CHAPTER VII.
A. D. 1710—1720.
e are now entering on a most important period in the history of the Nonjurors. Some of the more eminent of their number had returned to the communion of the National Church: but many others resolved on the continuance of the separation under the Bishops, who had been consecrated by the deprived Prelates. Among the latter were Collier, Wagstaffe, Gandy, and other individuals of considerable eminence. After the return of Dodwell, Nelson, and Brokesby to the National Church, consequent on the death of Lloyd and the resignation of Ken, the Nonjurors, who persisted in continuing the separation, acted on principles different from those by which that section, who returned to the Church, had been guided from the period of the Revolution to the year 1710. Our sympathies, therefore, cannot be so strong in favour of the men who continued the separation. At the Revolution the difficulty, with the exception of the Oath of Allegiance, consisted in recognizing other Bishops, while those who had been deprived still survived. Dodwell contended, that they could not appoint their own successors: and it is difficult to understand on what principles such a claim could be supported. As long as they lived, we can imagine how difficult it must have been to yield obedience to those who succeeded them; but after their death it seems reasonable that the schism should have been closed: and though the Clergy might not have been able to have taken the Oath of Allegiance, yet, for the sake of the peace of the Church, they should have been content to live as private individuals. They might have held communion with the Church, though they did not exercise their ministry. The only objection, as I conceive, to be urged against such a course related to the petitions for the Sovereign: but this was met by Dodwell, and it can scarcely be contended, that it was sufficient to justify separation. At all events, whatever might have been the practice of that generation of Nonjurors, it appears difficult to understand the grounds, on which they proceeded to appoint Bishops and Priests, and thus continue the succession and the separation.
We have considered the particulars connected with Ken's resignation, which led to the publication of Dodwell's Case In Fact, and to the return of several of the Nonjurors to the National Church. In a short time the pious Bishop himself was removed from time to eternity, dying in March 1710, or 1711, according to our present reckoning. Even Ken was exposed to the attacks of envy and malice. Among other charges, it was alleged, that he had united with the other Lords in inviting the Prince of Orange to come into England. How such a charge could have been advanced, it is difficult to imagine, Compton being the only Bishop who signed that document. The summer and autumn of 1710 were spent by the Bishop, at the Hot Wells, Bristol: and he expired at Longleat on the 19th of March. For many years he had travelled with his shroud in his Portmanteau, remarking that it might be wanted as soon "as any other of his habiliments." The shroud was actually put on by himself some days before his death, in order that his body might not be stripped. "He was buried at Frome Selwood, it being the nearest parish within his own diocese to the place where he died, as by his own request, in the churchyard, under the east window of the chancel, just at sun-rising, without any manner of pomp or ceremony, besides that of the Order for burial in the Liturgy of the Church of England; on the 21st day of March 1710, anno ætat. 73."[1] The following extract from his Will is very characteristic of the man. "As for my religion, I die in the Holy Catholic and Apostolick Faith, profess'd by the whole Church before the disunion of East and West: more particularly I die in the communion of the Church of England, as it stands distinguished from all Papal and Puritan innovations, and as it adheres to the doctrine of the cross."[2]
A work entitled The Royal Sufferer has sometimes been attributed to Ken: but I can scarcely conceive that he was the author. At all events the authorship is doubtful. It is, however, a curious volume. The writer expresses a wish that King James were a Protestant; but still he declares his allegiance to his Majesty. He ventures to assert, that as a member of the Church of England he would be in the safer course. "If I am regenerated by the Holy Spirit, and made a Christian by true baptism, believing the Scriptures: can it be supposed that I shall suffer damnation for not equally believing traditions? If I make conscience to serve and worship God, can it be thought I shall perish for not worshipping images? If I pray to God, as our blessed Saviour hath taught me, who can think I should incur the sentence of damnation for not invocating saints and angels?" After an expression of humility, in urging such topics, he adds: "if through the divine blessing they should be made efficacious to cause your Majesty to return to and embrace the religion professed by your royal Father, it would be the joy and rejoicing of all your people: and would open a door of hope to 'em even in this Valley of Achor."
In the Meditation on Affliction, the writer freely censures the measures of the King, commencing with the executions in the west after Monmouth's rebellion. He says: "had the King's ministers (to whom he entirely left it) made as much use of mercy as they did of justice, I am sure they would have done the King more service." He further says, in enumerating the causes of his Majesty's troubles, "it was a great piece of injustice to set up a new court for the management of ecclesiastical affairs, contrary to the express laws of the land: whereby the Church and Clergy of England were subjected to the wills of some men that were enemies to both. It was likewise a great piece of injustice to suspend the Right Reverend the Bishop of London from the exercise of his pastoral charge, for that which in itself was no offence." The declaration for liberty of conscience is censured as against law, and as intended to serve the Church, of Rome. With respect to the order for reading it in Churches he asks: "why should the Bishops be denied liberty of conscience, when it was granted to dissenters? Not that the Bishops were against indulgence to dissenters, when it should be proposed in Parliament, but they then saw there was latet anguis in herba, which many were not aware of." Referring to the imprisonment of the Bishops, which he censures, he says: "I have, however, this consolation in myself, that what I acted at that time was out of duty both to God and the King: and that I am no way to be charged with what afterwards followed thereupon."[3] This passage has been supposed to fix the authorship on Ken, since the writer was one of the suffering parties; but it does not warrant us, in the absence of other evidence, in coming to the conclusion that it was his production.
Instead of pursuing the course adopted by Dodwell and his friends, Hickes and those who concurred with him, took steps to perpetuate the schism. They conceived that the deprived Bishops had authority to appoint successors, without regard to dioceses, to act for the Church of England. So that, in their estimation, the national Church was not a true Church. It will be remembered that Hickes and Wagstaffe were consecrated in 1693, just after Bancroft's death: but the deprived Bishops never ordained any others. Wagstaffe died in the year 1712; so that Hickes was left alone. He, therefore, could not continue the succession himself, because three Bishops are required by the canons at consecrations. Under these circumstances, he had recourse to Scotland, and Campbell and Gadderar assisted in 1713 in consecrating Jeremiah Collier, Samuel Hawes, and Nathaniel Spinkes. Hickes must have known, that the Bishops of Scotland could not lawfully interfere in another province. Rather, however, than lose the opportunity of continuing the schism, he adopted this irregular proceeding, fearing probably, that some of the Nonjurors would have returned to the national communion, unless a provision were made for the succession of Bishops. For this act it is not easy to make an excuse: consequently our sympathy for them as a party must from this period be considerably diminished.
Wagstaffe was a man of great eminence among the first generation of Nonjurors. After his deprivation, he practised physic in London. Besides the "Letter out of Suffolk," containing an account of Sancroft, he was the author of "A Letter out of the Country concerning the Bishops lately in the Tower, and now under suspension:" an "Answer to a late Pamphlet, Obedience Demonstrated by Overall's Convocation Book;" an "Answer to Sherlock's Vindication:" "Remarks on Some Late Sermons:" "The Present State of Jacobinism in England, 1700, A Second Part in Answer to the First," with several other productions of a similar character. The last mentioned pamphlet was written in reply to one by Burnet.[4] Wagstaffe's son resided for some time at Rome in the somewhat singular character of Protestant chaplain to the Chevalier St. George, and afterwards to his son. It is remarkable that the Pope should have permitted any one to reside, in his capital, in such a character: but the fact proves, that Rome herself often acts from motives of policy, as well as the secular and more political states. There are extant several letters from a Thomas Wagstaffe to Hearne, on various matters, but chiefly antiquities, to the study of which he seems to have devoted himself with much enthusiasm.[5] But if the account by Nichols of the death of the Pretender's chaplain be correct, this could scarcely have been the same person. It is stated, that he died at Rome in 1770, at the age of 78, and the letters to Hearne were written, some of them, as early as the year 1715.[6]
At this period the controversy respecting the Oaths was carried on with great bitterness on both sides. Higden appears to have been the first to renew the warfare on this particular point. He had himself been a Nonjuror, and, like Sherlock, on his compliance, he seems to have deemed it necessary to vindicate his conduct. Accordingly, he published his View of the English Constitution.[7] He states in an Address to the Reader; "after I had passed so many years of my life, without being able to reconcile myself to the Oaths; in the course of my studies, I met with some passages, which gave me cause to suspect that I had in some particulars mistaken the English constitution. They made me pause, gave me occasion for reflection, and inclined me once more to take a review of the judgment I had made so many years ago: with an intention, that if upon this inquiry, I should find my former judgment was well grounded, to sit down under it in a quiet and inoffensive way, whatever inconveniences might attend it: if not then, with my judgment, to alter my practice." The principle, on which he proceeds, is directly the reverse of that, on which he formerly acted, namely, that the Prince in possession could claim the allegiance of the subject. During the same year the Book was answered, in an anonymous publication, and with much cleverness.[8] In the outset the writer says: "you are come into the government. But upon what terms? You once thought it all a wickedness and usurpation. And have you altered your mind! No. You still think it was so. But you have found reasons, that, notwithstanding all that, you ought to comply with it. So that this is no justification of the government, but only of your own compliance. And you are as free to part with it tomorrow, if it keep not its ground, and comply again with whatever may rise up in its place. Therefore, the government is not beholding to any convert who shall come in otherwise than upon revolution principles."[9] In allusion to Momnouth he says, "if he had succeeded, he would have been as good a King for Mr. Higden, as any hereditary monarch in Europe."[10] At the close of the volume is a singular advertisement concerning the Jacobite converts. "In all revolutions there have ever been dissatisfied persons." Then, after stating, that changes afterwards take place, he adds: "of this sort we have had but two since the Revolution, Dr. Sherlock and now Mr. Higden. The first perplexed the cause, and shook the principles of the Revolution, nor has the latter come up to them. And both have given greater occasion against the establishment, than we heard from the Jacobites before. Mr. Hoadley has long pursued the Lord Bishop of Exeter, for assuring the world, (as he says) that her Majesty's title is only that of a successful usurpation. Which he would draw as a consequence from his Lordship's principle of non-resistance. But Mr. Higden, without the trouble of consequences, openly maintains the title of a successful usurpation, and gives her Majesty no other right or title whatever. This is all she gets by the Jacobite converts. They expose her to excuse themselves. The Jews compassed sea and land to make proselytes, but they had a maxim, not to trust a convert to the third generation. For they made him twofold more than themselves."
Another writer also published "Remarks on Mr. Higdens Utopian Constitution:" and to this and the preceding, the author replied in A Defence of the View, in which the same ground is again gone over. But the most important work on this subject was published in 1713, in a small folio.[11] The actual author of this work was not known; but it was supposed to have been written by Harbin, a nonjuring clergyman, and the Preface by Theophilus Downes, once Fellow of Balliol College. Hilkiah Bedford, however, a Nonjuring Clergyman, was tried at the Guildhall, London, Feb. 13, 1713, and found guilty, on the ground of the work being a seditious Libel. He was charged with writing, printing, and publishing the book: and, on the 4th of May following, was sentenced to pay a fine of 1000 marks, to be imprisoned for three years, and, at the expiration of that period, to find sureties for his good behaviour during life. There was another strange part of the sentence, namely, that, on the following Friday, he should be brought before the court, with a paper on his hat, expressing the crime and the judgment. On the Friday, however, a warrant was produced under her Majesty's hand, remitting this part of the sentence, on the ground that he was a Clergyman. It was supposed, that the author or authors, had, by some means, seen Lord Hales's MSS. of The Pleas of the Crown. When, therefore, the works of that learned individual were published, the obnoxious passages, which had been quoted in The Hereditary Right, were omitted; a process, which in the present day, would scarcely be deemed honest. It seems that Bedford knew the author; but he preferred imprisonment and fines to a breach of confidence. Nor was he a loser in the end: for he afterwards established a school, which was carried on with so much success, that he left a considerable fortune to his son Dr. Bedford, a Physician, who died sometime after the middle of the last century.[12] The son took the Oaths as a qualification for office, on being appointed Register of the College of Physicians. Harbin, the supposed author of The Hereditary Right, resided with Lord Weymouth, who gave him a hundred pounds to take to Mr. Bedford, his Lordship concluding, that he was the writer of the Book. "Though not the Author, he submitted to be thought so from zeal to the Cause, and affection for the real author." This is the remark of Nichols, who also alludes to the singular circumstance, that Harbin, the real Author, should take the money to Bedford. The following account of the author was written by Mr. James West, on a copy of the book, in which certain MS. notes had been written by Bishop Kennett: "Upon shewing the above notes by Bishop Kennett, to Mr. Harbin, he told me he was the author of the annexed Book: and immediately produced the original copy of the same, together with three large volumes of original documents from whence the same was compiled. He was chaplain to Dr. Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and was the head of the Clergy of the Nonjuring persuasion at that time. A man of infinite knowledge and reading: but of a weak, prejudiced, and bigoted judgment."[13] The Book was considered as setting aside the succession of the House of Hanover: consequently the Hanoverian minister made a complaint to the government. The evidence against Bedford was, that he had given the copy to the Printer. Calamy says, that the book was greatly dispersed, and that many copies were presented to men in power.[14] The mercy that was extended to Bedford, says a contemporary, "served to improve the suspicion, that the man and the Book and the Cause had some interest at court."[15]
In an anonymous work of the last century, it is stated, that the book was actually presented to her Majesty. "A book in folio, concerning the Hereditary Right to the Crown, wrote by one Nonjuring Clergyman and fathered by another, was presented to the Queen, and well received by her: though it was so plain against the Revolution settlement, that it made a very great noise, and the ministry could not prevent the law taking place against Bedford, the supposed author, who was fined and imprisoned, and sentenced to stand in the pillory. But being a clergyman great interest was made with the Queen to have the ignominious part of the sentence remitted, which was procured."[16]
Bedford was the author of several works of considerable value, especially an Essay on the Thirty-nine Articles. In this volume, the question relative to the disputed clause in the xxth article is fully and ably discussed. Collier, in his History, gives the whole of this portion of Bedford's work. He also was the editor of the Life of Barwick, of which he published an English translation. This is a work of great merit. As it will not be necessary to refer again to Bedford, it may be mentioned, that he lived a few years after his trial, dying in the year 1724.
It would scarcely fall within my province, in this work, to notice, at length, the affair of Sacheverell: but, as on many points the views of his supporters coincided with those of the Nonjurors, some allusion to the matter may be permitted. The Whig ministry acted most unwisely in the prosecution, which issued in the accession of the Tories to power. It also led many of the Clergy to believe, that they were not sincere friends to the Church of England. Sacheverell did not directly impugn the Revolution. The charge against him was, that he had maintained, that the proceedings of that period were not a case of resistance to the supreme power: so that the Revolution could not be adduced against the doctrine of passive obedience. The managers of the trial laboured to shew, that the Revolution was an act of resistance; and that consequently at times resistance was lawful. He was violent in his opposition to Dissenters; to occasional Conformists; and to all the Whigs. The House of Commons resolved to prosecute him for his two sermons, one at the assizes at Derby in August, the other at St. Paul's on the 5th of November 1709, intitled "Perils among False Brethren." The Commons attended in Westminster Hall as his accusers. He read his own defence, after which the Lords entered into a very warm debate on the subject. The proceedings continued three weeks, the Queen being present in secret every day. Her sedan, as she proceeded to the Hall, was surrounded by the mob, who cried, "God bless your Majesty and the Church. We hope your Majesty is for Dr. Sacheverell." There was a wide difference of opinion among the Lords. None of them actually defended non-resistance; but Hooper, Bishop of Bath and Wells, thought, that resistance was only allowable in extraordinary cases. He contended, however, that the maxim should not be put forth, as the people were too ready to resist: that the Revolution could not be boasted of, or made a precedent: that a mantle should be cast over it; that it should rather be called a vacancy: that those who examined it too nicely were not its best friends: and that at a period, when resistance was openly justified, there appeared to be a necessity for preaching non-resistance. The Duke of Leeds said, that, prior to the Revolution, he never expected that the crown would have been settled upon the Prince: that the Prince had often told him he had no such design: that a distinction should be made between resistance and a revolution: and that the attempt, had it not succeeded, would undoubtedly have been a rebellion. Trimmel, Bishop of Norwich, spoke of Sacheverell's presumption in publishing a Collection of Prayers in the time of his persecution, when he was only prosecuted according to law.[17]
Probably Sacheverell was induced to publish the Prayers, to which the Bishop alluded, by the success of his Sermon: or the booksellers may have persuaded him to publish something of the kind. Of his Sermon, Perils Among False Brethren, no less than forty thousand copies were sold in a few weeks. The Prayers were published at the beginning of his trial: "Prayers and Meditations on the Day of his Trial. Price one Penny." Among the petitions were the following: "O Thou God of patience and consolation, grant me patience and resignation under my sufferings. Give me Christian courage to perform the cause which I have in hand." Prayers were also desired, in the Queen's Chapel, for Dr. Henry Sacheverell under persecution, by Mr. Palmer, for which he was removed from his post. At the close of the trial another Tract was published, "Dr. Sacheverell's Prayers of Thanksgiving for his great Deliverance out of his Troubles. 1710;" so that he evidently viewed his conviction as a victory.[18]
The Lords decided on his suspension: his sermons, together with A Collection of Passages used at the trial, were ordered to be publicly burned: but still his conviction was a triumph. Bisset endeavoured to turn the tide of popular feeling against Sacheverell, by publishing his Modern Fanatic. Three parts of this work made their appearance; but the Author was most severely handled by some of Sacheverell's supporters. Bissett completely failed in his object. Nay, it is questionable, whether he did not injure his cause: for he adduced certain charges affecting Sacheverell's private character, which were manifestly false. In short, if Sacheverell was the tool of the Tories, Bisset was no less the tool of the Whigs.
It was said at the time, that Sacheverell's friends, foreseeing the result, pushed the matter forward. Some of the Whigs, after the trial was over, asserted, that the preaching the Sermons was a Tory attempt to supplant the Whigs. But surely this assertion implies, that the Whigs were less keen sighted than their adversaries. The supposition, while it attributes deep policy to the Tories, renders the Whigs ridiculous, as being duped by their opponents.[19]
It is singular, that Compton defended Sacheverell's views. Sharpe, Archbishop of York, was also among his supporters. Both voted, that he was not guilty. Among the Prints, published on the occasion, there was one, in which Sacheverell is surrounded by various individuals who supported him, and Sharpe and Compton are of the number.
The suspension expired in 1713, March 23rd, and the day was celebrated with great rejoicings in London and several other places. On the following Sunday he preached at his Church, in Southwark: and on the 29th of May he was appointed to preach before the House of Commons, by whom he was thanked for his sermon. In a little time the court bestowed upon him the valuable rectory of St. Andrew's, Holborn. His conviction proved his greatest triumph over his prosecutors: for the populace every where viewed him as a martyr, and received him, in his progress through the country, with the most enthusiastic demonstrations of respect. The Queen too was probably inclined to favour his cause: for the arguments and statements of the managers were such, as could not be pleasing to royal ears. This circumstance was not forgotten by some of those about her Majesty, who reminded her of being taken to school by her ministers, to be instructed in revolution sentiments, as it was supposed, that the royal attendance was in compliance with the wishes of her advisers. The result is well known. The Whigs were soon removed from office: the country was against them: her Majesty was opposed to them: and this trial completed their downfall.[20]
I shall not enter into the question respecting Queen Anne's views of her brother, or whether she wished him to succeed after her death. She died in 1714: and the Elector of Hanover succeeded quietly to the throne. Had the Queen lived some years longer, probably an attempt might have been made to secure the throne to her brother's family. However, all such intentions, if indeed they were entertained, were frustrated by the death of the Queen. The Whigs were overjoyed at her death, for they viewed the event as the harbinger of their return to power: and some of the Dissenters, regardless of their former inconsistency in the reign of James II, were guilty even of profanity in speaking of her Majesty's departure. One person writes: "they were waiting for an opportunity to restore the Pretender: which while they were waiting for, the Divine Providence, that had so often saved a sinking nation, stept in, and, August 1st, 1714, takes away the unhappy Princess."[21]
The Whigs represented themselves as the only true friends of the Protestant succession: yet subsequent discoveries have proved, that they rather consulted their own interest, than the welfare of the country or of the Church. Whenever they were out of power, they used every means of annoyance towards their opponents: and the Pretender was a very convenient pretence for their purpose. Thus, some time after their removal from office consequent on Sacheverell's trial, they actually sanctioned the circulation of false statements in the newspapers, with a view to embarrass the Queen's ministry and excite the people against them. This was done by coining articles of foreign news and publishing them as true. The following is a specimen: "Paris, July 5, 1712. The Chevalier de St. George is at Chaillot, where he is to be retired some days, and lay aside the title of King. 'Tis not yet said what other title he will take; though it is not doubted, but that it will be that of Prince of Wales, and that all this is done in concert, because it would not be convenient for him to go to England with the title of King, but with that of the presumptive heir."[22] It is asserted, that had the Pretender renounced Popery, Queen Anne would have promoted his interests; and that efforts were used to induce him to comply, though without effect, as he protested against such a course. He promised, however, to engage a Protestant clergyman, in the event of his coming to England, to officiate to his Protestant servants.[23] This latter promise, it is said, was broken when he actually came into the country.[24] Among the rumours of the day one was, that he had positively renounced Popery, and that his chaplain performed divine service daily in his presence, according to the order of the Anglican Church.[25] The Queen's death, however, destroyed the hopes of his friends: but had she lived some years longer, and the Pretender had openly joined the Anglican Church, it is not possible to say, whether he would have been rejected by the people of England.
Several men of eminence among the Nonjurors were removed by death during the reign of Queen Anne. Nelson, no longer, however, a Nonjuror, died January 16th, 1714, leaving £200 by will to Hickes and Spinkes. By a codicil also he gave Mr. Hilt 20 per annum. It is unnecessary to enter upon a history of his life. His secession from the Nonjurors influenced many others, and was one of the first steps that weakened their body.[26]
Thomas Smith, another clergyman of celebrity, died in the year 1710. He was deprived of his fellowship in the University for refusing to take the Oath of Allegiance in 1692. Several of his works display much learning and great abilities. He was the author of "Vitæ Quorundam eruditissimorum et illustrium Virorum. 4to. 1707." This is a useful work, containing the lives of several men of great eminence in the Church.[27] He suffered much for his principles, and died in great poverty.
Not long before the close of Queen Anne's reign died Henry Compton, Bishop of London, who, perhaps, next to Burnet and Tillotson, was more obnoxious to the Nonjurors than any other prelate. His solemn denial, that he had not concurred in the invitation to the Prince of Orange, is a stain upon his memory, a blot upon his integrity. But notwithstanding his conduct at the Revolution, he was not advanced in the Church, though the see of Canterbury was twice vacant during his life. He was Bishop of London before the Revolution, and he continued Bishop of London till his death. A glowing character was given of him by his chaplain in a sermon before the Lord Mayor at St. Paul's. The author says, that at the Revolution "he was called peculiarly The Protestant Bishop." He adds, what will scarcely be admitted now, "and indeed he was the ornament and security of the Protestant Cause." This writer talks of jealousies against him and insinuations, which prevented his advancement.[28]
In the year 1714 the "Memoirs concerning the affairs of Scotland" were published without the consent of the writer, Mr. Lockhart, who had himself acted a conspicuous part in the Pretender's service. Lockhart lent the manuscript to a friend, under a strict injunction not to let it be seen. This friend, however, was so imprudent as to employ some one to transcribe it: and this individual gave a copy to a second party, by whom it was published, with a preface written by Sir David Dalrymple. The circumstance is thus misrepresented in one of the publications of the period. "July 20th, 1714. The Jacobite party were so sure of their game that a history of the Pretender, and of the faithful attempts of his friends in Scotland, was drawn up at large: and several copies of it delivered for secret service: till one of the transcribing clerks, for want of suitable reward, conveyed a transcript to the press."[29] It is scarcely possible to conceive, that the writer of this extract did not know, that the manuscript had been treacherously given to the public, though he avers that one of the transcribers had done it in consequence of being inadequately rewarded for his labour. The notion is absurd, as he might have relinquished or declined the task. But the propagation of the falsehood served a party purpose, which was precisely the aim of the writer. A Key was also published, in which the names of the parties were written at length, the initials and concluding letter only being given in the work itself. Several editions were called for within the year. The Key simply contained the names written at length. But during the same year another tract was published, called "A Protestant Index to Mr. Lockt's Memoirs concerning the Affairs of Scotland." In this tract the pages are specified, in which the most obnoxious passages are to be found.[30] A descendant of Lockhart's published the "Memoirs" in 1817, together with the other papers of his ancestor. In this republication, there is an additional preface in answer to Dalrymple's introduction, which was prepared by the author, and left with the copy intended for publication after his decease. Various reasons prevented the publication until 1817, which are stated in the preface by the editor.[31]
Hickes did not long survive the consecration of Collier, Spinkes, and Hawes. He died in the year 1715, at the age of 74, leaving behind him the character of a learned and pious man. Of course he had his failings: but his works will remain as a monument of his learning and piety as long as the English language is used. He was born in the year 1642. He was on intimate terms with Kennet and several other clergymen who complied, and who were anxious to direct his attention to the study of the northern antiquities. His protest against Mr. Talbot was considered as an act of rebellion against the government: and proceedings being commenced, he withdrew into a place of concealment until 1699, when Lord Somers, the Chancellor, ordered the Attorney-General to enter a noli prosequi to all proceedings against him. During a portion of this period he resided with White Kennet, wearing a lay-habit, and affecting to be unknown. Disagreeing as they did, they could not converse on ecclesiastical matters: consequently they met on the common ground of literature. At Kennet's suggestion he undertook his most laborious work, the "Thesaurus." At last, a fellow of a college in Oxford, coming to Kennet's house, knew him, and called him by his name. This alarmed him: so that he immediately repaired to London, where he remained until the Lord Chancellor interposed. It is stated that he once contemplated taking the Oaths: but the authority on which the report rests appears doubtful.[32] The inscription on his tomb, written by his own direction in his will, is adduced as evidence, simply because it does not notice the fact of his appointment as a suffragan Bishop. The inscription was as follows: "Depositum Georgii Hickes, S. T. P. non ita pridem Coll. Line. Oxon. Socii, et Ecclesiæ Cathedralis Wigornensis Decani, qui Obiit 15 Die Decembris 1715." It is very properly remarked, that no mention of the title of suffragan would at that time have been permitted: consequently nothing can be inferred in favour of the notion that he disclaimed the title.[33]
Some notice of Leslie will be given in a subsequent page; but it may be mentioned here that he was supposed to be the author of "The Mitre and the Crown: or a real Distinction between them" in 1711, and "A Continuation of the Mitre and the Crown" in 1712. In the year 1713 he published "The Case Stated between the Church of England and the Church of Rome." It was answered by a Romanist in "The Case Re-stated." Even this book was cavilled at by the opponents of the Nonjurors. The object was to bring odium upon them as favourers of Popery: and when this could not be done, the next thing was misrepresentation. A more effective work against Rome could scarcely be named than Leslie's "Case Stated," and "Case Truly Stated;" yet the following notice appeared at the time. "Feb. 27th, 1713-14: The hopes of bringing over the Pretender to profess the Protestant religion began to diminish every day: especially when men saw that the book writ for that purpose by Mr. Leslie, and called the 'Case Stated,' was heinously taken by the Papists, and boldly answered by one of them in a tract, 'The Case Re-stated:' to which Mr. Leslie thought proper to reply in a Defence of what he had before said, but with no manner of suggestion that he was likely to succeed in his first design of writing."[34] Somewhat earlier, the same writer says the "Jacobites now drank to the Protestant succession, upon hopes the Pretender was to be converted by Mr. Leslie."[35] So that at one time all the Nonjurors were Papists; at another, they were labouring to convert the Pretender to Protestantism.
The case of a youth, Ambrose Bonwicke, son of a Nonjuror of the same name, may be adduced as an illustration of the force of those feelings, by which the Nonjurors were actuated. This youth was born in 1691: in 1702 he was sent to Merchant Taylor's School. In 1709, though captain of the school, he lost his election to St. John's College, Oxford, in consequence of his Nonjuring scruples. The head scholars were accustomed to read the prayers, which were daily used in the school, and which were taken from the Liturgy. The first Collect for the King in the Communion Service was one of the Prayers selected for daily use. This Collect young Bonwicke scrupled to read. Efforts were used in vain to terrify him out of his scruples: for he was resolved to make any sacrifice rather than violate his conscience. At the election, therefore, in 1710, he was told that his qualifications marked him out for election; but he was asked why he did not read the usual prayers. His reply was, "Sir, I could not do it." The master applauded the youth for his honesty, but expressed his sorrow at the loss of his election. The disappointment was cheerfully borne. He subsequently entered at Cambridge, but was cut off by an early death in the year 1714-15.[36]
After Hickes's death, Collier was, undoubtedly, the most able man of the party, and continued to be their leader, until the body separated into two sections, in consequence of the controversy respecting the Usages. Collier was prepared to uphold the separation at all hazards: consequently in the year 1716, Henry Gandy and Thomas Brett were consecrated to the episcopal office by Collier, Spinkes, and Hawes.
Gandy was the author of several works in this controversy, and appears to have been as strenuous in his views as any one of the party. But the circumstances connected with Brett are very remarkable. He was ordained in the year 1690, at which time he entertained some scruples respecting the Oaths. He saw that the Tories, who had sworn allegiance to King James, took the Oath to William and Mary. He had never taken an Oath to James, and therefore he was not hampered by any preceding engagements. On becoming acquainted soon after with Gery, he imbibed that gentleman's views. The pupil, however, proceeded much farther than the instructor: for the latter died Vicar of Islington in 1707, while the former became a Nonjuror.[37] After taking the Oath of Allegiance several times, his scruples became so strong, and especially after the trial of Sacheverell, that he quitted the National Church. In considering the proceedings connected with that memorable trial, he came to the conclusion, that he had committed an error in taking the Oaths: and he soon resolved not to take them again. Still he did not scruple for some time to pray for the Queen, nor to remain in the Church. But on the accession of George I, when all persons holding offices were compelled to take the Oaths afresh, he found, that he could not comply, and wrote to the Archbishop to that effect.[38] His Grace very kindly requested him to pause. He, therefore, remained in the Church, until his non-compliance with the order for taking the Oath vacated his post. For a time he continued to attend his parish church as a private person; and it is probable, that he might have continued to do so, but for the interference of Hickes, who, hearing of his scruples, persuaded him to cease to communicate with, or attend the worship of, the National Church. He was admitted into the Nonjuring communion July 1, 1715, according to a Penitential Form prepared especially for such occasions. The year after, he was consecrated a Bishop. He was accustomed, like many other Nonjurors, to officiate privately in his own house. His literary labours were very numerous, and all of them were distinguished for great ability and extensive learning. Brett was once presented at the assizes for holding a conventicle in his house: but an Act of Indemnity rescued him from the penalties. He afterwards spent his time between Faversham and Canterbury, in which places he had congregations.[39] Unquestionably the Nonjurors made a wise and judicious choice in selecting Brett as a Bishop. The choice was made probably at the desire of Hickes, though he died before the consecration.
Before we enter upon the controversies of this period, a few remarks may be offered on the Rebellion of 1715. The Nonjurors, properly so called, those, who sacrificed all their prospects, rather than take the Oaths, were generally quiet and peaceable men: and though attached to King James, they did not make any attempt towards the restoration of his family. Of those who were implicated in the Rebellion, many had taken the Oaths, while others, from not occupying any public station, had not been called upon to make their decision. The fact, that some of the individuals, who were implicated, professed Nonjuring principles at the time of execution, is no proof that the body were involved in that attempt. Very few, if any, of the actual Nonjurors were concerned. Thus Mr. Paul asked forgiveness of God, on the scaffold, for having taken Oaths in favour of what he termed a usurpation. He avowed himself a member of the Nonjuring Church, as a party separate from the National Church. "You see by my habit, that I die a son, though a very unworthy one, of the Church of England: but I would not have you think, that I am a member of the schismatical Church, whose Bishops set themselves up in opposition to those orthodox fathers, who were unlawfully and invalidly deprived by the Prince of Orange: I declare that I renounce that communion, and that I die a dutiful and faithful member of the Nonjuring Church, which has kept itself free from rebellion and schism: and I desire the Clergy, and all members of the Revolution Church, to consider what bottom they stand upon, when their succession is grounded upon an unlawful and invalid deprivation of Catholic Bishops: the only foundation of which deprivation is a pretended Act of Parliament." He added: "the Revolution, instead of keeping out Popery, has let in Atheism." Mr. Hall, another sufferer, though not a clergyman, made a similar declaration. "I declare that I die a true and sincere member of the Church of England: but not of the Revolution schismatical Church, whose Bishops have so shamefully given up the rights of the Church, by submitting to the unlawful, invalid, lay-deprivations of the Prince of Orange. The community I die in, is that of the true Catholic Nonjuring Church of England."[40]
The case of Shephard, a youth only eighteen years of age, excited much attention, and led many persons to think, that unnecessary severity was exercised by the government. At almost any other period, the youth would have been confined, on the ground of insanity: but the government permitted his execution to take place. Mr. Orme, a Nonjuring clergyman, attended him on the scaffold.
At this period the Nonjuring Clergy were subjected to much hardship in consequence of the Rebellion: for the Oaths were tendered afresh to all suspected persons. Those who refused were committed to prison: while several magistrates were removed from the commission for what was deemed undue leniency in imposing the Oaths.[41] In many cases, uncalled for severity was exercised. Individuals were even punished for wearing white roses, which were considered as badges of the Pretender's. With what strange feelings must such a passage as the following be read! "Two soldiers whipped almost to death in Hyde Park, and turned out of the service, for wearing oak boughs in their hats the 29th of May."[42] Dr. Welton, who had been deprived of the Rectory of Whitechapel, and who had assembled together about 250 Nonjurors in a private house for divine service, was surprised by the magistrates. Mr. Hawkes, another clergyman, officiated for some time in his own house opposite to St. James's Palace; but because he omitted the name of the King, in reading the Common Prayer, he was fined under the Conventicle Act.[43]
The Nonjurors were at this time deterred, by these severities, from defending their principles by means of the press. Some few, however, ventured to stand forward, though they were generally subjected to punishment. Laurence Howell, so well known in the learned world, appeared as a controversialist on behalf of his party. Some crown messengers, searching for a paper called "The Shift Shifted," discovered in the printing office a book intitled, "The Case of Schism in the Church of England truly Stated," by Howell, who was committed to Newgate for the offence. He naturally argued, that the complying Clergy were schismatics.[44] Redmayne, the printer, was indicted for printing the book, which was denominated a libel: and Dalton was fined, imprisoned, and sentenced to the pillory, for printing the Shift Shifted.[45] Howell was tried and convicted at the Old Bailey, being sentenced to a fine of £500, three years imprisonment, to be whipped, and to be degraded and stripped of his gown by the hands of the public executioner. He asked, "Who will whip a clergyman?" but the Court replied: "We pay no deference to your cloth, because you are a disgrace to it, and have no right to wear it: besides, we do not look upon you as a clergyman, in that you have produced no proof of your ordination, but from Dr. Hickes, under the denomination of the Bishop of Thetford: which is illegal and not according to the constitution of this kingdom, which has no such Bishop." The executioner was ordered to pull off his gown at the bar, which was accordingly done. The pamphlet was probably intended only for private sale or gratuitous distribution. All his papers were seized by order of the government, among which were his Letters of Orders from Dr. Hickes, dated 1712, and also The Form of Absolution and Reception of Converts. The Letters of Orders were thus expressed: "Tenore Præsentium, Nos Georgius Hickes, permissione divinâ Episcopus Suffraganeus Thetfordiensis, notum facimus universis, quod nos præfectus Episcopus, in Oratorio Nostro, in Parochiâ Sancti Andreæ Holbourn in comitatu Middlesex, sacros ordines, præsidio divino celebrantes, Dilectum Nobis, in Christo Laurentium Howell, A.M., de vitæ suæ probitate morumque integritate nobis sufficienti Testimonio Commendatum, et sacrarum literarum cognitione et scientia laudabiliter institutum, et per nostrum examinatorem nobis approbatum, ad sacrum Presbyteratûs ordinem, juxta morem et consuetudinem Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ in hac parte salubritereditam et provisam, admismus et promovimus: ipsumque instituimus et ordinavimus tune et ibidem. In cujus rei testimonium Sigillum Nostrum Episcopale præsentibus apponi fecimus, secundo die Mensis Octobris, Annoque Domini Millesimo Septingentesimo Duodecimo, Nostræque Consecrationis 18º Georgius Hickes."[46]
In the year 1716, a most sarcastic attack on the defenders of the Revolution was published, professing to give extracts from Burnet and Kennet. "Since the lawfulness of the Revolution," says the writer, "on which his Majesty's title is founded, is questioned by some, and condemned by others, it is thought convenient at this juncture to lay in one view an account of the principles on which it is established." Burnet had said, that James's ambassador "pressed the Pope to admit the King to mediate between the courts of Rome and Versailles, and said that when that was brought about, the two Kings would effectually serve the Church, and begin with the destruction of Holland. This the Pope told to the head of the imperial faction at Rome, who wrote it to the Emperor, and the Emperor wrote to the Prince of Orange." The writer remarks upon this, "what can justify the Prince, if King James's and the French King's design to ruin them and their religion cannot? Or what better authorities could they have for the truth of it, than the Pope and the Emperor to prevent it, by informing the Prince of Orange what danger the Protestant religion was in? Which will undoubtedly be secure for the future, since the Pope is against the growth of Popery, and the Emperor become guardian of the Protestant religion." He adds: "in short, some body told some body, that the King of France and King James were for introducing Popery: to prevent which, the Pope, the Emperor, the Prince of Orange, the Dutch and English, abdicate King James, and enter into an alliance to make the King of France submit to the Pope's authority." In the same strain, after quoting some passages from Burnet's early writings, in which the resolving of all power into the people is attributed to the assertors of the Pope's deposing power, he remarks: "and now with what face can any Papist be for the Pretender? Or how can the Pretender claim the crown, if a Papist? We see it was by a Popish principle and a Pope's advice that King James was deposed; and therefore the Pretender must either protest against his infallibility and supremacy, which is in effect to turn Protestant; or allow the justice of the Revolution, which is to destroy his own pretensions to the crown."
The writer then specifies some of the advantages, which the Pope gained by the Revolution. One was the abrogation of the Oath of Supremacy: secondly, an alliance formed against France. Proceeding in a sarcastic strain, he quotes from Kennet, relative to the alliance, that the Emperor and King William would make no peace "with Louis XIV till he has made reparation to the Holy See, and till he annul all those infamous proceedings against the Holy Father Innocent XI." He closes thus: "the Dutch were well paid for sending us a King: the Prince of Orange got a crown: and we above twenty years ruinous war: the establishment of Presbytery on the ruins of Episcopacy in Scotland: and in the Church of England a woful schism and a succession of prudent, pious Protestant Princes: together with a free parliament: an impartial distribution of justice, and a glorious prospect for us and our posterity: every way answering the merits of an English Revolution, a Scotch Reformation, and an Hanover succession."[47]
Welton's feelings, while Rector of Whitechapel, in favour of the exiled family were not concealed. He became obnoxious to censure in consequence of an Altar Piece, a representation of the last Supper, which was placed in his church. White Kennet had written an answer to Sacheverell's Sermon, Perils among False Brethren, which, with several other publications, had rendered him very obnoxious to the Nonjurors. In the picture in Welton's Church, Kennet's portrait was inserted for Judas Iscariot. It is said, that the sketch was intended for Burnet, but that an action at law being apprehended, the likeness of Kennet was substituted for that of the Bishop. Crowds flocked daily to the Church to examine the picture: so that the Bishop of London interposed, and the Altar Piece was removed. In 1710 Welton preached a sermon, which induced the government to interfere, and he was removed from his living.[48] From a contemporary publication, we learn, that some persons imagined, that the picture of St. John was intended to represent the Chevalier St. George. Welton published a sermon in defence of his conduct, giving in the preface an account of the proceedings connected with the removal of the Altar Piece.[49] After his deprivation Welton preached to a Nonjuring congregation.
It is evident, that the rash conduct of some few of the Nonjurors involved the whole body in difficulties. They were regarded by the government as enemies. Some persons even have alleged, that they were more active at the period of the Rebellion, in disseminating their principles, than they had been for several years. Thus we are told, "the controversy of the new schism made a much greater noise upon the late tumults and rebellion, than it had ever done since the filling of the deprived sees by King William: and the Jacobite conventicles were more frequented in the cities of London and Westminster: and Priests of that way were sent down to gather the like congregations in country towns: and many of the high folk, especially the women, seemed to come to the parochial churches in and about London, for the sake of their pews and their cloaths, rather than for conformity to the public worship. For they would not join in any part of the Prayers for King George, and his royal family, but at the mention of those names, they would rise up or sit down, or, at least, express their dissent in some visible manner." This statement must be taken with certain deductions, for the writer usually traduces the Nonjurors. The following extract exhibits the character of the writer's own principles. "In the mean time too many of the Church clergy, though offended with Dr. Hickes for urging a separation from Parochial Churches, yet they gave in very much to the principles, upon which that practice was founded, viz. The Independency of the Church from the State, the more than spiritual power of the Church."[50] Such a man could scarcely form an impartial judgment of the Nonjurors, when he had conceived such views of the complying Clergy.
Still, few of the actual Nonjurors were implicated in the Rebellion. This statement is fully supported by contemporary writings. The following passage is so pertinent, that no apology is needed for its insertion. "The principles, on which the legality of the present establishment is maintained, are, I think, but improperly made a part of the present quarrel, which divides the nation. There are but few, who have not precluded themselves on this point: those I mean, who have had courage and plainness enough to own their sense and to forego the advantages, either of birth or education, rather than give a false security to the government, which under their present persuasion they could not make good. To these I have nothing more to say, than to wish them what I think they well deserve, a better cause: but to us? who had bound ourselves by previous oaths and obligations in the most solemn manner in the world, the accession of his Majesty could administer no occasion of reconsidering this question: there was nothing new required of us: we had no faith to give which was not already plighted, and bound upon our souls by the most sacred engagements."[51] This is honourable testimony from a candid man: and may be regarded as conclusive evidence, that the actual Nonjurors, with few exceptions, were not implicated in this Rebellion.
After the suppression of the Rebellion, several important works, of a controversial character, were published, both by the Nonjurors and by their opponents. These productions require a particular notice; for the very history of the Nonjurors is bound up as it were with their controversies. It appears, that the advocates of the government entered afresh on the controversy, after the suppression of the Rebellion. Two works in particular made a great noise at the time, namely, one by Bennet, and the other by Hoadley.
It would appear that at this time the Nonjurors were in some danger, probably from being suspected of consenting to the recent Rebellion, in favour of the son of King James. Most of them were quiet and peaceable men: and it was harsh on the part of the government to subject them to such treatment. It certainly was not the way to bring them over to take the Oaths. We find that many of their works of this period were published without the name of the printer, a method resorted to undoubtedly for the purpose of concealment. The feelings of the government must have been very sore against the Nonjurors, for Bennet closes his preface with the following notification:
"If any person shall think it unsafe for him to publish an answer to this tract, I entreat him to send his papers to me, by such a way as he shall choose, (with this single hint, that the parcel comes from an unknown hand) and I do solemnly promise, that if they are written as becomes a Christian and a scholar, (of which such Nonjurors shall be judges as their brethren will readily confide in) I will make no inquiry after the author: but in a reasonable space of time, will either return him thanks for confuting me, or else reply in such a manner that he shall have no reason to complain of my misrepresenting his sense, or injuring his arguments."[52]
It is clear from this notice that great severity was practised towards the Nonjurors; and that they could not openly appear in defence of their principles. Bennet's work may be regarded, as expressive of the views of a large body of the members of the Church of England on the subjects at issue between them and the Nonjurors. His aim was to prove them guilty of schism on their own principles. At this time, the chief differences between the Church and the Nonjurors related to the Oaths. Thus Bennet, speaking of the Nonjurors' assemblies, states that "the Book of Common Prayer is used (excepting some passages relating to our present temporal governors)." We learn also from this work, that many remained in the communion of the national Church, who did not take the Oaths to the ruling sovereign.
To bring the dispute within a narrow compass, the author fixes upon the diocese of London. His first position is, that Compton, who was Bishop of the diocese at the Revolution, continued rightful Bishop as long as he lived: that he neither ceased to be its Bishop by resignation nor deprivation. He allows it to be granted that the Revolution was unjustifiable: and that the successors to the deprived Bishops were schismatical intruders: but even then he argues, that Compton remained the rightful Bishop of the diocese of London. In his third chapter he meets the objection, that Compton contracted the contagion of schism by recognizing the successors of the deprived Bishops, and that all who communicated with the Bishop of London were involved in the same guilt. The fifth chapter is occupied with the consideration of an objection derived from the second canon of 1603, in which it is enacted that a denial of the King's supremacy exposes the party to an ipso facto excommunication. Bennet shews that no such excommunication is of any effect, until a sentence declaratory is given. He then argues, that they separated from Compton, setting up an altar against that which already existed, and that consequently they are guilty of schism. He meets the objection, derived from the alleged immoral prayers, much in the same way as Dodwell and Nelson did, on their return to the communion of the National Church. He reminds the Nonjurors, however, that they had attended the public Churches from the Revolution until 1691, a space of two years and six months, when the Bishops were deprived for refusing to take the Oaths. He infers, that they did not join in the prayers for William and Mary, and that, therefore, they did not consider, that those petitions were imposed as terms of communion. He also mentions that many Nonjurors were at that time worshipping in the National Church: so that they could not regard the prayers in question as terms of communion.
In the last chapter he applies the principle, which he had previously confined to London, to the rest of England.
"As for those dioceses whose Bishops were deprived, whatever might have been pleaded, whilst the deprived Bishops themselves were alive; yet since that personal contest is at an end, and the schism of co-ordination is thereby perfectly ceased, (because the deprived Bishops themselves are dead; and those who were consecrated by the deprived ones, or derive their succession from them, do not pretend to be other than suffragans) therefore those Bishops that have been elected and consecrated, and publicly and unanimously received and owned by their comprovincials, as Bishops of those once controverted sees, are now, by all the rules of ecclesiastical discipline, the only lawful Bishops of them: nor indeed is there any other claimant in opposition to them. And therefore separation from their communion is undoubtedly schisrnatical, there being no just cause for it.
"Whether those suffragans who were consecrated by the Nonjuring Bishops, or derive their succession from them, have now any power in those dioceses, for which ('tis presumed) they were consecrated, their principals may inquire and determine, if they judge it proper so to do. But if those suffragans have any power at all, I am sure it must be exercised in due subordination to their principals. Otherwise 'tis notoriously schismatical, even within the bounds of the several dioceses they were intended to officiate in."[53]
Bennet had written with much force against the Dissenters, proving them to be guilty of schism in separating from a pure branch of the Catholic Church; and upon the appearance of the preceding publication, Peirce, who had been long employed in controversy, wrote some strictures on the work. He attempts to show, that such principles, as were admitted by Bennet, were sufficient to justify any separation. However it is clear that Peirce only rejoiced in the divisions among Churchmen. One fact is incidentally mentioned by him, which is somewhat curious and not without interest, namely, that Hickes's consecration was not generally known till seventeen years after it had taken place.[54]
Hoadley also appeared against the Nonjurors in a work of a different description from that of Bennet.[55] He was one of those latitudinarian Churchmen, by whom the Church has been occasionally afflicted. So far from supporting, Hoadley broached principles, in many of his publications, which tended to weaken and destroy the Church. One work, that on Conformity, must be excepted from this condemnation: but most of his other productions are obnoxious to the very serious charge above mentioned. His "Preservative" was one of the most obnoxious; but his works served to recommend him to the Whig Ministry, and to pave his way to the episcopal bench. In the "Preservative," he defends the exercise of the power of the State in depriving the Nonjuring Bishops and Clergy of their preferments. It is intimated at the commencement, that, at this time, the Nonjurors were particularly active in putting forth their claims. Hoadley thinks, moreover, that too much forbearance had been exercised towards them: yet they had less liberty than Dissenters, who were permitted to assail the Church of England, and to traduce the Nonjurors. It must be evident, when the Nonjurors were scarcely allowed to defend themselves through the press, that any thing but forbearance was manifested by the government. Hoadley's work contained so much of what was unsound, that several of its positions were censured by the Lower House of Convocation.[56]
Some very important works were also published about this time by the Nonjurors. A posthumous work of Hickes's among others made its appearance, a work frequently alluded to by their opponents. This volume was sent forth to the public by some of Hickes's friends. It contains answers to all the arguments, which were urged against them by those who attacked their principles. Prefixed to the work is an account of the various papers, of which it consists, by the publisher: from which it appears, that soon after the deprivations, Hickes entered upon certain conferences with a Serjeant at Law respecting the recent events, especially with reference to Church communion. The Serjeant puts a question, whether it is lawful to communicate with a Church, that prays for an usurper, which is answered in the negative. Hickes even condemns being present in such congregations: alleging, that, if it were lawful to be present, it would be necessary to protest publicly, against what he calls the rebellious prayers. He further declares, that if any Bishops are deprived by such powers, the people are bound in conscience to adhere to the sufferers. The Serjeant asks whether a public refusal to own the usurper be not sufficient: but Hickes decides as before against being present at such assemblies, and condemns remaining on the knees, though the individuals join not in the petitions.
In another Letter, the Author submits to the Serjeant forty propositions concerning the Constitution of the Catholic Church, observing that they are laid down in a mathematical method, "wherein what follows is the consequent of what goes before." Church power of the most exalted kind is asserted in these propositions: that kings cease to be members of the spiritual corporation by excommunication, heresy, or apostacy: that in divisions the lawful society is in the lawful head, and the members who adhere to him, though the smaller number, and in every diocese in the rightful Bishops as the principle of unity: that kings obtain nothing by baptism, but a stronger obligation to defend the Church, and that they are equally subjects of the Church: that the union of Church and State is broken when the latter persecutes the former, which takes place whenever the temporal powers persecute the spiritual: that it is the duty of the people to adhere to deprived Bishops. He asserts, therefore, that such deprivations as those of the Nonjuring Bishops were unlawful: and that their successors had no power. He adds: "The true Church regent, or College of Bishops in England depending upon it, are both in the little and faithful suffering number, and will be in those who regularly succeed them in the royal priesthood to the end of the world."
The Serjeant remarked on the severity of the propositions as involving all the nation, except a very few, in Schism. Hickes replies, that he is not more severe than the Ancient Fathers, and refers to the notes on the Propositions. Other testimonies are also added. He says, principles are rigid things: "They are like glass drops, you may easily break them, but you cannot bend them." Farther, the Serjeant objected the small number of the deprived Bishops: to which Hickes replies, that the controversy is one of right and wrong, not of faith. He reminds the Serjeant of his own wish, that all had been deprived, though the case would have been the same had one only been subjected to deprivation.
On the title page of the volume the letter R was affixed to the word Reverend; so that the style of a Bishop was thus awarded to Hickes: and though his consecration was, as I have previously remarked, known to many, if not to all the Nonjurors; yet this seems to have been the first public intimation of the fact. The Publisher mentions the particulars of the consecration by Turner, White, and Lloyd: and argues, that no man was more qualified to answer the objections against the appointment of successors to the deprived Bishops. The Publisher further mentions, that the forty propositions had been printed at the end of "The Character of a Primitive Bishop," though in an imperfect state, and that many copies had been circulated in the life-time of the Author.[57] His arguments need not be largely entered into, since they are similar with those, to which we have previously referred in the works consequent on Dodwell's and Nelson's return to the National Church. One passage, however, respecting Anti-Bishops is remarkable. He makes several kinds of Anti-Bishops, some being so by usurpation, others by professing false doctrines, others in both these respects. Alluding to the second sort he says, "such Anti-Bishops are also the Popish Bishops, now in all parts of the world, to the reformed Bishops, more particularly in Ireland."[58] This is a strong assertion, and confutes the notion that Hickes had a leaning towards Rome. He classes the revolution Bishops under the third head, making them usurpers and maintainers of false doctrines. The false doctrines are the doctrine of resistance and the validity of lay-deprivations. He says, "before I proceed to insist upon the Prayers, I must apply what I have said of doctrines: and take the freedom to tell you, that the Bishops to whose altar you are going, are still Anti-Bishops (viz. in the second sense, upon the score of damnable and dangerous doctrines) to those, whom it is said our deprived fathers left behind them to succeed them, not as diocesan but Catholic successors, or as Catholic Bishops in a nation overrun with schism as well as rebellion: in which capacity, as Catholic Bishops, they acted out of their dioceses all their time in confirming, ordaining,"[59] &c. He then enters on the question of the Prayers; but as this point has been so fully discussed already, it need not be enlarged upon further. The Bishops, who complied at the Revolution and had been continued in their sees, are set aside on the ground of being partakers of the guilt of the intruders, by making themselves one body with them.
It is, however, important to see how Hickes justifies the Nonjurors against the arguments of Dodwell and Nelson, relative to the new consecrations. It was argued, that the new consecrations were void, because there was no notification, or that their claims were waived. Hickes pleads in answer the state of the times, and asks whether the want of notification is a waiving of claims, when such an act would involve the ruin of the party; and whether the notification to their Presbyters and laity, as there is occasion, is not sufficient. He argues, too, that consecrations performed by one Bishop, when more cannot be obtained, are valid. The want of public registers had also been alleged; but this objection is met, by a reference to the state of things from 1640 to 1660, during which period many were ordained by the deposed Bishops, and also to the Church of Scotland at that time. Bp. Ken's non-concurrence in the new consecrations was also pleaded against their validity: but Hickes answers, that a synod is composed of the majority of the Bishops of the province, and that the minority, however large, are concluded by their decision. His assertion that Ken had consented by letter to Turner has been previously noticed. He contends, that the rights of the deprived Bishops could not devolve on those, who were in possession of the sees, and whom he calls intruders. He strongly urges, that the allowing of lay-deprivations and resistance is a heresy, which he charges upon what he terms the revolution Church. The publisher, however, in the preface, says, "wherever in this book he shall find schismatical ordinations called null and invalid, he is not to suppose that the author meant null and invalid in themselves, so as to require a new ordination, but null and invalid as to any spiritual purposes, so that the person thus schismatically ordained cannot by virtue of those orders do any sacerdotal act, till he returns to the Church, and has his orders confirmed: and whatever ministrations he performs during his schism are of no use or profit to the persons who receive them, till they also come over to the Church." The publisher states: "Whenever he performed that part of his episcopal office of receiving a penitent schismatical Clergyman into our communion, he never required that he should be reordained, but only that his orders should be confirmed. And this continues to be the practice of our Church since it pleased God to take him out of this troublesome world, and remove him into a better." The publisher, therefore, was a Nonjuror.
Another considerable work appeared about the same time, in opposition to the Nonjurors, from the pen of Nathaniel Marshall; so that, if they, as Hoadley intimates, were particularly active, their opponents were no less vigilant in labouring to counteract their efforts."[60]
Both Hoadley and Marshall refer to what they term an attack on the Church of England, on the part of the Nonjurors. They evidently allude to the charge of heresy and schism, which was alleged against the Anglican Church in Hickes's "Constitution of the Catholic Church:" and Hoadley and Marshall, though in different ways, undertook to repel the charge. Hickes's papers, however, contain no charge that had not been adduced before; yet some of the Clergy acted, as though it were then brought forward for the first time. To Hickes's work, therefore, are to be attributed Hoadley's Preservative and Marshall's Defence, two of the most celebrated productions of this period against the Nonjurors.[61]
Marshall enters into a defence of the deprivations subsequent to the Revolution, as Hoadley had done just before, though his method of handling the subject is different from the Bishop's. In many respects Marshall's is a valuable work: and may be regarded as the best defence against the charges alleged by the Nonjurors. The author was a man of erudition and piety: and he will be ever held in estimation in the Church for two most able and learned works, the Translation of Cyprian's Works, and The Penitential Discipline of the Primitive Church. His Defence is written with much moderation. It appears too, that he had lived on terms of intimacy with Hickes down to the period of his death. He alludes to the fact, that when the Depriving Act passed, none of the Bishops, who were subsequently subjected to its operation, were present in Parliament to enter their protest against the proceedings: and because none of the complying Prelates opposed the Bill, he infers their consent to the deprivations of their brethren.[62] This mode of reasoning, however, is disingenuous. At that time the Bishops, who scrupled the Oath, considered it to be their duty to suffer in silence: nor can they be charged with inconsistency in so doing: while the Prelates, who were present, could not, by any act of theirs, give an ecclesiastical sanction to a proceeding against their brethren. Hickes had stated, in his Constitution of the Catholic Church, that the deprived Bishops had left behind them certain persons to succeed them, not as diocesan, but as Catholic successors: and Marshall contends that such a procedure was unsanctioned by the practice of the early Church.[63] Alluding to the charge of Immoral Prayers, the author remarks, that the deprived Bishops did not, by any authentic act, claim the obedience of their ecclesiastical subjects for several years after their deprivation: and that the Nonjurors communicated, long after the filling up of the vacant sees, with those whom they now deemed schismatics. He admits, however, that they did not use the prayers, against which the charge was preferred. Hickes himself, he states, had communicated with members of the National Church, who were now charged with schism.[64] He mentions also that one of the consecrators of Hickes, as late as 1697, administered the Lord's Supper to a lady, supposed to be upon her deathbed, a member of the Church of England, who asked the Bishop respecting her safety in that Church. His reply was "For that, child, my soul be with yours." Marshall's object is to prove an inconsistency between their former practice, and the charge of schism, which was now generally alleged by the Nonjurors against the National Church.[65]
Marshall seems to intimate, that Sancroft acted inconsistently in appointing a commission to act in his name before his suspension; but a most ample defence may be set up for the Archbishop. This was indeed well done by Barbery, who thus meets the case: "I cannot see that the Archbishop acted inconsistently in this commission, his seeming to acquiesce in the Prince of Orange's making use of the regale was justifiable, provided he looked upon him as an usurper: because it did not imply an acknowledgment of the Prince of Orange's title, but only a tacit concordate made to let him enjoy the privilege of nominating to sees, provided he offered no injury to the rights of the Church: 'tis no necessary consequence that the Church should be overturned with the state. Archbishop Sancroft, if prayers had not been forced into Churches, which he could not comply with, and if no state deprivations had followed, in all probability would have acquiesced with having even Dr. Burnet imposed upon the Church, if it would have prevented the schism."[66] It is clear, as has been remarked repeatedly in the course of our narrative, that if the Oath had not been enforced, no separation would have taken place. Barbery also meets the remark, that the Bishops never entered any claim of right. He asks whether, if they had done so, Marshall would have conceded any thing in their favour: and then he urges their conduct as sufficient evidence of their claims.
One point is stated by Marshall with much effect, namely, that the deprived Bishops could not act in other dioceses, whatever may have been the case in their own. Had they not been deprived, they could not have exercised jurisdiction in other dioceses: much less could they do so after deprivation. "At least," he says, "their first trial should have been with their own Clergy and people, before they had made any efforts elsewhere. They should have begun at home, before they had attempted anything abroad. And because antiquity is so much and so often appealed to in this debate; I do likewise lodge my appeal with antiquity upon this head of argument; and do challenge any man to produce an instance thence, which shall be favourable to the practice of our Nonjurors. There is not, I will be bold to affirm, any one example of an ancient Bishop, invalidly, or incompetently deprived, and insisting upon his personal rights; who ever pretended to translate those rights from his local district, and to claim the exercise of them in any other. No! The course was then, for such a Bishop, to retain as many of his own flock as he could in his interest, and to secure the continuance of his colleagues in it: but never to stroll about and gather a church out of another diocese, in opposition to its proper Bishop." Marshall then remarks, that the chief efforts of the Nonjurors were confined to London, a diocese which had not become vacant by deprivation.[67] It appears, however, that the Nonjurors acted on the grant of Sancroft to Lloyd, to exercise Archiepiscopal powers. On this ground alone could they pretend to a jurisdiction in other dioceses, except those which became vacant by deprivation.
Barbery, alluding to Marshall's statement respecting Sancroft, says: "The Archbishop was so far from being an admirer of the Church, that he never came into it alive or dead, but lies now exposed to storms and tempests, as he was in his life." He mentions the remark of Sancroft respecting Absolution, as a proof that Marshall is not correct, in stating that no public separation occurred until 1694. Earbery has the following severe observations on Kennet and Marshall, at the close of his work. "Dr. Kennet set out young in the world with full resolutions to make his fortune in King James's reign: and he accordingly courted popery, and was just upon the point of complimenting his religion away to please that monarch, till he received advice of the Prince of Orange's preparations. Dr. Kennet at that time was convinced in his conscience, that King James's cause grew more wicked every day, and was arrived to an enormous height of impiety after the battle of La Hogue. Mr. Marshall has entertained the same sentiments of Jacobitism since the surrender of Preston; he could find no damnable schism, nor horrid separation before."
All these works were called forth by Hickes's Constitution of the Catholic Church. Lawrence Howell had also published a work in 1715, in which the same charge of heresy, schism and treason, was alleged. It was, therefore, to be expected, that those who considered the Revolution lawful would defend themselves. Besides the works already mentioned, there was one, in which the case of the compilers appears to be very moderately stated, intitled "The Sin of Schism most unjustly charged by the Nonjurors upon the present established Church of England, and the Charge made good against themselves. In a Letter to a Nonjuring Clergyman." The writer admits "the ministerial function of the Bishops and Clergy is of Divine institution: but the limitation of the exercise of this function, within this or that diocese, parish, or district, is altogether of human appointment. When the Nonjuring Bishops and Clergy were, by act of Parliament, deprived of their respective preferments, nothing was pretended to be taken away that was of divine institution."
We must now proceed to those internal disputes, by which the body was agitated, and which issued in a separation among themselves, a separation into two distinct communions. Loudly as they had protested against alterations in the Book of Common Prayer, some of them were now ready to introduce them. The controversy did not spring up till after the death of Hickes: but similar views, with those entertained by the advocates for alterations, had been advanced in his Christian Priesthood, which may have had some influence in the disputes. It is remarkable, that the men, who deprecated any changes in 1689, should have been the first to alter the Communion Service. They actually split upon the very rock, that of alterations, which by the good Providence of God, the Church had avoided—and avoided too by the opposition of the very men, who now advocated the change. Any material alterations at the Revolution might have endangered the Church: and the changes made by some of the Nonjurors weakened them so much, as a party, that they never assumed so compact a form after this period. The divisions, indeed, which now sprang up, may be assigned as the remote cause of their extinction.
The Communion Office, in the First Book of King Edward, A.D. 1549, differed, as is well known, from that of The Second, and of all our succeeding Books, in several particulars. Certain practices and several petitions were laid aside, when the book was revised in 1552. In the year 1717, when this dispute commenced, a reprint of the First Communion Book was published by the Nonjurors, who wished to adopt the usages, which were rejected when the book was reviewed.
Collier took the lead in this controversy. Hickes had expressed his preference of the First Communion Book, but during his life no formal proposal was made by Collier to publish a New Book. In the year 1717, appeared the "Reasons for Restoring Some Prayers, &c."[68] The work was published by Morphew, who was the printer of The Communion Office: from which circumstance, we may infer the probability, that Collier, or one of the Nonjurors, was the originator of the latter.
This Tract was written in a candid and moderate tone. The Author enters very abruptly upon his work: for the very first sentence in the Tract is the following: "The Rubric orders the putting a little pure water to the wine in the Chalice." He then proceeds to adduce evidence in proof of the antiquity of the practice. Justin Martyr, Irenæus, Clemens Alexandrinus, St. Cyprian, are quoted as authorities for the practice in early times, besides the Apostolical constitutions. The Council of Carthage, A.D. 397, the Council in Trullo, and the Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom are also cited.[69]
The next point is the introduction of the words "Militant here on Earth," after the words "Let us Pray for the Whole State of Christ's Church." The previous words, he says, "seem inserted to exclude Prayer for the Dead." In the first book there was a petition for the dead: and he contends, that such a recommendation of the departed to the mercy of God, "is nothing of the remains of Popery, but a constant usage of the Primitive Church." Tertullian, Cyprian, Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, St. Epiphanius, St. Chrysostom, St. Augustin, and the Apostolical Constitutions, with certain Ancient Liturgies, are quoted in support of this statement, besides certain individuals, who actually prayed for deceased friends. Collier argues, that the Church of England, though she condemns the Romish doctrine of Purgatory, has not condemned Prayers for the Dead: and he says: "Where the Church of England has left her meaning doubtful, the greatest honour we can do her, is to interpret her to a conformity to primitive practice."[70] Respecting the custom itself, he says: "This custom, which began in the Apostolical age, and was continued through the whole Church till the Sixteenth Century: this custom, we conceive, is very serviceable to the ends of religion: it supposes our friends but removed to a distant country, and existing in a different condition: and that they only die in one place to live in another. It refreshes the belief of the Soul's immortality, draws back the curtain of the grave, and opens a communication between this world and the other."[71]
The third passage, which he wished to be restored, was the prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost on the sacramental elements. In the First Liturgy was this petition: "Hear us (O Merciful Father) we beseech Thee, and with Thy Holy Spirit and Word vouchsafe to bless and sanctify these thy gifts and creatures of bread and wine, that they may be unto us the body and blood of Thy most dearly beloved Son, Jesus Christ."[72] He then adduces testimonies from antiquity in favour of the petition. He admits that the force of the invocation may be contained in our present office: but he thinks that express terms are desirable.
A fourth thing is specified, namely, the Restoration of the Oblatory Prayer, which in the First Liturgy came after the Consecration Prayer. In that prayer are the following words: "We thy humble servants do celebrate and make here before thy Divine Majesty, with these thy holy gifts, the memorial which thy Son hath willed us to make." Collier's view of this prayer is thus stated: "The Oblatory Prayer goes upon this ground, that the Holy Eucharist is a proper sacrifice: and that Our Blessed Saviour, at His last supper, offered the bread and wine to God the Father, as the symbols of his body and blood, and commanded His apostles to do the same."[73] As before, several testimonies from antiquity are produced, besides the authority of Hickes in his Christian Priesthood, and Johnson in his Unbloody Sacrifice. He closes with an allusion to Bucer Calvin, and Peter Martyr, to whom our reformers are supposed to have yielded, in rejecting these four practices. "From hence we infer," says he, "that the explanations, as they are called, in the Second Book, were not made without compliance with the weakness of some people; not without condescension to those who had more scruples than understanding, more heat than light in them."[74]
In a very short time, an Answer was published by a Nonjuror.[75] Collier had written with moderation, and the reply evinces a similar spirit. The writer is anxious to prevent divisions among themselves: and he is apprehensive of danger from the proposed changes. He takes up the four points, in the order, in which they are ranged by Collier.
With respect to the mixture, he contends that it cannot be shewn to be necessary from Scripture, and that the first mention of it occurs not, until one hundred and fifty years after our Lord, by Justin Martyr. As Justin Martyr mentions the salutation by a kiss, which was known to be an Apostolic custom, he argues, that it might be revived with more reason than the mixture, which does not appear to have been known to the Apostles. The author intimates, that Cyprian and others might have been mistaken in the Tradition, alleging the well known case respecting Easter, in which both parties pleaded Apostolical Tradition.[76] All the authorities cited by Collier are examined: and the writer infers from the whole, that the custom cannot be proved to be of perpetual obligation.
In the next place, the authorities quoted in favour of Prayer for the Dead are examined with great minuteness; but he thinks, that they do not prove the necessity of a change. Alluding to the quotation from Tertullian, he remarks, "that this Father expressly declares, that there is no Scripture authority for the practice." "So that," says he, "all is resolved into bare tradition, without which there was nothing to be said in their behalf. And yet I could never find that our Saviour has any where referred to tradition, as a sure ground to go upon in imposing necessary duties, that he has said nothing of. I own it is of great use, when it is truly primitive, for establishing and explaining such duties as are not so fully taught in Scripture, but that disputes may arise about them. But that tradition alone, when not evidently Apostolical, will make that necessary, which is not otherwise so, is what I am yet to learn."[77] In replying to Collier's remark respecting the advantage of the practice, he says: "Had our Saviour and his Apostles thought so, it is not conceivable, that they would have given no manner of direction about these sort of prayers. We are taught to pray for one another, and to desire each other's prayers here: and what reason can be conceived, why we should not have been likewise some way directed to pray for the saints departed in general, or so much as for our deceased friends and relations, if our prayers might be truly profitable to them?"[78]
The Prayer for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Sacramental Elements is considered as unnecessary, on the ground, that it is not enjoined in Scripture, nor can be proved to be of Apostolic origin, Collier not having traced it higher than the middle of the third century. Both the author, and Collier, however, concur in opinion, that the force of the invocation is retained by implication in our present service.
With respect to the Oblatory Prayer, the author concurs in opinion with Hickes, Johnson, and Mede, that the Eucharist is the Christian Sacrifice: but he does not consider, that, on this account, there was any necessity for restoring the prayer. "Alterations in matters of a public nature, are not to be made upon every appearance of making them to advantage, lest such unforeseen ill consequences follow upon them, as are more than are equivalent to any benefit that can arise from them."[79] He thinks too, with Johnson, that the prayer is virtually contained in the Prayer of Consecration, and the words of institution. " The sum of all this is, that changes are not to be easily made in a Church already settled, and especially in matters that have been of a long continuance: that there is no sufficient reason for the changes here desired, the two former having no foundation in Scripture, or even truly Apostolical tradition, and the others being virtually in our service as it stands without them."[80]
Leslie also appeared, in the controversy, against Collier, in a short tract of seven pages.[81] His object was to prevent a division. "I see no ground," he says, "for a breach upon that account, the utmost they can amount to is probable opinions." Referring Collier to Usher, Leslie remarks, "That nothing is to be received as faith or Christian doctrine, but what is written in the holy Scriptures, which are so perfect a rule, that nothing is to be added to them, which if any do, let him fear that woe denounced against such." He adds, afterwards: "In short, we must first find our rule of faith, before we apply any thing to it or it to any thing; if it be Scripture, we know where we are, but if it be tradition, we launch into an ocean which has neither shore nor bottom, nor we any compass to steer by, where we must be driven about with every wind of doctrine."[82]
From this pamphlet it appears, that some of the Nonjurors went over at this time to the Church of Rome, though this was not the case with any of the leaders. "I am grieved that so many of the handful shew inclinations to popery: I am told that about a dozen are gone off lately, and others send their children to be educated in popish, and even in Jesuit seminaries. Let me know, if this of the reasons for restoring some Prayers is all the dispute, which now makes new divisions amongst us, even as I am told, to the abstaining from each other's communion."[83]
Collier, Brett, and Campbell the Scottish Bishop, were the chief of that section, by whom the restoration of the prayers and directions was advocated: while Spinkes, Gandy, Taylor, and Bedford strenuously contended for a strict adherence to the Liturgy, as now used in the Church of England.
At the commencement of the year 1718, Collier published an answer to the Reply to his former Pamphlet, in which he meets the objections alleged by his opponent against the restoration of the prayers.[84] Collier asks, whether Justin Martyr is not early enough, the author of "No Reason, &c." having objected on the ground, that he was too late as an evidence in such a matter. It would occupy too much space to go over Collier's reasoning. It may, therefore, be sufficient to observe, that he enters at great length into all the arguments advanced by his opponent, with a view to the establishment of his former positions. He closes in these words: "The best service we can do the Church of England, is to recover the main of her first Reformation: to retrieve what she has suffered by interested views, by foreign direction, and Calvinistical alloy. Thus I humbly conceive she will be remarkably Decus et tutamen, and have new strength and lustre upon her. Thus she will better endure the test of antiquity, be more covered from assault, and stand impregnable."[85]
The author of "No Reason for restoring," &c. very soon published another Pamphlet in reply to Collier, in titled "No Sufficient Reason for Restoring some Prayers and Directions of King Edward VI.'s First Liturgy." Collier immediately replied, for his answer was published in the same year.[86] This is a work of considerable size; and every page affords evidence of the learning and talents of the author. "The Vindication" was replied to by the author of "No Reason," &c. and "No Sufficient Reason:" &c. After which Collier published in the year 1720, "A Farther Defence &c. being an Answer to a Reply to the Vindication of the Reasons and Defence for Restoring," &c.
Collier preferred the First Communion Book, while his opponent was strenuous for adhering to our present Form. The latter considered the practices as immaterial: and consequently, that no sufficient reason could be pleaded for their restoration. It will be seen, that the controversy continued several years: and that the parties became embittered towards each other as it proceeded.[87]
During the progress of this controversy, between the two sections of the Nonjurors, the New Communion Office was actually published.[88]
In the Prayer for the King no name is used, but only a petition for the Sovereign: and of course the four points contended for by Collier and Brett are incorporated into the Office.
Brett took an important part, with Collier, in the controversy. In the year 1718 he published his work on Tradition, in which he assails the positions advanced by the Author of "No Sufficient Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of King Edward the VIth's. First Liturgy."[89] Unquestionably this is a most valuable work: and though I do not assent to all the Author's positions, yet I must confess, that the use of tradition is most clearly pointed out. The Postscript is occupied with the statements advanced in "No Sufficient Reason," &c.
Two other important works were published by Brett, about the same time, on subjects, which were matter of controversy between the Nonjurors, and some of the clergy of the National Church. Into the arguments I cannot, however, enter in this work: but must content myself with subjoining the titles.[90]
A short time before, Brett was compelled to come forward publicly to defend himself from the charge of Popery, which was alleged against him by some persons, who could not confute his arguments. I have previously noticed the constant charge of Popery against the Nonjurors—a charge of the most unfounded description. It was then the custom with certain persons, as is the case in our day, to cry out Popery against principles and arguments, which they could not refute. In this respect, there is a great similarity between those times and the present. Even now, whenever a man stands up for the principles of the Church, in matters of discipline and government, the cry of Popery is immediately raised by Dissenters, who never refuse to act with Papists, and by loose Churchmen, who never refuse to unite with Dissenters the allies of Popery, and who see no evil in Dissent. Brett considered it necessary to publish a Defence of himself.[91] Newspapers were then, as at present, the ordinary vehicles for the publication of calumny. In the work in question, Brett enumerates the peculiarities of Popery, and then enters into a most masterly confutation of them. He then specifies the particulars alleged against him as Popish, which were these: "The Independency of the Church, of the State, as to pure spiritual powers. The Divine Right of Episcopacy. The Oblation in the Eucharist. The Necessity of Sacerdotal Absolution. The Unction of the Sick. And the Middle State of separate Souls." These various opinions are explained and defended from the charge of Popery. Now, whatever we may think of the views of Brett, on these subjects, we have no right to call them Popish, because we do not receive them. Whether erroneous or not, they are not Popish.
Several works appeared on both sides, besides those already enumerated. Among others I wish to specify one in particular, because it contains an account of the discussions, which led to the separation into two distinct communions. This work was intitled briefly "Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed," and Collier is charged, as the title implies, with having deserted the Church of England.[92] The author commences by lamenting the divisions in their little flock, and asks what is to be thought of the Bishops, Clergy, and convocations of the Church, who served God by the Established Liturgy; and in the constant reception of the Holy Sacrament according to her Communion Office, even to their last breath, and dying devotions: never imagining, that not praying for the dead, and not mixing water with the eucharistical wine were just causes for breaking the unity of the Church? Collier undoubtedly acted injudiciously in pressing the points: since, whether primitive or otherwise, they had been rejected by the Church, and could not be revived without a reflection on her Bishops and Clergy since the Reformation: but it is evident, that all the violence was not on his side. He was indiscreet, but he did not favour the Church of Rome. The author of Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed, himself a Nonjuror, positively charges Collier with popery—with setting up as the head of a new schism, "and so by unsuspected ways" leading "his sequacious disciples, by degrees, at last into the communion of the Church of Rome. At least it seems to me, that he has his conscience so disposed, as perhaps his Library may be: at that end Papists, and at that end Protestants, and he comes in the middle, as near one as the other."[93] Such a passage as this was unwarranted by the circumstances.
Apart, however, from these blemishes, the work is one of great interest, as containing the particulars of the disputes and the subsequent separation. Brett also has given his account: so that, in these two works, we have the particulars stated by two leading persons of the two divisions or sections of the party. The author of Collier's Desertion Discussed enters largely into the questions of the mixture and Prayers for the Dead: and, after enlarging on these topics, he remarks, that Collier and his friends had separated from a Church "reformed by full and sufficient authority, upon most mature and serious deliberation, with a perfect submission to the rule of the Holy Scripture, and with a proper deference and regard to the first and purest ages." Then he adds: "and now ye gentlemen of the concision, consider, I pray, what ground there can be to justify your separation from such a Church."[94]
In the Appendix the Author gives an historical Sketch of the division. On the 23rd of July 1717, some mention was made in conversation of King Edward the VIth's First Liturgy, with certain proposals for its revival. After several conversations, the advocates for its revival wished a time and place to be fixed, for the consideration of the subject. At the first interview few persons were present; but a chairman was appointed, who was to summon the parties to future meetings. Nothing, the author says, was settled at this meeting, except the appointment of another, though some individuals stated, that the points were determined. The second meeting took place on the 27th of July. A Petition in favour of the alterations was produced and read: but the opponents of change did not expect, that any such step would have been adopted, or many more signatures would have been procured to an opposite Paper. A large majority, however, decided against any alterations: after which it was moved, that each one should be left at his own option. For some time all things proceeded as usual: but at length, it was whispered abroad, that every one was left to his own liberty in the matter: "whereas," says the author, "in fact every one knew, the only vote which passed was, No alterations. This candid report thickened about midsummer 1717." At length the Advocates for the changes sent two proposals to the other party; and on their refusal to depart from the decision of the last meeting, the parties, who wished for the restoration of the Prayers and Directions, met and agreed, in a declaration on the 19th of December 1717, that it was necessary to restore them as primitive usages. On the 20th of December, two of them gave orders for an alteration in the service. A new office was then composed: communion with those who adhered to the Book of Common Prayer was prohibited: and the New Service was actually used at Easter in the year 1718.
The same divisions existed also in Scotland, as will be shewn in a distinct chapter; but it may be mentioned in this place, that the dispute was referred to the Scottish Bishops for their opinion on the matter. Skinner, however, says that the source even of the Scottish divisions "was in England, whence it reached Scotland." Mr. Peck went to Scotland in 1718, on behalf of Collier and his friends, or the Usagers, as they were designated, requesting Bishops Rose and Falconer to procure a synodical determination. This was prudently declined by the Scotch Bishops, who recommended peace. Spinkes too, on his part, wrote to the same Bishops, who replied in the same way to his application. They however employed Dr. Rattray to draw up proposals for an accommodation, which did not give satisfaction. Campbell and Gadderer, the two Scottish Bishops resident in London, espoused the views of Collier in this question. Of the Bishops in Scotland some were opposed and some were neutral.[95]
It appears, that the new office was at first sanctioned only by eight English and six Scotch clergymen. Of these, says the writer, "one made no long delay to declare for the Church of England: another, like the scape goat, was sent packing into the wilderness of Popery: and a third, if of any communion, has wandered into the same broad way. These were some of their first fruits and early triumphs."[96]
Brett, who went with Collier, admits that the majority were against any alterations, alleging that they had no authority to recede from the public Liturgy. He does not vary from the preceding account: but he adds, "Finding that their brethren would by no means join with them to make these alterations, they saw a separation was unavoidable:" Brett argues, that the communion could not be received unmaimed according to the Liturgy of the Church of England: and Collier proposed, in his Vindication of The Reasons, the restoration of the four points, with a view to prevent a separation. "However," says Brett, "our brethren thought it not proper to comply with these proposals, whereby the schism became unavoidable." Brett admits that The Nonjurors were now reduced to a very inconsiderable number, but he hopes that the Clergy of the Church of England will feel themselves concerned in the matter.[97]
Having concluded that separation was unavoidable, Brett tells us, that they composed the new Communion Office after the First Liturgy of King Edward. He also enters into particulars, stating the reasons for departing in some things from Edward's First Book, and for preferring the older Liturgies.[98] The arguments, in favour of all the disputed points, are most elaborately stated: and the work itself was originally intended as a defence of the points at issue between the two parties. All the Liturgies, which are reprinted in the volume, contain the Prayers and Directions; so that, it was thought, that no more effectual method could be adopted, than the republication of these ancient offices. Accordingly Brett states, that they sometimes depart even from King Edward's First Book, to follow the more ancient Liturgies.
Several Clergymen of the Anglican Church would have preferred the restoration of the usages, as they were termed; but they did not consider them essential, as was the case with Collier and Brett. Thus Johnson, in his valuable work "The Unbloody Sacrifice," decidedly expresses his preference for these practices; but as he did not consider them essential, he was ready to comply with the authorized office.
It is very remarkable also, that Whiston, who on many important points entertained dangerous opinions, should in this matter have altogether agreed with Collier and Brett. He is quite as much in favour of the usages as themselves: and defends them as strongly. Accordingly, in his Revised Liturgy, they are all introduced. All the peculiarities of the New Communion Service were retained by Whiston, who argued, as the Nonjurors did, that they were primitive practices, and that the Church could not dispense with them.[99]
Deacon, who will be more specifically mentioned in a subsequent chapter, also appeared in this controversy.[100] His chief object was to prove, that there was no necessary connexion between the Romish Doctrine of Purgatory, and Praying for the Dead. The work may be regarded as another evidence, that the Nonjurors had no leaning towards Rome, though the charge was so ignorantly adduced. Thus he says, that the design of his work was "to demonstrate the unlawfulness of being a member of the Church of Rome, and to overthrow her pretended infallibility, by proving her erroneous in no less a point than an article of faith." This is from the Dedication to Brett. He proceeds: "As you are a true Catholick yourself, so I cannot in the least doubt your approbation of my endeavours to establish the Ancient Christian Doctrine, concerning the state of the dead, to shew the falsity of the Roman Purgatory, and thereby to strip the Papal sect of the glorious title of Catholick, which without any right she assumes to herself." Deacon also enters upon the other points, which were comprehended under the general designation Usages. The work is managed with considerable ability: and whoever reads it will see that Deacon was not a Papist, as his enemies asserted. It is indeed distinguished by so much good sense, that I venture to quote a few passages. The following remarks, from the preface, appear to me to be deserving of attention in the present day. "I have often observed with concern the usage, which Protestants and Romanists have given each other in controversies; sometimes they accuse each other of practices, which cannot be charged upon the body: or if they could, yet would signify nothing to the matter of communion. Sometimes they argue against the opinion of private men, as if they were the tenets of the sect they were opposing: and sometimes they deny the doctrine of their own church, and misrepresent that of their adversaries. This management has been practised on both sides."
Deacon's book was a reply to a Romish paper on the subject of Purgatory. He contends for Prayer for the Dead, but argues against Purgatory. The following extract, perhaps, shews the views of the Nonjurors on this subject. "You see then that we agree in practising Prayer for the Dead: but you must not think that therefore I own the lawfulness of your way of praying for the dead: for I utterly condemn it, because it is founded upon the doctrine of Purgatory. So that though we both practise the same thing, yet we differ entirely in the end and design for which we practise it. You pray for those souls whom you believe to be in torment, that their sufferings may diminish, and at length cease. I pray for those, whom I believe to be in a state of bliss, that their condition may be improved, that they may have a happy resurrection, and a good and merciful trial at the day of judgment. Let the Primitive Church judge in this difference between us."[101]
He closes his book with a definition of a Catholic. "My definition is this: 'a particular Catholic Church is a rightful Bishop, with his Clergy and the laity united to them, professing the true Christian faith, without the addition of false doctrine: and practising the necessary Christian worship without corruption.' This is a definition which I suppose you yourself cannot deny is adequate and just: and by that do I offer to try the cause betwixt your Church and that of which I am a member. Do you shew that any part of your Church answers to this definition, or that ours does not, and I will be your convert. But, Sir, I know this is impossible for you to do: for your Church has added many false doctrines to the true Christian worship. She has departed from the Primitive Church, and deviated from Catholic Tradition, and therefore it is dangerous for any one to be in her communion."[102] The reader will perceive, that whatever opinions the Nonjurors may have held, they were not Romanists.[103]
Some of the opinions, respecting which the Nonjurors divided into two communions, had been put forth by Hickes and others, without causing any division, at an earlier period. But as long as Hickes survived, no attempt was made to make any of these opinions terms of communion. There is another important work, to which I must direct the reader's attention, the first edition of which was published before the discussions, which issued in the separation of Collier and his adherents, from Spinkes and those, who concurred with him on this particular question. This work was published in 1713.[104] The preface contains a summary of Hickes's views on the subject: and in the work, the whole matter is elaborately discussed. Though anonymous, the book was known to be the production of the Honourable Archibald Campbell, one of the Scottish Bishops. After the subject had been long discussed and the Nonjurors were divided into two communions, Campbell published another edition, greatly enlarged, from an octavo to a folio, with his name on the title page. This was published in 1721: and certain other treatises were appended, on the same and kindred subjects. The title itself is exceedingly curious. "The Doctrine of a Middle State between Death and the Resurrection: of Prayers for the Dead: and the Necessity of Purification: plainly proved from the Holy Scriptures: and the Writings of the Fathers of the Primitive Church: and acknowledged by several learned Fathers and great Divines of the Church of England, and others, since the Reformation. To which is added, an Appendix concerning the Descent of the Soul of Christ into Hell, while his Body lay in the Grave. Together with the judgment of the Reverend Dr. Hickes concerning this Book, so far as relates to a Middle State, Particular Judgment, and Prayers for the Dead, as it appeared in the First Edition. And a Manuscript of the Right Reverend Bishop Overal, upon the subject of a Middle State, &. never before printed. Also a Preservative against several of the Errors of the Roman Church, in six small Treatises. By the Honourable Archibald Campbell. London, fol. 1721."
The author argues in defence of the following propositions, which were generally received by this section of the Nonjurors.
"That there is an intermediate or middle state for departed souls to abide in, between death and the resurrection, far different from what they are afterward to be in, when our blessed Lord Jesus Christ shall appear at his second coming.
"That there is no immediate judgment after death.
"That to pray and offer for, and to commemorate, our deceased brethren, is not only lawful and useful, but also our bounden duty.
"That the intermediate state between death and the resurrection is a state of purification in its lower, as well as of fixed joy and enjoyment, in its higher mansions.
"And that the full perfection of purity and holiness is not so to be attained in any mansion of Hades, higher or lower, as that any soul of mere man can be admitted to enter into the beatific vision, in the highest heavens, before the resurrection, and the trial by fire, which it must then go through."
After quoting largely from the Fathers, Campbell cites many passages from English divines since the Reformation. He remarks of Smallridge: "These are the sentiments of a Bishop of England, who was a thorough Revolutioner, a juror, and who did swear to all who have possessed the throne of England, ever since the Revolution in 1688. And therefore it appears that non jurors are not singular in maintaining these notions."[105]
It is a most singular circumstance, that in a Form of Prayer for the 30th of January, published by royal authority in 1661, there is a prayer for the dead. The Form had only the authority of the crown, and the particular prayer was omitted in the authorized Service in 1662; but still it is remarkable, that it should have been introduced. The prayer is as follows, as quoted by Campbell:
"And we beseech thee to give us all grace to remember and provide for our latter end, by a careful, studious imitation of this thy blessed saint and martyr, and all other thy saints and martyrs that have gone before us, that we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they in communion with thy Church Catholic offer up unto thee for that part of it here militant, and yet in fight with and danger from the flesh: that following the blessed steps of their holy lives and deaths, we may also shew forth the light of a good example: for the glory of thy name, the conversion of our enemies, and the improvement of those generations we shall shortly leave behind us, and with all those that have borne the heat and burden of the day, (thy servant particularly whose sufferings and labours we this day commemorate) receive the reward of our labours, the harvest of our hopes, even the salvation of our souls: and that for the merits, and through the mediation of thy Son, our blessed Saviour Jesus Christ."
Campbell quotes a letter from Grabe to Wagstaffe, in which is the following request: "I pray you likewise to pray, whenever you please, and offer the most holy sacrifice to God, for the soul of one young man of my relation, in Prussia, lately departed this life: whose name was Frederick: and was pious and solicitous to save himself in this confused state of the Church. He was once much inclined to go to the Roman Church, but could not satisfy his conscience about some of their abuses and errors, and therefore stayed back. God have mercy on him, and bless his soul in peace."[106]
He also mentions, that Hickes gave him a prayer, not long before his death, which he wished to be offered for him after his departure. It contains the following petitions:
"Do thou, O Lord, now look upon this thy servant, whom thou hast chosen, and taken from this into the other state.
"O thou lover of men, forgive him all his offences, which he hath committed willingly or unwillingly against thee, and send thy benevolent holy angels to him, to conduct him into the bosom of the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, &c."[107]
Among the works of this period, from the pens of Nonjurors, to whom the theology and the literature of the eighteenth century were so deeply indebted, may be noticed Sclater's Answer to King. As early as 1691, King, who subsequently became Lord Chancellor, published the first part of "An Inquiry into the Constitution, Discipline, &c. of the Primitive Church." In this work, the author labours to prove, that no settled form of Church government could be gathered from Holy Scripture and primitive practice—a sentiment quite compatible with the latitudinarian notions of the day. A second part was subsequently published: and editions of the complete work were extensively circulated. As no answer appeared after several years, the enemies of the Church pretended, that King's Inquiry was unanswerable. Undoubtedly many of the Clergy, influenced by the Erastian notions of the day, were indifferent on the subject. Sclater at length stepped forward, and it is said that King was not only convinced by his arguments, but that he made him the offer of a living in the Church of England. Sclater was a Nonjuring Clergyman: consequently he could not accept of preferment in the Anglican Church, which involved the taking the Oath of Allegiance. All the arguments in King's book were considered by Sclater with the greatest candour and ability. The author was a man of singular modesty, of unaffected piety, and of uncommon learning, of which this work affords the most abundant evidence.[108]
- ↑ Hawkins, 44, 45. The additional Letters of Ken, which have been collected by Mr. Round, are of the same character as those which had been previously published, and prove, that the Bishop was averse to continuing the separation after the death of Lloyd.
- ↑ Hawkins, 26, 27.
- ↑ The Royal Sufferer. A Manual of Meditations and Devotions. By T. K. D.D. 8vo. 1699, and 12mo. 1701. See the latter edition, pp. 64. 66. 70.
- ↑ Wagstaffe was the able vindicator of King Charles the First's claim to the authorship of the Ικων Βασιλικη, the controversy respecting which has frequently been revived but never settled. A list of his publications is given in the Biog. Brit. Supp. 220: and in Nichols's Lit. Anec. i. 35, 36.
- ↑ Nichols, i. 36
- ↑ Nichols, i. 36.
- ↑ "View of The English Constitution, with respect to the Sovereign Authority of the Prince, and the Allegiance of the Subject. In vindication of the lawfulness of taking the Oaths, to Her Majesty, by Law required." 8vo. London 1709.
- ↑ A Letter to the Reverend Mr. William Higden, on account of his View of the English Constitution, &c. By a Natural Born Subject. 8vo. 1709.
- ↑ A Letter to the Reverend Mr. William Higden, &c. pp. 1, 2.
- ↑ Ibid. 22.
- ↑ The Hereditary Right of the Crown of England asserted: The History of the Succession since the Conquest cleared: and the true English Constitution Vindicated from the Misrepresentations of Dr. Higden's View and Defence, &c. By a Gentleman. London, fol. 1713. Several persons were supposed to have been concerned in this work: but there was no foundation whatever for Rennet's insinuation, that Nelson was, in any way, implicated. Nichols, i. 400.
- ↑ State Trials, vol. ii. 682.
- ↑ Nichols's Lit. Anec. i. 167, 168. Harbin's production shews that his judgment was not weak. Because he differed from himself, Mr. West pronounced him weak and bigoted.
- ↑ Calamy's Life, ii. 268, 269.
- ↑ Wisdom of Looking Backward, 351, 352.
- ↑ Memoirs of Queen Anne, &c. 8vo. London, 1729. p. 253. Boyer intimates that it was countenanced by Secretary Bromley: but that the ministry thought it incumbent to notice the work on account of some manuscripts, which must have been obtained from the Lord Treasurer's Library. This writer also insinuates, that the book was the production of several Nonjurors, instancing Lesley and Nelson. The supposition with respect to Nelson is absurd. Boyer, 657, 658.
- ↑ Tindal, iv. 157. Macpherson, ii. 394—398.
- ↑ The Wisdom of Looking Backward, to Judge the better of one side and t'other by the Speeches, Writings, Actions, and other matters of Fact on both sides for the four years last past. London, 1715, pp. 10, 19. Tindall, iv. 157.
- ↑ Memoirs of Queen Anne, 8vo. 1729, 61.
- ↑ Life of Bolingbroke, 183, 184.
- ↑ Bennet's Memorial, 399.
- ↑ Life of Bolingbroke, 242.
- ↑ Macpherson, ii. 518.
- ↑ Life of Argyle, 153.
- ↑ Memoirs of Queen Anne, 239.
- ↑ Like all the Nonjurors, Nelson was exposed to the charge of Popery, though he did so much to oppose it. His circumstances were very peculiar and distressing: for his wife, to whom he was tenderly attached, was a member of the Church of Rome, a circumstance unknown to him at the time of the marriage. She even wrote in defence of Romanism, while he was engaged in the controversy on the opposite side. Subsequent to the Revolution, Nelson lived on the closest terms of intimacy with Tillotson, who actually expired in his arms. After his return to the communion of the National Church, he lived on the same friendly terms with the Nonjurors. Biog. Brit. Birch's Life of Tillotson.
- ↑ Biog. Brit. Art. Smith. Nichols, i. 15, 16. In these works a list of his various publications is given. Hearne, writing to Dodwell, says, "this great man died a true confessor of this distressed and afflicted Church, and the public has received a great loss by his fall." Aubrey's Letters, i. 203.
- ↑ A Sermon preached before the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and Aldermen at the Cathedral Church of St. Paul, July 26th 1713, on occasion of the much lamented death of the Right Hon. and Right Rev. Henry late Lord Bishop of London. By Thomas Gooch, D. D. lately one of his Lordship's domestic chaplains, 8vo. London, 1713.
- ↑ Wisdom of Looking Backward, 369.
- ↑ Memoirs concerning the Affairs of Scotland from Queen Anne's Accession to the commencement of the Union, &c. To which is prefixed an Introduction, shewing the Reason for publishing these Memoirs at this juncture. To which is added an Appendix, London, 8vo. 1714. A Key to the Memoirs, &c., London, 1714. A Protestant Index, &c., 8vo. 1714. These are all by different publishers. The book without the Key is common; with the key and the index, it is scarce.
- ↑ The Lockhart Papers, 2 vols. 4to., London, 1817. The writer of "The Wisdom of Looking Backward" has the following entry: "March 5th, 1713-14. The Jacobites began to prepare their psalms of thanksgiving against a time expected; and for the use of their people they published some select psalms in English, with the Latin version of Buchanan, entitled "The Loyal Mans Psalter: or some select Psalms in Latin and English verse, fit for the Times of Persecution." He gives the following specimens:
"Bless'd is the loyal man whose steps
No trayterous counsel lead aside,
Nor stand in rebels ways,
nor sit Where God and justice men deride.Psalm 1.Confounded be those rebels all
That to usurpers bow;
And make what Gods and Kings they please,
And worship them below."Psalm 97.Wisdom of Looking Backward, 337, 338.
- ↑ Kennet's Life, p. 14, 47, 48.
- ↑ Biog. Brit. A list of his writings is given in the article.
- ↑ Wisdom of Looking Backward, 333, 334.
- ↑ Ibid. 225. It must strike persons as strange, yet such was the fact, that Leslie's "Method with the Deists" was actually charged as Popish. It was attacked in a work with the following title: "A Detection of the true Meaning and wicked Design of a book entitled 'A plain and easy Method with the Deists.' Wherein is proved that the Author's four marks are the marks of the Beast, and are calculated only for the cause and service of Popery," 8vo. London, 1710.
- ↑ Nichols, v. 120, 121, 156.
- ↑ I have a copy of Tertullian's work, De Pallio, with the following words written on the fly-leaf, in the handwriting of Brett: "Tho. Brett Liber ex Dono Reverendi Georgii Gery, Vicarii De Islington. A. D. 1694."
- ↑ It appears to have been the Oath of Abjuration, rather than that of Allegiance, which led to his scruples. The Lord Chief Baron Gilbert had many conversations with him on the subject, with a view to bringing him over to Whig principles: but a contrary effect was produced, for he became still more fixed in those which he had imbibed. It is said, that he read Dodwell's tracts in favour of communion with the National Church, but that he was not convinced by the arguments.
- ↑ Nichols, i. 408, 409.
- ↑ See A Collection of Dying Speeches of those People called Traytors, executed in this reign. From Colonel Henry Oxburgh to the late Mr. James Shepheard. To which is added, some of the Speeches left by the like sort of People executed in Former Times. By comparing which, it will appear that it has been the practice of most times for men to justify their own conduct on all occasions, even to the last. 8vo. 1718. Calamy's Life, vol. ii. 357, 358.
- ↑ Salmon's Chron. His. ii. 56.
- ↑ Ibid.
- ↑ Ibid, 69, 78, 83.
- ↑ Calamy's Life, ii. 358.
- ↑ Salmon, ii. 68.
- ↑ Nichols, i. 31, 32; 105, 106. Noble. Salmon, ii. 70.
- ↑ A Short History and Vindication of the Revolution, collected out of the Writings of the Learned Bishop Burnet and Dr. Kennet. 12mo. London. Printed in the year 1716. This is a short tract of only eight pages, the authorship of which I am unable to determine.
- ↑ Noble. Soloman against Welton, or that Prince's Authority brought against the Insolence of the White Chapel Priest. Being a Defence of the Resistance made to the late King James, &c. by way of Remark on the Dr's. Sermon. 8vo. London, 1710. Nichols's Lit. Anec. i. 397.
- ↑ Wisdom of Looking Backwards, 347, 360-63.
- ↑ Life of Kennet, 161, 162.
- ↑ Sherlock's Sermon before the Commons on the day of Thanksgiving for Suppressing the Rebellion. 8vo. London, 1716, pp. 19, 20.
- ↑ The Nonjurors' Separation from the Public Assemblies of the Church of England examined, and proved to be Schismatical on their own Principles: by Tho. Bennet, D. D. 8vo. London, 1716, p. 2.
- ↑ Bennet, pp. 61. 62.
- ↑ A Letter to Dr. Bennet, occasioned by his late Treatise concerning the Nonjurors' Separation, &c.: by James Peirce, 8vo. 1717, p. 52. The first public intimation of Hickes's consecration appears to have been given in the collection of papers published in 1716. Kennet's Life, p. 160. The fact, however, was known to many.
- ↑ A Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the Nonjurors both in Church and State. Or an Appeal to the Consciences and Common Sense of the Christian Laity: by the Right Reverend Father in God, Benjamin, Lord Bishop of Bangor, 8vo. 1716.
- ↑ See the Author's History of the Convocation, pp. 375, 376.
- ↑ In one Letter to the Serjeant, Hickes had submitted twentythree propositions concerning the Constitution of the Catholic Church. These he enlarged to forty in a subsequent Letter. In the year 1710 a Tract appeared under the following title: "The High Church Catechism, with Riches's Thirty-Nine Articles." The number of propositions was forty; but the Author of this Tract omits the seventeenth altogether, making the eighteenth take its place, thus reducing the number to thirty-nine, merely for the purpose, as is evident, of insinuating, that Hickes wished to substitute them instead of the Articles of the Anglican Church. The preface to the Tract shews, that the writer was an enemy, not only to the Nonjurors, but also to the Church of England. His omission of one of the propositions, for the purpose of making the number correspond with the Articles of the Anglican Church, was a dishonest attempt to blacken the character of a pious and learned man.
- ↑ The Constitution of the Catholic Church and the Nature and Consequences of Schism, set forth in a collection of Papers written by the late R. Reverend George Hickes, D. D. 8vo. Printed in the year 1716.
- ↑ Constitution of the Catholic Church, &c. pp. 173, 205.
- ↑ A Defence of our Constitution in Church and State: or an Answer to the late Charge of the Nonjurors, accusing us of heresy and schism, popery and treason: with an Appendix of several Papers never before published: by Nath. Marshall, LL. B. 8vo. London, 1717. The Appendix contains Bancroft's commission to Lloyd: Hickes's opinion respecting joining in worship, supposed to be immoral in some of its offices: and several letters of Dodwell, Nelson, and Brokesby, written after the death of Lloyd.
- ↑ Many who wrote against the Nonjurors objected to Hoadley's principles. The following may serve as an instance: "What shall I say to those of my brethren who have formed a new separation. I cannot with the Bishop of Bangor admire the long and extraordinary lenity of the government to them: much less can I think that he (though he has plundered Hobbes, and Locke, and Sydney, and the authors of the rights of the Christian Church) has said any thing that may convince men of the Christian nature of revolution principles. I am satisfied that they refused to take the Oaths proposed to them out of a true principle of conscience: and because they knew of no Prince, Prelate, or Presbyter who could absolve them from the Oath of Allegiance and supremacy, which they had taken to their lawful Sovereign. It was not a factious, hypocritical, treasonable covenant, which they held up as a shield against the new Oaths: but it was the obligation of a lawful Oath, and imposed by law: and none can pretend there was any thing in it contrary to the law of God, or the practice of the first and purest Christians." Milbourne's Legacy, ii. 333, 334.
- ↑ Marshall's Defence, p. 12.
- ↑ Ibid. pp. 32, 33.
- ↑ He assures us also that ten years before Hickes agreed, that the immorality of the prayers was not a sufficient reason for avoidingthe communion of the National Church. He is, however, mistaken in some of his statements. Sancroft, for example, never held communion with the National Church after his deprivation. The statements are denied by Earbury. Marshall, 181.
- ↑ Marshall's Defence, 162, 163.
- ↑ A serious Admonition to Dr. Kennet in order to persuade him to forbear the Character of an impartial Historian, &c. To which is added, A short but compleat Answer to Mr. Marshall's late Treatise called "A Defence," &c. By Matthias Earbery, Presbyter of the Church of England, p. 122.
- ↑ Marshall's Defence, 168, 169, 170.
- ↑ Reasons for Restoring some Prayers and Directions as they stand in the Communion Service of the First English Reformed Liturgy, compiled by the Bishops in the 2nd and 3rd years of the reign of King Edward VI. London, 1717.
- ↑ It appears from the following extract that Hickes always used the Office in the First Book of King Edward: and undoubtedly Collier and those who agreed with him did the same, while Spinkes and his friends adhered to our present Office. Alluding to Grabe, Campbell says: "This very learned and pious doctor had not the least tendency to the corruptions of Popery, as his excellent elaborate works do abundantly testify; and at his death he made choice of the Right Reverend and very learned Bishop George Hickes, for his confessor, from whose hands he received the Holy Eucharist, the last time of his life, as he had done several times before, according to the First Liturgy of King Edward VI.; for he did not care to communicate by the present Liturgy, as believing it defective in several parts of that Office, and looking upon the other as approaching nearer to the Primitive Forms, by reason of the Mixture, the Invocation of the Father for the Descent of the Holy Ghost upon the Elements, the Oblation rightly placed, and Prayers for the Dead. And Bp. Hickes never gave him the Holy Eucharist by any other Form." Campbell's Middle Sate, 79.
- ↑ Reasons, &c. p. 20.
- ↑ Ibid. 21.
- ↑ Ibid. 22.
- ↑ Reasons, &c. 26.
- ↑ Reasons, &c. 34.
- ↑ No Reason for Restoring the Prayers and Directions of Edward VI.'s First Liturgy. By a Nonjuror. London, 1717. Spinkes was, I believe, the Author. It is assigned to him by Watt.
- ↑ No Reason, &c. 7.
- ↑ No Reason, &c. 53.
- ↑ Ibid. 69, 70.
- ↑ No Reason, &c. 83.
- ↑ Ibid. 90.
- ↑ A Letter from Mr. Leslie to his Friend, against Alterations or Additions to the Liturgy of the Church of England.
- ↑ Leslie's Letter, p. 4, 5,
- ↑ Leslie's Letter, p. 5.
- ↑ A Defence of the Reasons for Restoring some Prayers and Directions of King Edward the Sixth's First Liturgy: being a Reply to a Book entituled No Reason for Restoring them. London, 1718. Two Parts.
- ↑ A Defence of the Reasons, &c. p. 122.
- ↑ A Vindication of the Reasons and Defence, &c. Part I. Being a Reply to the First Part of No Sufficient Reason, &c. 1718. Part II. Being a Reply to the Second Part of No Sufficient Reason, &c. 1719.
- ↑ After Collier's death these Tracts were collected together and issued with a new Title Page of the date of 1736, with a Portrait of the Author.
- ↑ A Communion Office taken partly from Primitive Liturgies and partly from the first English Reformed Common Prayer Book: together with Offices for Confirmation and the Visitation of the Sick. 8vo. London, 1718.
- ↑ Tradition necessary to Explain and Interpret the Holy Scriptures. With a Postscript in answer to that part of a Book lately published (called No Sufficient Reason, &c.) which seems to depreciate Tradition. And a Preface containing some remarks on Mr. Toland's Nazarenus. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. 1718.
- ↑ The Independency of the Church upon the State, as to its pure spiritual Powers: proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the Writings of the Primitive Fathers. With Answers to the most material Objections. London 1717.
The Divine Right of Episcopacy, and the necessity of an Episcopal Commission for preaching God's Word, and for the valid Administration of the Christian Sacraments, proved from the Holy Scriptures, and the doctrine and practice of the Primitive Church, together with an impartial Account of the false Principles of Papists, Lutherans, and Calvinists, concerning the Identity of Bishops and Presbyters. Also the valid Succession of our English Bishops vindicated, against the Objections of Presbyterians and Romanists. And the Popish Fable of the Nag's Head Consecration of Archbishop Parker fully refuted. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. London, 1718.
- ↑ Dr. Brett's Vindication of Himself from the calumnies thrown upon Him in some late Newspapers, wherein he is falsely charged with turning Papist, in a Letter to the Honourable Archibald Campbell. London, 1715.
- ↑ Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed: or the Offices of Worship in the Liturgy of the Church of England Defended: against the bold attacks of that gentleman, late of her communion, now of his own. In a Letter to a Friend. To which is added a second Letter by way of Appendix, containing some desiderata. Second Edition, London, 1720. The first Edition was published in 1718.
- ↑ Collier's Desertion Discussed, p. 3.
- ↑ Collier's Desertion Discussed, p. 105.
- ↑ Skinner's Ecclesiastical History, ii. 623—626.
- ↑ Mr. Collier's Desertion Discussed, pp. 184—190.
- ↑ A Collection of the Principal Liturgies, Used by the Christian Church in the Celebration of the Holy Eucharist: particularly the Ancient, viz. the Clementine, as it stands in the book called the Apostolical Constitutions: The Liturgies of St. James, St. Mark, St. Chrysostom, St. Basil, &c. Translated into English by several hands. With a Dissertation upon them, shewing their usefulness and authority, and pointing out their several corruptions and interpolations. By Thomas Brett, LL.D. 8vo. 1720. pp. 359—62.
- ↑ Brett, 380, 381. Sir John Hawkins says: "Johnson once told me, he had heard his father say, that when he was young in trade King Edward VI's. Liturgy was much inquired for, and fetched a great price; but that the publication of this book which contained the whole Communion Office, as it stands in the former, reduced the price of it to that of a common book." Hawkins's Life of Johnson, 448. How different a result has been produced in our day by the reprints of King Edward's Books. Attention being directed to the originals, their price is greatly enhanced. I need only refer to the sale of the library of the late Duke of Sussex. The Books of 1549, 1552, 1559, and 1604, are of excessive rarity. The last, that of 1604, being the first of the reign of James I, is perhaps rarer even than the earlier editions. Of this I had evidence when preparing my History of the Convocation for the press, being unable to procure a copy by any means. Since its publication, however, I have met with a fine copy of this very scarce book. I am unable to account for the excessive rarity of the Book of 1604. While on this subject, I may be permitted to mention, that I possess the book of 1625—the identical copy used by Secretary Nicholas, during the civil wars, in his own family. In the margin, opposite the Prayer for the King in the Communion Service, the following clause is written in Nicholas's own hand: "may turn and submit unto him and faithfully."
- ↑ The Liturgy of the Church of England reduced nearer to the Primitive Standard. Humbly proposed to Public Consideration. 8vo. London, 1750.
- ↑ The Doctrine of the Church of Rome, concerning Purgatory, proved to be contrary to Catholic Tradition, and inconsistent with the necessary Duty of Praying for the Dead, as practised in the Ancient Church. By Thomas Deacon, Priest. London, 12mo. 1718.
- ↑ Deacon's Doctrine of the Church of Rome, &c. p. 7.
- ↑ Ibid. p. 142.
- ↑ It is known that Johnson was accustomed to mention his deceased wife in his Prayers. Sir John Hawkins deems it necessary to defend him from the suspicion of Popery, as if he had believed in Purgatory. He informs us that Johnson adopted the views of Brett on this subject, in consequence of the controversy which was then carried on. Johnson had also associated, in his early years, with some of the Nonjurors, and had imbibed certain of their views. Hawkins, 448—451.
- ↑ Some Primitive Doctrines revived: or the Intermediate or Middle State of departed Souls (as to happiness or misery) before the Day of Judgment, plainly proved from the Holy Scriptures, and concurrent testimony of the Fathers of the Church. To which is prefixed, the Judgment of the Reverend Dr. George Hickes concerning this Book and the Subject thereof. London, 8vo. 1713.
I subjoin the titles of two works from the opposite section, or those who rejected the New Communion Office.
Reflections upon Modern Fanaticism. In Two Letters to Dr. Brett, and the Author of a late Pamphlet ironically intitled Mr. Leslie's Defence from some dangerous and erroneous Principles. By Mathias Barbery, Presbyter of the Church of England. London, 1720.
The Doctrine of the Eucharist stated: and the Harmony between the Primitive Church and the Reformed Church of England manifested. By which the Conduct of our new Essentialists is censured. By a Presbyter of the Church of England. London, 1720, This author gives the initials S. W. at the end of his Letter.
- ↑ Campbell, p. 175. To specify all the works in this controversy would be perhaps impossible. Collier, Brett, and their supporters deemed the Usages essential; and in consequence the term Essentialists was applied to them, to distinguish them from those who adhered to the Liturgy in its unaltered state. In 1719, a pamphlet was published, in which the term Essentialist was adopted: "A Dialogue in Vindication of our present Liturgy and Service; between Timothy a Churchman and Thomas an Essentialist." This was directed against Thomas Deacon, at that time a young man, who had just published his work on Purgatory, in which the Usages are defended.
- ↑ I find a prayer composed by Grabe himself for the soul of a departed person. It is set forth as "A Prayer of the Reverend Dr. Grabe, which he composed for the Soul of a Woman departed." After thanking God for delivering his sister from the present sinful world, we have the following petitions: "We beseech thy Divine Majesty, that thou wouldest likewise give to her immortal spirit thy peace and everlasting rest, in the bosom of Abraham the father of the faithful. Absolve the soul of thy servant from all the bonds of sin and errors of her life past, which she either by the weakness or perverseness of her understanding and will, hath committed: and grant unto her a full release and perfect remission of all whatsoever hath been in her amiss. Remember, O everlasting God, in the highest heavens, our dear sister for the best. Comfort the soul of thy servant as long as she is walking thro' the valley of the shadow of death, and grant now unto her, and to us all, a safe, easy, and quick passage through it, and in the end let us meet with a merciful Judge." Grabe, therefore, fully concurred with Collier, Brett, and their friends on this subject. See The Unity of the Church and Expediency of Forms of Prayer, &c. London, 8vo. 1719. These are two pieces translated from St. Cyprian. Dr. Grabe's prayer is prefixed. There is also a Preface of considerable length, in which the Usages are discussed and recommended. The author also alludes to the breach in communion among the Nonjurors, which he laments. Preface, p. 8. The following extract will shew how ready the opponents of the Nonjurors were to load them with the charge of Popery: "June 5, 1713. About this time, to carry on the design of representing Popery on the smoother and softer side, there came out a tract, entituled Some Primitive Doctrines Revived. Both the author and the recommender are not only for a middle state of souls in some intermediate places, distinct from heaven and hell, but as a consequence of this doctrine, they do affirm, that prayer for the dead is lawful and useful, and would have it restored to our public service. It is very hard to distinguish this doctrine from gross Popery: for if there be a middle state, why may it not be called a Purgatory?" Wisdom of Looking Backward, 286, 287.
- ↑ Campbell, pp. 178, 179.
- ↑ An Original Draught of the Primitive Church: in Answer to a Discourse intituled, "An Inquiry, &c." By a Presbyter of the Church of England. London, 8vo. 1717
