of his premises to Toland’s conclusions, -he expressly repudiated the connection, and declared his own sincere -belief in those mysteries of the Christian faith which Toland had -assailed.” The Dean maintains that in Locke’s philosophy “there is -no room for a distinction between the inconceivable or mysterious, -and the absurd and contradictory;” and he further goes on to say, -after quoting a passage from <i>Sanderson’s Works</i>, i. 233, that -“Sanderson’s distinction between the τὸ ὅτι, <i>that it is</i>, and -the τὸ πῶς, <i>how it is</i>, indicates the exact point which Locke -overlooked and which Toland denied.” He also remarks that Locke wrote -his great work without reference to theology, and probably without -any distinct thought of its theological bearings. But the Dean takes -no notice of the passages quoted in the text from Locke’s <i>Essay on -the Understanding</i>, in which he distinctly notices the theological -bearings of his speculation, and makes a distinction between the -inconceivable and absurd, in other words, what is above reason and -contrary to it; and virtually recognizes the truth of what Sanderson -says about the τὸ ὅτι and the τὸ πῶς, the fact of existence and the -mode.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_445" href="#FNanchor_445" class="label">[445]</a> It will be found instructive to compare chap. ii. with -<i>Newman’s Grammar of Assent</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_446" href="#FNanchor_446" class="label">[446]</a> Numerous illustrations are afforded in <i>Secretan’s -Life of Nelson</i>, 174.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_447" href="#FNanchor_447" class="label">[447]</a> See Woodward’s <i>Account of the Rise and Progress of -Religious Societies, &c., and of their Endeavours for Reformation of -Manners; Dr. Horneck’s Life; Toulmin</i>, 415; <i>Secretan’s Life of -Nelson</i>, 91.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_448" href="#FNanchor_448" class="label">[448]</a> <i>Vernon Cor.</i>, ii. 128–130.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_449" href="#FNanchor_449" class="label">[449]</a> <i>Streets of London</i>, 8.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_450" href="#FNanchor_450" class="label">[450]</a> <i>Strype’s Stowe</i>, ii. 578.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_451" href="#FNanchor_451" class="label">[451]</a> This account is founded upon numerous extracts from the -early minutes of the S.P.C.K., kindly furnished me by the Secretary, -and upon information supplied in <i>Anderson’s Colonial Church</i>, and -<i>Secretan’s Life of Nelson</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_452" href="#FNanchor_452" class="label">[452]</a> Much of this account, like the former, rests upon the -minutes of the S.P.C.K.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_453" href="#FNanchor_453" class="label">[453]</a> <i>Colonial Church Chronicle</i>, v. 121. There -are several papers in this volume on the early proceedings of the -Propagation Society, but they chiefly relate to a period later than -that contained in the present work. The authorities for the rest of my -account are the same as in the case of the S.P.C.K.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_454" href="#FNanchor_454" class="label">[454]</a> <i>Lives of Eminent Antiquaries</i>, Oxford, 1772, vol. -i. <i>Life of Hearne</i>, 8–10.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_455" href="#FNanchor_455" class="label">[455]</a> <i>Mason’s Defence</i>, by Lindsay. Preface.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_456" href="#FNanchor_456" class="label">[456]</a> <i>Macpherson’s Original Papers</i>, i. 452.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_457" href="#FNanchor_457" class="label">[457]</a> It is written by Hen. Wilkinson, and dated October 25, -1690. (<i>Baker MSS.</i>, 40, 91, Cambridge University Library.) There -is also a list of the Nonjurors in the Diocese of Ely and University of -Cambridge, 1689–1690. (Brit. Mus., Additional MSS. 5813 f. 119 b.)</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_458" href="#FNanchor_458" class="label">[458]</a> <i>Kettlewell’s Works</i>, ii. 635–638.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_459" href="#FNanchor_459" class="label">[459]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 291.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_460" href="#FNanchor_460" class="label">[460]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 317.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_461" href="#FNanchor_461" class="label">[461]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 322.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_462" href="#FNanchor_462" class="label">[462]</a> <i>Kettlewell’s Works</i>, i., Appendix.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_463" href="#FNanchor_463" class="label">[463]</a> <i>Miscellaneous Papers of Dr. Birch</i>, Brit. Mus., -4297. <i>Secretan’s Life of Nelson</i>, 52.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_464" href="#FNanchor_464" class="label">[464]</a> Dodwell to Ken. <i>Baker MSS.</i>, 40, 82, <i>et -seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_465" href="#FNanchor_465" class="label">[465]</a> Dodwell to Sherlock. <i>Baker MSS.</i>, 86, <i>et -seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_466" href="#FNanchor_466" class="label">[466]</a> Lambeth Library. <i>Gibson Papers</i>, ii. 38–41.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_467" href="#FNanchor_467" class="label">[467]</a> <i>Life of Ken by a Layman</i>, 409.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_468" href="#FNanchor_468" class="label">[468]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 471.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_469" href="#FNanchor_469" class="label">[469]</a> His works were published in two volumes (1752), -under the title of Ἀπολειπόμενα, or <i>Dissertations Theological, -Mathematical, and Physical</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_470" href="#FNanchor_470" class="label">[470]</a> <i>Scintilla Altaris. Primitive Devotion in the Feasts -and Fasts of the Church of England</i>, by Ed. Sparkes, D.D, 1652. -<i>The Holy Feasts and Fasts of the Church</i>, by W. Brough, D.D., -1657. It is curious that these should have been published under the -Commonwealth.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_471" href="#FNanchor_471" class="label">[471]</a> Dated Oct. 22, 1698. <i>Letters Illustrative of the -Reign of William III.</i>, by James Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. -203.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_472" href="#FNanchor_472" class="label">[472]</a> For several particulars in this account I am indebted to -<i>Secretan’s Life of Nelson</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_473" href="#FNanchor_473" class="label">[473]</a> <i>Nelson’s Life of Bull.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_474" href="#FNanchor_474" class="label">[474]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 316, 317.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_475" href="#FNanchor_475" class="label">[475]</a> <i>Life of Hearne</i>, p. 3 in <i>Lives of Eminent -Antiquaries</i>, vol. i.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_476" href="#FNanchor_476" class="label">[476]</a> <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 398.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_477" href="#FNanchor_477" class="label">[477]</a> <i>Life of Ken, by a Layman</i>, 414.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_478" href="#FNanchor_478" class="label">[478]</a> June 6, 1698: letter from John Mandeville. See also -<i>Evelyn’s Diary</i>, June 5.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_479" href="#FNanchor_479" class="label">[479]</a> <i>Secretan’s Life of Nelson</i>, 68.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_480" href="#FNanchor_480" class="label">[480]</a> <i>Life of Kettlewell</i>, 368, <i>et seq.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_481" href="#FNanchor_481" class="label">[481]</a> <i>Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ</i>, iii. 105.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_482" href="#FNanchor_482" class="label">[482]</a> <i>Jowett’s Dialogues of Plato</i>, ii. Introduction, -150. I have changed the word “statesman” for “politician.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_483" href="#FNanchor_483" class="label">[483]</a> <i>Nelson’s Christian Sacrifice.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_484" href="#FNanchor_484" class="label">[484]</a> In the <i>Vernon Correspondence</i>, vol. ii. 55, -allusions occur to “one of the Prebends of Durham” a Nonjuror in heart, -suspected of Jacobitism. “By what I have now heard,” says Vernon to -the Duke of Shrewsbury, “there never was so true a pharisee; he was -affectedly devout in outward show, using all the ceremonies both of the -Greek and Western Churches; his practice was to pray and sing psalms -while he and his friends were travelling in his coach.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_485" href="#FNanchor_485" class="label">[485]</a> <i>Wilson’s Hist. of Dissenting Churches</i>, iv. 188, -192, iii. 277.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_486" href="#FNanchor_486" class="label">[486]</a> At Salter’s Hall. <i>Wilson</i>, ii. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_487" href="#FNanchor_487" class="label">[487]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, ii. 303.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_488" href="#FNanchor_488" class="label">[488]</a> <i>Murch’s History of Churches in West of England</i>, -139, 157, 89. “I have seen,” says Mr. Murch, “a curious account by a -Mr. Butler, of the disbursements to every labourer, and for all the -materials used in the erection of the meeting-house at Warminster.” The -new chapel was opened in 1704; previously the Dissenters of Warminster -worshipped in a barn. The Rev. H. Gunn, in his interesting <i>History -of Nonconformity in Warminster</i>, gives full particulars derived from -this account, and adds that William Penn once preached in the barn. He -also notes that the ministers regularly officiating received 12s. 6d. -for two services, equivalent to £1 17s. 6d. in the present day.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_489" href="#FNanchor_489" class="label">[489]</a> There was no contractor for the building; materials -were purchased and labour procured as necessity required. The entire -cost of timber was £30; glass and lead for the windows, £8 19s. 1d.; -the painter’s bill was £4. 9s.; bricks were 11s. per 1,000; eight -deal boards for the pulpit were charged 14s. 8d., and the making of -it is put down at £1 10s. Church Documents, Castlegate Chapel.—See -<i>Historical Account</i>, by the Rev. S. M’All.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_490" href="#FNanchor_490" class="label">[490]</a> A remarkable instance of an Independent trust, couched -in general terms, occurs in the History of the Independent Church at -Beccles.—<i>Rix’s East Anglican Nonconformity</i>, 161.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_491" href="#FNanchor_491" class="label">[491]</a> The certificate, drawn up and signed on the occasion, -is worth preserving: “We, whose names are under written, do testify -concerning Mr. Joseph Hussey, that upon our personal knowledge he is -an ordained minister of the Gospel, whose natural parts, acquired -learning, and soundness in the faith, holiness of life, and all -ministerial abilities are so considerable that we groundedly hope -for God’s blessing upon his ministry, both for the conversion and -edification of souls wherever God shall employ him.” Upon this -testimonial there are signs of the furtiveness in which the business -had been accomplished. Five signed their names; <i>Domino Anonymo</i> -is the signature of the sixth, with this appendage: “He was shie -because of the cloudiness of the times, and would neither subscribe nor -be known to me.”—MS. by Wilson, Dr. William’s Library.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_492" href="#FNanchor_492" class="label">[492]</a> <i>Thoresby’s Diary</i>, i. 229.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_493" href="#FNanchor_493" class="label">[493]</a> “Mr. Griffith,” an Independent, “tells me he takes it -for granted the meeting at Newbury was in the nature of a provincial -synod, which he has found the Presbyterian ministers very fond of -late, and blames them for it. This passion of theirs has appeared more -barefaced in Ireland, where they have had such an assembly at Antrim, -and published the sermon preached upon the occasion, maintaining it was -their right and duty to meet with or without the allowance of the laws, -or the consent of the supreme magistrate.”</p> - -<p>“The Episcopal Clergy intend to remonstrate to the Government there -against this liberty. I know not how soon we may expect the like to -be done in England, and if it break into an open contest about Church -discipline, the moderate man will have a fine time of it.” August 23, -1698.—<i>Vernon Correspondence</i>, ii. 156.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_494" href="#FNanchor_494" class="label">[494]</a> <i>Calamy’s Life</i>, i. 224–264.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_495" href="#FNanchor_495" class="label">[495]</a> <i>Defence of Moderate Nonconformity</i>, part i. 213.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_496" href="#FNanchor_496" class="label">[496]</a> <i>Life of Calamy</i>, i. 301.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_497" href="#FNanchor_497" class="label">[497]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 304–309.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_498" href="#FNanchor_498" class="label">[498]</a> <i>Life of Calamy</i>, i. 313–318.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_499" href="#FNanchor_499" class="label">[499]</a> <i>Life of Calamy</i>, i. 348–350, June 22, 1694.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_500" href="#FNanchor_500" class="label">[500]</a> <i>Thoresby</i>, i. 246.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_501" href="#FNanchor_501" class="label">[501]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, i. 246–253.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_502" href="#FNanchor_502" class="label">[502]</a> This was in 1699, but the change began in 1694. -<i>Diary</i>, 284–329.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_503" href="#FNanchor_503" class="label">[503]</a> <i>Calamy’s Life</i>, i. 301. “When Mr. Harrison removed -to Pury, a Mr. John Warr, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood of -Caversfield, came with him to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. And -connected with this circumstance is another, which will show something -of the spirit of the times. When Mr. Harrison came to Pury he brought -a pulpit with him, which he deemed it necessary to conceal; therefore, -to prevent it being known, Mr. Warr, being a shoemaker, contrived -to fill it with shoe-pegs, and brought it among his own goods in -a waggon from Bicester.”—<i>Memorials of Independent Churches in -Northamptonshire</i>, by T. Coleman, 276.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_504" href="#FNanchor_504" class="label">[504]</a> <i>Thoresby</i>, i. 256. April, 1694.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_505" href="#FNanchor_505" class="label">[505]</a> See correspondence in <i>Thoresby</i>, iii. 177.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_506" href="#FNanchor_506" class="label">[506]</a> <i>Present State of Parties</i>, 319.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_507" href="#FNanchor_507" class="label">[507]</a> The whole of the above account is rendered necessary by -controversies respecting these academies. I have examined what is said -by Samuel Wesley, Palmer, De Foe, and other contemporaries, and have -consulted the opinions of modern writers who have gone over the whole -ground. My notice of the course of study is taken from Palmer. Further -particulars may be found in <i>Nonconformity in Cheshire</i>, 491, and -<i>Milner’s Life of Watts</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_508" href="#FNanchor_508" class="label">[508]</a> An example of this occurs in the following letter by -Bishop Patrick, addressed to Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington:—</p> - -<p>“You have done very worthily and prudently in stopping the progress of -the Anabaptist faction, by applying yourself to the Justices, to call -their unlicensed schoolmasters to account; who, you tell me, and I am -glad to hear it, have bound him over to appear at the next sessions. I -think you need not fear his procuring a license from the Archbishop’s -Court, for I had the like attempt here at Littleport, where I refused -to licence a fellow whom a party set up against one, who had a long -time taught school there with good acceptance. Whereupon they pretended -to have not only applied themselves above, but actually procured the -Archbishop’s licence, and showed an instrument with a seal to it to the -ignorant people. But I soon found it was a cheat; the Archbishop having -granted none, and having given a strict charge in his office that none -should be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting the -Bishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will write -to his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectaries -pretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revoke -it if any have been granted, which I think you need not fear; for after -a great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they said -they had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come to -me, but ran the country.”—Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector of -Dodington. <i>Cole MSS.</i> (British Museum), xxx. 148.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_509" href="#FNanchor_509" class="label">[509]</a> <i>Heads of Agreement.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_510" href="#FNanchor_510" class="label">[510]</a> <i>Ibid.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_511" href="#FNanchor_511" class="label">[511]</a> <i>Thoresby’s Diary</i>, i. 210. <i>Hunter’s Life of -Heywood</i>, 374.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_512" href="#FNanchor_512" class="label">[512]</a> Extracts from the Church-Book in <i>Memorials</i>, by T. -Coleman.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_513" href="#FNanchor_513" class="label">[513]</a> <i>Calamy’s Life</i>, i. 327.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_514" href="#FNanchor_514" class="label">[514]</a> This account is drawn up from Williams’ collected pieces -in two volumes, <i>Crispianism Unmasked</i>, <i>Crisp’s Christ made -Sin</i>; pamphlets by Lorimer, <i>Calamy’s Abridgment</i>, <i>Life of -Bull</i>, and <i>Toulmin’s Hist. of Dissent</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_515" href="#FNanchor_515" class="label">[515]</a> <i>Nichols’ Apparat. ad Defens. Eccl. Ang.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_516" href="#FNanchor_516" class="label">[516]</a> <i>Hist. Account of my Own Life</i>, i. 401.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_517" href="#FNanchor_517" class="label">[517]</a> <i>Howe’s Works</i>, v. See passages, pp. 263–290.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_518" href="#FNanchor_518" class="label">[518]</a> James Hamilton.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_519" href="#FNanchor_519" class="label">[519]</a> <i>Life of Matt. Henry</i>, by Sir J. B. Williams, -prefixed to <i>Commentary</i>, 60.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_520" href="#FNanchor_520" class="label">[520]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 61, 62.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_521" href="#FNanchor_521" class="label">[521]</a> Ordinations often occurred at these meetings. -The following extract from Henry’s <i>Diary</i> furnishes an -instance:—“The 24th was kept as a fast-day in Broad Oak Meeting-House, -a competent number present. Mr. Latham prayed; Mr. Lawrence gave an -account of the business we met about, prayed and sung a psalm; Mr. -Doughty prayed; I preached from Isaiah vi. 8: ‘Here am I, send me,’ and -prayed. Mr. Owen, as Moderator, demanded a confession of his faith and -ordination vows, which he made abundantly to our satisfaction. We then -proceeded to set him apart. Mr. Owen concluded with the exhortation. We -have reason to say it was a good day, and the Lord was among us.”</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_522" href="#FNanchor_522" class="label">[522]</a> <i>Hist. of Congregational Church at Cockermouth</i>, -58. I have adopted the language on the Church-Book. Confirmed is -explained to mean establishment as to right of membership, by being -admitted to the table of the Lord.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_523" href="#FNanchor_523" class="label">[523]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 97.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_524" href="#FNanchor_524" class="label">[524]</a> <i>Guestwick Church-Books.</i></p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_525" href="#FNanchor_525" class="label">[525]</a> <i>Hist. of Church at Cockermouth</i>, 94.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_526" href="#FNanchor_526" class="label">[526]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, 90, 98, 99, 100.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_527" href="#FNanchor_527" class="label">[527]</a> Palmer, in his <i>Vindication of Dissenters</i>, 1705, -says, p. 99, “In all our churches we administer the Sacrament twelve -times, at least, in a year.” From the records of Castle Gate Church, -Nottingham, it appears the Lord’s Supper was there celebrated once in -six weeks.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_528" href="#FNanchor_528" class="label">[528]</a> These particulars are taken from the records of the -Trust, of which I have the honour to be a Trustee.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_529" href="#FNanchor_529" class="label">[529]</a> De Foe says of him—</p> - - <div class="poetry-container"> - <div class="poetry"> - <div class="stanza"> - <div class="ileft">“His native candour and familiar style,</div> - <div>Which did so oft his hearers’ hours beguile,</div> - <div>Charmed us with godliness; and while he spake</div> - <div>We loved the doctrines for the teacher’s sake;</div> - <div>While he informed us what those doctrines meant</div> - <div>By dint of practice more than argument.”</div> - </div> - </div> - </div> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_530" href="#FNanchor_530" class="label">[530]</a> <i>Dr. Williams’ Life of Annesley</i>, p. 134, published -by Dunton, 1697.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_531" href="#FNanchor_531" class="label">[531]</a> <i>Williams’ Life of Annesley</i>, and <i>Kirk’s Mother -of the Wesleys</i>.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_532" href="#FNanchor_532" class="label">[532]</a> <i>Toulmin</i>, 522.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_533" href="#FNanchor_533" class="label">[533]</a> <i>Palmer</i>, i. 103.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_534" href="#FNanchor_534" class="label">[534]</a> <i>Howe’s Works</i>, vol. vi. 306.</p> - -<p>Oliver Heywood’s death occurred in May, 1702. No particular account -of it is given by Mr. Hunter in his biography. Thoresby notes down, -“May 7: Rode with Mr. Peters to Northowram, to the funeral of good -old Mr. O. Heywood. He was interred with great lamentations in the -parish church at Halifax; was surprised at the following Arvill, or -treat of cold possets, stewed prunes, cake and cheese, prepared for -the company, where had several Con. and Noncon. ministers and old -acquaintance.”—<i>Diary</i>, i. 362.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_535" href="#FNanchor_535" class="label">[535]</a> <i>Rogers’ Life of Howe</i>, 357, 316. “I well remember -that he himself once informed me,” says Calamy, “of some very private -conversation he had with that Prince (William III.) not long before his -death. Among other things the King asked him a great many questions -about his old master Oliver, as he called him, and seemed not a little -pleased with the answers that were returned to some of his questions.” -Those answers would throw some additional light on the popular question -of Oliver’s character.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_536" href="#FNanchor_536" class="label">[536]</a> <i>Crosby’s Hist. of Baptists</i>, iii. 246–258.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_537" href="#FNanchor_537" class="label">[537]</a> <i>Crosby</i>, iii. 259, 264–270.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_538" href="#FNanchor_538" class="label">[538]</a> <i>Crosby</i>, iv. 298–301.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_539" href="#FNanchor_539" class="label">[539]</a> <i>Ibid.</i>, Appendix No. 1.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_540" href="#FNanchor_540" class="label">[540]</a> <i>Crosby</i>, iv. 330.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_541" href="#FNanchor_541" class="label">[541]</a> <i>Sewell</i>, ii. 370, 448. The early meeting has been -since fixed for the month of May.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_542" href="#FNanchor_542" class="label">[542]</a> “Forasmuch,” it is recorded in the minutes of Quaker -Meetings in Worcester (1695), “as it hath been the good advice of our -friends of the yearly meeting that friends shall in all plainness so -habit themselves as truth requires, and to lay aside those flowered -and striped stuffs, with the changeable fashions of this world, it is -thought meet by this meeting, that what in us lies it may be put for -the future into practice, and that none do wear them or sell them, -when those by them are disposed of; also that friends take care to -train up their children in the fear of the Lord, and bring them up not -only in plainness of habit, but take care to bring them up in plain -language also, that there may be no good Nehemiah grieved to hear -half Hebrew and half Ashdod spoken.” Complaint is made of sleeping at -public meeting. Those so overtaken were informed, “they must be openly -dealt with, if a more private admonition will not do.”—Extracted from -records preserved by the Society of Friends at Worcester.</p> - -</div> - -<div class="footnote"> - -<p><a id="Footnote_543" href="#FNanchor_543" class="label">[543]</a> <i>Miscellanies.</i> Compare pp. 326 and 340 with 334.</p> - -</div> -</div> - - -<p class="transnote">Transcriber’s Notes:<br /> - -1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been -corrected silently.<br /> - -2. The words Yeomansee Indians could be a error for Yamassee or -Yemassee.<br /> - -3. The corrigenda have been silently corrected.<br /> - -4. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been -retained as in the original. -</p> - -<div style='display:block; margin-top:4em'>*** END OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY OF ENGLAND ***</div> -<div style='text-align:left'> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Updated editions will replace the previous one—the old editions will -be renamed. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Creating the works from print editions not protected by U.S. copyright -law means that no one owns a United States copyright in these works, -so the Foundation (and you!) can copy and distribute it in the United -States without permission and without paying copyright -royalties. Special rules, set forth in the General Terms of Use part -of this license, apply to copying and distributing Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works to protect the PROJECT GUTENBERG™ -concept and trademark. Project Gutenberg is a registered trademark, -and may not be used if you charge for an eBook, except by following -the terms of the trademark license, including paying royalties for use -of the Project Gutenberg trademark. If you do not charge anything for -copies of this eBook, complying with the trademark license is very -easy. You may use this eBook for nearly any purpose such as creation -of derivative works, reports, performances and research. Project -Gutenberg eBooks may be modified and printed and given away—you may -do practically ANYTHING in the United States with eBooks not protected -by U.S. copyright law. Redistribution is subject to the trademark -license, especially commercial redistribution. -</div> - -<div style='margin:0.83em 0; font-size:1.1em; text-align:center'>START: FULL LICENSE<br /> -<span style='font-size:smaller'>THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE<br /> -PLEASE READ THIS BEFORE YOU DISTRIBUTE OR USE THIS WORK</span> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -To protect the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting the free -distribution of electronic works, by using or distributing this work -(or any other work associated in any way with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg”), you agree to comply with all the terms of the Full -Project Gutenberg™ License available with this file or online at -www.gutenberg.org/license. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 1. General Terms of Use and Redistributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.A. By reading or using any part of this Project Gutenberg™ -electronic work, you indicate that you have read, understand, agree to -and accept all the terms of this license and intellectual property -(trademark/copyright) agreement. If you do not agree to abide by all -the terms of this agreement, you must cease using and return or -destroy all copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in your -possession. If you paid a fee for obtaining a copy of or access to a -Project Gutenberg™ electronic work and you do not agree to be bound -by the terms of this agreement, you may obtain a refund from the person -or entity to whom you paid the fee as set forth in paragraph 1.E.8. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.B. “Project Gutenberg” is a registered trademark. It may only be -used on or associated in any way with an electronic work by people who -agree to be bound by the terms of this agreement. There are a few -things that you can do with most Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -even without complying with the full terms of this agreement. See -paragraph 1.C below. There are a lot of things you can do with Project -Gutenberg™ electronic works if you follow the terms of this -agreement and help preserve free future access to Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works. See paragraph 1.E below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the -Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the collection -of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the individual -works in the collection are in the public domain in the United -States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in the -United States and you are located in the United States, we do not -claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing, performing, -displaying or creating derivative works based on the work as long as -all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of course, we hope -that you will support the Project Gutenberg™ mission of promoting -free access to electronic works by freely sharing Project Gutenberg™ -works in compliance with the terms of this agreement for keeping the -Project Gutenberg™ name associated with the work. You can easily -comply with the terms of this agreement by keeping this work in the -same format with its attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when -you share it without charge with others. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also govern -what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most countries are -in a constant state of change. If you are outside the United States, -check the laws of your country in addition to the terms of this -agreement before downloading, copying, displaying, performing, -distributing or creating derivative works based on this work or any -other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes no -representations concerning the copyright status of any work in any -country other than the United States. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg: -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other -immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must appear -prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™ work (any work -on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or with which the -phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is accessed, displayed, -performed, viewed, copied or distributed: -</div> - -<blockquote> - <div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> - This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and most - other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions - whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms - of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online - at <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. If you - are not located in the United States, you will have to check the laws - of the country where you are located before using this eBook. - </div> -</blockquote> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is -derived from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not -contain a notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the -copyright holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in -the United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are -redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project -Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must comply -either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 or -obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project Gutenberg™ -trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted -with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution -must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any -additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms -will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works -posted with the permission of the copyright holder found at the -beginning of this work. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project Gutenberg™ -License terms from this work, or any files containing a part of this -work or any other work associated with Project Gutenberg™. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this -electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without -prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with -active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project -Gutenberg™ License. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary, -compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form, including -any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you provide access -to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work in a format -other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in the official -version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website -(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense -to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means -of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain -Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the -full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying, -performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works -unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing -access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -provided that: -</div> - -<div style='margin-left:0.7em;'> - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from - the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the method - you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The fee is owed - to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, but he has - agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty payments must be paid - within 60 days following each date on which you prepare (or are - legally required to prepare) your periodic tax returns. Royalty - payments should be clearly marked as such and sent to the Project - Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation at the address specified in - Section 4, “Information about donations to the Project Gutenberg - Literary Archive Foundation.” - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who notifies - you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that s/he - does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™ - License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all - copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and discontinue - all use of and all access to other copies of Project Gutenberg™ - works. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of - any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in the - electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90 days of - receipt of the work. - </div> - - <div style='text-indent:-0.7em'> - • You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free - distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works. - </div> -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work or group of works on different terms than -are set forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing -from the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of -the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set -forth in Section 3 below. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend considerable -effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe and proofread -works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating the Project -Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, and the medium on which they may be stored, may -contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to, incomplete, inaccurate -or corrupt data, transcription errors, a copyright or other -intellectual property infringement, a defective or damaged disk or -other medium, a computer virus, or computer codes that damage or -cannot be read by your equipment. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except for the “Right -of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph 1.F.3, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner of the Project -Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party distributing a Project -Gutenberg™ electronic work under this agreement, disclaim all -liability to you for damages, costs and expenses, including legal -fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT -LIABILITY, BREACH OF WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE -PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE FOUNDATION, THE -TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE -LIABLE TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL, PUNITIVE OR -INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH -DAMAGE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you discover a -defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it, you can -receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by sending a -written explanation to the person you received the work from. If you -received the work on a physical medium, you must return the medium -with your written explanation. The person or entity that provided you -with the defective work may elect to provide a replacement copy in -lieu of a refund. If you received the work electronically, the person -or entity providing it to you may choose to give you a second -opportunity to receive the work electronically in lieu of a refund. If -the second copy is also defective, you may demand a refund in writing -without further opportunities to fix the problem. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth -in paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO -OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT -LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied -warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of -damages. If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement -violates the law of the state applicable to this agreement, the -agreement shall be interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or -limitation permitted by the applicable state law. The invalidity or -unenforceability of any provision of this agreement shall not void the -remaining provisions. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the Foundation, the -trademark owner, any agent or employee of the Foundation, anyone -providing copies of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works in -accordance with this agreement, and any volunteers associated with the -production, promotion and distribution of Project Gutenberg™ -electronic works, harmless from all liability, costs and expenses, -including legal fees, that arise directly or indirectly from any of -the following which you do or cause to occur: (a) distribution of this -or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b) alteration, modification, or -additions or deletions to any Project Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any -Defect you cause. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 2. Information about the Mission of Project Gutenberg™ -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of -electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of -computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers. It -exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and donations -from people in all walks of life. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the -assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s -goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will -remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project -Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a secure -and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future -generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help, see -Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at www.gutenberg.org. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 3. Information about the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit -501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the -state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal -Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification -number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent permitted by -U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West, -Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up -to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website -and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 4. Information about Donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without widespread -public support and donations to carry out its mission of -increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can be -freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the widest -array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small donations -($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax exempt -status with the IRS. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating -charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United -States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a -considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and keep up -with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in locations -where we have not received written confirmation of compliance. To SEND -DONATIONS or determine the status of compliance for any particular state -visit <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org/donate/">www.gutenberg.org/donate</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where we -have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no prohibition -against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in such states who -approach us with offers to donate. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make -any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from -outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation -methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of other -ways including checks, online payments and credit card donations. To -donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate -</div> - -<div style='display:block; font-size:1.1em; margin:1em 0; font-weight:bold'> -Section 5. General Information About Project Gutenberg™ electronic works -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project -Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be -freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and -distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of -volunteer support. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed -editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in -the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not -necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper -edition. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -Most people start at our website which has the main PG search -facility: <a href="https://www.gutenberg.org">www.gutenberg.org</a>. -</div> - -<div style='display:block; margin:1em 0'> -This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™, -including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary -Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how to -subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks. -</div> - -</div> -</body> -</html> diff --git a/old/67727-h/images/cover.jpg b/old/67727-h/images/cover.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index 7da5610..0000000 --- a/old/67727-h/images/cover.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67727-h/images/i003.jpg b/old/67727-h/images/i003.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index af5c90b..0000000 --- a/old/67727-h/images/i003.jpg +++ /dev/null diff --git a/old/67727-h/images/i004.jpg b/old/67727-h/images/i004.jpg Binary files differdeleted file mode 100644 index b441cb0..0000000 --- a/old/67727-h/images/i004.jpg +++ /dev/null |
