A History of the Nonjurors/Chapter 4

A History of the Nonjurors - ornament 5.png
 

CHAPTER IV.

 

A. D. 1690—1694.

 
Controversies.—Collier.—Controversy respecting the Oath.—Sherlock.—Some Compliers retract.—Controversy respecting the Deprivations.—Stillingfleet.—Grascome.—Williams.—Sharpe,—Hickes.—Hill's Solomon and Abiathar.—Answered by Grascome.—The earlier Writings of some of the Compliers contrasted with their Productions subsequent to the Revolution.—Bisby's Unity of the Priesthood.—Hody and the Baroccian MS.—Dodwell.—He engages in the Controversy with Hody.—Kettlewell's Views of the Separation.—Stillingfleet on the Oath of Allegiance.
 

In the previous chapter the principal facts connected with the separation have been detailed; but there are other matters referring to the same period, which require a distinct notice. I allude to the various controversies which sprang out of the separation: some of which were carried on among the Nonjurors themselves, while others arose between the latter and the supporters of the National Church. In the present chapter I shall confine myself to the disputes of the latter description.

Discussions arose almost as soon as it was foreseen, that the debates in the convention were likely to issue in the settlement of the crown on William and Mary. Collier was one of the first to enter the controversial arena, and to support publicly the claims of King James. This he did in a small tract under the title of "The Desertion Discussed:" the first direct attack upon the principles of the Revolution.[1] It appears to have been written just after the Commons had declared the throne vacant: and doubtless was intended to influence the decision of the Upper House. In addressing his correspondent he asks, a how (say you) can the seat of the government be empty, while the King, whom all grant an unquestionable title, is still living, and his absence forced and involuntary." Collier assumes, that the flight of James was forced, though it is clear that he might have remained; and had he remained, he would have preserved his crown. In alluding to the plea of necessity, he says, "This pretended necessity is either of their own making, or of their own submitting to, which is the same thing." He labours to show that the King was in danger before he quitted the country, and that consequently his removal was not an abdication: and that the throne could not be considered vacant. The author was afterwards imprisoned on account of this publication, but he was discharged without being brought to trial. Collier arraigns the legality of the convention from its not having been summoned by the King's writ, in the usual and constitutional manner. He contended, that as they had neither the authority of law, nor the plea of necessity to urge, they must expect that their proceedings would be subjected to examination. Alluding to Burnet's pamphlet, he remarks, that the Commons appear to have a great regard to his judgment, inasmuch as their chief votes are transcribed from one of his paragraphs. "We are now, says he, fallen upon times in which the most extravagant and almost impossible things are swallowed without chewing, and the plainest truths outfaced."

This Tract was answered by Bohun, the author of "A History of the Desertion," containing an account of all the proceedings connected with the Revolution. This gentleman, in his reply to Collier, enters upon a review of the King's Acts, which led to the attempt of the Prince of Orange. He shews, that Whigs and Tories acted in unison in receiving the Prince: that, on the King's departure, it was necessary to do something: and that a convention of the Three Estates was the most unexceptionable expedient in their difficulty. He adds, that his Majesty would have been in no danger by remaining in the country: and that, so far from being forced away, he was persuaded to go by his counsellors, rather than remain and redress the grievances of the nation. He contends, that had he summoned a Parliament, he need not have withdrawn; and that, by quitting the country, he had voluntarily abdicated the throne. He thinks, that the judgment of the three estates was conclusive, though the public might not be acquainted with all the reasons, by which they were influenced in the settlement of the crown. This last argument probably was conclusive with many persons, and in general it must be regarded as sufficient to satisfy the majority of a nation, in any change of government.[2]

We need not, however, enter at length upon this point, since the arguments on both sides are generally known. But there are other questions, which though now nearly forgotten, are of considerable interest, and such as cannot be passed over in a history of the Nonjurors. It has been remarked, that a history of the controversies of any particular time is a history of the period: and the remark applies with full force to the Nonjurors.

Many pamphlets and tracts were published on the subject of the Oath to the new Sovereigns: and some very remarkable changes in practice occurred within a few years after the Revolution. Some persons complied after a resistance or a refusal of several months; while others, who had taken the Oath, recanted, and were received into communion with the Nonjurors. Among the former the most conspicuous, perhaps, was Sherlock, who had actually been deprived for his refusal. I have given some account of Sherlock's sudden change in a former work, to which I would refer the reader.[3] In that work, I have expressed my opinion, that he was seeking for a pretence to enable him to submit: and I have not seen any reason to alter that opinion. Probably he imagined at first that King James might be able to return: but when he saw William firmly seated on the throne, after his success in Ireland, he began to consider by what means he could retrace his steps. Overall's Convocation Book was the pretence; for having assigned many reasons for refusing the Oath, he was anxious to have some plea for his change of opinion. Posterity certainly will not consider his arguments of much force. Some of the pamphlets and sarcastic attacks upon the Doctor are mentioned in my former work.[4] Sherlock published his "Case of the Allegiance due to Sovereign Powers, &c." in order to vindicate himself in taking the Oath. "It was no small alarm to those whom he had left, that a person of his figure, who had so strenuously maintained the doctrine of nonresistance, in one of his most celebrated pieces, and thereby opposed the principles of the Revolution, and of the establishment thereupon: and who had also held out so long in this opposition, for the sake of his old opinion, by refusing the qualification which was enjoined all the Clergy, for the security of the government upon that footing; should now go over to the other side, by the help of Bishop Overall's Demonstration, which had lain dormant till then; and turn an advocate for that very cause which he had so long withstood; and for that government which he had shewn himself hitherto so little a friend to, and whose very foundations had been undermined by him in his former works."[5] Kettlewell replied to Sherlock, in The Duty of Allegiance Settled upon its True Grounds."[6] Sherlock's aim was to shew that allegiance might be given to William and Mary, as the possessors of the throne, even though they had no legal right, or right by inheritance, a doctrine which he had denied in his previous writings.

Sherlock had been one of the most strenuous advocates of the very doctrine, which the Revolution seemed to assail. He had published his "Case of Resistance:" and it was to be supposed that it would be compared with his "Case of Allegiance." The views of the two works were diametrically opposite. Still Sherlock was not the only inconsistent man of that period. Burnet and Tillotson, in the time of Charles II, held the same opinions. They opposed Popery: but they maintained that opposition to the Prince could not be justified: and that the authority was in his person, not in the law. Had Sherlock complied at the Revolution without scruple, he would have been in the same situation with Burnet, Stillingfleet, and Tillotson, all of whom had written in defence of the doctrine at which he stumbled. They complied at first; while he hesitated, but yielded afterwards. His two works, "Obedience and Subrnission to the Present Government, &c." and the "Case of Allegiance, &c." were attacked by several of the Nonjurors. One of the keenest answers was written, I believe, by Wagstaffe. It is attributed to Ken in the Biographia Britannica; but this is clearly a mistake; and in a copy now in my possession, which was once the property of a Nonjuror, a contemporary of Sherlock's, it is assigned to Wagstaffe.[7] Sherlock replied in "A Vindication of the Case of Allegiance;" but nothing could relieve him from the charge of fickleness and inconsistency. Sherlock had told the Bishop of Killmore, that "he would be sacrificed before he took the new Oath of Allegiance." This is stated by Hickes, who very justly remarks, "if those, who took that Oath with so much difficulty would but remember their own case, they would have more compassion for those who could not take it at all."[8] There were, however, some who stepped forward in Sherlock's defence. One writer in particular asserts, that more would have complied but for the schemes of some of the leaders in the opposition to King William. He lauds the government for its leniency. "They were very zealous to have got the Act for taking the Oaths to their Majesties limited to a very short time, that men, having but a little time to bethink them, might more generally have refused them, as they did in Scotland: but the six months that was allowed (much against their wills) was so well employed, that the number of the non-swearers was very small in comparison; and if these very men had not made it their business to traduce all that took the Oath as apostates, time-servers, and perjured men, perhaps it would have been much less than it was." Alluding to those who complied, he says: "Every man that taketh the Oath raiseth a new clamour: so that it is apparent to all the world, some men fear nothing more, than that there should be no non-swearers."[9] Sherlock stated, in his Preface, that he had renounced no principle, except one in "The Case of Resistance;" but he forgot, that that one was the hinge on which all turned.[10]

But while Sherlock, with some few individuals, separated from the Nonjurors, by taking the Oath to the new Sovereigns, there were others, who, having complied, repented of the course which they had taken, and who, therefore, separated from the Established Church. On admitting such into communion, the Nonjurors used a Form of Recantation, which was arranged by Kettlewell. This was probably used on subsequent occasions of a similar description. It is very bitter against the Church of England; and in this respect is unlike the general tone of Kettlewell's writings, which are remarkable for their gentleness and moderation. The occasion was as follows. A Clergyman applied to Kettlewell respecting his scruples: and, when satisfied, he applied further to the deprived Bishop of Norwich, as the Vicar-General of Archbishop Sancroft in spirituals. This gentleman had never attended his Church on the public fast days: he had declared in the Church, that he could not observe such days; he had omitted the names of the Sovereigns in the public services, with all the new petitions in the forms for the state holidays: and when the new edition of the Book of Common Prayer was tendered to him at the Visitation, he refused to receive it, as coming from the new Archbishop. The forbearance of the Bishop of his diocese, as well as of the government, towards this gentleman was great, and proves, that lenient measures were adopted in the case of those, who, though they took the Oath, had some scruples respecting the prayers appointed by the Crown. However the gentleman in question drew up a penitential confession, which was addressed, with a supplicatory epistle, to Bishop Lloyd. The letter and confession were prepared under Kettlewell's direction, and they bear this remarkable title: "The Confession, Retractation, Repentance, and Supplicatory Letter of N. N. Rector of N. to the Right Reverend Father in God, William, Lord Bishop of Norwich."

The Form itself is a very curious document. It also furnishes us with a proof, that the government were not particular, provided the Oath was taken: for this gentleman tells us, that he took it with a protestation. His judgment, he says, was swayed by some eminent Clergymen, "who were permitted to take it with this declaration of their sense of it; Mr. Chancellor, we are come here to swear obedience to the laws, and a peaceable behaviour under this government, in which sense we understand and take this Oath." He states, that he was induced to take it in consequence of this free allowance; but that now he sees that he had consulted a carnal policy. "When I observed the new Thanksgiving Prayer for Deliverance imposed, the scarcely tolerable use of the Liturgy without such omissions and alterations as exposed me to the virulent censures and reproaches of all the country: when I observed the contradictory petitions to what was violently driven in the Liturgic offices for the 30th of January and the 29th of May: the uncanonical deprivation of my Metropolitan without a judicial hearing: the new fast and thanksgiving days (and one of the latter too on a fast of the Church): when the Expedition Prayer and the Island Prayer (as I rate them) were enjoined." When he considered these things, he tells us, that he was greatly troubled. At last he met with Kettlewell's Discourse of Christian Prudence, which led to a correspondence with the author. He confesses, therefore, that he had violated the third commandment; "for which I accuse and judge and condemn myself. God be merciful to me a sinner." These words are repeated six times, at the close of so many paragraphs in the Confession, which is much too long for quotation. He states in this penitential confession, that, on the first of the new fast days, he called the clerk behind the church, to tell him that he could not offer up the new petitions. On ceasing to officiate himself, on such occasions, he procured the assistance of another clergyman. This he condemns: and condemns himself for procuring another to do what he was unwilling to do himself. In the supplicatory letter, which accompanied the confession, he states, that for a year he had neither officiated himself, nor permitted another to act as his substitute, on what he terms "the new discriminating days:" and that he communicated his refusal of the Prayer Book to the Archdeacon, on the ground, that it came from John Archbishop of Canterbury: and further, that he had not used the new petitions or thanksgivings in any of his ministrations. He then prays for his "consignation to the peace and unity and communion of the Church."[11]

Another case also may be mentioned, though it occurred some time after the preceding. Mr. Pinchbeck of Barton in Lincolnshire, after reading Kettlewell's books on the one side, and those of Sherlock and Burnet on the other, was led to make a public retractation. He took occasion to declare, in his Church, that he had grievously sinned by his compliance. He prayed publicly by name for King James, Queen Mary, and the Prince of Wales; and read also King James's Declaration of 1693. He was of course committed to prison, tried, and condemned to the pillory, with a fine of two hundred pounds. The violent conduct of this gentleman, however, was not approved by the Nonjurors.[12] Another instance is related in the diocese of Winchester, besides others among the laity. A singular recantation from Mr. Ralph Lowndes of Middlewich, in the county of Chester, is preserved in the Appendix to the Life of Kettlewell. This gentleman declares, that he was induced to take the Oath by the soft interpretation put upon it by the magistrates. He then expresses his conviction, that it was sinful to take it in any sense, and contrary to his former Oath. This, however, occurred earlier, as it bears date September 1690.[13] The form used in Kettlewell's time, for admitting converts to their communion, is very different from that, which was adopted at a later period. Both however will be found in the Appendix to this volume.

We now turn to the question of the deprivations, which was long, and somewhat fiercely agitated by various writers. As soon as it became apparent, that the government would insist upon the Oath, the two parties began to make use of the press in defence of their respective views. The advocates of the government defended the Oath of Allegiance: while those, who could not take it, laboured to show, that it could not lawfully be imposed.

Stillingfleet was, I believe, one of the first to enter the lists of controversy. Before the deprivations took place, as early as the year 1689, he published his "Discourse concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation." During that year there had been published "A History of Passive Obedience," in which was collected a large mass of evidence to prove that the Church of England disowned and discountenanced the doctrine of resistance to the supreme powers. The quotations were given from the writings of divines of the Anglican Church since the reformation. It was intended, as far as possible, to prevent the Clergy and persons in authority from taking the Oath to William and Mary: and to shew that their allegiance could not be withdrawn from King James, to whom it had been given. It was necessary, therefore, that the effect likely to be produced by such a work, should be counteracted: and Stillingfleet, who had acted a conspicuous part in the recent controversy with the Church of Rome, and the Dissenters, entered upon the task. The main point, however, in his book relates to the Oath to the new Sovereigns, his aim being to prove, that no separation could be justified on that account; but he alludes also to the "History of Passive Obedience," so far as that work relates to the Oaths. A few extracts from this performance, inasmuch as it was one of the most able on the side of the government, will not be unacceptable to the reader, as they exhibit the principles and arguments of the complying Bishops and Clergy.

Alluding to the scruples entertained by many persons respecting the Oaths, after quoting some passages in which it is declared, that those who cannot take them, will feel themselves bound to separate from those who comply, he remarks: "I was not a little surprised at the reading of these passages; and I soon apprehended the mischievous consequences of a new schism; but I can hardly think it possible, that those who have expressed so great a sense of the mischief of it in others, should be so ready to fall into it themselves, and that upon the mere account of scruples." He proceeds: "some think the Oaths lawful, and therefore take them: others do not, and therefore forbear: but is taking the Oaths made a condition of communion? Is it required of all who join in our worship at least to declare, that they think the taking of them to be lawful? If not what colour can there be for breaking communion on account of the Oaths? Suppose those who take the Oaths are to blame: if they act according to their consciences therein, what ground can there be of separation from them for so doing, unless it be lawful to separate from all such who follow an erroneous conscience; and so there can be no end of separations, till all men's consciences judge alike."[14] He then comes to the question, whether there were any cause for entertaining scruples respecting the Oaths. Should there be a reason, he remarks, "it must arise either from the continuing obligation of the former oaths, or from the nature of the present oaths."[15]

The following passages appear to me to meet the case, as it was argued generally against the Nonjurors. He argues, that the rule and measure of oaths are not to be taken from the intention of the framers, but from the general good. "Whatever the intention was, if the keeping of an oath be really and truly inconsistent with the welfare of a people, in subverting the fundamental laws which support it; I do not see how such an oath continues to oblige." He clearly alludes here to the proceedings of King James: and then he shews, that if parents design the ruin of their children, obedience is not to be expected. "But that the public good is the true and just measure of the obligation in these Oaths doth further appear, in that the Oaths are reciprocal. Whereas, if only the good of the persons to whom Oaths of Allegiance are made, were to be our rule, then there would be no mutual oaths."[16] The single point, he says, is; "whether the law of our nation doth not bind us to allegiance to a King or Queen in actual possession of the throne, by consent of the three estates of the realm? and whether such an oath may not lawfully be taken, notwithstanding any former oath?"[17] He also enters upon the question relative to a king De facto, and De jure: "A King De facto is one who comes in by consent of the nation, but not by virtue of an immediate hereditary right: but to such a one, being owned and received by the estates of the realm, the law of England, as far as I can see, requires an allegiance. Or else the whole nation was perjured in most of the reigns from the conquest till Henry VIII."[18]

These extracts contain a full and explicit statement of the views of those, who regarded the Oaths as lawful, as well as of the principles, on which the Revolution was founded. These considerations satisfied most of those, who took the Oaths at that time, and they are quite sufficient for ordinary circumstances. There were still many difficulties: and though I regret the course pursued by the Nonjurors, yet I cannot condemn them in their refusal, because it is clear, that they acted according to their consciences.

A reply was very soon published to Stillingfleet's work by Grascome. Stillingfleet's positions are combated with much skill. He enters into the question of the Oaths, and the deprivations consequent upon their enforcement. The time fixed by the Act had not yet arrived, so that the Bishops and Clergy were not actually deprived; but they refused to take the Oaths. Grascome does not, as it appears to me, sufficiently distinguish between an actual deprivation from office and the taking away the jurisdiction of a Bishop. He is correct in saying, that the former cannot be taken away by the civil power. He meets Stillingfleet's statements by asserting, that they were forced into the schism: "I cannot," says he, "see how a schism in the Church of England can be avoided, if these Oaths be imposed:" so that it is evident, that the Nonjurors would have remained at their posts in the Church, if the government had been content with their silent acquiescence. In all probability their uncomfortable feelings would soon have subsided, if the Oaths had not been imposed.[19]

Grascome was answered by Williams, subsequently Bishop of Chichester, in "A Vindication of a Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation." Williams charges Grascome with a mistake in confounding deprivation with degradation. "All that the civil power here pretends to is to secure itself against the practices of dissatisfied persons; and to try who are such, it requires an Oath of Allegiance to be taken by all in office: and in case of refusal, by deprivation to disable such, as far as they can, from endangering the publick safety. But if the Clergy so deprived think fit to take the Oaths, they are in statu quo, without any new consecration or reordination."[20]

Grascome answered Williams in another work, in which are some things relative to the substitution of King William's name for that of King James's in the Liturgy. Williams had argued, that the Bishops, though they could not take the Oaths, might still join in communion with the Church, and avoid a separation. It appears that Grascome had formerly been of the same opinion, since in the passage quoted from his previous work, he makes the schism to depend upon the Oaths. On this point there were differences among the Nonjurors themselves; Grascome thus states the matter: "If the owning and praying for this be made a part of the daily office, it is made a condition of our communion." So again, "Are we not obliged to pray for the same thing in more ample, plain, and significant terms than we are to swear it? The matter and substance of these Oaths is put into the prayers of the Church, and so far it becomes a condition of communion. What people are enjoined in the solemn worship to pray for, is made a condition of communion: and if it be sinful, will not only justify, but require a separation."[21] In this work too he argues, that the deprivation, in the case of the Bishops and Clergy, was equivalent to a degradation from office. He has a very remarkable passage on this subject: "It is not long since, that a haughty member of the convention plainly told me, that it was in their power to take away our orders, and unpriest and unbishop us. By this you may see, that the saviours you adore, reckon that our being at any time in statu quo, lies wholly at their mercy, and that even yourselves, if you do not absolutely please your new masters and go through stitch, right or wrong, with their commands, can pretend to little benefit from your character or orders."[22] Undoubtedly many of the members of the convention were, as Grascome states, Erastians, who looked upon the Church merely as their creature, which they could create or destroy at pleasure. When, therefore, we reflect upon the character of that Parliament, we cannot but be thankful, that the Church was preserved unimpaired. Not a few in the present day, even among the Clergy, maintain the same erroneous notions respecting the relations between the civil power and the Church. They would allow the state to regulate all ecclesiastical matters: they would even permit episcopal acts to be performed by others than Bishops. Undoubtedly we need to be cautioned, in the present day, against this unsound but prevalent opinion.

Grascome admits, that the state can deprive the Bishops and Clergy for crimes. But he denies the lawfulness of the deprivations in question, alleging that therefore the Nonjurors deemed it necessary to exercise their ministry in a state of separation. He speaks out plainly in condemnation of those who complied. Thus he says: "From the foregoing discourse these consequences may be fairly drawn: first, that whosoever shall be put into the place of the deprived Bishops are not to be esteemed Bishops, nor ought either Clergy or people to regard them, but to adhere firmly to their former true Bishops. Secondly, that whosoever shall ordain such, or endeavour to place them there, make themselves criminals, and liable to ecclesiastical censure. Thirdly, that they and all their adherents are schismatics."[23]

Sharpe, as has been noticed, refused to accept any one of the sees of the deprived Bishops; but Tillotson made an arrangement with the King for him to take Lincoln or York on a vacancy. The Archbishopric soon became vacant, and Sharpe was appointed. On the 28th of June 1691, he preached a farewell sermon at St. Giles's. This sermon was examined in a Letter addressed to the Archbishop, and attributed to Hickes. The writer charges His Grace with having altered his views within the last two years, alluding to a sermon which he had preached before the Convention. He remarks, "I find you so altered, like many of your brethren, from yourself, that though Dr. Sharpe is still the same person, yet I do not find that the Dean of Norwich and the Archbishop are the same man."[24]

Alluding to the complying Bishops and Clergy, the writer says, "I hope to see such Bishops and Priests become base and contemptible, that expound St. Paul as you and Dr. Sherlock have done, and advance allegiance to the government upon a principle that is destructive to it, and the true and lasting peace of the kingdom, in which our happiness does consist."[25] He charges the Archbishop with having contradicted his former sermon: "Two years ago you were not of opinion, at least you were not fully persuaded, that the text (Romans xiii, 1) allowed us to pray in behalf of a king de facto against the king de jure, or in behalf of a king in possession against the legal king, as you and Dr. Sherlock still acknowledge King James to be, though he is out of possession: or else why did you, at his house in the Temple, express so much dislike and dissatisfaction at the prayers in the office for the First General Fast? but the world is since well mended with you, and what was matter of difficulty to you then is not so now: for since that time you have better studied the great Apostle at Canterbury than you did at Norwich, and plainly discovered that he is and always was for the uppermost, and directs us to pay our allegiance and devotion, without enquiring into titles, to the King in the throne." He adds soon after; "My Lord, one Jacobite, could he turn to their Majesties upon his own principles, would be worth an hundred such subjects as you and Dr. Sherlock: and whenever Providence shall remove the obstacles, which lie in the way of their allegiance to them, they will have reason to value them as so many jewels of their crown."[26] Of the new appointments he observes: "But, my Lord, besides that which you call a State point, there is also a Church point, of which you take no notice, though it be another known cause of their separation, and that is the putting of new Bishops into the thrones of the old ones, whose deprivations they pretend to be null and unjust." In reply to the Archbishop's charge of "being distasted at the established worship, for which they were zealous before," the writer affirms that they are still as zealous "as far as the matter of the prayers is the same."[27]

The question was also discussed in another work, "Solomon and Abiathar," attributed to Mr. Hill. This author acknowledges the difficulty of the case, and professes to give the arguments fairly on both sides, in a Dialogue between a Conformist and a Recusant. The arguments are stated with much impartiality; but the author's own views are pretty evident. The fact, too, that the work was licensed for the press by the Bishop of London's Chaplain, is decisive of the author's own opinions, though, in the preface, he expresses his doubts as to the course to be pursued.[28] This production was answered by Grascome, who combats all its arguments in his usual style. One thing, however, was stated, which gave rise to a very curious passage in Grascome's reply. Hill had assigned as a reason for joining in the prayers, that King James and King William were not enemies. Grascome intimates, that King James may attempt to recover his rights: "and I am apt to think, that your little ambitious, Dutch saviour would think no man in the world so much his enemy as he that demands three kingdoms from him."[29]

Like most other controversies, this was conducted with considerable bitterness on both sides. The charge of schism was retorted by both parties. But though the introduction of the names of the new Sovereigns was made a strong point in the controversy, yet I feel convinced, that the greater number of the Clergy would have continued in their various posts, if the Oaths had not been enforced.

The Nonjurors charged many of the men, who took a leading part in the controversy in favour of the government, with inconsistency: and to establish this charge passages were adduced from their former writings. In a collection of the works of the Nonjurors in my possession, which was once the property of a Nonjuror in the county of Somerset, there are many passages from Stillingfleet and others written on the margins of the volumes passages which certainly contain doctrines at variance with those, which were advanced by them, at the period of, and subsequent to, the Revolution. Thus on the margins of a copy of Stillingfleet's "Unreasonableness of a New Separation," which came into my possession with a large number of contemporary works, on both sides, from the family of the Nonjuror alluded to, there are several quotations, in the hand of that gentleman, from other writings of Stillingfleet. A few may be selected as a sample. "I think it a part of a good Christian to be always a loyal subject." Vindication of Answer to King's Papers, p. 101. "No Church in the world can lay an obligation upon a man to be dishonest, i. e. to profess one thing and to do another. And no Church can oblige a man to believe what is false, or do what is unlawful: and rather than do either he must forsake the communion of that Church." Vindication, 106. "It is sufficient to my purpose to shew, that our Church doth not only teach them (passive obedience and non-resistance) as her own doctrines: but which is far more effectual, as the doctrines of Christ and his Apostles and of the primitive Church." Vindication, 389.

Such passages as these, and many such may be found in the writings of Stillingfleet, Sherlock and others in the time of Charles II, and James II, certainly countenanced the Nonjurors in their course: and we must admit, that the charge of inconsistency is more easily substantiated against the former, than against the latter. This point was urged with much sarcasm by Leslie. Thus he says: "Neither the clamour of the Jacobites, nor their own consciences, nor the satisfaction of the people, nor to clear their own reputation from so foul a scandal could ever yet persuade Dr. Patrick to answer his paraphrases, Dr. Stillingfleet, his Preface to the Jesuit's Loyalty, Dr. Burnet, his Dialogues, Dr. Sherlock, his Case of Resistance, his Sermons, &c. They have indeed advanced themselves to posts of preferment by clean contrary doctrines, which they preach, and preach over and over, but the other old doctrines stand still uncancelled, and have not been delivered away by any direct act and deed. They own and preach up other doctrines, but they will neither formally renounce these, nor yet reconcile them to their new opinions and practices; and there is good reason for both, to reconcile them is impossible, and to renounce them inconvenient: for there may a time come when such doctrines may be in fashion again, even as heretofore."[30] Alluding to certain attacks on Sherlock, which he designated libels, Leslie retorts: "These gentlemen had need talk of libels when they have taken such extraordinary pains to libel themselves. Dr. Patrick's Paraphrases are a notorious libel against him: and Dr. Stillingfleet's Preface to The Jesuit's Loyalty, is a terrible libel against him; and Dr. Sherlock's Case of Resistance, and all his books and sermons before the Oath are venomous and inveterate libels against him, and against all that he hath preached and written since. These are libels, and perpetual libels, and will remain everlasting monuments of their infamy, except they can persuade the people to burn all their books, and forget all their sermons. So that (to give these gentlemen their due) they have saved their adversaries all the trouble in this point, and they have something else to do than to beat so common and trite an argument to trouble the world with any more libels, when they find so many made to their hands by the gentlemen themselves."[31]

It would be almost impossible to specify, much less to notice at length, all the productions of the parties engaged in this controversy. I must content myself, therefore, with directing attention to some of the more important.

In the year 1692 was printed anonymously and privately a work of considerable size, "The Unity of the Priesthood, &c." By the Nonjuror to whom I have already alluded, who lived at the time, the work is ascribed to Dr. Bisby. The writer commences by stating, that the appointment of a new Archbishop was the occasion of his undertaking: "Of the ill news you have sent me, none sits so close upon me as the news of a new Primate and new Bishops: the old ones being living, and neither canonically heard, nor judicially deprived: a project utterly dissonant to all primitive practice, to the ancient constitutions and canons of the Church: and which if not timely compromised, must necessarily beget and perhaps unavoidably propagate a lasting schism among us."[32]

An ancient MS. had been discovered in Oxford, containing a set of Canons, which it was thought favoured the case of the new Bishops. This MS. was published by Hody, under the following title: "The unreasonableness of a separation from the new Bishops: or a treatise out of Ecclesiastical history, shewing that although a Bishop was originally deprived, neither he nor the Church ever made a separation if the successor was not an heretic. Translated out of an ancient MS. in the Public Library at Oxford, 4to, 1691." In this work, therefore, the aim is to shew that a separation from the Church could not lawfully be made by the deprived Bishops, unless the new Bishops were guilty of heresy. Hody, however, omitted some of the Canons: and the author of the preceding work printed the omissions. He contends that the suppressed Canons favour the old Bishops, and not the new. He charges Hody with "Shamming the world with part of the MS. for the whole." Hody had said that there was a "Singular Providence in the discovery at that juncture: and the author hopes that the Canons, which he publishes, "may have as good a title to that singular Providence."[33] These Canons were written in the same hand with the previous portion of the MS., and the author of "The Unity of Priesthood" states, that Hody, as it was alleged, had declined to print them, on the ground that they did not appear to have been written by the same author. It certainly was disingenuous on the part of Hody not to publish the whole of the MS. The suppression led men to suppose, that there was a conviction in his own mind, that they rather opposed than supported his principle.[34]

The Canons in question contain the rule, one God, one Christ, one Bishop. This point, indeed, was admitted by both parties, and the question was, who were the lawful Bishops. The author of the "Unity of the Priesthood" argues for the deprived Bishops, as being the first, and not canonically deprived. "The first Bishop (if canonically placed in the see) was ever accounted the true and Catholic, and the second the false and schismatical Bishop: and the Church was ever adjudged to go along with those, who by a lawful ordination were first set up in it: and the schism with those, who were afterwards superinduced and clapt upon them."[35] According to this writer the Ordainers were the more to be censured. "Those Bishops I mean that first dressed up the ape, set him in the chair, and bad God speed unto him; hence, though submission and penance might reconcile the other Clergy, yet nothing less than utter deprivation and loss of their sacerdotal honours could atone for such."[36] It was argued, by the supporters of the government, that the rejection of the interference of the state in this case involved also the rejection of the proceedings with the Bishops, who were deprived at the Reformation. This argument is met in the present work at considerable length. The author alludes to the Book of Common Prayer, which was duly and lawfully set forth by Parliament and by convocation: so that on this ground the Romish Bishops were lawfully deprived for noncompliance. Other reasons are adduced to prove, that the cases of the Bishops, at the Reformation and at the Revolution, were not by any means parallel.[37]

There is, I think, evidence even in this volume in support of the view which I have frequently expressed, namely, that notwithstanding some scruples respecting the Prayers for the Sovereigns, and the Petitions on Fast and Thanksgiving days, the Clergy would have complied, if the Oath had not been imposed. Thus he says: "I have freely delivered my thoughts concerning this subject, insomuch that if you and others will but seriously reflect and consider what hath been offered thereon from authentic and undeniable testimonies, you may readily perceive the reason why so many of us at present refuse the communion of the new Bishops and perform our devotions separate by ourselves, under the presidency of our old ones. The communion itself was difficult (if at all tolerable) before the rent was made: for how could we make him our enemy, or pray that God would confound his devices, whom we durst not lift up our hands against, nor so much as curse, no not in our thoughts? This was the difficulty we laboured under then, and should we now any longer consent and communicate with them, seeing they have cut themselves off from their lawful Bishops and turned subjects to those that have usurped their thrones, we should unavoidably involve ourselves in their schism."[38]

Hody, as before mentioned, laboured to prove, from his ancient MS, that no separation ever took place from a new Bishop, even though uncanonically introduced, unless he was guilty of schism. This position is controverted by the author, who argues that a new Bishop must not only be orthodox in the faith, but canonically introduced into a vacant see, that is a see vacant, according to the Canons of the Church.[39]

It is singular, that Watt should make so many mistakes, in his laborious and most valuable work, "The Bibliotheca Britannica," respecting the writings of the Nonjurors. He very properly attributes the account of the MS to Hody: but he also makes him the author of the reply, "The Unity of the Priesthood." This is an absurdity, the two works being in opposition to each other. Watt makes another singular mistake, in ascribing Hickes's first volume of Tracts, "The Bibliotheca Scriptorum, &c." to Gandy, though the author's name appears on the title page.

Hody replied to the author of the "Unity of Priesthood," in "A Letter to a Friend Concerning the Oxford Treatise against Schism. 4to. 1692."

One of the most learned of the Nonjurors, and indeed one of the most learned men of that, or of any other period, Henry Dodwell, now came forward in this controversy. Before, however, I notice his works, a brief account of his history to the period in question is necessary.[40]

Dodwell was resident at Oxford, as Camdenian Lecturer, at the Revolution. At an early period, he endeavoured to prevent persons from taking the Oath of Allegiance to the new Sovereigns. As some individuals imagined, that the Oath only required them to live peaceably under the new government, without attempting to disturb the Revolution settlement, Dodwell came forward in "A Cautionary Discourse of Schism with a particular regard to the case of the Bishops who are suspended for refusing to take the new Oath." At that time he hoped to prevent the deprivation of the Bishops. With respect to the Oath, he argued that it pledged the parties, who took it, never to do any thing to promote the cause of the King de jure. This, he said, was the view of the loyalists in the time of Cromwell, who could not take the Oaths which were then adopted. His great anxiety, therefore, was that the Oath should not be imposed, foreseeing that a schism must inevitably arise, should such be the case. His main points in the "Cautionary Discourse" were these; that neither the state, nor their fellow Bishops could deprive them of their spiritual characters, and that they could not be deprived by a Synod, since the Bishops, who would be judges, had become responsible to the laws of the land and the Canons of the Church, for deserting the doctrine of passive obedience. He closes with an address to the complying Bishops, to prevent a schism in the Church.[41] In his letter to Tillotson he had argued, that the appointment of new Bishops would be to erect altar against altar: and that they would be cut off from communion with the Church.[42]

When the time came for taking the Oath he refused: consequently he was deprived of his post at Oxford. He obtained the following certificate of his removal from the Vice-chancellor. "Nov. 19, 1691. These are to certify whom it may concern, that Mr. Henry Dodwell was dismissed from the Camdenian Lecture of History in Oxford, for not taking the Oath of Allegiance to their Majesties King William and Queen Mary, as the statute requireth. Jonathan Edwards, Vice-chancellor of Oxon."[43] He did not separate from the Parish Churches until the new Bishops were actually appointed, though he had a difficulty in saying Amen to some of the prayers, which, however, he did not consider a sufficient ground for separation. But when other Bishops were placed in the Sees of the deprived Prelates, he quitted the communion of the Church. Looking upon the new Bishops as secundi, and consequently nulli, he could not hold communion with them. He regarded them as schismatics, who had intruded into sees not canonically vacant: so that, in his opinion, the Nonjuring Bishops retained their authority, and might challenge their rights. He was one of the most powerful advocates of the party: and having been so long practised in controversy, he was well qualified for the work. Accordingly he made his appearance against Hody and the Baroccian MS.[44]

Dodwell first assails the MS. for the want of antiquity, since it was not written before the thirteenth century, and was consequently too late as an evidence of facts. He then comes to Hody's principle, that no separation was allowed even though Bishops were unjustly deprived. All the cases are examined by Dodwell with his usual ability. A brief account of his arguments is also given in his Life.[45] Dodwell built a good deal on the fact, that the deprived Bishops asserted their rights, and challenged the duty of the people. He also contended that, on St. Cyprian's principles, Bishops placed in sees vacant only by the authority of the secular magistrate, were not only schismatics, but nulli. He even charges the new Bishops with heresy, on the ground that they justified their schism by principles. "When it is defended by principles, it turns into false doctrine."[46] In considering the Canons suppressed by Hody, he remarks, that the lay deprivations must be condemned if they are admitted.

Hody published "A Reply to Dodwell," in which the usual arguments are re-stated, with others which had been suggested by the Vindication.[47] From some cause, Dodwell did not again come forward for two years; so that the question between these eminent individuals may be reserved for further consideration in another chapter.

Kettlewell also took a prominent part in this controversy. In the year 1692 he published his "Christian Communion," in which the questions at issue between the Nonjurors and their opponents are elaborately discussed.[48] It appeared first as a separate work, and was reprinted with his collected works in 1719. Much was said by the Nonjurors of immoral prayers; and Kettlewell argues for the separation, on the ground, that it was the duty of faithful Bishops and Pastors to provide the means of worship for the people free of immoral prayers, though they cannot prevent immoral practices. The force of state deprivations: the royal supremacy: schism, with other points, are discussed at great length. Respecting the ordination of Anti-bishops, his opinions did not differ materially from Dodwell's: for on quoting St. Cyprian's dictum, that an Anti-bishop was no Bishop, he says: "But however it might be in the opinion of St. Cyprian and the African Church of that age, the Africans carrying the effect of schism farther than others, to the nulling of their baptisms and ordinations: I think this nulling of all ordinations of opposite or Anti-bishops, or making them null in themselves, is no Catholic doctrine, nor did the Church tye itself thereto, or proceed thereby in other ages." After alluding to the Novatian schism, he remarks: "Excepting St. Cyprian, and the Africanes, whom St. Basil notes to have strained the effects of schism too far, and to have outshot the mark in these points; though there were Anti-bishops, the Catholic Church did not look upon them, and the Priests ordained by them as mere laymen, or null their ordinations, baptisms, or other Church ministrations." It was on this ground that Dodwell acted subsequent to the death of Lloyd. Kettlewell admits that the people, though not the Clergy, may resort to the communion of the Anti-bishops, when they cannot communicate with the rightful Bishops. After proposing the question, he replies: "I hope they may, and that the necessity of having public worship and ministerial offices, will excuse the faultiness and obliquity of having it at the hands of one communicating in a schism, or out of the unity of the Church."[49] God, he says, permits what he calls abatements of duties in cases of necessity: "He has not required that man should stick so fast to those duties, or parts of duties, which are inferior, or subservient, or appendages unto others; as that for their sakes they should drop other duties, which are principal or superior to them. So that to think he will abate and relax something of the duty of Church union, when that is necessary to keep on the more important duty of public ministrations: and that he doth not tye the people up to such strict state of communicating in the unity of the Church, as must drop or let fall all communion in ministerial offices, when they are not to be had, but at the hands of those who minister in breach thereof: is only to think that he is ready to make the same equitable allowance on any competition in these, as he doth on like competition, in other duties."[50] He then cites certain instances from the Old Testament: after which he remarks: "It did the same in our own great rebellion, when our Bishops were all driven out and deposed with the King. For then the orthodox took up with the communion of the Parish Churches, and thought, that for the sake of public worship and ministerial offices, they might do so, where they had no ministers of their own to communicate with. So that in the opinion of those, our ancestors, it was a good excuse for having divine offices in such assemblies, when they could have better no where else. Lastly, this necessity of having some ministerial offices is generally thought to legitimate communion in those Churches which have no Bishops. They must have some divine service and religion. And if they can have no ministration thereof in an Episcopal communion, they must take up with it from such other as they can have." This principle he applies only to the people, but on the same ground he thinks, that the Clergy may in cases of necessity minister "without episcopal powers."

A distinction is drawn between Rome and the Church of England. He argues the impossibility of communicating with Rome, because she imposes a compliance with her corruptions as a condition of partaking in the sound portions of her offices. He remarks that "The necessity of having ministerial offices, as it will excuse the faultiness of meeting with those who are in a schism: so, I conceive, will excuse men too in bearing with these corrupt matters and immoral additions, whilst they can be allowed sufficiently to signifie and express their dissent from them."[51] With respect to public fasts or thanksgivings he says: "It is insincere for those, who abhor that design which they are appointed to carry on, to afford their presence, or meet at them. But I think it is not so with any particular passages and petitions, in the ordinary devotions, at other times."[52]

Another extract will be acceptable, inasmuch as it proves that Kettlewell acted with great moderation, and that his opinions differed from those of Hickes and his friends at a later period. "And thus, I think, it may appear both how careful we ought to be in shunning the communion of Anti-bishops and their schismatical adherents, when we have other opportunities: and how, for the benefit of some ministerial offices, we may be at liberty to take up with them, when we can have the same from none else. Yea, for all they happen at any time to have made an addition of immoral mixtures to a body of otherwise good and sufficient prayers, if we openly and sufficiently express our dislike, and standing off from them, whilst we as openly concur and join in others." Some persons pleaded a zeal against Popery for complying with the new order of things. Kettlewell, who was as much opposed to Popery as any who complied, remarks: "The zeal against Popery, is given out often in these latter days, of the world, to go furthest in blinding many. But though Popery, on account of the many dangerous errors and unlawful practices thereof, is a most dangerous religion: yet must they be a strange sort of religious persons who can think nothing but Popery will endanger them. And I beg all such as are in earnest for the salvation of their souls, to consider that it is as wretched a part, both of folly and wickedness, to throw away their souls in any immoral or otherwise unlawful ways, to keep out Popery: as it would be to throw them away in turning to it."[53] These extracts show that Kettlewell's views were more moderate than those of Collier, Hickes, and other leaders in the schism.

There was scarcely a controversy of that period, in which Stillingfleet, the great controversialist of the age, did not take a part. I have already alluded to several of his treatises: but his views of the Oath of Allegiance and the Prayers are perhaps no where more fully and distinctly stated, than in the following extracts.

In a sermon intended for the Thanksgiving in 1694 he says: "But there are many persons among us who are still, as they say, unsatisfied in point of conscience as to this government, and therefore cannot join with us on such days as this, nor in the public offices of devotion in our Church." After quoting Mezeray respecting one of the Revolutions in France, "that when God designs to change the government of a nation, he strangely disposes the minds of the people to it;" he adds: "I do not think this a sufficient reason: because the people may change their opinions without reason: but when this is joined with other circumstances, of an injured prince, a just war, unexpected success, a public design against religion and liberties, no means left for any farther securing of them, but a wilful leaving the nation and government to shift for themselves, then the free consent of the people in such a way as it can be had, is of very great moment and consideration." He touches the two questions of the Deprivations and the Public Offices. He remarks that the Bishops refused to act when invited to do so, and that the separation was groundless. "Here, says he, was no such force as was used in St. Chrysostom's case, when he was taken from his see, and by a guard of soldiers was hurried from place to place, till he was wearied out of his life. Here were no such violent proceedings as in the cases of Euphemius, Macedonius, Elias and others. Nothing required of them contrary to Scripture, Fathers, and Councils, or the Articles of our Church: nothing but what the law required as a security to the present government: and if their consciences were not satisfied as to the giving of that, they might have retired and lived quietly. But why a separation? Where is there any precedent of this kind in the whole Christian Church, viz. of a political schism, where all the offices of religion are the same: only some are deprived for not doing what the law of the land requires: i. e. they rather chose to lose their places than to do their duties; which is a very new ground of separation, and utterly unknown to the Christian Church." He thus alludes to the other question: "As to the public Offices of the Church, with respect to their Majesties, I can find no one instance, in the Greek or Latin Church, where these were scrupled to be used with respect to those who were in actual possession of the throne by the providence of God, and consent of the people. And I have this plain evidence against it, that nothing more than these is put into the Offices themselves."[54] Elsewhere he remarks, "It is said by a learned Greek ritualist, that their prayers for the Emperors were to be used, whether they came to the throne by succession, election, or revolution. That in case of any doubt concerning different persons, the prayers were made for those who were in actual possession by the providence of God."[55]

A strong pamphlet was published at this period, entitled "Querela Temporum, or The Danger of the Church of England." The writer's aim was to induce the belief, that the danger from Presbytery, at that time, was as great as the danger of Popery, prior to the Revolution. Many acts of the government, such as the setting aside episcopacy in Scotland, and the promotion of men of latitudinarian principles, are adduced. It does not appear that any effect was produced by this work. Ralph says: "How earnestly and sincerely soever they laboured to render it effectual, it had not the desired effect: the Clergy, satisfied that their rents and revenues were safe, had no inclination to countenance any such measure as might perhaps really endanger them."[56] The pamphlet was probably written by Hickes.[57]

 

 
  1. The Desertion Discussed, in a Letter to a Country Gentleman. In State Tracts, vol. i. It was a reply to a pamphlet of Burnet's, entitled "An Inquiry into the Present State of Affairs," in which King James is considered as a deserter of the crown.
  2. Collier was again imprisoned in 1692, on a charge of having maintained a correspondence with King James. The charge was not proved. Bail was allowed, but this he refused to find; because, by doing so, he considered, that he should recognize the authority of the court, which he denied. At length he was released at the intercession of friends. Chalmers's Biog. Dict.
  3. A History of the Convocation of the Church of England. A bookseller seeing him handing his wife along St. Paul's Churchyard, said, "There goes Dr. Sherlock, with his reasons for taking the Oath at his fingers' ends." It has been said, "The party he had deserted were not convinced by his pamphlet. Bishop Overall's Acts and Canons had not converted them, or their wives had not taken the same pains, or had not been so skilful in their persuasions." He was succeeded by his son in the mastership of the Temple, who subsequently became Bishop of London. He too had some scruples like his father. He preached a sermon the Sunday after the battle of Preston, strongly in favour of George I., which, the Benchers remarked, should have been delivered the Sunday before. The following lines were written on him:

    As Sherlock the elder, with his jure divine,
    Did not comply till the battle of Boyne;
    So Sherlock the younger still made it a question,
    Which side he would take till the battle of Preston.

    Noble, i. 91.

  4. The following extracts are from a pamphlet of the period. "A Catalogue of Books of the Newest Fashion, to be sold by auction at the Whigg's Coffee House, &c. near the Deanery of St. Pauls." "Si Fortuna Velit fies, De, &c. Gravel Lane to-day. Dn of Ps to-morrow, and Gravel Lane again, as moody Fortune or Spouse pleases. By Smock-Peckt Sh——k.—"Dux Fœmini Facti; Conquest the best title to body and conscience, by Dr. Sh——k's wife, dedicated to her humble servant her husband; wherein these two points are proved at large: first, that no man is a good husband who will not sacrifice his conscience to the importunity of a wife: and secondly, that the Doctor was visibly under her power, and therefore he was forced to submit, and might do so according to his hypothesis of force, which dissolves all obligation, especially since the female usurpation had been for a long time and thoroughly settled." A list of "Cases of Conscience and Queries" follows, from which I take the following: "Whether Julian or Sherlock deserve the whetstone, since Julian has been always true to a false principle, and Sherlock traitor and false to a true one."
  5. Kettlewell's Life, 122.
  6. Kettlewell's Works, vol. ii. 197, &c.
  7. An Answer to a late Pamphlet, entituled Obedience and Submission, &c.; with a Postscript in answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance. 4to. Previous to the appearance of Sherlock's "Case of Allegiance," a work was published by a Nonjuror entitled "The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession. Printed in the year 1691." Neither the name of the place nor of the printer is given. This work was noticed by Sherlock: and the circumstance produced the following repty: "An Answer to Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance to Sovereign Power's, in Defence of The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession. In a Letter to a Friend. London, Printed in the year 1691." "The Trimming Court Divine," a severe satire upon the Doctor, was noticed in my History of the Convocation. There was also a clever attack under this title: "A Review of Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance, &c. with an Answer to his Vindication, &c.: and from the whole proved, that neither the present Church of England nor the present Government are beholden to him. 4to. London, 1691." The author states, that on passing through St. Paul's Church-yard on the 3rd of November, he saw The Case of Allegiance: that in three hours returning he found a new title printed, and the book announced as a second edition. He says, that he began to consider whether there were two Dr. Sherlocks. This writer shews that Overall's Convocation Book was of no authority. "In the beginning of the broil he had been the champion of the party against all comers: and now he was become as great an undertaker on the other side." Ralph, ii. 270. In a very severe pamphlet the author says, alluding to the Battle of the Boyne, "Then it was that Bishop Overall's book gave you greater freedom and liberty. Egeria appeared to you on the banks of the Boyne, and inspired you with new and freer notions, and shewed you how your former reasoning contradicted the general sense of mankind, and revealed unto you a divine and safer principle, upon which you might swear allegiance, without the imputation of apostacy or renouncing the doctrine of the Church of England, to Willielmus Nass. Aug. Scot. Hiber. a Deo Datus Augustus, and also swear it back again to King James, if ever he should recover the throne in a recuperative war." Ibid.
  8. Some Discourses upon Dr. Burnet and Dr. Tillotson: occasioned by the late Sermon of the Former on the Latter. 4to. London, 1695, p. 55.
  9. A Letter to the Authors of the Answers to the Case of Allegiance. 4to. pp. 4, 5.
  10. South said of Sherlock, that there was hardly a subject, except Popery, but he had written for and against it. He might have excepted his "Practical Discourse on Death," which met with universal approbation. It is remarkable that this work was written during his suspension.
  11. Kettlewell's Life, 144—49.
  12. Ibid. 150, 151.
  13. Kettlewell's Life, 152—53, and Appendix, xix.
  14. Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, 4to pp. 1, 2.
  15. Ibid. p. 3.
  16. Ibid. p. 58.
  17. Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, 4to. p. 9.
  18. Ibid. p. 30.
  19. A Brief Answer to a Late Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation.
  20. State Tracts, Will. III. vol. i. 618.
  21. A Reply to a Vindication of a Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, 4to. 1691, pp. 6, 10.
  22. Ibid. p. 11.
  23. A Reply to a Vindication of a Discourse Concerning the Unreasonableness of a New Separation, 4to. 1691, p. 24. Besides these works, on the part of the Nonjurors, in reply to Stillingfleet, there is another by Brown, the author of "The Nag's Head Fable Confuted;" but it was not published until the year 1749.
  24. An Apology for the New Separation: in a Letter to Dr. John Sharpe, Archbishop of York; occasioned by his Farewell Sermon. 4to. 1691. P. 1.
  25. Ibid. p. 4.
  26. An Apology for the New Separation, pp. 6, 7.
  27. Ibid. 10.
  28. Solomon and Abiathar: or the Case of the deprived Bishops and Clergy discussed between Eucheres a Conformist and Dyscheres a Recusant. 4to. 1692. Calamy examined the work so superficially, that he considered it to be altogether in favour of the Nonjurors, whereas the aim of the author was to discountenance their claims. Calamy makes him represent the state of things under King William as worse than a deluge of Popery; while the author had only made one of his speakers so represent it, that it might be confuted by the other. "Calamy's Abridgement, i, 510." So careless was Calamy in writing the history of that period. He could not have read the work.
  29. Two Letters written to the Author of a Pamphlet entituled Solomon and Abiathar, or the Case, &c. 4to. 1692, p. 33. Grascome has a singular passage respecting the efforts to procure some indulgence to the Nonjuring Bishops. "On the 28th of January the Bishop of London and St. Asaph, and some others, presented themselves before your mighty King William, with a mournful address, in behalf of our reverend fathers, then drawing near to a civil suspension, and since more than uncivilly deprived. This was the pretence; but it is reasonable to think, that it was a complotted thing, and that the real design was to get their authorities deputed in such sure hands, as might effectually promote perjury, and the thrusting good men out of possession of their estates and exercise of their proper authorities: for the effect of this address was so far from being any kindness to them for whom it was pretended, that others were presently hereupon deputed to exercise their respective jurisdictions during their suspension, deprivation, and till their places should be filled: so that all they got by this pretended kindness to them, was to be stripped stark naked. But the addressers having thus addressed themselves into their several jurisdictions, they then apply themselves to our reverend fathers, and, with a seeming humility and sorrowfulness, acquaint them how matters were ordered, requesting them, that since it must be so, they would not be displeased at them, if they, who were ready to do them all the service they could, did exercise those jurisdictions: to which they received an answer to this effect, that since it was resolved that it should be done, whether they would or not, it was in a manner indifferent to them by whom it was done, though they were as willing it should be done by those who applied themselves to them as any others." Pp. 33, 34. Grascome alleges this as an answer to those who contended, that the deprived Bishops had delegated their authority to their successors. He remarks, that it did not imply consent, but only necessity. He speaks of the compliers as men "who have enervated her discipline, made wicked additions to her prayers, and attempted to make such alterations as would not leave her the same Church." P. 5.
  30. Remarks on some late Sermons: and in particular on Dr. Sherlock's at the Temple. Dec. 30th, 1694. P. 13.
  31. Remarks on some late Sermons, &c. 28.
  32. Unity of Priesthood necessary to Unity of Communion in a Church. With Some Reflections on the Oxford MS. and the Preface annexed. Also a Collection of Canons, part of the said MS., faithfully transcribed into English from the Original, but concealed by Mr. Hotly and his Prefacer, 4to. 1692.
  33. In the preface Hody says, "The Greek MS. from which this treatise is translated, is in that part of the Public Library at Oxton that is called the Baroccian. It is very likely that this is the only copy of this book now remaining in the world. And that it should be preserved till our times and yet hitherto be overlooked: and at this very juncture be taken notice of, and so opportunely brought to light, seems to be more than a fortuitous hit: it appears to have something of τὸ Θεῖον and a singular Providence in it."
  34. See these Canons, in Unity of Priesthood, pp. 67—70.
  35. Ibid, p. 11.
  36. Ibid, 18.
  37. Unity of Priesthood, 40—50.
  38. Ibid, 55, 56. The author of The Hereditary Right alludes to previous periods, when, on a change of government, only the great men, who held lands upon secular services, as he thinks, took the Oaths. He says: "Had the Clergy of England enjoyed this privilege at the time of the late Revolution; near four hundred of them had quietly continued in the possession of their livings, of which they were for no other reason deprived but because they were Nonjurors." Pp. 71, 72.
  39. Unity of Priesthood, 58—61.
  40. We have the most unexceptionable testimony to Dodwell's talents in Calamy's Account of his residence in Oxford. "I had also, while at Oxford, frequent and familiar conversation with the celebrated Mr. Henry Dodwell, certainly as great a master of the historical part of learning as mostmen." Calamy says that he wished to ingross the conversation to himself; that this was disliked: "but it suited my purpose well enough, who aimed at nothing by being in his company, but the getting some benefit from his great reading. I soon discovered his usual time of being at the coffee house, and would often contrive to be there, that I might have his company." He remarks that he was pleased when difficulties were proposed: "upon starting anything of this kind, he would pour out a flood of learning with great freedom." Calamy's Life, i. 281, 282.
  41. Dodwell's Life, pp. 225—234. "Mr. Dodwell first published his Cautionary Discourse of Schism, upon the suspension of Archbishop Bancroft and his six suffragans, with a particular regard to their case, and with a design to prevent if possible the new consecrations." Kettlewell's Life, 126.
  42. Dodwell's Life, 220.
  43. Ibid. 221.
  44. A Vindication of the Deprived Bishops, asserting their spiritual rights against a lay deprivation, against the charge of Schism as managed by the editors of an anonymous Baroccian MS. In Two Parts. I. Shewing that though the instances collected in the said MS. had been pertinent to the editor's design, yet that would not have been sufficient for obtaining their cause. II. Shewing that the Instances there collected are indeed not pertinent to the editor's design, for indicating the validity of the deprivation of spiritual power by a lay-authority. London, 4to. 1692.
  45. Dodwell's Life, pp. 235—53.
  46. Vindication of the deprived Bishops, &c. p. 24.
  47. The case of the sees vacant by an unjust or uncanonical deprivation stated, in answer to a piece entitled A Vindication of the deprived Bishops: together with several pamphlets published as answers to the Baroccian Treatise, 4to, 1693.
  48. Of Christian communion to be kept in the unity of Christ's Church, and among the professors of truth and holiness; and of the obligations both of faithful Pastors, to administer orthodox and holy offices, and of faithful people, to communicate in the same. Fitted for persecuted, or divided, or corrupt states of Churches: when they are either borne down by secular persecutions, or broken with schisms, or defiled with simple offices and ministrations, 4to. 1692. Also in his works, vol. ii. p. 471. Kettlewell published two very valuable devotional forms, "A Companion for the Persecuted, or an Office for those who suffer for Righteousness, containing particular Prayers and Devotions for particular Graces, and for their Private or Public Wants and Occasions." And "A Companion for the Penitent, and for Persons troubled in Mind," &c.
  49. Works, vol. ii. 621, 622, 635.
  50. Works, &c. 639.
  51. Works, vol. ii. 643, 648 650.
  52. Ibid. 652.
  53. Works, 654, 655.
  54. Stillingfleet's Miscellaneous Discourses, 432—436.
  55. Ibid. 418.
  56. Ralph, ii. 533.
  57. This work contains some singular particulars respecting the state of Episcopacy and Presbytery in Scotland. It is evident that the majority of the people in many parts, and especially the upper classes, were Episcopalians. Yet some persons pretend, that the country, with a few exceptions, was Presbyterians.
 
A History of the Nonjurors - fleuron.png