The periods prescribed by the Act which altered the Oaths of
Allegiance--first for the suspension, and next for the ejectment of
those who refused to swear--were the 1st of August, 1689, and the 1st
of February, 1690.
In the early part of the year events occurred which increased the
importance of exacting the prescribed oaths.
James left France in the month of March, 1689. Rumour ran that he had
reached England, that he was in London, that he was secretly lodged in
the house of Lloyd, the Nonjuror.[165] This proved to be a mistake. He
landed at Kinsale in Ireland, trusting to his friends, and saying, “I
will recover my own dominions with my own subjects, or perish in the
attempt.” The French King speeded the parting guest with the equivocal
compliment, “The best wish I can form for your service is, that I may
never see you again.”[166] But with the people of Ireland James found
little favour--the Protestants disliking him as a Papist, the Papists
suspecting him because they considered his policy towards Protestants
too lenient.[167] In support of his attempt to recover the crown, his
army laid siege to Londonderry, and the French navy skirmished with an
English squadron in Bantry Bay. This occurred in April. A Parliament,
at his summons, met in Dublin the following month, and from the Castle,
where he took up his residence, he issued a Declaration to his Irish
subjects, exhorting them to support his claims.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, who after the revocation of the
Edict of Nantes had witnessed the demolition of his church, and had
dared one night, at the request of his congregation, to preach amidst
the ruins, was for the offence sentenced to be broken on the wheel.
Having effected his escape from France, he happened, at the time of
James’ arrival in Ireland, to be an exile there. One of the first
things done by this Royal friend of religious liberty was to deliver
the refugee to the Ambassador of Louis, who had him conveyed home to
undergo his sentence.[168]
Copies of James’ Declaration were circulated in England, and found
their way to Cambridge. One Thomas Fowler, from the University, stood
at the bar of the House of Commons on the 20th of June, to state
that the documents came down in boxes, directed to the Masters of
Queen’s and St. John’s; and one of the Burgesses for the University
acquainted the House that the boxes were in the custody of the
Vice-Chancellor.[169]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Government in England, with their elected Sovereign, was challenged
to submit to the cashiered King, or to hold their own by force of
arms. The gauntlet being thrown down before the world, no alternative
remained but for William to return to Holland, or to fight out the
contest as best he could. The position in which these circumstances
placed him in reference to the Nonjurors is obvious. Personally he had
no disposition to come to extremities with them; he had given proof of
a desire to treat them with the utmost leniency; but the exigencies of
his position rendered it indispensable that at this moment he should
be unyielding towards all justly suspected of disaffection. Of the
disaffection of the Nonjurors there could be no doubt. They refused to
take the new oath on the very ground that, by virtue of the old one,
their allegiance belonged to James. James was their anointed King,
their King by Divine right; William was esteemed by them as no better
than a usurper.
Three nonjuring Prelates died in the course of the spring and summer.
Cartwright, the semi-Popish Bishop of Chester, after joining James at
St. Germains, accompanied him to Ireland, where on the 15th of April
he expired, having received on his death-bed the sacrament and the
absolution of the Church of England, instead of conforming to Rome,
as at the time he was reported to have done.[170] Thomas, Bishop of
Worcester, died June the 25th, solemnly declaring on his death-bed
that, if his heart did not deceive him, and the grace of God failed
him not, he thought he could burn at a stake before he would take
the new oath.[171] Lake, Bishop of Chichester, followed Thomas to
the grave in the month of August, expressing satisfaction with the
course which he had pursued, and declaring his conviction that the
oaths were inconsistent with the doctrine of passive obedience, which
he maintained to be a doctrine of the English Church.[172] These
testimonies, hallowed by the solemnity of death, were heirlooms for
the Nonjurors, who preserved them with care, and exhibited them with
reverence, not without considerable effect in promoting their cause.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
The Prelates who had not sworn, persistently continued to refuse the
oaths; the Primate being reproached with his inconsistency for the part
he had taken in the Revolution. He was insolently told by a Jacobite
correspondent in Holland, “Your Grace has forfeited your neck already
in signing that traitorous Declaration at Guildhall, wherein you cast
off your allegiance to your lawful Sovereign, and applied yourself to
the Prince of Orange.”[173] Free to discharge their functions up to the
1st of August, 1689, the Bishops were then suspended from the exercise
of them. Still they enjoyed their benefices, and continued to reside
in their palaces. The interim was filled up by the defence of their
opinions. Sancroft, following the bent of his disposition, shut himself
up at Lambeth, retaining impracticable views of a Regency, refusing to
acknowledge William and Mary, combining good intentions with narrowness
of mind, and saying to the last, with Pius the IX. at Rome, _Non
possumus_. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, unfortunately sympathized
with the Archbishop, and encouraged him in his policy. Ken--a far
different man, firm in principle, of a tender conscience, yet open to
conviction, careless about his interests, only anxious to do what was
right--almost resolved to submit. But, after a night’s rest, he said
to Dr. Hooper, who had pressed submission upon him, “I question not
but that you, and several others, have taken the oaths with as good a
conscience as myself shall refuse them; and sometimes you have almost
persuaded me to comply by the arguments you have used; but I beg you
to use them no further, for should I be persuaded to comply, and after
see reason to repent, you would make me the most miserable man in the
world.”[174]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Turner, Bishop of Ely, another of the nonjuring band, whose character
has been indicated already, whose Jacobitism is unquestionable, and
who supported the Archbishop in his defiant course, wrote to him on
Ascension Day, 1689, a letter in which he refers to Ken, and the
doubts felt respecting him. “I must needs say, the sooner we meet our
brother of Bath the better, for I must no longer in duty conceal from
your Grace--though I beseech you to keep it in terms of a secret--that
this very good man is, I fear, warping from us, and the true
interests of the Church of England, towards a compliance with the new
Government.”[175]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, coincided with Ken in his moderation;
and if the rest had resembled them, possibly a practical adjustment
of the controversy might have been reached. He is described as a
gentle, amiable man, unfitted for an Episcopal position during a season
of political trouble. After his deprivation he pursued a quiet and
inoffensive course, without giving any umbrage to the Government.[176]
Sancroft, Lloyd, and Turner were men of a different mould.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
During the period of the Bishops’ remaining in suspension, their case
excited immense interest--friends loudly expressing sympathy, opponents
loudly expressing disapproval. The press was employed. Apologies
were published; answers were returned. On the one hand the services
of the Seven in the cause of liberty were gratefully rehearsed,
their sufferings pitifully depicted, their temper under trials
enthusiastically extolled, and the sacredness of oaths, as asserted in
their conduct, earnestly enforced. Connected with this vindication and
eulogy, were mystical allusions to the perfect number of the Episcopal
confessors, the Seven imprisoned being irreverently compared to the
burning lamps before the throne of God. On the other hand, this play
of fancy met with sarcasm and ridicule; the old arguments for the
new oaths came into hackneyed use; the patient temper of the Bishops
failed to excite any longer much admiration, and a ridiculous panegyric
pronounced upon them for “the holy tears” they wept, like “trees of
sovereign balm, to cure the wounds of their Royal enemy,” only aroused
mockery, whilst their suffering and services were depreciated by a
reference to the story of Alexander the Great. Alexander had coats
of armour made for men and horses three times the ordinary size, and
left behind on the banks of the River Indus, to make succeeding ages
believe that his soldiery were of gigantic bigness. So, it was said,
the setting forth a few days’ imprisonment in the Royal palace of
the Tower,--under the notion of its being a prison such as confined
the primitive Christians,--detracted from the real glory gained by
the Bishops, since everybody saw the vast disproportion between the
dungeons of Diocletian and the Tower of London.[177]
As the 1st of February approached, a few Clergymen in the archdeaconry
of Sudbury applied to their Diocesan, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, telling
him that though they thought of nothing less than losing all, yet they
passionately desired to know whether they should voluntarily leave
their respective cures, or wait to be forcibly thrust out; also they
wished to know how they were to behave, so as, if possible, to preserve
the ancient Church of England. He informed them that in the opinion
of eminent lawyers a judicial sentence alone could eject them; and
therefore that they might retain possession until they were judicially
expelled. Their second question he left unanswered.[178] Whether
Lloyd’s notion of law was right or wrong, the Clergy generally did not
act upon it, for most of them quietly quitted possession on the 1st
of February.[179] Amongst the most distinguished of these Nonjurors
were George Hickes, Dean of Worcester; Henry Dodwell, who, though
not in orders, was Camden Professor of Ancient History at Oxford;
Jeremy Collier, Lecturer at Gray’s Inn; and John Kettlewell, Vicar of
Coleshill, in Warwickshire.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Hickes was a man of great learning, skilled both in patristic lore and
Teutonic tongues. He was brother to the Nonconformist Minister of the
name, who suffered death after Monmouth’s rebellion; but, so far from
being tainted with his brother’s sentiments, he was an intense opponent
of Nonconformity, and an extravagant assertor of passive obedience.
He published the last speeches of two Presbyterian Ministers, under
the title of _The Spirit of Popery, speaking out of the Mouths of
Fanatical Protestants_; and declared, in his _Thebæan Legion_,
that if King James should imitate the Emperor Maximian, and doom his
soldiers to death, for refusing to commit idolatry, it would be their
duty to submit with meekness to the Royal decree. He wrote letters
to a Popish priest, and an apologetical vindication of the English
Church, in answer to those who reproached her with heresy and schism;
and he also composed a book, entitled _Speculum Beatæ Virginis, a
discourse of the due praise and heroism of the Virgin Mary_. These
works indicate what manner of man he must have been, yet it is affirmed
that at first he felt disposed to take the oaths, and came up to London
for the purpose, but swerved from it through the influence of his High
Church friends; a statement which seems very improbable.[180] Dodwell
was still more learned than Hickes, and if in his theories more
absurd, he was in practice more reasonable. Some of his speculative
ideas upon marriage and music, upon the old serpent and the human soul,
were as extraordinary as any that ever entered the human brain; but
the fact which more immediately relates to my purpose is, that on the
one hand he wrote _Discourses against the Romanists_, and on the
other hand treatises upon _Schism_ and _One Priesthood_, in
such a style, that when Tillotson read the MS. he told him some things
in it were so palpably false, he wondered the author did not see their
absurdity, and that they were so gross as to grate much upon one’s
inward sense. He compared him to Richard Baxter--a man unlike him in
most respects, but whom he resembled in pertinacity of purpose and
fondness for his own opinion. Collier was described in his own day as
a breathing library, and for metaphysical learning and eloquence as
bearing the bell from most men.[181]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Inferior to Collier in point of ability, and to Dodwell and Hickes in
point of learning, Kettlewell exceeded them in the fervour of his piety
and in the force of his character. Eminently spiritual and devout, with
his heart fixed upon another world, he threw into his life and ministry
a spiritual force, which touched as with an electric spark those who
came in contact with him, and made him a centre of power, though he was
free from any ambition to become a party leader. He had been Chaplain
in the Bedford family, and had been held in affectionate esteem by
Lord William Russell, though he utterly differed from him in political
opinion, for Kettlewell strongly maintained the doctrine of passive
obedience. He did not join in the outcry against Popery in the reign
of James II.; he thought it betrayed unworthy fears to be so alarmed
at the antagonism of error; and instead of preaching against Romanism,
he enforced the doctrines of the Creeds. When others were exclaiming
against the miscarriages of Government, he, it is said, turned the
thoughts of his hearers upon themselves, bidding them contemplate
the judgment of God, adore His wisdom, and submit to His will.[182]
The use which he meant to be made of these religious reflections was
to reconcile people to the ruling powers, and to repress the idea of
resisting them, whatever might be the excesses to which they ran. “He
preached up,” as his sympathizing biographer, remarks, “the duties
of common Christianity and of universal obligation, of reliance upon
Providence, of simplicity and sincerity, of fidelity and perseverance,
with all the branches of the great doctrine of the Cross, and the
benefit which the Church maketh by sufferings; constantly recommending
Christianity to his flock as a passive religion, and giving them rules
for begetting in them a meek and passive spirit.”[183] The temper
of the man, the tone of his churchmanship, and the preparation he
was making for his ultimate position as a Nonjuror, are very plain;
and with peculiarities of this kind he blended a love of Ritualism,
which expressed itself in rather an unusual form, for when a new set
of Communion plate had been presented to the church at Coleshill, he
caused the vessels to be dedicated by Archbishop Sancroft. They were
placed upon a table below the altar steps, and then taken, piece by
piece, and reverently placed upon the altar, sentences of Scriptures
being repeated in connection with the presentation of each. When the
patten, the chalices, the flagon, and the bason had been so offered,
a prayer of consecration followed, then a benediction, and then the
Holy Communion.[184] Kettlewell is described as a man of a peaceable
disposition; but it is clear from his Memoirs that the ardour of his
affections led him to speak and act with a vehemence not agreeable
to those who differed from him, and “the true effigies” of his face
prefixed to the book, confirms the inference which in this respect must
be drawn from the narrative. He was unquestionably a man of enthusiasm,
and his enthusiasm had a capacity for becoming fanatical.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Nonjurors were not so numerous as Kettlewell and others wished.
Only six joined him in his own county. In the diocese of Lichfield and
Coventry there might be twenty. In one archdeaconry in the diocese of
Norwich there might be half that number, owing to the influence of a
nonjuring Bishop. In one College at Cambridge there was a considerable
majority of Nonjurors, attributable to the party spirit they managed to
maintain. Altogether, about 400 Clergymen quitted the Establishment.
When we remember how prevalent had been the doctrines of the Divine
right of Kings, and of the absolute submission of subjects; when,
besides this, we recollect the nature of the education given at Oxford,
where the decree against the opposite doctrines had been daily read,
and constantly hung up in the Colleges,--we wonder that the Nonjurors
were not more numerous.
[Sidenote: NONJURORS.]
Dignitaries were not so submissive as their inferior brethren. In
defiance of the Act of Parliament, nonjuring Bishops retained their
palaces; and so lenient was the Government, that, at the eleventh hour,
forms of proviso were proposed, under which Nonjurors might continue
to enjoy their benefices. The suspicion with which all such overtures
of kindness were regarded appears in a letter to Sancroft written by
Lloyd, the Coryphæus of the obstinates:
“May it please your Grace,
“Mr. Inch called upon me last Monday, and showed me a protest
contrived by him, and some of our good friends (as he styled
them), in order to fend off our deprivation. I thanked him and
our good friends for their kind designs, but at the same time I
could not well resolve what it might import, _Timeo Danaos et
dona_, and I dread lurking and consequential snares. It is
therefore necessary to consider well of this protest before any
determination about it.
“I must confess to your Grace, that I do not think it fit for us
to appear in it, or to push it on, as it took its rise from our
friends’ kindness; for it is most proper for them to manage it.
“Again, it may be very improper to stir the point, till we see
in what temper the gentlemen are that meet at St. Stephen’s
Chapel. The giving of a recognizance for the good behaving, or
quiet peaceable living, is a point that deserves to be well
weighed, especially since the interpretation of it depends much
on the mercy of the gentlemen that sit in Westminster Hall.
On the other hand, the circumstances of our poor noncomplying
brethren in our respective dioceses, must be considered, for (if
I mistake not) the benefit of the protest concerns them more
than us.
[Sidenote: 1690.]
“My Lord, upon the whole matter, I designed this day to have
waited upon your Grace and my Lord of Ely, but, in good truth,
I am not able to stir abroad. I took physic last Monday, and I
have been feverish ever since; but as soon as it shall please
God to enable me, I shall wait upon your Grace and my Lord of
Ely. In the meantime, with the tender of my humble duty and
service,
“I remain,
“Your Grace’s most obedient servant
to command,
“WILLIAM NORWICH.”[185]
This secession from the Church on a question touching the Crown
could not but be a trouble to William; at the same time he had other
troubles. The intrigues and trials between Whigs and Tories were the
plague of his reign. He wished he were a thousand miles away, and that
he had never become King of England. He thought he could not trust the
Tories--he resolved he would not trust the Whigs; and once he was on
the point of going back to Holland, leaving the Government here in the
hands of the Queen. He and his Ministers had warm debates, and it is
said that amongst them tears were shed. At last William made up his
mind to go to Ireland, and there put an end to the war.[186]
He assembled a new Parliament on the 2nd of April. Terrific excitement
prevailed at the elections. The Whigs denounced the Tories as
Jacobites, and the Jacobites as Papists. The Tories denounced the Whigs
as Republicans, Fanatics, Latitudinarians, and Atheists. The Tories had
the best of it, and returned a majority. Four Tories were declared to
be at the head of the poll for the City of London. Prominent and noisy
Whigs were excluded from their old seats; liberal men, disgusted at the
excesses of their own party, voted on the other side; even Sir Isaac
Newton declined a contest at Cambridge, and recorded his name in favour
of Sir Robert Sawyer, who had been expelled from the Whig Convention.
Yet in spite of defeats, the Whigs took heart and concocted plans,
hoping to frustrate the opposite policy. This subject, however, it is
not necessary to pursue, neither need we describe the changes which
took place in the Ministry. Before the Revolution, the conduct of the
Ministry affected most materially the affairs of the Church and the
condition of Dissenters; after the passing of the Allegiance Act, the
Church was little affected by the policy of the Government, except
as connected with Convocation; still less did that policy touch the
Dissenters after the passing of the Toleration Act.
[Sidenote: IRISH CAMPAIGN.]
In anticipation of the Irish campaign, a national fast was fixed for
the 12th of March, when prayers were offered for the personal safety of
William. Immediately afterwards, a form of prayer of a very different
description was printed and circulated. It referred to England as in
a state of religious apostacy, and it sought the restoration of James
without mentioning him by name. He was referred to as the stone which
the builders rejected, and which God would make the head of the corner.
There could be no mistake as to what was meant by the petitions, “Give
the King the necks of his enemies;” “Raise him up friends abroad;” “Do
some mighty thing for him, which we, in particular, know not how to
pray for.”[187]
This inflammatory performance under a devout disguise aroused
indignation, and numbers of the adherents of William ascribed its
composition to the Nonjurors. The excitement against the Bishops of
that party was increased by a publication, in which they were styled
“the Reverend Club of Lambeth,” “the Holy Jacobite Club,” “wretches,
great contrivers, and managers of Cabals,” who loved “to trample on the
Dissenters, now happily out of their clutches.” The new prayers are
called the Bishop’s “Great Guns;” and Ken is alluded to as a fellow
who had eaten King William’s bread. The most shameful passage is one
in which, under a covert allusion to the massacre of the De Witts in
Amsterdam, a violent assault upon the individuals abused is obviously
suggested.[188]
[Sidenote: 1690.]
The Bishops published a vindication of themselves, denying that they
had any share in the recent form of prayer, or that they had any
knowledge as to who were the writers. In reference to the attack upon
them they said, “Who the author of the libel was they did not know;
but whoever he might be, they desired, as the Lord had taught, to
return him good for evil, and recommended him to the Divine mercy.”
They had all, they went on to declare, actually or virtually, hazarded
whatever they possessed in opposing Popery and arbitrary power; and
were still ready to sacrifice their very lives in the same noble cause.
In conclusion, they lamented the misfortune that they were unable to
publish full and particular replies to the many libels which were
industriously circulated by enemies, to the injury of their reputation.
The authorship of the prayers being denied by the Bishops, it was
attributed to Hickes, or to Sherlock, or to Kettlewell; on their
behalf a protest was entered against such a suspicion in the Life of
the last of these persons; but some sympathy with the New Liturgy
itself is betrayed by the writer, when, without any condemnatory or
qualifying remark, he calls it “as solemn and expressive as any could
well be;” nor does he hint at its being the work of Roman Catholics--an
origin which, by some writers, has been suggested without sufficient
reason.[189]