Wikisource

A History of the Nonjurors/Chapter 9

< A History of the Nonjurors
​

CHAPTER IX.

A. D. 1720—1800.

The Nonjurors divided into two Communions.—Both ordain Bishops.—Death of Collier; of Spinkes; of Leslie; of Laurence Howell.—The Succession continued.—The Divisions on Usages cease.—Communion Office generally adopted.—Blackburn and Law.—Orme.—Jenkin.—Death of Gandy; of Samuel Parker.—Account of Hearne.—Harte.—Controversies.—Waterland and Smith.—Nonjurors again divided.—Lawrence a Bishop of the Separatists.—His Works on Lay-Baptism.—Death of Brett; of Baker.—The Rebellion, 1745.—Sufferings of the Nonjurors.—Deacon.—His Works.—Blackburn's Death.—George Smith's Death.—Lindsay.—His Works.—Controversies.—William Law.—Carte the Historian.—The Pretender.—Question respecting his Religious Views.—His Death.—Gordon, the last Bishop of the regular Body.—The Line ceases.—Bishops of the Separatists' Line.—Extinction of this Line, and of the Party in England.—Services rendered by the Nonjurors.

The Nonjuring communion was now broken into two sections, under their respective leaders. Both parties were hostile to the National Church: but Spinkes, with his supporters, dissented only on the questions of the Oaths and the Prayers for the reigning Sovereign; while Collier and Brett, and those who concurred with them, introduced, as we have seen, a New Communion Office, involving several important practices, which had been deliberately rejected by the Church ​of England. After this separation, much bitterness was manifested in the controversy, which was carried on between the two sections: and some from both parties sought refuge in the bosom of the National Church. The Usages may be regarded as matters of indifference: still I cannot but think, that Collier and Brett, who had subscribed to the Book of Common Prayer, should have yielded their own private views and feelings for the sake of union and peace. They contended, that the alterations from the first Liturgy of King Edward were made to suit the prejudices of Calvin: but they should have remembered, that the Book of Common Prayer was subjected to revision in 1661, when no such influence was in operation. Whatever may have been the influence of the foreign Reformers in 1551, when Edward's Book was revised, it cannot be alleged, that the Convocation in 1661 was in any way swayed by the opinions of Calvin.

After the separation, therefore, the two sections proceeded, in their respective courses, as two distinct parties, differing as widely from each other, as both differed from the National Church. The one party adopted the New Communion Book, the other adhered to the Book of Common Prayer.

As a matter of course, each party took steps to continue the succession of Bishops. In the year 1720 Hilkiah Bedford and Ralph Taylor were consecrated among those who rejected the usages, by Spinkes, Hawes, and Gandy. Hawes died in 1722, and Bedford in 1724.

In the year 1722, the other section also proceeded to increase the number of their Bishops, and John Griffin was consecrated by Collier, Brett, and the Scottish Bishop Campbell.

​Being once divided, other minor separations or subdivisions soon followed. Thus in 1723-4 Robert Welton was consecrated a Bishop by Ralph Taylor, who, contrary to the canons of the Church, took upon himself to act in his individual capacity. No precedent could be pleaded for such a proceeding, which must, therefore, be regarded as an innovation on the practice of the universal Church, from the Apostolic age. Talbot also was consecrated by Taylor and Welton. These consecrations, therefore, were viewed as irregular, and uncanonical. It appears, that Taylor and Welton were never recognized as Bishops, by the rest of the body: yet both exercised the Episcopal functions in the American Colonies. The government, at the desire of the Bishop of London, at length interposed, when Welton retired to Portugal, where he died in 1726, and Taylor returned to the communion of the National Church.[1] The particulars of Welton's removal from the Rectory of St. Mary's Whitechapel have already been detailed. Taylor was for some time chaplain to the Protestants at the Court of St. Germains.[2]

Collier died in the year 1726. Many particulars respecting him and his writings are recorded in the preceding chapters. His Church History is still one of our most, if not the most valuable, of our ecclesiastical histories: and all his works display talents of no ordinary kind. He was one of the most conspicuous actors in the controversies, which had been carried on since the Revolution. As he refused to surrender himself to the government, he lived in a state of outlawry for several years, though perhaps the authorities were not anxious to secure his person. He was as ​long as he survived, the leader of that section of the Nonjurors, by whom the Usages were introduced.

The next year, 1727, witnessed the death of Spinkes, who had been Collier's chief antagonist on the subject of the Usages. Thus the labours and the controversies of these two eminent men were terminated, by the last messenger, at nearly the same period. Spinkes was in no way inferior to Collier in learning and ability. In the controversy respecting the Usages, he advocated a strict adherence to the Book of Common Prayer. He was often in great pecuniary distress: but he never swerved from his principles. The fund for the relief of the Nonjuring Clergy, of which some account has been given, was managed by Spinkes. It has been remarked, in reference to his consecration as a Bishop, "happy would it have been for any Diocese had he been legally appointed to it." The following description of his person and acquirements is full of interest: "he was low of stature, venerable of aspect, and exalted in character. He had no wealth, few enemies, many friends. He was orthodox in his faith: his enemies being judges. He had uncommon learning and superior judgment: and his exemplary life was concluded by a happy death. His patience was great: his self denial greater: his charity still greater: though his temper seemed his cardinal virtue (a happy conjunction of constitution and grace), having never been observed to fail him in a stage of nine and thirty years." He was buried on the North side of the cemetery of St. Paul's Church, London.[3]

Charles Leslie's death occurred somewhat earlier; ​but this appears to be the place for the remaining particulars of this eminent man. His abilities were of no common order, and the greatest industry marked his whole life; for a very large number of Tracts and pamphlets, relative to the various points at issue between the Nonjurors and their opponents, proceeded from his pen, all of them displaying talents of no ordinary kind. His various practical works, as well as those controversial pieces, which relate to the Church of Rome and the Dissenters, are too well known to require a particular notice. His Theological works were collected and published in two volumes, Folio, in the year 1721. Leslie was the son of the Bishop of Clogher. Previous to the Revolution he acted with great zeal against Popery: and it would be well, if those, who charge the Nonjurors with leaning towards Rome, were as free from the imputation themselves. On one occasion, when a Roman Catholic had been nominated by King James to the office of sheriff, he was actually carried to the Sessions, though labouring under disease at the time, and took his place as a Magistrate upon the Bench. When the proposed Sheriff was questioned respecting his qualification, he replied, "That he was of the King's own religion, and that it was his Majesty's will that he should be Sheriff." Leslie answered, "that they were not inquiring into his Majesty's religion, but whether he had qualified himself according to law."[4] After his deprivation, he occasionally visited King James, and also his son the Pretender: on which account, and in consequence of some of his writings, he became obnoxious to the government; so that, in the ​year 1713, he deemed it necessary, for his own safety, to quit the country. Proceeding to the Continent, he resided in the Pretender's court, and was permitted, for a time, to perform divine service in a private chapel, according to the rites of the Anglican Church. In the year 1721 or 1722 he returned to Ireland, his native country. The Rehearsal, a periodical paper, was his production. He died on the 13th of April, 1722.

Laurence Howell's death occurred also during the reign of George I. His heavy sentence has already been mentioned. The degrading part of it, however, was remitted by his Majesty: but the prisoner died in Newgate in the year 1720. Whatever may have been his conduct with respect to the government, it appears, that his punishment was far heavier than the offence merited. His various works testify that he was a man of most extensive acquirements. His Synopsis Canonum is a most valuable production. Two volumes were published, the one in 1709, the other in 1710: and a third was actually in the press, when it was accidentally destroyed by fire. In 1715, however, the third volume was announced in the following manner: "The MS. copy of the third and last volume of Mr. Howell's Synopsis Can. Condi. Eccles. Græc. Lat. being burnt in White Fryars Jan. 1712, this is to give notice, that Mr. Howell hath once more finished the third volume."[5] The author was not discouraged by the loss of one copy of his manuscript, but immediately commenced the laborious task of rewriting the volume. One of his works, The History of the Pontificate, is directed against the pretensions of Rome, and may be appealed to in refutation of the silly charge of Popery against the Nonjurors. In the ​Preface he says, "Among the many remarkable impresses of truth our Church bears, it is one, that she does not blindfold her proselytes, but leaves them the use of their faculties; and does not, by intruding on them an implicit belief, force them to lay down their reason, when they take up their faith."[6]

After Collier's death, it became necessary to consecrate other Bishops in that section, of which he had been the leader. Accordingly, in 1727, Thomas Brett, junior, was consecrated by Brett, senior, Griffin, and Campbell: and, in 1731, Timothy Mawman was set apart to the Episcopal Office, by the two Bretts and George Smith.

The other section, both being anxious to continue the succession, applied to the Bishops in Scotland, and, in the year 1726, Henry Doughty was consecrated by four Scottish Prelates to assist their friends in England. During the same year, John Blackburn and Henry Hall were consecrated by Spinkes, Gandy, and Doughty. After the death of Spinkes, the leader of this section, Richard Rawlinson, was consecrated in 1728, by Gandy, Doughty, and Blackburn; and George Smith, by Gandy, Blackburn, and Rawlinson.

It appears, that Smith assisted the Bishops of the other line in consecrating Mawman in 1731: so that the disputes respecting the usages must have subsided. This is evident also from a letter of Carte's, ​written in the same year, and addressed to Corbet Kynaston. "I sent you word just as I left this place in July, of the opposition made by some Presbyters to the re-union among the Nonjurors, all whose Bishops agreed in it except I. B. a copy of whose letter I send you in this. I must now acquaint you with what passed after I left the Town. Those of their Presbyters that opposed it, drew up a representation against it, a very pompous empty declamation (the penman supposed to be Mr. William Law) and got in several to sign it, who had appeared friends to the union before: but Mr. J. Creyk has a great influence, having the disposal of a great deal of money, left by Mrs. Pincham and others to be distributed to the Nonjurors.

"After this representation was sent, answer was made to it both by Dr. Brett and Mr. Smith of Durham, in which it was proved that what was desired was no alteration, for a declaration of their sense in interpreting any passage of the Liturgy was no alteration in it: nor in reality was the mixture any: for in King Edward's Liturgy, after water had been mixed with the wine, in the sight of all the people, the rubrick went on to say, "Then shall the Priest put the bread and wine on the Table." Here the word wine was certainly used for the mixed cup. In the second Liturgy of King Edward, all this rubrick was left out, and no directions at all given about the cup: and so it stood, till after the Restoration. Then the word "oblations" was added to the Prayer for the Church Militant, and to prevent the Clerk or Sexton's placing the elements on the Altar, which they considered as an oblation, a rubrick was made directing the Priest to place the bread and wine on the Altar. So it stands now; and yet I cannot see that the term ​wine can now be interpreted to exclude the mixture, when in King Edward's first Liturgy it undeniably expressed it. And yet this mixture is the only thing that looks like an alteration: so that the great stir made in the representation about giving up the Church of England, has something in it ridiculous as well as intemperate.

"The country Layman reflected on in the representation, is Mr. Smith of Durham, an excellent man, and what his learning is, his notes upon Bede's Ecclesiastical History sufficiently shew. Endeavours were made to get the Presbyters to recede from this representation, and there were hopes of succeeding, when Mr. B. sent the inclosed letter to Mr. Gandy, and therein quoted a passage, which he says was written by our master's direction. This knocked all on the head again. Now I can hardly think that our master ever gave such directions; or if he did, the affair must have been strangely misrepresented to him. I could wish, therefore, it was stated to him in its true light, for then I am persuaded he would give his approbation of it, and if he did, and that was once signified here, the union would be brought about, and executed here without any difficulty. This is therefore a very material point, and I should be very glad to have the matter cleared up, this pretence of his being averse to it being the main obstacle to so desirable an union. I sent you the terms before, so that I need not repeat them, only I shall mention one alteration I proposed, to get over Mr. Blackburn's objection: it was to be declared that the words in the Prayers for the Church Militant, "that we with them may be partakers" should be understood in the same sense as those in the Burial Office. Mr. B. saying he did not ​understand them in the same sense, I proposed it to be expressed thus, in a sense agreeable to that passage in the Burial Office: he could not oppose this without making the Church inconsistent, so my amendment was agreed to. I wish you could communicate this to our friend, to whom I desire my humble duty may be acceptable: and if something could still be done in this affair, it would be infinitely to the satisfaction of, Dear Sir, yours entirely, Thomas Carte."[7]

This is an interesting letter. Law was among the opponents of the Union, because the Usagers proposed it on their own terms. It does not appear that there was to be any thing like mutual concession. Undoubtedly the majority of the Nonjurors were Usagers, but as Law and Blackburn never yielded, we may infer that the two Communions yet continued distinct: Carte was among those who adopted the usages. Probably, Mr. Kynaston, to whom the letter was written, had access to the Pretender, who is called, by Carte, their master. In the Lockhart Papers, there is evidence, that the Pretender was displeased at these internal disputes: but Carte imagines, that the question had not been fairly represented. It is clear, therefore, that the New Communion Office was now adopted by some of those who had previously rejected it: and "it is mentioned," says Mr. Perceval, "that in 1733, all the Nonjuring Bishops of this time were in communion, except Blackburn, who stood alone, but on what account is not stated."[8] It is, I think, clear from Carte's letter, that Blackburn stood apart on the ground of the usages, which were made terms of com​munion, and to which he could not consent. Having acted and agreed with Spinkes, he could not relinquish the use of the Office of the Anglican Church.

George I. died in 1727; but the state of the Nonjurors continued the same under his successor George II. at least for several years after his accession. The case of Atterbury scarcely falls within my province; for though he secretly favoured the Pretender, he was not a Nonjuror. It may, however, be adduced as a proof, that it was possible to regard the Pretender's claims with favour, without going over to the Church of Rome. In his exile, though every temptation was presented to him, he remained firm in his attachment to the Anglican Church, dying in the year 1731.

About the time that the two sections of the Nonjurors became united, several of the body were removed by death. Mr. Orme died in the year 1733. He had been deprived under King William for declining the Oath of Allegiance. The following extract from a letter to Bowyer the Printer, on occasion of his great loss from the destruction of his Printing Office, furnishes a striking picture of the man. "Jan. 31, 1712. I mourn for your misfortune: I hope our loving God will sanctify it to you, and that your great loss will in the end be your great gain. I doubt not but you are more a Christian than not to bear this or any other worldly loss, with such patience as becomes our holy profession, and the disciples of our blessed Lord and Redeemer." He was a man of great meekness, gentleness, and piety.[9]

Of the same character was Robert Jenkin, D.D. He became Chaplain to Bishop Lake; but lost his preferment, subsequent to the Revolution, in conse​quence of his refusal to take the Oath of Allegiance. He was one of the subscribers to the Bishop's dying declaration. On quitting his living he retired to his fellowship in St. John's College, Cambridge, the Oath not being required, unless the Bishop of Ely, the visitor of his College, should deem it necessary to exact a compliance. By a statute of the College moreover the Bishop was not at liberty to visit, unless called upon to do so by a majority of the fellows: so that many individuals retained their fellowships after they had been removed from parishes. At length he complied, and took the Oath to Queen Anne. About the same time he was chosen Master of his College. On the accession of George I. an act was passed, enjoining all persons, who held a post of the value of five pounds per annum, to take the Oaths of Allegiance and Abjuration: so that Dr. Jenkin was under the painful necessity of ejecting some of the fellows. This was to him a most distressing step: for having experienced the same scruples himself, he keenly felt for those who could not take the Oaths. Baker probably and others would have complied, if the Oath of Abjuration had not been imposed. Besides the "Defence of the Profession" of Bishop Lake, he wrote several other works. The Reasonableness of the Christian Religion is well known to those, who are conversant in such studies. He died in the year 1727.[10]

Henry Gandy, who, after Spinkes, was perhaps one of the ablest of the opponents of the Usages, died in the year 1733. It is singular, that Granger and Noble should have represented him as a Roman Catholic. The preceding pages prove him to have been one of the best divines of the period.[11]

​In the same year also died Samuel Parker at Oxford. He was the son of the Bishop of Oxford, whose proceedings in the case of Magdalen College, in the reign of King James, rendered him somewhat notorious. His particular friends were Hickes, Collier, Dodwell, Leslie, Nelson, and Grabe: with whom he was accustomed to associate, being engaged, as they also were, in learned and laborious pursuits. His works were various and valuable, but perhaps the most important is his Bibliotheca Biblica.[12] It is thought that his death was hastened by his great exertions in writing this learned work. To the last volume of his Bibliotheca Biblica, published after his decease, a sketch of his life is prefixed, in which the writer says: "he had from the beginning embraced the principles of the Nonjurors, and as he constantly observed a strict uniformity in his principles and practice, he thought himself obliged to refuse those advantages of preferment, which not only his parts and education seemed to entitle him to, but which were actually offered to him." The same writer, alluding to the Bibliotheca, says, "In short it was the unhappy occasion of his death." The following MS. memorandum is written on the flyleaf of a copy of the Bibliotheca now before me: "On Tuesday, Oct. 1733. Died at Oxon, of the Dropsie, the great and learned Mr. Samuel Parker, son of the Bishop of Oxford of that name, and author of various learned ​works, particularly this Bibliotheca Biblica, of which he published several parts, a proof of his excellent learning and skill in the eastern languages and customs: he refused the Oaths at the Revolution, and lived retired ever since at Oxford, well esteemed for several valuable qualifications, particularly his art of pleasing in conversation. I had the honour and happiness to be intimately acquainted with him. Hen. Fisher."

Many of the Nonjurors resided in the Universities, in order that they might enjoy the advantages of the Public Libraries. Being engaged in learned pursuits, and having no means of purchasing books, they necessarily took up their abode in such places as Oxford and Cambridge. John Wesley said in the early period of his life, that "Oxford was paved with the skulls of Jacobites." He evidently alluded to the number of Nonjurors residing in that city. Unquestionably there was a bright constellation of talent among the Nonjurors in Oxford in those days—men who preferred poverty to perjury, and living in obscurity, with a good conscience, to station and worldly honour.

Hearne died in the year 1735, in his rooms in St. Edmund's Hall. His case may be cited as an instance of the difficulties, in which many good men were placed by the Oaths. Though he would not have assisted in restoring the Pretender, yet he could not swear allegiance to the reigning Sovereign. On this account he declined the chaplaincy of Corpus Christi College, with some other important posts. At one time, however, he had entertained different views: and these had been expressed in a manuscript, which had been sent to Cherry, at whose death it came into the possession of parties, who were anxious to damage ​the author's reputation. Cherry's papers were left by will to the Bodleian Library: and Hearne asserted his claim to this paper on the ground, that it had not been given to his friend. The Curators pleaded the will, though, on examination, it was found that the MS. was not specified. The truth is, his enemies were resolved on publishing the paper, though Hearne had expressed his disavowal of the views of his earlier years. In the year 1731 it was actually published with a preface, in which sneering allusions were made to the author's change of views.[13] "His reasons for compliance (how weak soever in the eyes of a different persuasion) were doubtless good in his own: and if he has discovered better now for refusing the Oath, than he before gave for the taking it, 'tis an argument, I think, of his constant inquiry after truth, and of his discharging his conscience as he improves in knowledge." The publication did him no harm; but only exhibited the bitterness of his enemies. The publisher of the work expressly declares that it was left to the Bodleian by will, though it was not mentioned, and it is questionable whether Mr. Cherry had any such power to dispose of it, and certainly he would not have exposed his friend, by placing such a document within the reach of his detractors. "Why Mr. Cherry," says the writer, "should suffer this letter to be placed in a public library (where he knew every thing was to be seen) had he not apprehended it to be for Mr. Hearne's credit, I cannot conceive." The writer knew that Mr. Cherry did not intend to leave ​that particular paper to the public library: and, therefore, alluding to this fact, which he speaks of as a rumour, he expresses himself satisfied with the Register of Benefactors, in which the bequest is recorded. Not content with attempting to injure him while living, his enemies traduced his memory after his death, giving out that he had died a Roman Catholic. Hearne was singular in his habits, and in his religious opinions; but the rumour of his being reconciled to the Church of Rome, in his dying moments, was destitute of any foundation whatever.[14]

Walter Harte was another Nonjuring Clergyman of this period, of whom some notice may be given. He was Fellow of Pembroke College, Oxford, Prebendary of Wells, and Vicar of St. Mary Magdalen, Taunton, all of which he lost for refusing the Oath of Allegiance at the Revolution. Kidder, Hooper, and Wynn, the successors of Ken, in the See of Bath and Wells, contrived to secure to him the profits of his Stall at Wells; so that he was not left quite destitute in his declining years. He retired to Kentbury, Berks, at which place he died in the year 1736, at the advanced age of 95. His son, Walter Harte, Canon of Windsor, was the well known author of the Life of Gustavus Adolphus, King of Sweden.[15]

It may be mentioned that several laymen, though they were not called upon to take the Oaths, which, however, they would have refused, were Nonjurors in principle, and considered themselves as members of the body. Bowyer and Bettenham, two eminent printers, were Nonjurors: and by them many of the works of the party were published. In the year ​1724, Negus published a list of the printing offices in London, distinguishing the printers into classes, according to their acknowledged or supposed opinions. Under the head of Nonjurors are reckoned Bowyer, Bettenham, and Dalton.[16]

The views entertained by the Nonjurors, and expressed in their new Communion Office, respecting the Eucharist, were opposed by many of the Clergy, though some few concurred in opinion with the compilers of the New Service. Johnson of Cranbrook had expressed similar views, though he remained in the Church of England. But at length the doctrine of the Nonjurors on this subject was assailed, and by no less a person than Waterland. In the year 1738, Waterland, then Archdeacon of Middlesex, published a Charge to the Clergy, in which the notion of a sacrifice in the Eucharist was condemned.[17] This led to a controversy, in which Brett and George Smith took a prominent part. Waterland's works are generally known; but those of the Nonjurors have been examined only by comparatively a small number of persons. Some account, therefore, of the writings of the Nonjurors on this subject will not be unacceptable.

Waterland was a man of genius and of great learning: and the Nonjurors were always ready to acknowledge his merits. He was moreover a man of candour; so that none of his opponents were in danger of being misrepresented. He opposed some of their views, but he did not, as was too frequently the case, ​impute to them opinions which they repudiated. Thus the charge of Popery, which was founded on the Nonjurors' Views of the Christian Sacrifice, was shewn by this eminent and candid man to be most unjust. Smith, in his "Epistolary Dissertation," thus alludes to Waterland's conduct in this particular. "Our doctrine of the sacrifice was, in the dispute between the late Dr. Hickes and his opponents, formerly cried down as Popish. Of this imputation Dr. Waterland has been so just as to clear it, for which we cannot but return him our thanks; because it is evident it is entirely inconsistent with the Popish, and quite overthrows it: there being as much difference between it and the Romish, as between the substance of bread and wine, and the substance of our blessed Saviour's body and blood. And this the Papists are so sensible of, that they endeavour all they can to render our notion of a sacrifice contemptible." Smith, however, remarks that Waterland, though he had cleared their view from being Popish, charged it with being Jewish: and this point is discussed at considerable length.[18] The question which had been so learnedly handled by Hickes, Johnson and Brett, was most ably maintained in this work: but the controversy is conducted in a meek and charitable spirit, altogether different from that of The Remarks on The Life of Tillotson, which have been noticed in a previous chapter.

In 1740, Smith published An Account of the ​Primitive Invocation, which he called a supplement to Waterland's Review of the Eucharist. He does not exactly controvert Waterland's positions, but seems rather to view them as falling below the reality. This is implied in the title of his work. The author gives a most interesting historical sketch of the whole subject.[19] Brett also took a part in the controversy, publishing "Remarks on Waterland's Charge," and "A Supplement to the Remarks." In the former, he contends, that the differences between Hickes and Johnson on the one side, and Waterland on the other, were rather verbal than real: in the latter, he defends Johnson's view of a material sacrifice in the Eucharist, which was opposed by Waterland.[20]

It has been already mentioned, that the disputes among the Nonjurors, respecting the Usages, were terminated, the whole body, with very few exceptions, concurring in their adoption. The few, who refused to receive them, did not offer any active opposition, but contented themselves with adhering to the Book of Common Prayer. Probably some, who dissented from the majority, united with the ​National Church, as the best security against innovations.

In the year 1741, Robert Gordon was consecrated to the Episcopal office by Brett, George Smith, and Mawman. He was the last Bishop of the regular Nonjurors.

About the time, when the disputes respecting the Usages terminated, another breach sprang up among the Nonjurors. Mr. Perceval is of opinion, that it commenced, in the year 1733, in the consecration of Roger Lawrence, the learned author of Lay-Baptism Invalid.[21] This line, however, was not recognized by the regular body, on the ground, that the first consecrations were uncanonical. Lawrence himself was consecrated by Campbell, the Scottish Bishop, who acted by his own authority: so that the act, being contrary to the Canons, was deemed invalid. Campbell and Lawrence, therefore, were now the leaders of a new section in the already diminished numbers of the Nonjurors. Subsequently, Campbell and Lawrence consecrated Thomas Deacon, who, on his part, and by himself, appointed to the Episcopal office J. P. Brown, whose real name is supposed to have been Johnstone, a brother of the Earl of Annandale.

The name of Lawrence is well known from his learned works on the Invalidity of Lay Baptism: but probably it is not so generally known, that he was a Nonjuror. His parents being Dissenters, Lawrence was baptized in the body to which they belonged. Entertaining doubts respecting the validity of the Act, he was led to an extended examination of the whole subject, which issued in the publication of his valu​able and learned work: Lay Baptism Invalid.[22] The book was assailed by Dissenters, because the author had reduced their ministers to mere laymen, which was most distasteful to the body: it was also attacked by some members of the Church of England. He fully, as I conceive, establishes the position, that Lay Baptism is not recognized by the Anglican Church, whatever may be the decisions of the ecclesiastical courts respecting the right, which Dissenters have to the performance of the Burial Service, in the case of those who are baptized by their own ministers. Two Sermons were preached at Salisbury, by Burnet, in 1710, in which Lawrence's positions were assailed. This circumstance led him to publish, in reply, his work on the Sacerdotal Powers.[23] A few years later there appeared another volume on Dissenters' Baptisms.[24] ​The Bishop of Oxford also having alluded to the subject, in his Charge, Lawrence sent forth a reply to his Lordship.[25] These are, I believe, all the works of this learned writer, respecting whose talents there can be no difference of opinion, whatever may be the case concerning his views. On the question of Lay Baptism, most churchmen will agree with him in sentiment. It will be seen, that the above works were all written many years before his consecration as a Nonjuring Bishop. Brett wrote a short Tract on the subject, defending Lawrence's views against the objections of Burnet.[26] Little is known of Lawrence beyond what is to be gleaned from his works, and the replies which they called forth.[27]

​Thus the Nonjurors were again divided into two sections, notwithstanding the closing of the breach which had been occasioned by the Usages. Brett was at the head of the regular body, Campbell and Lawrence being the leaders of the Separatists. These particulars must be borne in mind, in considering the proceedings connected with the Rebellion in 1745.

Brett, of whom many things are recorded in the preceding chapters, was one of the most learned as well as most active, of the body: but his labours were terminated by death in the year 1743. On a flat stone over his grave at Wye there are inscriptions to the memory of several of his ancestors, commencing with Gregory Brett, in 1541. Thomas Brett is thus mentioned. "Thomas Brett of Spring Grove, son of Thomas, born September 3rd, 1667: Doctor of Laws, 1697: became rector of Betshanger 1703: and of Ruckinge, 1705: resigned both in 1714, because he could not comply with the terms then ​posed with a safe conscience: Died, March 5th, 1743." His refutation of the charge of Popery was noticed in a previous chapter; but it may be added, that, in Ballard's Collection of Letters, it was actually stated, that he had become a Papist, and had formed a separate congregation. The latter assertion was true: and it is contradictory of the former, since, had he become a Papist, he would not have formed a separate congregation, but would have united himself with the Church of Rome. The circumstance shews how ready many persons were in those days as well as in our own, to allege the charge of Popery against men of sound and orthodox principles.[28]

Thomas Baker, the learned antiquary, died in the year 1740, in the 80th year of his age. Some notices of his labours have been given in a preceding chapter: but a few particulars may be added. He lost his living in 1690, for declining the Oath of Allegiance, on which occasion he retired to his fellowship in St. John's College Cambridge, which he held until the year 1716. Those who had taken the degree of B. D. were undisturbed in their fellowships, until the reign of George I., when the Oath of Abjuration was imposed. Jenkin, the Master of the College, was anxious to leave things as they were: but he was informed by those in authority, that the Oaths must be pressed. Baker's correspondence was very extensive: and even Burnet held him in much estimation. There is a Letter from Burnet, which really exhibits the Bishop in a more amiable light, than that in which he usually appeared, when discussing the Nonjuring questions. Alluding to "The Hereditary Right of the Crown Asserted," the Bishop, after stating that he ​had suspected that it was written by a member of St. John's College, since it was composed "with a great deal of gravity and decency," observes: "I never think the worse of men for their different sentiments in such matters: I am sure I am bound to think much the better of them: for adhering firmly to the dictates of their conscience, when it is so much to their loss, and when so sacred a thing as an Oath is in the case." He also expresses his regret that the Church should lose the services of such men as Baker. Burnet was indebted to Baker, for correcting some mistakes in his First and Second Volumes of The History of the Reformation.

Masters, the writer of his life, remarks, that Baker was much distressed at being removed from his fellowship, because some of his friends so readily concurred in the measure. Twenty-two Fellows were ejected at the same time. It was from this period, that the words Socius Ejectus were written on his books. He was, however, permitted to retain his rooms in the College until his death in the year 1740. His Biographer has given a catalogue of his Manuscript Remains, which are preserved in forty-two volumes of considerable size.[29]

Before the Rebellion in 1745, the Nonjurors, though consisting of two parties, were greatly diminished in number; but all, who were implicated in that affair, were considered to belong to their body. Some Nonjurors were undoubtedly concerned in the transactions of 1745; but they were members of the Separatists' Section, and not of the regular party, while the great majority of the actors were connected with neither.

​It is unnecessary to enter into particulars respecting the Rebellion: but it may be observed, that severity was exercised towards all who were found guilty. Mr. Hallam says, "that it was disgraceful to the British Government."[30] Mr. Ratcliffe, who had escaped from prison in 1716, after his condemnation, was now executed on the former conviction. After the lapse of thirty years, the sentence passed in 1716 was read over to him, and he was put to death in 1746.

Some undergraduates in Oxford were guilty, during the progress of the Rebellion, of certain acts of indiscretion, such as shouting King James and Prince Charles for ever; but this circumstance afforded no just indication of the state of feeling in the university. It was merely an ebullition of youthful ardour.[31]

None of the regular body of the Nonjurors, however, were involved in the Rebellion. Whatever charges may be alleged against them on other grounds, it cannot be said, that they did not practise what they had taught on the subject of passive obedience. This fact, which could not be disputed even at the time, ought to have procured for them better treatment, than they sometimes experienced. Like the deprived Bishops, the Nonjurors of this period could not recognize the new order of things, by taking the Oaths; but at the same time they would not disturb the government by any attempt to restore the exiled line. They were prepared to submit to the privations, which such a course involved; and they with safety might have been permitted to enjoy their liberty, without annoyance on the part of the authorities.

​These remarks, indeed, are not applicable to all the Nonjurors of the other section: for some of the members of that party, of which Campbell at one time, and then Deacon were the leaders, were implicated in the Rebellion, and suffered as traitors. Among the criminals was Thomas Deacon, a young man, the son of the Bishop, residing in Manchester. The Bishops and Clergy among the Nonjurors often followed some other occupation as a means of support. Deacon, the father of the young man, practised physic in the town of Manchester, where he was highly respected by a large circle of friends, who did not entertain the same principles. When the Pretender's army came to this place, young Deacon joined it immediately. It was proved, on his trial, moreover, that he had been very active in getting the Pretender's manifesto printed and circulated: so that, though a brother was spared, mercy could not be extended to this unfortunate youth, who was only twenty-two years of age. Dr. Deacon was singular in giving two or more names to his children, commencing with the same letter. Thus this young man was baptized by the names of Thomas Theodorus. At the place of execution, he said, "I profess I die a member, not of the Church of Rome, nor yet of that of England, but of a pure episcopal church, which has reformed all the errors, corruptions, and defects, that have been introduced into the modern churches of Christendom: a church which is in perfect communion with the ancient and universal Church of Christ, by adhering uniformly to antiquity, universality, and consent: that glorious principle, which if once strictly and impartially pursued, would, and which alone can, remove all the distractions and unite all the divided branches of the Christian Church. This holy Catholic principle is agreed to by all ​churches, Eastern and Western, Popish and Protestant; and yet unhappily is practised by none, but the Church in whose holy communion I have the happiness to die. May God of his great mercy daily increase the members thereof: and if any would inquire into its primitive institution, I refer them to our Common Prayer Book."

Sydall, another of the sufferers, made an exactly similar declaration with Deacon.[32] It was rumoured that the speeches were written by Mr. Creake, a clergyman of that section of the Nonjurors. The Book of Common Prayer, to which they referred, was compiled by Deacon, the father of one of the sufferers. It is a singular volume, with a somewhat remarkable title.[33] After the separation of Deacon and Campbell from the regular body, this Book ​of Devotions was used by this party in their assemblies for public worship, while the rest retained the new Communion Office, which was compiled by the Usagers in 1718. Deacon's book, therefore, must not be regarded as having been sanctioned by the Nonjurors as a body, since it was adopted only by that small section, of which the author was the leader.

Besides the works published by Deacon, at an early period of his life, which have been already noticed, he put forth another very singular volume in the year 1747. This, like the preceding, has a most extraordinary title. In this volume all the peculiar practices comprehended under the general term Usages, as it was used by the Nonjurors, are defended and enjoined, besides others, such as Infant Communion, which were never received by the regular body.[34] Deacon, as we have seen, was consecrated by a single Bishop; and he himself, by his sole authority, consecrated others. In the work just mentioned he has a chapter, "Of the Election, Ordination, and ​Consecration of the Clergy," in which we find a reason for acting, in the ordering of Bishops, by his own authority. "Bishops are consecrated by the Metropolitan and as many of the Bishops of the province as can conveniently come together; but they must not proceed to a consecration, unless the majority of them either are present, or have signified their consent: nor unless three Bishops are actually present, except in the case of persecution or some such other very necessary occasion, when one Bishop is sufficient to make the consecration valid."[35] He evidently considered, that the plea of necessity might be urged, or that they were under persecution. That he was justified, in so acting, even on his own principle, cannot be admitted, since the regular Nonjurors had a sufficient number of Bishops. The work displays much learning, though some of the author's opinions are very singular.

The charge of Popery was brought, by Owen a Dissenter, against Deacon, of whom he speaks in no measured terms. Some of the Nonjurors at Manchester were accused of paying religious adoration to the heads of the rebels, which had been suspended, in that town, according to the sentence. The charge was advanced first in The Whitehall Evening Post, in an anonymous letter, which was afterwards acknowledged to be Owen's. "The two rebel heads are revered and almost adored, as trophies of martyrdom. The father of one of them (who is a Nonjuring Bishop) as he passes by 'em, frequently pulls off his hat, and looks at them above a minute with a solemn complacential smile. Some suppose he offers up a prayer for them, others to them. His church daily ​increases, and he is in the highest credit and intimacy with most of our clergy." The letter, accompanied with remarks by a person at Manchester, was also published in The Gentleman's Magazine. In the remarks the charges are denied, except that Dr. Deacon had once only passed by his son's head, on which occasion he had taken off his hat. The same writer very naturally asks what connexion there is between the Doctor's peculiar views and politics, specifying Infant Communion, and the restoration of the Usages: and, in allusion to the assertion of his intimacy with the Clergy, he admits, that the Doctor was esteemed and valued by that body. He closes his remarks with an expression of opinion, that it was less dangerous to associate with a Nonjuring Bishop, than with a Dissenter.[36]

Owen commented on the remarks in a letter addressed to the Gentleman's Magazine, affirming or rather insinuating his previous charges, and adding another, that Deacon had absolved Paul and Hall after the Rebellion in 1716.[37] This produced a second letter from the remarker, from which I give the following extract, containing a severe but just censure of the Dissenters of that day for the avidity with which they raised the cry of Popery. The remarker had charged a certain set of people with making use of a canting evasion: and Owen calls upon him to name them. He replies as follows: "I mean that tribe of sectaries who have for more than a century past shewn the utmost enmity and hatred to the Church of England, exemplified their hatred once by a total subversion of episcopal government, and again ​by an interested, servile compliance with a Popish Prince in his Popish designs, merely to raise themselves to some degree of power, which had been wisely denied them before. These are the men, who have always used the cry of Popishly affected to run down the steadiest friends of our ecclesiastical establishment."[38]

Owen now published a second edition of a work, in which he examines some of the positions of Deacon's "View of Christianity."[39] In the Preface he acknowledges himself the author of the letter in The Gentleman's Magazine. As Owen, therefore, had confessed himself the author of the calumnies, Deacon deemed it necessary to reply to them in a letter to the same Magazine. In reference to Paul and Hall, Deacon states, that they were attended, not by himself but by the Rev. Francis Peck, and that neither he nor any other person absolved the prisoners. To the charge of having a dispensation Deacon says: "This is a charge of such a kind that I can only answer it by sincerely affirming that I neither had any such dispensation, nor made any such declaration." In short, all the assertions were proved to be groundless, the fruits of Owen's malice and hatred.[40]

Having given a detail of the proceedings of the Separatists among the Nonjurors, until the suppression of the Rebellion, it will be necessary to look back a little, to gather up the materials respecting the main ​body, none of whom, as I have stated, were implicated in that transaction.

Of Blackburn an account has already been given: but the following particulars from the MSS. of the Rev. Richard Bowes, D.D. respecting his death are too important to be passed over. "Nov. 17th, 1741, departed this life the Rev. Mr. John Blackbourne, M.A. of Trinity College, Cambridge. Soon after the Revolution he became one of those few truly conscientious who refused the new Oaths. From that time he lived a very exemplary good life, and studied hard: endeavouring to be useful to mankind both as a scholar and divine. To keep himself independent he became corrector of the press to Mr. Bowyer, printer: and was, indeed, one of the most accurate of any who ever took upon him that laborious employ. He has given us a curious edition of Lord Bacon's Works, 1740. As I had the happiness of being long known to my most valuable friend, he was so kind to communicate the following particulars. That Opprobrium Historiæ, Burnet's Memoirs, were first put into his hands to be corrected for Bowyer's press. But the honest sons of the Bishop made shamefully free with their father's manuscript. Mr. Blackburn shewed some pages left out, relating to the Prince of Orange, where his character was more at large and better drawn, more to truth and life. Several sheets concerning the Scots especially left out. As he was too honest to deal with such as have no honesty, he advised Mr. Bowyer to be concerned no further in the impression: so it was taken out of his hands. This good man for several years past has been a Nonjuring Bishop equal to most of our bench. I waited on him often in Little Britain, where he lived almost lost to the world, and hid amongst old books. One ​day, before dinner, he went to his bureau and took out a paper. It was a copy of the testimonial sent to King James (as he called him), signed by his Lordship (Winchelsea) and two others (I think) in his behalf. He afterwards shewed me the commission for his consecration. Upon this I begged his blessing, which he gave me with the fervent zeal and devotion of a primitive Bishop. I asked him if I was so happy as to belong to his diocese? His answer was (I thought) very remarkable: Dear friend, (said he) we leave the sees open, that the gentlemen who now unjustly possess them, upon the restoration, may, if they please, return to their duty, and be continued. We content ourselves with full episcopal power as suffragans."[41]

Blackburn, as has been seen, stood out from the ​rest of the body in 1733 on the ground of the usages: nor is there any reason for believing that he adopted them previous to his death. He was, therefore, the last of the Nonjurors, who adhered to the Church of England as she stood at the period of the separation. By all the rest, subsequent to 1733, the usages were adopted, however they might differ on other subjects. Thus Deacon and his friends, who formed a new separation, adhered to the usages, making also some additions themselves.

After the death of Brett, Lindsay acted a very prominent part amongst the regular body. He was the author of several publications of considerable power. Patrick Cockburn, who had once been Curate of St. Dunstan's, and then a Nonjuror, after having officiated for a season at Aberdeen, returned to the National Church, on which occasion he deemed it necessary to publish a defence of his conduct. Lindsay published a reply to this gentleman, in which he enters on the question of the prayers for the reigning Sovereign, contending that they could not be lawfully used.[42]

Just after the Rebellion, a volume of Letters was published by the Nonjurors, from which we may infer, that, though they were diminished in numbers, their opposition to the Established Church was become, if possible, stronger, than at any previous period. The charges of heresy, schism, and immoral worship are alleged against the complying Clergy, and alleged with considerable acrimony. Whether Lindsay were the author, I cannot determine. Perhaps several of the party were concerned in the pro​duction. The writer says, addressing his friend, "I hope, in a clear and concise manner, to convince you of the justice of the charge exhibited against you, and consequently to prevail on you to separate yourself from those followers of Corah, lest partaking of their guilt, you become also partaker in their punishment."[43] A sketch of the characters of Sancroft and Tillotson, as the heads of the two bodies into which the Church was divided at the Revolution, is given in the Preface. Sancroft's picture is justly and accurately drawn: but Tillotson's is much distorted. The first letter is dated 1741, and contains a charge of schism against the complying Clergy. In the second, written in 1742, the question raised by Dodwell, respecting the healing of the breach on the death of Lloyd, is discussed: and the party, to whom it is addressed, is referred to Gandy's Dialogue between Gerontius and Junius, and to Hickes's Constitution of the Catholic Church. Prayers for governors, without reference to the question of right, are condemned as sinful. In a third letter, dated Ash Wednesday 1743-4, it is asserted, that no schismatic can enter heaven: that, therefore, it behoves all persons to consider their position: and that the schism was with those, who removed Sancroft and his brethren. "I shall not think it necessary," says the writer, "to dispute the authority of that Convention, who metamorphosed a Dutch P— into an English K—, and placed him in the throne of their natural sovereign liege Lord, still living and claiming his right to the same; nor the authority of this Convention-made K—, who (as one good turn deserves another) moulded them into a ​P—." The fourth letter continues the subject, and is dated, Feast of St. Michael 1745.

George Smith, of whom many particulars have been given, ended his labours in the year 1756, and was buried in the church-yard of St. Oswald, in the city of Durham. Besides the edition of Bede, which had been left unfinished by his father, he published many other works, some of which, especially such as bear on the history of the Nonjurors, have been specified in this volume. His talents were of a high order, as his various productions, and particularly his controversy with Waterland, testify.[44]

A considerable number of works, on the controversy between the Nonjurors and members of the Church of England, was published by Lindsay.[45] In a work on Parochial Communion, the fact of two communions, a public and a private, in the Church of England, is stated, in Bennet's words, from his Nonjurors' Separation: and the question is put, "which of these two is the true Church of England?" The old arguments are then repeated.[46] Three years later, the subject is continued in another work, in which a Vicar of a parish is introduced as one of the interlocutors. In consequence of certain allusions, on the part of the Neighbour, the Vicar brings forward the question of the prayers for the existing Sovereign. At this time the feeling of the body ​towards the family of Hanover had, in no degree, abated. "All other parts of the Liturgy," says the Vicar, "remain nevertheless pure and unexceptionable, as they were before, without any alteration." The Neighbour replies, "so they are supposed to be, but that is another consideration:" to which the Vicar answers, upon that supposition, however, many pious and devout people do still think themselves bound to keep to their Church, and frequent her prayers: though possibly some of them may have been unhappily possessed, as you are, with scruples and objections to some of the petitions." The Neighbour asks, whether any dissent is expressed against the objectionable portions? The Vicar replies in the negative: and the other speaker concludes, that " they must be presumed to join in the whole office; and so to render it their Common Prayer." He adds, that, as he cannot join in the whole service, he abstains from Church altogether. Dodwell's example is urged by one party: but by the other, his later works are regarded as inconsistent with his former; while the principles on which he acted, in returning to the Church of England, are condemned as unsound.[47]

Lindsay was a man of very considerable powers. Whatever subject he touched was handled in a masterly manner. Some of his productions are on subjects of general interest: and one intitled "The Happy Interview" is rather of an amusing description, the object being to ridicule the alteration of the ​Style in 1753. Truth and Common Sense meet in St. Paul's on the 2nd of September, the day set apart as a fast to call to remembrance the Fire of London in 1666.[48] "'Tis strange," says Truth, "that Common Sense should not reflect upon the notorious absurdity of addressing our prayers in solemn commemoration of an event, as happening on this day: whereas the proper anniversary appointed by authority is yet to come eleven days hence, and will then be passed over here without any notice." Truth further argues, "how absurd it is, to celebrate this and the other three anniversaries of the Martyrdom, the Restoration, and the Gunpowder Treason (which are all four solemnities peculiar to this nation) on the nominal days instead of the real ones." Common Sense is at last convinced, that the people are deceived by Almanacks and Calenders.[49]

​The author was also an able antagonist of Romanism. Like his brethren, though exposed to the charge of Popery, he was a more effective opponent of the errors of Rome, than the persons by whom his character was assailed. His Seasonable Antidote was published, in consequence of the apostacy of one of his congregation to the Church of Rome. The following extract may be taken as a specimen of the manner of his handling the controversy, and also as an evidence of the soundness of his own principles. "The decision of the Church (I mean the Catholic Church of Christ, properly so called) is expressly contrary to that of modern Rome, in all the points in controversy with the Church of England: as I am able and ready to prove to the conviction of all, whose eyes are not blinded with prejudices against the truth. Let me ask you, in the name of God, can you so firmly believe, as to admit of no longer doubt, that in the sacrament of the Eucharist, ​there is truly, really, and substantially contained whole Christ, God man, body and blood, bones, nerves, soul and divinity, under the species and appearance (only) of bread and wine? That the same body which was born of the Virgin, and is now in heaven? That upon consecration, there is a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of Christ's body? Can you believe, and no longer doubt, that divine worship is due, or can be paid, without danger of idolatry to the consecrated Host?"

The man who penned this passage was quite as far from Rome as his accusers: and the remark will apply to the Nonjurors generally.[50] Lindsay, it appears, officiated to the Nonjuring congregation, at Trinity Chapel, Aldersgate Street, being probably their last minister. For some years he acted as corrector of the Press to Bowyer, a task for which he was eminently qualified. He died at the advanced age of 82, and was buried in Islington churchyard, in the year 1768. The inscription upon his grave existed in 1808: and probably it exists still. In one of the extracts from his letters preserved by Nichols, he settles the authorship of some of the works, which were written at an early period of the separation. "The Case of Allegiance to a King in Possession," says he to Zachary Gray, ("as well as a Defence of it") were Mr. T. Browne's, formerly ​of your College, St. John's, B.D. The Answer to Obedience and Submission (as well as to Sherlock's Vindication on the same subject) were written by Mr. Wagstaffe. The Examination of the Arguments from Scripture and Reason, by Mr. Theophilus Downes. Dr. Sherlock's Case of Allegiance considered, by Mr. Jeremiah Collier." In the year 1747 he writes, "as I gladly embrace all opportunities of paying my respects to you, the inclosed letter from my brother, (sent by one of his sons lately come to London) presents me this occasion to acquaint you, that I removed last Christmas, from the Temple, and took a lodging in Pear-Tree Street, near St. Luke's, Old Street, where I spend my time chiefly among books, or in my garden. That I am still a dealer in the former you may perceive by these proposals. You know I published the greater part of Mason's works several years ago; but had not then the whole. Now having luckily procured the last sermons, which I had been so long in quest of, I have printed them in the same paper and letter with the rest, which makes the collection complete. There are a good many copies of the former still on my hands, which I hope may go off now. Those who have the rest already may have these sermons by themselves. I presume, Sir, upon the favour of your interest to promote this method of distributing them." On publishing Mason's "Vindication" he resided at Islington, the preface being dated from that place: but it appears that he moved frequently from place to place.[51]

​William Law was contemporary with Lindsay. He was born in 1686, at Kingscliffe, in Northamptonshire. So that when the schism originated, he was only an infant. His father was a grocer in that village: but whether he had adopted the principles of the Nonjurors, I am unable to determine. William was sent to Cambridge, where he took the degree of B.A.in 1708, and that of M.A. in 1712. At this time, therefore, he could not have been a Nonjuror: but after the accession of George I. when the Abjuration Oath was rigorously enforced, he refused to submit, and consequently lost his fellowship. Still, as a man of peace, he remained in the communion of the Church, attending divine service in his own parish. His writings are rather voluminous: and some of his practical works, especially his Serious Call, and his Christian Perfection, are still most extensively circulated. He took a prominent part in the Bangorian Controversy, defending the Church and the Priesthood against Hoadley, with much ability and force of argument. He died in the year 1761.[52]

Lindsay and Law were among the last generation of the Nonjurors: and Carte may be reckoned in the same class. During his life the labours of Carte were not duly appreciated, though they are now ranked among the most valuable of our historical writings. The author graduated at Oxford, taking his B.A. in 1702, and M.A. at Cambridge in 1706. On these occasions he must have taken the Oath of Allegiance: but on the accession of George I. he refused to take the Oath of Abjuration. At this time Collier was accustomed to preach to a Nonjuring congregation in an upper room of a house in Broad ​Street: and Carte appears on some occasions to have assisted him in his labours. On the Sunday he also performed divine service in his own family. In 1715, he was obliged to conceal himself, from an active search of the king's troops, in the house of Mr. Badger, the Curate of Coleshill. In the year 1722, a charge of Treason was alleged against him, a reward of 1000 being offered for his apprehension. To avoid a prosecution he escaped to France, where he resided under the assumed name of Philips, spending his time in laborious study, various public and private libraries being opened to his researches. His great works, The Life of the Duke of Ormond, and the History of England, are now much better known and much more valued than they were at the time of, and many years subsequent to, their publication. Queen Caroline obtained permission for him to return to England, sometime between the year 1728 and 1730. Falling under suspicion in 1744, he was taken into custody: but his liberation was soon accomplished. The Duke of Newcastle asked him, during the examination to which he was subjected, whether he were not a Bishop? "No, My Lord," he replied, "there are no Bishops in England but what are made by your Grace; and I am sure I have no reason to expect that honour." The first volume of his History of England was finished in 1747: and its credit was very materially damaged by a note respecting The King's Evil. An account is given of an individual, who went over to the Pretender in 1716, to be touched for the disease, according to the custom in such cases, and who, as was alleged, was cured of the malady under which he laboured. The author was sharply attacked on account of this note. In his reply he states, that having occasion to speak ​of the royal unction, he was led to notice the extraordinary effects ascribed to it by certain writers: and that the obnoxious note was inserted in order to shew, that the supposed sanative virtue in the royal touch, was erroneously ascribed to the anointing. In consequence of this note, the History did not then meet with that approval which it so well merited. The Author died in the year 1754, at Caldecot House, near Abingdon, Berks.[53]

Among the last race of the Nonjurors there were many quiet and peaceable men, whose names are now forgotten. Of this character was the Rev. William Andrews, a native of Croscombe, in the county of Somerset. He was one of those conscientious men, who, though he had taken the Oath of Allegiance, could not take the Oath of Abjuration. When, therefore, the latter Oath was imposed, after the accession of the House of Hanover, being then in Deacon's orders, he on principle declined to proceed to the order of Priesthood, as well as to the degree of M.A. and subsequently, when preferment was offered him, he refused to accept it on the same ground. In the year 1744, having devoted himself, like so many of the Nonjurors, to the pursuit of literature, he published in two volumes a translation of Pascall's Provincial Letters; but so great was his modesty, that his initials only, W. A. are appended to the Preface. He resided, during many years, at Wedmore, in the county of Somerset, where he fitted up a study over the Church Porch, in which his books ​were deposited. He died in the year 1759 at Bath, and was buried in the Abbey Church in that city.[54]

James II. lost his crown from his attachment to Rome: and it is said, that his grandson in 1745 was ready to renounce Romanism, in order to regain what had been lost by his grandfather. Lord Kilmarnock denied that the object contemplated by the restoration of the exiled family was the restoration of Popery. He added that Charles Edward had no concern about any outward profession of religion.

King believed, that he would have conformed to the Church of England, on the ground of indifference to either Creed. As to his religion, he is certainly free from all bigotry and superstition, and would readily conform to the religion of the country. With the Catholics, he is a Catholic: with the Protestants, he is a Protestant: and to convince the latter of his sincerity, he often carried an English Common Prayer Book in his pocket, and sent to Gordon, a Nonjuring ​clergyman, to christen the first child he had by Mrs. W."[55] This is remarkable, inasmuch as he would not have been in exile, if King James had adhered to the Anglican Church. The Nonjurors also, from the commencement of the Revolution, were convinced, that Popery was the cause of the King's troubles. Accordingly we find them using means to procure at least a promise of support for the Church of England, in the event of his Restoration: and King James assures us, that it was proposed to four Roman Catholic English divines, in 1693, whether he might lawfully promise to support the Church of England. They replied that he could not promise to defend a religion, which he deemed to be erroneous; but that he might promise to protect the members of the Church of England, as by law established, in the free and full exercise of their religion.[56] Mr. Hallam admits, that Popery alone kept the Pretender from the throne. "It is almost certain, that, if either the claimant or his son had embraced the Protestant religion, and had also manifested any superior strength of mind, the German prejudices of the reigning family would have cost them the throne, as they did the people's affections."[57]

The First Pretender, the son of James II. who was born in 1688, died in 1765, after which Charles Edward, the Second Pretender, assumed the style and title of King of England. Charles Edward was born in 1720, so that he was twenty-five years of age when he entered Scotland in 1745. It is said that ​he visited England on two subsequent occasions. Thus David Hume asserts, in a letter written in 1773, that he was certainly in London in 1753. Hume had the information from Lord Marechal, who had received the particulars from the lady, at whose house the Pretender took up his abode. According to this account, he arrived when the lady had a large party. He walked once through St. James's Park, and also in the Mall. Hume told the story to Lord Holderness, many years after, who was Secretary of State at the time, and who acknowledged that such was the case, and that he had first obtained his information from the King himself. It is further stated, on the authority of Lord Marechal, that he was actually present at the coronation of George III. Hume adds, that some of the Jacobites assured him, that Charles Edward formally renounced Romanism in 1753, at the New Church in the Strand, and that on this account he was ill treated by the Court of Rome.[58]

A writer in the Gentleman's Magazine corrected some portions of Hume's statement. He says, that the Pretender renounced Popery, at the Chapel in Gray's Inn Lane, and not at the Chapel in the Strand; and that he was accustomed to read the Service of the Church of England to his household, when no Clergyman was present.[59]

Various opinions have been expressed respecting Charles Edward's religious views. By some persons he has been represented as a bigot to the Church of Rome: by others, as a Protestant: but probably King's statement, that he was indifferent to all creeds, ​is nearest the truth. It is said that, on one occasion, while witnessing a procession at Rome, he exclaimed to a Roman Catholic Peer, "Oh that our family should deprive themselves of three kingdoms for such nonsense."[60] He died at Rome in 1788, and was buried, with great pomp and splendour, in the Church of Frescati, of which his brother Henry, the Cardinal of York, was Bishop.[61]

At the period of Charles Edward's death, few Nonjurors survived. For several years, notwithstanding the efforts of some active individuals, they had been gradually diminishing in numbers. Gordon, the last Bishop of the regular body, died in 1779: so that the Nonjurors became extinct, as a regularly constituted Church, with its Bishops, Priests and Deacons, at that time: but the Separatists continued some years longer, and individual Clergymen of the other body survived, until a comparatively recent period. Of Gordon an unfavourable, and probably not a true picture, is drawn by King. "It never entered my thoughts," says he, "that a Nonjuring Clergyman, who values himself much upon the sanctity of his manners, and with whom I had once lived in some degree of friendship, should conspire with two or three villanous attorneys to traduce me by a public advertisement. I don't know whether he would be a martyr, but no man is a greater enthusiast in religion than he is in the Jacobite cause. Hereditary right and passive obedience are the chief articles of his creed. And this is the doctrine which ​he teaches in his little congregation, over which he presides as a pastor: where, while he boasts of the purity of his religion, and a steady adherence to his political system, he departs from every principle of humanity, and devotes his country to ruin." It is added in a note, "There is indeed a latent cause of this man's enmity to me, besides the reason which he hath given the public for his resentment. I have lately been unfortunately engaged in a lawsuit with one James Bettenham, a printer, a sanctified member of Gordon's congregation, but one of the greatest knaves I have ever known. This man, who had great obligations to me, and taken a great deal of my money, endeavoured, in settling a final account, to cheat me of £100. In this attempt he was assisted and justified by his father confessor."[62] There is, however, no reason for supposing that King's impressions were correct, respecting either Gordon or Bettenham. Differences had arisen, and he gives vent to his anger in this severe attack.

The Nonjurors of the Separation, which commenced in 1733 or 1734, continued their succession of Bishops several years after Gordon's death. The breach, which had been occasioned by the Usages, was, as has been shewn, closed in 1733, with the exception of Bishop Blackburn and a few of his Presbyters, who made no attempt to continue the succession apart from the general body. But no sooner had they become a united party, by the healing of this breach, than another separation occurred, on totally different grounds. The Separatists proceeded to consecrate Bishops of their own, apart from the regular body. But as the schism was headed only by one Bishop, ​he actually consecrated others, by his own authority, contrary to the canons of the Church: consequently these consecrations were not recognized by the legitimate Nonjurors; nor could they have been allowed by the deprived Bishops, supposing the schism to have occurred at an earlier period. The particulars of this separation were given in a previous chapter. In the year 1780, Price and Cartwright were consecrated by Deacon alone, Garnet was consecrated by Cartwright in 1795, and Boothe at a later period by Garnet. Boothe's was the last consecration. As they refused to take the Oaths, they were Nonjurors; but in many important particulars, as will be shewn in the concluding chapter, they were as much at issue with the regular body as with the National Church.

Cartwright resided at Shrewsbury, practising as a surgeon, and died in the year 1799. Before his death, he had become, says Mr. Hallam, "A very loyal subject to King George: a singular proof of that tenacity of life by which religious sects, after dwindling down through neglect, excel frogs and tortoises: and that even when they have become almost equally cold-blooded." On his deathbed, he declared his conformity to the National Church, in the presence of the Curate of the Parish. Mr. Hallam adds, "I have heard of similar congregations in the West of England still later."[63] I have been informed by a gentleman residing in the West of England, that a Nonjuring Clergyman was living so late as the year 1815. Boothe, the last of the irregular Nonjuring Bishops, died in Ireland in the year 1805.

Before the death of Gordon and Cartwright, the last Bishops of their respective lines in England, the ​Nonjurors were divided in practice as well as in opinion. Some objected altogether to the worship of the National Church, on the ground of what were termed immoral prayers: others, like William Law, though they could not take the Oaths, were content to communicate with the Church of England as private individuals. There were others, who, though they attended their parish Churches, probably because they were not sufficiently numerous to form a separate congregation with a Clergyman of their own, took with them a prayer-book printed before the Revolution, in order that they might not join in the prayer for the reigning Sovereign. This probably was not an uncommon practice. A gentleman in the West of England, a district in which many Nonjurors resided, and in which they lingered longer than in any other part of the country, informs me that this practice was adopted by several of his ancestors.

  1. ↑ Perceval's Apostolical Succession, 224.
  2. ↑ Noble, 150.
  3. ↑ Noble, iii, 148, 149. Some of his works are still among the most popular writings in our language.
  4. ↑ Biog. Brit. Art. Leslie. A list of his works is given in that article. Nichols, i. 195, 6. Salmon, ii. 122.
  5. ↑ Nichols, i. 105, 106.
  6. ↑ The History of the Pontificate: from its supposed beginning, to the end of the Council of Trent, Anno Domini 1563, in which the corruptions of the Scriptures and sacred antiquity, forgeries in the councils, and incroachments of the Court of Rome on the Church and State, to support their infallibility, supremacy, and other modern doctrines, are set in a true light. By Laurence Howell, A. M. 8vo. London, 1716.
  7. ↑ Nichols's Illustrations, v. 155 157.
  8. ↑ Perceval's Apostolical Succession, 225.
  9. ↑ Nichols, i. 52, 53.
  10. ↑ Nichols, iv. 241—248.
  11. ↑ Noble, iii. 173.
  12. ↑ Bibliotheca Biblica. Being; a Commentary upon all the Books of the Old and New Testament. Gathered out of the genuine Writings of the Fathers, and Ecclesiastical Historians, and Acts of Councils, down to the year of our Lord 451, being that of the fourth General Council: and Lower, as occasion may require, &c. 4to. Oxford, 1720. Six Volumes only, including the Pentateuch, were published.
  13. ↑ A Vindication of those who take the Oath of Allegiance to his present Majestie from Perjurie, Injustice and Disloyalty, charged upon them by such as are against it. In a Letter to a Nonjuror, 8vo. Printed in the year 1731.
  14. ↑ Life of Hearne, 23, 26, 27, 28, 121—124.
  15. ↑ Noble, iii. 147, 148.
  16. ↑ Nichols, i. 302, 303.
  17. ↑ He also published a volume of considerable size, in which the same view was maintained: "A Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist as laid down in Scripture and Antiquity. By Daniel Waterland, D.D." 8vo. London, 1737.
  18. ↑ An Epistolary Dissertation addressed to the Clergy of Middlesex. Wherein the Doctrine of St. Austin concerning- the Christian Sacrifice is set in a true light: by way of reply to Dr. Waterland's late charge to them. By a Divine of the University of Cambridge. London, 8vo. 1739, pp. 3, 4. The work is anonymous: but there is no reason to doubt that it was written by Mr. George Smith.
  19. ↑ A Brief Historical Account of the Primitive Invocation, or Prayer for a Blessing upon the Elements, in Confirmation of some things mentioned in the learned Dr. Waterland's Review, &c., and by way of Supplement to it. In a Letter to his Grace the Archbishop of Canterbury. To which is added, a full Confutation of Beza's Arguments against the Primitive Doctrine of the Eucharist, &c. 8vo. 1740.
  20. ↑ Some Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Review of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, with regard to the seeming Difference between his and Mr. Johnson's concerning the Sacrifice and some other Points. In defence of myself and some others, who maintained Mr. Johnson's Opinions in our late Answers to the Plain Account. 8vo. London, 1738.
  21. ↑ Perceval, 226.
  22. ↑ Lay Baptism Invalid. An Essay to prove that such Baptism is null and void, when administered in opposition to the divine right of the Apostolic succession. Third Ed. With an Appendix: wherein the boasted unanswerable objection of the B. of S. and other new objections are answered. By a Lay-hand. 8vo. London, 1712.

    The Second Part of Lay-Baptism Invalid: Shewing, that the Ancient Catholick Church never had any Ecclesiastical Law, Tradition or Custom, for the Validity of Baptism performed by persons, who never were commissioned by Bishops to baptize. London, 1713.

  23. ↑ Sacerdotal Powers: or the Necessity of Confession, Penance and Absolution, together with the Nullity of Unauthorized Lay-Baptism asserted in an Essay occasioned by the publication of Two Sermons, Preached at Salisbury the 5th, and 7th of November, 1710. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. 8vo. London, 1711.
  24. ↑ Dissenters and other unauthorized Baptisms null and void, by the Articles, Canons and Rubrics of the Church of England, in Answer to a Pamphlet, called the Judgment of the Church of England, in the case of Lay-Baptism, and of Dissenters' Baptism. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. 8vo. London, 1713.
  25. ↑ The Bishop of Oxford's Charge Considered, in reference to the Independency of the Church upon the State. A Proper Sacrifice in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. The nature and necessity of Sacerdotal Absolution. And the Invalidity of Baptism administered by persons not Episcopally ordained. In an humble address to his Lordship. By the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid. 8vo. 1712.
  26. ↑ A Letter to the Author of Lay-Baptism Invalid: wherein the Popish Doctrine of Lay-Baptism, taught in a Sermon, said to have been preached by the B— of S— is censured and condemned by the Greek Church: the Church of England: The Reformed abroad: and even by our English Presbyterian Sectaries. Which may be added as an Appendix to a book entitled Sacerdotal Powers. 8vo. 1711.
  27. ↑ The Author of the Wisdom of Looking Backward affects to treat Lawrence with contempt, though the name of the latter will be handed down to latest posterity, while that of the former is unknown. Thus, in alluding to his work on Lay-Baptism, he says: "by one Lawrence a Book-keeper in London, who being ashamed of his baptism among the Dissenters, was re-baptized by the Reader of Christchurch without knowledge of the Bishop or Vicar: and then would impose his own hasty practice for a standing rule and principle to others; wherein he was much encouraged and assisted by Dr. Hickes." p. 88. The same thing is repeated, p. 245, 246. So again, mentioning Lawrence's Remarks on the Bishop of Oxford's Charge, he adds, "By Mr. Lawrence bred to accounts in Spain," 265. Under the year 1713, the Author says: "the University of Oxford had lately given the Degree of M. A. to a man bred only to books of accounts, and living properly in the service of a London merchant, and a professed enemy to the Revolution, and the Hanover succession." He then gives the particulars;" One Mr. Wheatley (or some such name) a young preacher, about town falling into acquaintance with Mr. Lawrence, a disciple of Dr. Hickes, at Child's Coffee House, took a great affection for him, and having before heard him called in the University, the Learned Layman, he invited him down to Oxford with him, being himself fellow of St. John's, and prevailed with the Proctor in that House to propose the getting him an honorary degree of M. A. without education or exercise; which was effected by a surprise upon some and a cowardice in others." p. 284, 285. This one Mr. Wheatley was no less a person than the well known and learned author of the Illustrations of the Book of Common Prayer.
  28. ↑ Nichols, i. 409—412.
  29. ↑ Memoirs by Masters, 32, 33, 34, 83, 93, 139. Nichols, iv. 249; v. 107—17. Gents. Mag. vol. liv. 194, 329.
  30. ↑ Hallam, iii. 312, 454.
  31. ↑ Blacow's Letter to King, 8vo. London, 1755.
  32. ↑ State Trials, ix. 565, 566.
  33. ↑ A compleat Collection of Devotions, both public and private: taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, the Ancient Liturgies, and the Common Prayer Book of the Church of England. In Two Parts. Part I. comprehending the Public Offices of the Church; humbly offered to the consideration of the present Churches of Christendom, Greek, Roman, English, and all others. Part II. Being a Primitive Method of Daily Private Prayer, containing Devotions for the Morning and Evening, and for the ancient hours of Prayer, Nine, Twelve, and Three; together with Hymns and Thanksgivings for the Lord's Day and Sabbath, and Prayers for Fasting Days: as also Devotions for the Altar, and Graces before and after Meat, all taken from the Apostolical Constitutions, and the ancient Liturgies, with some Additions: and recommended to the Practice of all Private Christians of every Communion. To which is added, an Appendix in justification of this undertaking, consisting of Extracts and Observations, taken from the Writings of very eminent and learned Divines of different Communions. And to all is subjoined, in a Supplement, an Essay to procure Catholic Communion upon Catholic principles. London, printed for the Author, and sold by the Booksellers of London and Westminster, 1734. Price bound in calf, six shillings.
  34. ↑ A full, true, and comprehensive View of Christianity: containing a short Historical Account of Religion from the Creation of the World to the fourth Century after our Lord Jesus Christ: as also the complete Duty of a Christian in relation to Faith, Practice, Worship, and Ritualls, set forth sincerely, without regard to any modern Church, Sect, or Party, as it is taught in the Holy Scriptures, was delivered by the Apostles, and received by the universal Church of Christ during the first four Centuries. The whole succinctly laid down in Two Catechisms, a shorter and a longer, each divided into two Parts; whereof the one comprehends the Sacred History, the other the Christian Doctrine. The shorter Catechism being suited to the meanest capacity, and calculated for the use of Children; and the longer for that of the more knowing Christian. To it is prefixed a Discourse upon the Design of these Catechisms, and upon the best Method of instructing Youth in them. 8vo. London, 1747.
  35. ↑ A full, true, and comprehensive View, &c. i. 430.
  36. ↑ Gents. Mag. vol. xvi. p. 579, 580.
  37. ↑ Ibid. vol. xvi. pp. 688, 691.
  38. ↑ Gents. Mag. vol. xvii. p. 76.
  39. ↑ Jacobite and Nonjuring Principles freely examined: In a Letter to the Master Tool of the Faction at Manchester, with Remarks on some part of a book lately published, entitled A Full, Free, and Comprehensive View, &c. wrote by Dr. Deacon. By J. Owen, Manchester, 1748.
  40. ↑ Gents. Ma. vol. xviii. p. 206.
  41. ↑ Nichols, i. 252, 253. Blackbourne was buried in Islington Churchyard, and Nichols mentions, "when a schoolboy, I have often gazed with astonishment at the following epitaph, the meaning of which I was then unable to comprehend:

    Hic situm est quod mortale fuit
    Viri vere reverendi
    Johannis Blackbourne A. M.
    Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ Presbyteri,
    Pontificorum æque ac Novatorum Mallei,
    Docti, clari, strenui, prompti:
    Qui (uti verbo Dicam) cætera enim quis nescit?
    Cum eo non dignus erat,
    Usque adeo degener, mundus,
    Ad Beatorum Sedes
    Translatus est, 17 die Novembris
    a.d. mdccxli. ætat. suæ lviii.

    On the foot stone:

    Christo qui vivit, morte perire nequit.
    Resurgam.⁠J. B.
    Nunc, amice Lector, quisquis sis,
    Ex hinc disce, qui es, et quid eris."
  42. ↑ An Expostulatory Letter to the Rev. Mr. Patrick Cockburn. 8vo. London, 1740.
  43. ↑ A Collection of Letters concerning the Separation of the Church of England into two Communions. 1746. P. 4.
  44. ↑ Nichols, i. 170, 705.
  45. ↑ They were generally put forth anonymously: but the pieces to which I refer are ascribed to him by the Nonjuror, some of whose books are in my possession.
  46. ↑ The Grand and Important Question about the Church and Parochial Communion fairly and friendly Debated in a Dialogue between a worthy Country Gentleman and his Neighbour newly returned from London. London, 8vo. 1756.
  47. ↑ The Grand and Important Question about the Church and Parochial Communion further Debated, in a fair and friendly Conference between a Country Gentleman and his Neighbour, together with the Reverend Vicar of the Parish also. 8vo. London, 1759.
  48. ↑ A special service was appointed for the 2nd of September, which was for some time, after the fire in 1666, used generally in the churches. At the present time, however, it is only read in two churches—St. Paul's Cathedral and the Church of Alder-Mary. In some of the Books of Common Prayer of the reigns of Charles II and James II, the Form of Prayer was printed with the other annual Services of the same character: but as it is not found in all the copies, it is not very generally known in the present day. During the last century, the Form was printed in a separate state, on the ground, as it was even then alleged, that copies of the Prayer Book containing this particular Service were uncommon.
  49. ↑ The Happy Interview: or Long-looked-for found out at last. A plain Narrative; giving an Account how Common Sense, having withdrawn himself, in disgust, from the Public View, was, after the indefatigable search and enquiries of his Friend, Plain Honesty, found out, in his Retirement, under the Directions of Truth. London, 1756. The following passage is curious. "It was but a week ago last Tuesday, that I was here, to join with the congregation in the service of the Church appointed for the Festival of St. Bartholomew, being the 24th of August: and that indeed might, according to the variation of the Style, be the proper day, for aught I know: considering how many ages have passed since those Saints' Days were at first instituted. But sure I am, this, though it may be now reckoned the second of September by the New Style, cannot possibly be the proper anniversary of the Fire of London: for since that dreadful calamity there are still remaining eleven days to complete the ninetieth year: so that our solemn addresses to God, for pardon, cannot, with any due regard to religion or propriety, be offered up as an annual commemoration before the 13th. But what makes the absurdity still more glaring and ridiculous is, that to-morrow we are to see the magistrates of this great city, who have been here this day, marching to Smithfield in the like formality, there to proclaim the Fair! Thus it is wisely contrived, by the reformers and correctors of our Style, that the 2nd of September comes now as of course, the day before the 23rd of August, and the Feast of St. Bartholomew ten days before the eve of it." Pp. 8, 9, 10, 11.
  50. ↑ A Seasonable Antidote against Apostacy. Containing, I. Some plain Propositions, recommended to the serious consideration of all those who may be under any Temptation to forsake the Church of England, and revolt to that of Rome. II. A Paper, pretended to be an Answer to the foregoing Propositions. And, III. Remarks, at large, upon the said pretended Answer, by the Author of the Propositions. With a Preface shewing the special reasons and occasion of making the same public. London 1758.
  51. ↑ Nichols, i. 374, 376. Lindsay was the author of a work in defence of Charles I. against the Monthly Reviewers, who had assailed the memory of that unfortunate monarch. Charles's character was ably and successfully defended by our Author.
  52. ↑ Gents. Mag. vol. lxx, pp. 720, 1038—40.
  53. ↑ Nichols, ii. 471—506. It is to be regretted, that the government deemed it necessary to press the Abjuration Oath, since in all probability Law and Carte and others would not have been Nonjurors, but for that measure: while many who had stood out would probably have complied.
  54. ↑ A Tablet, containing an inscription, still remains on the Wall of the room over the Porch of Wedmore Church. It was erected, on his leaving that village for the last time, previous to his taking up his residence in Bath. The copy of the Inscription has been sent to me by one of his collateral descendants, and is as follows:

    In Memoriam
    Johannis et Gulielmi
    Andrews,
    Quorum Prior,
    Obiit et sepultus est Bristol:
    mdcc,xlviii.
    Alter adhuc est superstes,
    Minime Pendens,
    Ubicunque moriturus,
    Ubicunque sepeliendus.
    Soli Deo
    Gloria!
  55. ↑ King's Political and Literary Anecdotes of his own Time, pp. 191, 192, 193.
  56. ↑ Life of James II. from the Stuart MSS. ii, 508, 9.
  57. ↑ Hallam, iii. 342.
  58. ↑ Gents. Mag. vol. lviii. pp. 393, 359, 642. Chambers's Rebellion, i. 284.
  59. ↑ Ibid. 509.
  60. ↑ Gents. Mag. vol. lix. 5.
  61. ↑ Ibid. vol. Iviii. 179, 180. Some curious particulars are recorded in this volume respecting the Pretender's family, and also respecting his funeral.
  62. ↑ King's Anecdotes, 201.
  63. ↑ Hallam, iii. 341.
​
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=A_History_of_the_Nonjurors/Chapter_9&oldid=9567104"