Wheeler, 365

Whigs, 73, 93, 96, 110, note, 156

Invite William to come to England, 11

Recover Power, 208

Their Discussions with Tories, 251

Pleased with the King’s Speech, 255

Whiston, 307, 326

White, Bishop of Peterborough, a Nonjuror, 23, 53, 68, 69, 240, 308

Summoned to Attend the King, 20

At Interview with the King, 31

Refuses to take the Oath, 97

Ejected, 171

Attends Fenwick on the Scaffold, 241

His Death and Funeral, 391, 392

Wickart, Dean of Winchester, 292

William III.

His Early Days, 1–3

His Character, 3

Marriage, 4

Religious Opinions, 4

His Protestantism, 6, 7

His Interest in England, 8, 9

Invited to England, 11

His Diplomatic Negotiations Abroad, 12

Military Preparations at Home, 13

His Declaration, 27

Appeals to the Army, 28

Sets Sail, 34

Lands at Torbay, 36

Marches with his Army to Exeter, 38

At Wells, 42

Takes Possession of Salisbury, 47

His Private Conference with Clarendon, 48

His Popularity, 49

False Declaration in his Cause, 50–51

Deputation waits upon him, 54

Forces James to Surrender, 57

Clergy Present him with an Address, 59

Sancroft’s Proposal to make him Regent, 67, 68

He Summons a Meeting, 72

Entrusted with Administration of Affairs, 73

Declared King by the Lords, 77

By the Commons, 78

His Speech at Whitehall, 80

Proclaimed King, 81

His Appointments to Office, 82

Nominates Burnet to the Bishopric of Salisbury, 84

Desires Alteration in Test Act, 94

His Coronation, 99

Requested by Parliament to Summon Convocation, 107

His Conversation with John Howe, 113, note

An Advocate of Liberty, 118

Appoints the Ecclesiastical Commission, 125

Desires to make Tillotson Archbishop of Canterbury, 140, 186

His Message to Convocation, 141

His Answer to their Address, 143

Disgusted with his Position, 156

Resolves to go to Ireland, 156

Assembles a New Parliament, 156

Wounded at the Battle of the Boyne, 159

His Esteem for Tillotson, 191

Sympathy with him on the Death of his Queen, 199

Articles Published in his Name for Ecclesiastical Reform, 203, 209

His Frequent Absence from England, 206

Appoints Lords Justices, 206

Administers Foreign Affairs, 208

His Return to England after Surrender of the Castle of Namur, 208

His Injunctions Relative to the Trinitarian Controversy, 209,

210, 223

His Inconsistency, 224

Conspiracy against him, 231

His Perilous Position in England, 236

Recognised as a Constitutional King by the Peace of Ryswick, 242

His Entry into London, 242, 243

Obliged to give up his Dutch Guards, 244

Devolves Part of Responsibility of Bestowing Church Preferment on

others, 247

Provides for Education of the Duke of Gloucester, 248, 249

Anxious about the Succession, 250

His Speech on Opening Parliament, 254

His Declining Health, 256

Instability of his Throne, 259

His Death, 295

Character, 296

Objects to Touching for King’s Evil, 339

Williams, Solicitor-General, 14

Williams, Daniel, 411, 425–427

Williams, Bishop of Chichester, 125, note

Willis, Dr., 296

Willoughby, Lord, 50

Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man, 331

Winchester, Marquis of, 103, 105

Winshup, a Nonjuror, 376

Witchcraft, 335–339

Woodhouse, John, 415

Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, 288, 289, 292

Wren, Sir Christopher, 287

Yorke, a Nonjuror, 375

Young, Robert, 188, note

Zulestein, Count of, 6, note

CORRIGENDA.

Page 144, line 13, _for_ Kingsale _read_ Kinsale.

„ 222, „ 1, _for_ Unitariam _read_ Unitarian.

„ 343, „ 30, _for_ Blackall _read_ Blackhall.

UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND CHILWORTH.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see _The Life of

William III._ 8vo., Lond., 1703; _The Hist. of King William

III._, 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; _The Life of William, Prince of

Orange_, 8vo., Lond., 1688.

[2] _Own Times_, ii. 305, i. 689.

[3] _Own Times_, i. 691.

[4] Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of a

Churchman as possible.

[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS. _Life of Hooper_, by

Prouse. See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 101–3.

[6] _Hawkins’ Life of Ken_, 7. In the _Life of Ken, by a

Layman_, 105, we are told that William was much offended at the

marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced--which

marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s

displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with

Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that

one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused

to marry her. Which is right?

[7] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 183.

[8] _Clarendon Correspondence_, ii. 484.

[9] _Calamy’s Hist. Account_, i. 147. He describes the prophetic

dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, in his

_Hist. of the Quakers_, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic letter

(containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a Quaker

at London to his friend, as a forgery.

[10] _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. part i. 228.

[11] _Ibid._, 238.

[12] See curious correspondence in _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. i.

240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.”

[13] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. (autobiography) 513.

[14] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 510.

[15] _Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa_, i. 393–397.

[16] My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I find the

Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, as it

is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a dyer.

In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order of the

Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to surrender

their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and well-beloved,’

commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. Snell) and other

members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit ‘our well-beloved

Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of November, 1687. Jenkins,

our local historian, says, ‘that not only the Mayor, but the other

members of the newly-created Chamber, were Presbyterians. When the

Corporation sent up an address to the King, congratulating him on

the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the honour of knighthood.

When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, one of the fruits

of his repentance was the restoration of their charters to corporate

towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from his corporate

dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I have not been

able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the Mayor was a

Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s allusion to

the Conventicle.”

[17] Aug. 16, 1688. _Bodleian, Tanner MSS._, xxviii.

[18] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 113, printed in _Gutch’s Collectanea_, i. 404.

[19] July 27, 1688. _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 618.

[20] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 326–8. I am very sceptical

about this report.

[21] _London Gazette_, 2384.

[22] Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) to the

Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman for an

impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in fear,

yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery.

Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so

careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the

“foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation,

he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his

Episcopal income being desperately poor. _Facsimiles of National

MSS._, iv. 92.

[23] _Clarendon Correspondence._ Lord Dartmouth says, “Not long

before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his chamber),

my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not above

twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the Duke,

and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that if

ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find

himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though

there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to

contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My

father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s

last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer

was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.”

_Dalrymple_, iii. appen. 289.

[24] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 317.

[25] _Clarendon Correspondence._

[26] _Gazette_, 2386.

[27] _Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 339–344.

[28] _D’Oyley_, i. 345.

[29]

_For the King._

O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble

supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in

this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give

Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health

and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels;

prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good

success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his

people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true

allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together

to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in

their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy

most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed

to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. _Amen._

_For Repentance._

Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here

humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least

of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our

souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders

of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have

hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our

amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed;

for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast

hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to

repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly

sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of;

that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest

rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of

Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. _Amen._

There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His

Majesty to be printed.

[30] Macpherson (_Hist._ i. 518) succinctly and completely refutes

the assertion.

[31] _Gutch_, i. 414.

[32] _Tanner MSS._, vol. xxviii. 153. There is another letter on

the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.

[33] _Dalrymple_, i. 210.

[34] _Ibid._, i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with James,

remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the

commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince

comes only to maintain the Protestant religion--he will do no harm to

England.’” p. 358.

[35] _D’Oyley_, i. 355.

[36] Compton’s own account. _Gulch_, i. 443.

[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written by Trelawny,

Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these Bishops was

afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with bringing William

over to England:--“Having in a discourse with Mr. Francis Robartes, a

little time after the coronation of King William, resented to him the

impudence of the person, whoever he was, that insinuated in the Prince

of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had invited him to come

over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly false; he replied, ‘I

took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord about the particular, and

asked him whether it was true; his answer was, No, damn ’em, they were

not so honest, but I caus’d it to be put in, to raise a jealousy and

hatred on both sides, that the King, believing it, might never forgive

them, and they, fearing that he did believe, might be push’d for their

own safety to wish and help on his ruin.’”--_First Report of the

Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, 52.

There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated

25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the

Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester

to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c.,

‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”--See

same _Report_.

[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced by Sancroft

of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper is in

existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there hath

been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince of

_Orange_ hath an _intention_ to invade this kingdom in hostile manner;

and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his attempt, that he hath

been thereunto invited by several _English_ Lords, both temporal and

spiritual; _I William_, Archbishop of _Cant._, do for my own discharge

profess and declare That I never gave him any such invitation by word

or writing or otherwise, nor do I know, nor can believe, that any of my

reverend brethren, the Bishops, have in any such wise invited him. And

all this I aver upon my word, and in confirmation [for which word in

MS. _attestation_ is substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here

at Lambeth, this 3rd day of November, 1688, W. C.” _Gutch_, ii. 366.

[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in the

original document: “Here also something was added which I (the Bp. of

Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this effect,

that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves might be a

thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and properties of the

subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we begged His Majesty

would require no more of us in particular, but would rest contented

with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” _Tanner

MSS._

[40] _Gutch_, i. 426–440.

[41] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 232.

[42] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.

[43] _Rapin_, iii. 285.

[44] _Macaulay_, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I have quoted,

refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. _State Papers, Lectures

on the Church of Scotland_, 116.

[45] _Burnet_, i. 789.

[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is said to

have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and locket, are

still preserved in the family.”

“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who

assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden

from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they

could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having

an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent

to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some

time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed

when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night,

and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house

stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”

[47] _Harl. Miscell._, i. 449.

“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of

their provision; and instead of ‘_Votre serviteur, Monsieur_,’

they were entertained with ‘_Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken_,’ upon

which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old

servants.”

[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under the

Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his

grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to

state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over

ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his

master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of

apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.

“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first

person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however

believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly

gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the

borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known

as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council.

The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired

spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to

Newton.” _MS. Information._

[49] _Le Neve’s Archbishops_, 269.

[50] Quoted in _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.

[51] I give this story as it is found in the _Harleian Miscellany_,

and _Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches_. Ferguson was first

a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for some time he acted as

assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the authority of Burnet,

gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in _Palmer’s Nonconf.

Memorial_, and by Wilson in his _Dissenting Churches_, i. 284.

It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a

different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may

be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and

violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after

the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own

extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a

full account of it.

[52] _Dalrymple_, i. 225.

[53] Note in _Wilson’s Life of Defoe_, i. 110.

[54] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.

[55] _Ken’s Life, by a Layman_, 324.

[56] See _Gazette_, Nov.

[57] _Life of James II._, ii. 209–212.

[58] _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_, 62. Macpherson mentions a

meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince of Orange,

at which Compton was present. _Hist. of Great Britain_, i. 530.

_Original Papers_, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an authority,

but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary.

[59] Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. _Tanner MSS._, xxviii.

[60] _Ralph_, i. 1073.

[61] _Gazettes_ under dates.

[62] _Clarendon’s Diary_, Dec. 3; ii. 214.

[63] _Ibid._, Dec. 5, 6.

[64] _Reresby_, 363, 364.

[65] _Burnet_, i. 793.

[66] _Life of William III._, 1703.

[67] _Ralph_, i. 1051.

[68] _Burnet_, i. 793.

[69] See _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_.

[70] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 159.

[71] _Tour through Great Britain_, ii. 64–70. The excitement

extended into Essex.

“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and

in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish

soldiers that were coming, they said.” _Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals

of Coggeshall_, 269.

[72] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 188–191.

[73] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 506.

[74] These notes are preserved amongst the _Tanner MSS._, xxviii.

285, 286.

[75] _Dalrymple_, i. 248. _Memoirs of James II._, ii. 270.

[76] Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, _Works_, ix. 514. The

Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have been the

18th.

[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is called the

_Historical Register Entering Book_, vol. ii. 383. _Morice

MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library.

[78] _Ralph_, i. 1073.

[79] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 235.

[80] _Ibid._, ii. 234.

[81] _Stuart Papers_, quoted in _D’Oyley_, i. 410.

[82] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 237.

[83] _Ibid._, ii. 238.

[84] _Diary and Correspondence_, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. 240.

[85] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 415.

[86] “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there were

meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before and

after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they were

even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision,

were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.”

_Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll._, 987, 151.

[87] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 424.

[88] _Diary_, Jan. 15, 1689.

[89] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 247.

[90] _Patrick’s Life. Works_, ix. 515.

[91] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 358.

[92] _Life of Philip Henry_, 187.

[93] _Parl. Hist._, v. 24.

[94] _Ralph_, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, Rochester,

Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Peterborough,

Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph.

[95] Quoted in _Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation_, 317.

[96] _Journals of Lords._ Compare _Clarendon’s Diary and

Correspondence_, ii. 257.

[97] _Parl. Hist._, v. 51.

[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged

them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which

they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and

arbitrary power.” _Gutch_, i. 447.

[99] _Parl. Hist._, v. 59.

[100] _Dalrymple_, i. 267.

[101] _Parl. Hist._, v. 75.

[102] _Burnet_, i. 818.

[103] _Dalrymple_, i. 269.

[104] _Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 256.

[105] It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the

Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following

passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it is gratifying

to all Englishmen and Americans:--“I call restorative the Government

of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these

great, good men have established society on respect for right, and

have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is to

say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the contrary,

anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary _régime_, whether it

be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more dangerous

the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it disposes at

its pleasure.”

[106] _Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France._

_Works_, v. 103.

[107] _Parl. Hist._, v. iii.

[108] _Parl. Hist._, v. 111–113.

[109] _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 42.

[110] _Burnet_, i. 803.

[111] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 8.

[112] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 330.

[113] _Parl. Hist._, v. 129–131. Feb. 20.

[114] _Ralph_, ii. 63.

[115] _Memoirs of Sir John Reresby_, 398. It must be remembered

that his sympathies were with James.

[116] _Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family_, i. 320.

[117] See _Commons’ Journals_, March 7, April 1, and _Parl.

Hist._, v. 137.

[118] _Lords’ Journals_, March 16.

[119] _Journals_, March 23.

[120] _Burnet_, ii. 9, 10.

[121] _Commons’ Journals_, April 13.

[122] _Reresby_, 401. March 28.

[123] _Life of Kettlewell_, 217, 218.

[124] _Parl. Hist._, v. 199–206.

[125] _Macaulay_, iv. 121. _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster

Abbey_, &c., 94, and _Bufton’s Diary_ in _Dale’s Annals of

Coggleshall_, 270.

[126] See _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 145.

[127] _Autobiography_, 516.

[128] _Somer’s Tracts_ (old edition), i. 380. There is a scheme of

Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways amongst the

_Tanner MSS._, 290, 242, without date. Also another for indulgence

that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration that their

Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in no way through

crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the peace of Church

or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are openly profane,

the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in the judgment of

charity, they may be comprehended within the number of conscientious

Dissenters. _Tanner MSS._, 80, 108.

[129] March 23. _MSS. Journal_ (_Historical Register, Entering

Book_, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library.

[130] _Burnet_, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist

reports (_Entering Book_, ii. 511) a “variety of debates in the

House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln

would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had

established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon

the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The Archbishop

of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, for they

refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the

Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and

other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not

to be comprehended or indulged.”

[131] See _Lords’ Journal_.

[132] _Entering Book_, April 13. The following entry appears on

the 20th:--“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant

subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of

their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving

indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons’ Bill

for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a

second time this day fortnight.”

[133] April 13. _Parl. Hist._, v. 217. The following passage

occurs in the _Entering Book_, 217, Wednesday, May 15:--“Commons

proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The

anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas

Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence seemed very

grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content

it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ own Indulgence

Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed,

they might take anything that was good out of their own Bill and insert

it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel.” It is

added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not

in the Lords’ Bill, _i.e._ it repeals all the penal statutes

against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill does only

suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but

leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”

[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant subjects

will be printed in the Appendix.

[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed against the

Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their

apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the

Earl of Nottingham.”--_Birch’s Tillotson_, 178.

[136] _Reresby_, 390.

[137] _Burnet_, ii. 11.

[138] _Somerville’s Political Transactions_, 275: _Smith’s

remarks--Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 158.

[139] _Ralph_, ii. 73.

[140] _Life, by Matthew Henry_, 181.

[141] There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but they looked

with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. “The truth of

the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House of Parliament

was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the State. And the

House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred voices to reform

things amiss in the State than in the Church, and therefore, in such

a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and weak friends to

Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or giving impunity

to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be prostituted

and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to be by

those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so to

do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting of

Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better

opportunity.”--April, 1689. _Entering Book_, 534.

[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth

insertion:--“Although in history the causes of events should be

pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary

method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of

these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous

in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the

State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament,

returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to

protect the Church from the invasion--as they called it--which was

making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in

defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived

connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies

with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both

were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords,

particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their

speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her

treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the

Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of

religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour

of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion

to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters

themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should

weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest;

and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of

honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain,

and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in

Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that

the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as

the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition

and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions

should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the

State itself.”--_Dalrymple_, i. 318.

[143] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 200.

[144] The following entries in the _Hist. Register, Williams’

MSS._, relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the

subject:--Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had

some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was

pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose:

‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe

answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty

their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should

do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good

affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned

in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His

Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might

also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be

of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty,

‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst

others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as

is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never

concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides,

in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by

Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good

suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they

did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this

kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”--Saturday, June

22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill

for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the

Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr.

John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the

son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of

what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he

fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen.

They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till

1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then,

and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat

unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside,

or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows

himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should

pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”

[145] _Parl. Hist._, v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the

debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost,

and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some

cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed.

Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer,

was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting

their proceedings.

[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in

the _Entering Book_, May 25:--“I do not understand the mystery of

it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and

Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops

passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in

the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the

imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think

there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass

it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did

promote the passing of it. _Nota._--And its as certain, that they

do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed

they would stop it.”

Amongst the Camb. MSS. (_Strype Cor._, iii. 191) I find this note

addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that

I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of

this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act

of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and

he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and

brother,

“H. LONDON.

“_June 19, 1689._”

[147] _Life_, by _Lord King_, 341. Preface to _Letters on

Toleration_, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689,

“You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length

established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as

you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire;

but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I

trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the

Church of Christ was at first established.”--_Familiar Letters_,

330.

[148] _Ralph_, ii. 225.

[149] _Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers_, iii. 232–235.

Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks

respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers

acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”--_Hist._,

ii. 357.

[150] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 182–184.

[151] _Ibid._, 180.

[152] Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from

attending by a fit of the gout. _Life of Stillingfleet_, 75.

Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of

the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a _Copy of the

Alterations_, is printed in a _Parliamentary Return_, 1854. To

this _Return_ I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers

printed in it had long been desired by historical students.

[153] Spelt Aldridge in the _Parliamentary Return_.

[154] _Return_, 98.

[155] _Return_, 15. It would be beside the mark to enter upon a

discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would call attention to

a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend Professor Swainson,

and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer to the _Fourth

Report of the Ritual Commission_. The theological part of the Creed

I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but how any charitable

Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me inexplicable.

[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; Friday, Nov. 8.

[157] So in _Return_, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.

[158] _De Trinitate_, l. 15. c. 27.

[159] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 448. The alterations cover 90 pages,

and amount to 598 in number.

[160] _See Letter to a friend containing some queries_, and also

_Vox Cleri_.

The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational

rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any

change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says

Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better

times.”--_Triennial Visitation Charges_, 1704.

[161] This is noticed by _Macaulay_, v. 112.

[162] _Tillotson’s Life_, 202. Jane, it should be recollected,

was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached at his

consecration.

[163] _Cardwell’s Conferences_, 434, 451. _Synodalia_,

692–700.

[164] _Kennet Hist._, iii. 552.

[165] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to Sancroft, March

31, 1689.

[166] _Dalrymple_, i. 322.

[167] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 630.

[168] _Oldmixon_, iii. 18.

[169] _House of Commons’ Journals._ Amongst the _Tanner

MSS._, xxvii. 161, is a _Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s

College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating

the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government_.

[170] _Salmon’s Lives_, 388.

[171] _Life of Kettlewell_, 199.

[172] _Life of Kettlewell_, 203.

The original declaration is in the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 77. The

signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand.

_Witnesses._

Thos. Greene, D.D., the Bishop’s Chaplain.

G. Hickes, D.D.

R. Jenkyn, Precentor.

Nat. Powell, Not. Pub.

John Wilson, Not. Pub.

MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one

in my possession.

[173] _Tanner MSS._, 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April 23, 1689.

[174] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 365.

[175] _Ibid._, 366. The following extracts respecting Turner are

curious:

He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial

of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower,

when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual

recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a

wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian

Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed,

and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived

that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was

Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon

was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond

sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He

asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one

Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr.

Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England,

and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when

certainly he knew him very well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._,

987, 138.

[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the same collection,

987, 310.

[177] _An examination of the case of the suspended Bishops._ 1690,

p. 12.

[178] _Life of Kettlewell._ Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.

The following note to the Archbishop is among the _Tanner MSS._,

xxvii. 101:--

“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned

lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January,

reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion--2d

Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby--who, referring to a record

in Edward the Second’s time in which the word _menses_ occurs,

says, ‘_Qui menses in Calendario computantur_.’

“27 December, 1689. W. NORW.”

[179] _Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 85.

[180] It occurs in the _Life of Kennet_, 47.

[181] _Dunton’s Life and Errors_, 370.

[182] _Life of Kettlewell_, 152.

[183] _Ibid._, 98.

[184] _Life of Kettlewell_, 134.

[185] 19th February, 1689–90. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 91, 92.

[186] _Burnet_, ii. 39.

[187] _State Tracts_, ii. 95.

[188] _A Modest Enquiry_, printed in _State Tracts_, vol. ii.

[189] See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 370–376. Compare _Life of

Kettlewell_, 255–263.

[190] _Dalrymple_, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132.

[191] Macaulay has graphically described all this.

[192] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 306.

[193] _Life_, Patrick’s _Works_, ix. 529.

[194] _Convocation Book_, b. i. c. 28. Edition in _Library of

Anglo Cathe. Theology_, 50, 51.

[195] _Case of Allegiance_, Preface.

[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of the

Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had

spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”

[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet entitled

_Sherlock against Sherlock_, a long extract as given by Ralph (ii.

270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a specimen of the

attacks on the Master of the Temple.

Amongst the _Baker MSS._, 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is

an undated letter written by

“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,--

“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of

Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it

as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it,

the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that

we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the

throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal

rights.”

After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his

argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying:

“I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for

my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to

me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as

serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more

than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile

the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission

and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly

settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.”

[198] There is in the British Museum (_Cole MSS._, xxx. 168) a

curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to some one

who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he had been

brought up.

[199] 5th August, 1690. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 176.

[200] 9th February, 1691. _Ibid._, 247.

[201] _Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland_, ii. Preface.

[202] January 20, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 236.

[203] _Ken’s Life_, 381.

D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i.

461. And the author of _Ken’s Life_ describes Turner as engaging

“in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380.

[204] 9th of May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvi. 84.

[205] From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._,

xxvi. 59.

[206] _Life_, 391.

[207] Camb. Univ. Library. _Baker MSS._, 40, 90.

[208] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 197. _Calamy’s Life_, i. 300.

[209] _Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists_, iii. 230.

[210] _Humble Requests, &c._, inserted in _Calamy’s

Abridgment_, i. 497.

[211] _Memoir by Offer._ Bunyan’s _Works_, iii. lxxiii.

[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told of Flavel

the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good evidence,

of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious resemblance

in the words of the two narratives.” (_Kingdom of Christ_, ii.

344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian in his honesty

and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of Flavel to prove

anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find it--a remarkable

psychological fact.

[213] _Palmer_, i. 354.

[214] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 469–475.

[215] _Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c._, by D. Burgess, 1691.

[216] _Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, iii. 188.

_Birch’s Tillotson_ [2nd Edition], 18, 387.

[217] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 23. The text was 2 Cor. v.

10. I have related a similar anecdote of Sanderson, _Church of the

Commonwealth_, 327.

[218] _Life of Tillotson_, 223.

[219] _Life of Tillotson_, 340, 341.

[220] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 4, 16.

[221] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, ii. 25.

[222] See “A relation of the late wicked contrivance of Stephen

Blackhead and Robert Young, against the lives of several persons by

forging an association under their hands, written by the Bishop of

Rochester. In two parts: the first part being a relation of what

passed at the three examinations of the said Bishop by a Committee

of Lords of the Privy Council; the second being an account of

the two above-mentioned authors of the forgery.” In the Savoy,

1692.--_Harleian Missal_ (4to.) vi. 198.

Blackhead and Young seem to have been thorough-paced villains.

[223] These letters, dated March, 1692, are amongst the _Tanner

MSS._

[224] _Life of Sancroft_, ii. 20.

[225] The instrument, which is very curious, is given by

_D’Oyley_, ii. 31.

[226] _D’Oyley_, ii. 43, 58, 62, 64.

[227] _Lives of the Bishops_, 234.

[228] _Own Time_, ii. 135.

[229] “He was, in those years, a very good scholar, an acute logician

and philosopher, a quick disputant, of a solid judgment. He spoke Latin

exceedingly well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet’s Coll._, 949, 114.

[230] Milman has well brought out this point in his _Annals of St.

Paul’s_. I quite agree with that distinguished critic in placing

Barrow far above Tillotson. To several others I should also assign a

higher place. Yet we must not forget Dryden’s literary obligations to

Tillotson, and the praise bestowed on him by M. H. A. Taine.

[231] In reading Tillotson’s Sermons, the first volume strikes me as

much more interesting than the second.

[232] _Birch’s Tillotson_, 348.

[233] _Memoirs of the Life and Times of Tenison_, 20.

[234] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 27–31.

[235] _Stanley’s Westminster Abbey_, 182.

[236] _Cooper’s Annals of Cambridge_, iv. 28. _Thoresby’s Diary

and Correspondence_, iii. 197.

Amongst the wilder eulogists was Samuel Wesley, who thus refers to her

celestial happiness:--

“How was Heaven moved at her arrival there!

With how much more than usual art and care,

The angels, who so oft to earth had gone,

And borne her incense to the Eternal’s throne,

For her new coronation now prepare!

How welcome! how caressed!

Among the blest!

And first mankind’s great mother rose--

‘Give way, ye crowding souls,’ said she,

‘That I the second of my race may see!’”

In his _Life of Christ_ he couples the Queen with the Virgin

Mary.--_Tyerman’s Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 192–194.

[237] See _Memoirs of Tenison_, 32. and _Life of Ken_, 418.

Tenison, in a letter to Evelyn, speaks of his funeral sermon, adding,

“There is come forth an answer to it, said to be written by Bishop

Kenn; but I am not sure he is the author: I think he has more wit, and

less malice.”--_Evelyn’s Diary and Corresp._, iii. 345.

[238] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 509, 520.

[239] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 42–47.

[240] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 480.

[241] _Ibid._, 577.

[242] _Ibid._, 582. But constitutions for the Church of Scotland

of a similar kind to those of William were issued by Charles

II.--_Ibid._, 590. There are also several documents in the King’s

name respecting English Nonconformists and Papists, which do not affect

the point now before us.

[243] _Ibid._, 612.

[244] I do not forget that even Henry VIII. wrote to the Clergy of

the province of York, saying, “Christ is indeed _unicus dominus et

supremus_, as we confess him in the Church daily: it were _nimis

absurdum_ for us to be called _Caput Ecclesiæ, representans Corpus

Christi mysticum_.” And I am prepared to admit that the theory of

the National Church is that the Sovereign is simply supreme ruler in

_temporal_ things; but certainly in practice Sovereigns have gone

beyond this, especially in the case now before us.

[245] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 54–59. This circular letter is not in

_Wilkins_.

[246] The Duke of Bedford was Lieutenant, but Chicheley seems to have

been the ruling power.

[247] _London Gazette_.

[248] _Macaulay_, vii. 253 (_note_).

[249] This is stated by Wallace, in his introduction to his

_Antitrinitarian Biography_, i. 252; yet on p. 316 he quotes from

a publication in 1697, where it is said the Unitarians had “not any set

Meeting-house for the propagating of their doctrines.”

[250] _Tayler’s Religious Life in England_, 229.

[251] It is impossible to notice these publications in detail. They are

very numerous. A large collection of them may be found in Dr. Williams’

Library, and an account of some of them in the elaborate introduction

to _Wallace’s Antitrinitarian Biography_, vol. i.

[252] _The Brief Hist. and Acts of the Great Athanasius._

[253] The Book is entitled, _The Naked Gospel_. The writer, Dr.

Bury, doubts whether Mahomet or Christian doctors have most corrupted

the doctrines of the Gospel. He was deprived, in 1690, by Trelawny,

Bishop of Exeter, the Visitor of Lincoln College.

[254] _Journals_, January 3, 1694. The book so treated was the

_Brief but Clear Confutation of the Doctrine of the Trinity_.

The author was sentenced to pay a fine of £500, to give bail for good

behaviour for the next three years, and to make a public recantation.

[255] The pamphlet is entitled, _The Doctrine of the Blessed Trinity,

Briefly Explained in a Letter to a Friend_, 4to.

[256] _Vindication_, &c., sect. iv.

[257] _Bingham’s Works_, viii. 292, 319, 320.

[258] _Bingham’s Memoir_, i. 6. _Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person

of Christ_, Div. ii. vol. iii. 355.

[259] _Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book_, 69.

[260] He says that God had taken the matter into His own hands, “and

made this scornful man eat his own words (the hardest diet, certainly,

that a proud person can be put to), and after all the black dirt thrown

by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it off again with his

own tongue,” p. 381.

[261] _South’s Animadversions_, 240, and _Considerations on the

Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c., written to a Person

of Quality_. 1693. Another example of the same kind occurs in _The

Doctrine of the Trinity placed in its due Light_. “We have seen two

men that were made one Admiral by a joint Commission; and we see every

day many men incorporate into one political body by patent, whereby

they are one person in law. And in this known sense are the Godhead

and manhood joined together in one Person, whereof comes one Christ,

and very God, and very man.” The author was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on

p. 213, who was deprived of his University preferment by the Bishop of

Exeter.

[262] On the controversy, see _The Distinction between Real and

Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet_.

1696.

[263] _Works_, v. 111.

[264] See on this subject _Roger’s Life of Howe_, 419. Sherlock

differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it. Howe

defended himself in _A Letter to a Friend_, and _A View of the

late Considerations_, &c. _Works_, v.

[265] _Lords’ Journal._

[266] _Ben Mordecai’s Letters_, i. 70, quoted in _Toulmin_,

182.

[267] _Tenison’s Life_, 51. In this dispute, and the proceedings

which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse were employed.

Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgar ballads,

and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associated with what

is ridiculous and absurd. See _The Battle Royal, South’s Posthumous

Works_. _Memoirs_, 128–130.

[268] _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 577.

[269] That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shall deny in

his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is

declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion,” _i.e._ the XXXIX.

Articles.

[270] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1172. February 9, 1698.

[271] There is a full account of this horrible affair in _Arnot’s

State Trials_, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period remarked,

respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas Aikenhead, “I

do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he lived; but

the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, spoke and

preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was published in England

in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, _The Blasphemous Heresy

Disproved_, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, by God’s

express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land.”

[272] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 302.

[273] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 561.

[274] _Lindsay’s Hist. View_, 304. _Wallace_, i. 388.

[275] _Mazure_, quoted in _Macaulay_, vii. 15.

[276] _An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiracies against

William III._, p. 90.

[277] 1693, October 16. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452.

[278] 1693, October 16. _Ibid_, 455.

[279] 1693, close of the year. _Ibid._, 459.

[280] 1693, December. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, 467.

[281] 1694, January. _Ibid._, 474.

[282] 1694, May. _Ibid._, 484.

[283] 1694, August. _Ibid._, 493. Some correspondents were more

faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestants would support

him (p. 490).

[284] _Lathbury’s Hist. of Nonjurors_, 169.

[285] _Collier’s Defence._

[286] _Wilkins_, iv. 627.

[287] _Answer to Animadversions_, 10.

[288] _State Papers_: Letter from Shrewsbury to William III.,

Whitehall, July 28, 1696.

[289] See _Macpherson’s Orig. Papers_, i. 514, 595.

[290] _Burnet_, i. 683.

[291] It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that he had said

Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “by the

operation and consent of King James.”--_Parl. Hist._, v. 1051.

[292] _State Papers_: Shrewsbury to William III., Whitehall, Sept.

8, 1696.

In _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 481, Captain Floyd, a

Jacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to his

mother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Prince of

Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectually hereafter.”

[293] The substance of his discoveries is given in _Tindal’s

History_.

[294] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1127–1130.

[295] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 62.

[296] _Ibid._, 63.

[297] _Burnet_, ii. 193.

[298] Lathbury (_Hist. of Nonjurors_, 178), on the authority of

the _State Tracts_, ii. 561, states that Fenwick was permitted to

seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken the oaths, or any of

the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that on his refusal of the

offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors were mentioned, but they

declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might be tendered. Macaulay

(vii. 404), however, says White was with him at the last.

[299] _Impartial Hist. of Plots_, 176.

[300] Evelyn notices, “16 Nov., the King’s entry very pompous, but is

nothing approaching that of King Charles II.”

[301] _Evelyn’s Diary_, Dec. 2nd.

[302] _Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s_, 427. Evelyn says, “5th

December was the first Sunday that St. Paul’s had had service performed

in it since it was burnt in 1666.”

[303] _Kennet’s Hist. of England_, iii. 777.

[304] Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says the Catholic

religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in the time

of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of England has

determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure his own.”

“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here they

get into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”--_Vernon

Cor._, ii. 193.

[305] _Burnet_, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c. 4.

“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture as

eluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances of

a loss of property under this law.” (_Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii.

333.) The Act was repealed in 1779.

[306] _Memoirs of Tenison_, 65–73.

[307] _Le Neve’s Lives_, part i. 247–254.

[308] Letter from Shrewsbury to Mr. Secretary Vernon (_State

Papers_), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letter

offering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads his

many defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessary

for him to seek a warmer climate.

Shrewsbury to William III.

“_Whitehall, 1st Sept., 1696._

“I have not this long while been sensible of so real a joy as I

was to find, by your Majesty’s letter of the 24th August, that

you were satisfied with my endeavours to serve you. I wish I

could please myself better with the effects and that I were not

obliged to attribute this opinion of your Majesty’s to your own

natural indulgence and my Lord Portland’s kind representation

rather than to any merit of mine, beyond sincere intention to

promote yours and the kingdom’s interest to the utmost of my

power, without being able to contribute much to either.”

In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in the _First Report of the

Historical MSS. Commission_, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke of

Shrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health would

permit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laborious

diversion of fox-hunting should agree so well with his Grace.”

[309] _Burnet_, ii. 211.

[310] _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey; Supplement_, 136.

[311] Mr. Shippen.

[312] _Ralph_, ii. 908.

[313] _Stanhope’s Queen Anne_, 19.

[314] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 606.

[315] _Clarke’s Life of James II._, ii. 590–594.

[316] _Life of James II._, ii. 598, 599. _Memoir of Louis

XIV._, ii. 184.

The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicism

by this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wrought

by the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believe

that, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have been

canonized.--_Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 595–597.

[317] _Correspondence of Lord Clarendon_, ii. 389.

[318] _Life of Calamy_, i. 437.

[319] _Crosby_, iii. 357.

[320] _Parl. Hist._, v. 1331.

[321] Edmund Burke.

[322] _Whiston’s Memoirs_, 32.

[323] _Lords’ Journals_, February 24, 1702.

[324] _Life_, i. 440.

[325] 1702, January. _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 602.

[326] _English Hist. Library_, 133.

[327] See in Appendix the form of writ now issued.

[328] The letter has been attributed, on the authority of the

editor of the _Somers’ Tracts_ (last edit., xi. 363), to Sir

Bartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor of _Atterbury’s

Correspondence_ (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar of

Leamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannot

ascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds.

[329] _The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical

Synods_, 1697.

[330] See _Farrer’s Critical History of Free Thought_, 186.

[331] See _Hallam_, ii. 396.

[332] Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in his _Norman

Conquest_ (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an Ecclesiastical Synod in

1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the general Gemotes; and,

again (360), noticing that the King held his Court for five days, and

then the Archbishop held his Synod for three days more. “Here are

the beginnings of the anomalous position of the two Convocations in

England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estates of the Realm--each

character hindering the effectual working of the other.”

[333] Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase of its

history, the results of which deserve careful study.

[334] _Burnet_, ii. 280.

[335] _Atterbury’s Corresp._, iii. 10.

[336] _Ibid._, 11, 13, 17.

An address was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Clergy

of the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that they

were advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtue

of the _præmunientes_ clause.--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 1.

But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the elected

Proctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop,

and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of the

Church on earth.”

At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper was

introduced advocating the view of the _præmunientes_ clause taken

by Atterbury.--_Gibson_, vi. 3.

[337] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on

the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humble submission

wish there might be no license for business this first session, for

if there should be, it will be thought the effect of Mr. A.’s book,

and they will not greatly regard the strength of any answer while

they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected they will

vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as often as

the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shall

precede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meet

with more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business,

and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for their

meeting.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, 933, 41.

[338] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 22. He says, writing

to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon our

adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made an

admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our

affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour

than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state

of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was

extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of

them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were

addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my

Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26).

[339] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, 31.

[340] _Letter to a Clergyman in the Country_, p. 1. _Answer to

the Letter_, p. 4.

[341] _The New Danger of Presbytery_, 3.

[342] These extracts are given in _Lathbury’s History of

Convocation_, 351.

[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocation are given

by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have used, besides

Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the _Memoirs of Tenison_,

_The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, &c._, from

Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn up by order of

the House; _A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, &c._, and

_The History of the Convocation_, drawn up from the _Journal of

the Upper House, &c._ _The Narrative_ gives the High Church

view; _The History_ the Lower. It is ascribed to Kennet. A

number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I have also

consulted.

[344] See Letters described in _First Report of Hist. MSS. Com._,

52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.

[345] _Burnet_, ii. 285.

[346] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 99–149, 245.

[347] See _Ecclesiastical Synods_, 299.

[348] _Atterbury’s Correspondence_, iii. 53.

[349] _Ibid._ 57.

[350] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363.

[351] See _Gibson’s Synodus Anglicana_, 21.

[352] _Lathbury’s History of Convocation_, 363–365.

[353] “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it very

convenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on the

floor.”--_Lambeth MSS., Gibson Papers_, vi. 8.

[354] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 9, 10.

[355] _Present State of Convocation_, 5.

[356] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11.

[357] _Faithful account of some transactions in the three last

sessions of the present Convocation._ Attributed to Atterbury.

[358] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 18.

[359] _Faithful account, &c._

[360] _Lambeth MSS., Gibson_, vi. 11.

[361] _Burnet_, ii. 303.

[362] _Hist. of King William III_, 513.

[363] Dr. Willis, William’s Military Chaplain, who became Bishop of

Gloucester in 1714, was an extempore preacher. To this he “was at

first led, no doubt, by the temper of his master, King William, who

was accustomed to hear such kind of preaching in Holland, and could

scarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of the

pulpit at the congregation.”--_Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_,

ii. 243.

[364] _Own Time_, ii. 305.

[365] It would look as if the conduct of William in reference to

patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “We cannot

serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom we commend to

him, purely because they have deserved well of him, and have no friends

to make their worth known but we alone.” _Patrick’s Works_, ix.

621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701.

[366] _The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises_ appeared in 1695.

[367] See _Life and Character of Stillingfleet_, 93, 104, 111,

119, and _Twelve Sermons preached on several occasions_, between

1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopal charges is

the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on the report of the

biographer.

For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, see _Church of

the Restoration_, vol. ii.

[368] _A Discourse about Tradition. Works_, vol. vi.; i. 30–34;

vii. 294.

[369] Burnet, Evelyn and Dunton bear witness to Patrick’s preaching

power.

[370] _Patrick’s Works_, vi. 156.

[371] Preface to sixth edition.

[372] _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 294.

[373] This gave origin to the well-known epigram (attributed by some

to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in the poetry

professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’s sending at

the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress some disturbances

that had happened there.

The King observing, with judicious eyes,

The state of both his Universities,

To one he sends a regiment; For why?

That _learned_ body wanted _loyalty_.

To th’ other books he gave, as well discerning,

How much that _loyal_ body wanted _learning_.

It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the best

thing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician;

and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of a

Cambridge man.

“The King to Oxford sent his troop of horse,

For Tories own no _argument_ but _force_.

With equal care, to Cambridge books he sent,

For Whigs allow no _force_ but _argument_.”

_Noble’s continuation of Granger_ ii. 89.

[374] _Observer._ The following note by Onslow occurs in the

Oxford edition of Burnet’s _Hist. of his own Time_. “I have

heard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man,

the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in a

newspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131.

[375] _Noble’s continuation_, ii. 88.

[376] _Ibid._, 87.

In the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 356, it is said Fowler

“had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitions

and witches.”

[377] _Noble_, ii. 101. _Kidder’s Autobiography_ is printed

in _Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells_.

[378] A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford for kindness,

courteousness, and charity in _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987,

304.

[379] This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen in _Le

Neve’s Archbishops_, part ii. 286.

[380] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 224.

[381] _Tyerman’s Life of S. Wesley_, 385.

[382] _Memoirs of Whiston_, 31.

[383] _Noble’s Continuation_, ii. 82.

Anthony Wood, in his strange _Autobiography_, relates a practical

joke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a London

citizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people,

including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “It

was a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that had

a mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, and

it made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamed

of it.”--_Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, ii. 132.

[384] The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimated in

_Tracts for the Times_, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great loss

of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellion

of 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrine

of Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low tone

of morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the great

Christian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been much

forgotten.”

[385]

“Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701.

“Sir,--I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it is

my opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nation

depend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election,

and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for us

of the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now I

confess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, in

my judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our common

good, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorous

ourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. It

will be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we be

unanimous.--H. LONDON.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 219. Cambridge.

Other letters of the same kind are preserved.

[386] _Visitation Charges_, 1693–4.

[387] _Hist. of his own Time_, ii. 630.

[388] _Grainger_, iv. 293.

[389] “Captain Crisp assures, that the Bishop of Exeter is entirely in

the King’s (James’) interest.” January, 1694. _Macpherson’s Original

Papers_, i. 474.

[390] _Life and Errors_, ii. 668.

[391] _Johnson’s Lives of the Poets._

[392] _Discourse made by the Lord Bishop of Rochester at his

Visitation_, 1695.

[393] There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Library from Dr.

Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of his life--of his

service in the army--his promotion in the Church--the poverty of his

See--and an interview he had with the Archbishop, at Lambeth, in order

to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through the hall up the

stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place of reception in

the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than he came himself

to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When he told me,

almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford would die; no,

my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, the sooner for

that.”--_Gibson Papers_, ii. 49.

[394] This is entitled, “_A Large Review of the Articles exhibited

against the Bishop of St. David’s_.” There is a MS. book, containing

minutes of the charges, in the Cambridge University Library (MSS.

757). For the trial, see _Lord Raymond’s Reports_, i. 447; and

_Howel’s State Trials_, xiv. 447. The deed of deprivation is in

the Lambeth Library, 951, 6.

[395] In the _Cole MSS._ (Brit. Mus.), xxx. 149, it is stated

that Bishop Watson died June 3rd, 1717, at Great Wilbraham, and was

put in the ground the night following in the Chancel, under the south

wall, _sans_ service, being excommunicated by the Archbishop of

Canterbury, whose officers’ fees he would not pay. On his coffin was

put, T. W. B., St. D. Aged 80, died the 3rd of June, 1717.

[396] Compare for example Sermons iv. and xiv. _Works_, vol. ii.

[397] My acquaintance with Norris’s writings commenced nearly forty

years ago, through a recommendation from that quarter. Dunton speaks of

him in extravagant terms.--_Life and Errors_, ii. 671.

[398] _Diary_, Nov. 10, 1695.

[399] “I had quite forgot to desire one to preach upon the subject of

our Conference. I beseech you try if you can get any of our brethren to

give us a quarter of an hour’s discourse upon that subject.--H. LONDON.

I preached myself June 23rd, 1689.”--_Strype Correspondence_, iii. 192.

[400] _Strype Correspondence_, ii. 52.

[401] _The Life of Dr. Horneck_, by Bishop Kidder, 9, 10.

[402] He is noticed in _Evelyn’s Diary_, April 24th, 1694.

[403] _An impartial account of Mr. John Mason_, p. 8.

[404] The following account of an eccentric clergyman, who died

just after the Revolution, occurs in the _Lansdowne MSS., Kennet

Coll._, 987, 116. The person referred to is Joseph Crowther, of whom

Walker gives some account in his _Sufferings of the Clergy_, and

Wood in his _Athenæ Oxonienses_.

“I remember him esteemed at Oxford a very severe disputant, and very

tenacious of the rules of logic. He would often moderate in the public

disputation in his own hall; but so fierce and passionate, that if the

opponent made a false syllogism, or the respondent a wrong answer,

he bid the next that sat by them kick their shins, and it became a

proverb, ‘kick shins Crowther.’ He was extremely hated at Tredington

(Diocese of Worcester), for his stiff contending with the people; they

obliged him to keep a boar--he got a black one to spite them. The black

pigs were called Crowthers.”

[405] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 248, 274.

[406] _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 11, 78.

[407] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. 546.

[408] 1696, April 7. _Baumgartner Papers, Strype Correspondence_,

iii. 45.

[409] _Gibson Papers_, v. 9. 1692, Dec. 17.

[410] The very injudicious _Defence of the Old Singing Psalms_ may

be found in the first volume of _Beveridge’s Works_, collected by

Horne.

[411] _Life of Kettlewell_, 213, 214.

[412] _Memoirs_, 30.

[413] _Whiston’s Life_, 162.

[414] _Own Time_, ii. 215.

[415] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 292.

[416] The following extract indicates the feeling cherished towards

Richard Baxter and his admirers:--“His writings furnish great part of

the libraries of the young fanatic divines, who have sucked in all the

venom and poison of his unhappy writings, in order to propagate them

in this city and country.”--From Chas. Goodall to Mr. Strype, June 12,

1701. Brit. Mus. Addl. MSS., 5853, p. 35.

[417] _Anecdotes of the Wesley Family_, i. 207.

[418] See _Kirk’s Mother of the Wesleys_, 186, and _Tyerman’s

Life and Times of Samuel Wesley_, 251.

[419] See _Ecton’s Liber Valorum_.

[420] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 542, probably written by Samuel

Wesley, and drawn from his own experience.

[421] _Keble’s Life of Wilson_, 61. The memory of Wilson is still

cherished at Knowsley.

[422] _Planche’s Hist. of British Costume_, 395.

[423] Preface to _Companion for Fasts and Festivals_.

[424] Preface to the _Practice of True Devotion_, 1698.

[425] _Thoresby_, iii. 153.

[426] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 211.

[427] _Works_, viii. 451.

[428] _Reason and Faith._ Introduction.

[429] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 262.

[430] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 337, 309. An anecdote in the life

of Samuel Wesley illustrates the same fact. He met with a profane

officer, and so reproved him as to break for ever his habit of

swearing.--_Life of S. Wesley_, by Tyerman, 134.

[431] Richard Dunning’s _Bread for the Poor_.

[432] _History of his Own Time_, ii. 101. See note by Lord

Dartmouth in the Oxford edition.

[433] _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of William III._, by

Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 302. I find amongst the _Tanner

MSS._, xxviii. 162, “Case of Sir Peter Gleanes’ daughter, supposed

to be suffering from witchcraft, Aug. 17, 1688.”

[434] This information is gathered chiefly from _Hutchinson’s

Historical Essay concerning Witchcraft_.

[435] Not “your,” as often quoted.

[436] _Athenian Oracle_, i. 153.

[437] _Hutchinson_, 62. Hume says, in his _Commentaries on

the Laws of Scotland_, ii. 556, that among the many trials for

witchcraft, he had not observed “one which proceeds upon the notion

of a vain, cheating art, falsely used by an impostor to deceive the

weak and credulous.” It is not until faith in witchcraft expires that

such a notion obtains. The Scotch were more superstitious than the

English. English believers in witchcraft regarded the witch as the

slave; the Scotch regarded her as the mistress, of the evil power. See

_Burton’s Criminal Trials in Scotland_, i. 240. Dugald Stuart,

in his _Dissertation on the Progress of Metaphysical and Ethical

Philosophy_, notices Malbranche’s scepticism as to sorcery, and

gives an interesting extract on the subject, p. 75.

[438] _Hutchinson_, 58, 108.

[439] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 34.

[440] _Monk’s Life of Bentley_, 37.

[441] _Nichols’ Literary Anecdotes_, vi. 453.

[442] Life prefixed to _Works_, i. xii.

[443] These passages occur in the 18th and 19th chapters of the fourth

book of the _Essay_.

[444] _Second Vindication._ _Works_, ii. 656.

Since this volume was sent to the press, I have been reading the

interesting _Letters, Lectures, and Reviews_ of Dean Mansell.

From p. 306 to 316, he dwells on the tendency of Locke’s philosophy in

the direction of theological scepticism, though at the same time he

does justice to Locke’s character, and remarks that “when challenged

on account of the relation of his premises to Toland’s conclusions,

he expressly repudiated the connection, and declared his own sincere

belief in those mysteries of the Christian faith which Toland had

assailed.” The Dean maintains that in Locke’s philosophy “there is

no room for a distinction between the inconceivable or mysterious,

and the absurd and contradictory;” and he further goes on to say,

after quoting a passage from _Sanderson’s Works_, i. 233, that

“Sanderson’s distinction between the τὸ ὅτι, _that it is_, and

the τὸ πῶς, _how it is_, indicates the exact point which Locke

overlooked and which Toland denied.” He also remarks that Locke wrote

his great work without reference to theology, and probably without

any distinct thought of its theological bearings. But the Dean takes

no notice of the passages quoted in the text from Locke’s _Essay on

the Understanding_, in which he distinctly notices the theological

bearings of his speculation, and makes a distinction between the

inconceivable and absurd, in other words, what is above reason and

contrary to it; and virtually recognizes the truth of what Sanderson

says about the τὸ ὅτι and the τὸ πῶς, the fact of existence and the

mode.

[445] It will be found instructive to compare chap. ii. with

_Newman’s Grammar of Assent_.

[446] Numerous illustrations are afforded in _Secretan’s Life of

Nelson_, 174.

[447] See Woodward’s _Account of the Rise and Progress of Religious

Societies, &c., and of their Endeavours for Reformation of Manners; Dr.

Horneck’s Life; Toulmin_, 415; _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 91.

[448] _Vernon Cor._, ii. 128–130.

[449] _Streets of London_, 8.

[450] _Strype’s Stowe_, ii. 578.

[451] This account is founded upon numerous extracts from the early

minutes of the S.P.C.K., kindly furnished me by the Secretary, and

upon information supplied in _Anderson’s Colonial Church_, and

_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_.

[452] Much of this account, like the former, rests upon the minutes of

the S.P.C.K.

[453] _Colonial Church Chronicle_, v. 121. There are several

papers in this volume on the early proceedings of the Propagation

Society, but they chiefly relate to a period later than that contained

in the present work. The authorities for the rest of my account are the

same as in the case of the S.P.C.K.

[454] _Lives of Eminent Antiquaries_, Oxford, 1772, vol. i.

_Life of Hearne_, 8–10.

[455] _Mason’s Defence_, by Lindsay. Preface.

[456] _Macpherson’s Original Papers_, i. 452.

[457] It is written by Hen. Wilkinson, and dated October 25, 1690.

(_Baker MSS._, 40, 91, Cambridge University Library.) There is

also a list of the Nonjurors in the Diocese of Ely and University of

Cambridge, 1689–1690. (Brit. Mus., Additional MSS. 5813 f. 119 b.)

[458] _Kettlewell’s Works_, ii. 635–638.

[459] _Life of Kettlewell_, 291.

[460] _Life of Kettlewell_, 317.

[461] _Ibid._, 322.

[462] _Kettlewell’s Works_, i., Appendix.

[463] _Miscellaneous Papers of Dr. Birch_, Brit. Mus., 4297.

_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 52.

[464] Dodwell to Ken. _Baker MSS._, 40, 82, _et seq._

[465] Dodwell to Sherlock. _Baker MSS._, 86, _et seq._

[466] Lambeth Library. _Gibson Papers_, ii. 38–41.

[467] _Life of Ken by a Layman_, 409.

[468] _Life of Kettlewell_, 471.

[469] His works were published in two volumes (1752), under the title

of Ἀπολειπόμενα, or _Dissertations Theological, Mathematical, and

Physical_.

[470] _Scintilla Altaris. Primitive Devotion in the Feasts and Fasts

of the Church of England_, by Ed. Sparkes, D.D, 1652. _The Holy

Feasts and Fasts of the Church_, by W. Brough, D.D., 1657. It is

curious that these should have been published under the Commonwealth.

[471] Dated Oct. 22, 1698. _Letters Illustrative of the Reign of

William III._, by James Vernon, Secretary of State, ii. 203.

[472] For several particulars in this account I am indebted to

_Secretan’s Life of Nelson_.

[473] _Nelson’s Life of Bull._

[474] _Life of Kettlewell_, 316, 317.

[475] _Life of Hearne_, p. 3 in _Lives of Eminent

Antiquaries_, vol. i.

[476] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 398.

[477] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 414.

[478] June 6, 1698: letter from John Mandeville. See also _Evelyn’s

Diary_, June 5.

[479] _Secretan’s Life of Nelson_, 68.

[480] _Life of Kettlewell_, 368, _et seq._

[481] _Maurice’s Kingdom of Christ_, iii. 105.

[482] _Jowett’s Dialogues of Plato_, ii. Introduction, 150. I have

changed the word “statesman” for “politician.”

[483] _Nelson’s Christian Sacrifice._

[484] In the _Vernon Correspondence_, vol. ii. 55, allusions occur

to “one of the Prebends of Durham” a Nonjuror in heart, suspected of

Jacobitism. “By what I have now heard,” says Vernon to the Duke of

Shrewsbury, “there never was so true a pharisee; he was affectedly

devout in outward show, using all the ceremonies both of the Greek and

Western Churches; his practice was to pray and sing psalms while he and

his friends were travelling in his coach.”

[485] _Wilson’s Hist. of Dissenting Churches_, iv. 188, 192, iii.

277.

[486] At Salter’s Hall. _Wilson_, ii. 1.

[487] _Ibid._, ii. 303.

[488] _Murch’s History of Churches in West of England_, 139, 157,

89. “I have seen,” says Mr. Murch, “a curious account by a Mr. Butler,

of the disbursements to every labourer, and for all the materials used

in the erection of the meeting-house at Warminster.” The new chapel was

opened in 1704; previously the Dissenters of Warminster worshipped in a

barn. The Rev. H. Gunn, in his interesting _History of Nonconformity

in Warminster_, gives full particulars derived from this account,

and adds that William Penn once preached in the barn. He also notes

that the ministers regularly officiating received 12s. 6d. for two

services, equivalent to £1 17s. 6d. in the present day.

[489] There was no contractor for the building; materials were

purchased and labour procured as necessity required. The entire cost

of timber was £30; glass and lead for the windows, £8 19s. 1d.; the

painter’s bill was £4. 9s.; bricks were 11s. per 1,000; eight deal

boards for the pulpit were charged 14s. 8d., and the making of it

is put down at £1 10s. Church Documents, Castlegate Chapel.--See

_Historical Account_, by the Rev. S. M’All.

[490] A remarkable instance of an Independent trust, couched in

general terms, occurs in the History of the Independent Church at

Beccles.--_Rix’s East Anglican Nonconformity_, 161.

[491] The certificate, drawn up and signed on the occasion, is worth

preserving: “We, whose names are under written, do testify concerning

Mr. Joseph Hussey, that upon our personal knowledge he is an ordained

minister of the Gospel, whose natural parts, acquired learning, and

soundness in the faith, holiness of life, and all ministerial abilities

are so considerable that we groundedly hope for God’s blessing upon his

ministry, both for the conversion and edification of souls wherever

God shall employ him.” Upon this testimonial there are signs of the

furtiveness in which the business had been accomplished. Five signed

their names; _Domino Anonymo_ is the signature of the sixth, with

this appendage: “He was shie because of the cloudiness of the times,

and would neither subscribe nor be known to me.”--MS. by Wilson, Dr.

William’s Library.

[492] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 229.

[493] “Mr. Griffith,” an Independent, “tells me he takes it for granted

the meeting at Newbury was in the nature of a provincial synod, which

he has found the Presbyterian ministers very fond of late, and blames

them for it. This passion of theirs has appeared more barefaced in

Ireland, where they have had such an assembly at Antrim, and published

the sermon preached upon the occasion, maintaining it was their right

and duty to meet with or without the allowance of the laws, or the

consent of the supreme magistrate.”

“The Episcopal Clergy intend to remonstrate to the Government there

against this liberty. I know not how soon we may expect the like to

be done in England, and if it break into an open contest about Church

discipline, the moderate man will have a fine time of it.” August 23,

1698.--_Vernon Correspondence_, ii. 156.

[494] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 224–264.

[495] _Defence of Moderate Nonconformity_, part i. 213.

[496] _Life of Calamy_, i. 301.

[497] _Ibid._, 304–309.

[498] _Life of Calamy_, i. 313–318.

[499] _Life of Calamy_, i. 348–350, June 22, 1694.

[500] _Thoresby_, i. 246.

[501] _Ibid._, i. 246–253.

[502] This was in 1699, but the change began in 1694. _Diary_,

284–329.

[503] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 301. “When Mr. Harrison removed to

Pury, a Mr. John Warr, who formerly lived in the neighbourhood of

Caversfield, came with him to enjoy the benefit of his ministry. And

connected with this circumstance is another, which will show something

of the spirit of the times. When Mr. Harrison came to Pury he brought

a pulpit with him, which he deemed it necessary to conceal; therefore,

to prevent it being known, Mr. Warr, being a shoemaker, contrived

to fill it with shoe-pegs, and brought it among his own goods in

a waggon from Bicester.”--_Memorials of Independent Churches in

Northamptonshire_, by T. Coleman, 276.

[504] _Thoresby_, i. 256. April, 1694.

[505] See correspondence in _Thoresby_, iii. 177.

[506] _Present State of Parties_, 319.

[507] The whole of the above account is rendered necessary by

controversies respecting these academies. I have examined what is said

by Samuel Wesley, Palmer, De Foe, and other contemporaries, and have

consulted the opinions of modern writers who have gone over the whole

ground. My notice of the course of study is taken from Palmer. Further

particulars may be found in _Nonconformity in Cheshire_, 491, and

_Milner’s Life of Watts_.

[508] An example of this occurs in the following letter by Bishop

Patrick, addressed to Mr. Williams, Rector of Dodington:--

“You have done very worthily and prudently in stopping the progress of

the Anabaptist faction, by applying yourself to the Justices, to call

their unlicensed schoolmasters to account; who, you tell me, and I am

glad to hear it, have bound him over to appear at the next sessions. I

think you need not fear his procuring a license from the Archbishop’s

Court, for I had the like attempt here at Littleport, where I refused

to licence a fellow whom a party set up against one, who had a long

time taught school there with good acceptance. Whereupon they pretended

to have not only applied themselves above, but actually procured the

Archbishop’s licence, and showed an instrument with a seal to it to the

ignorant people. But I soon found it was a cheat; the Archbishop having

granted none, and having given a strict charge in his office that none

should be granted (as he told me himself), without acquainting the

Bishop of the Diocese with it. But for fear of the worst, I will write

to his Grace by the next post, and let him know what the sectaries

pretend, who, I am sure, will stop the granting of a licence, or revoke

it if any have been granted, which I think you need not fear; for after

a great deal of vapouring at Littleport about the licence they said

they had got, the fellow durst not appear at the sessions, nor come to

me, but ran the country.”--Letter to the Rev. Mr. Williams, Rector of

Dodington. _Cole MSS._ (British Museum), xxx. 148.

[509] _Heads of Agreement._

[510] _Ibid._

[511] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 210. _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_,

374.

[512] Extracts from the Church-Book in _Memorials_, by T. Coleman.

[513] _Calamy’s Life_, i. 327.

[514] This account is drawn up from Williams’ collected pieces in two

volumes, _Crispianism Unmasked_, _Crisp’s Christ made Sin_;

pamphlets by Lorimer, _Calamy’s Abridgment_, _Life of Bull_,

and _Toulmin’s Hist. of Dissent_.

[515] _Nichols’ Apparat. ad Defens. Eccl. Ang._

[516] _Hist. Account of my Own Life_, i. 401.

[517] _Howe’s Works_, v. See passages, pp. 263–290.

[518] James Hamilton.

[519] _Life of Matt. Henry_, by Sir J. B. Williams, prefixed to

_Commentary_, 60.

[520] _Ibid._, 61, 62.

[521] Ordinations often occurred at these meetings. The following

extract from Henry’s _Diary_ furnishes an instance:--“The 24th

was kept as a fast-day in Broad Oak Meeting-House, a competent number

present. Mr. Latham prayed; Mr. Lawrence gave an account of the

business we met about, prayed and sung a psalm; Mr. Doughty prayed; I

preached from Isaiah vi. 8: ‘Here am I, send me,’ and prayed. Mr. Owen,

as Moderator, demanded a confession of his faith and ordination vows,

which he made abundantly to our satisfaction. We then proceeded to set

him apart. Mr. Owen concluded with the exhortation. We have reason to

say it was a good day, and the Lord was among us.”

[522] _Hist. of Congregational Church at Cockermouth_, 58. I have

adopted the language on the Church-Book. Confirmed is explained to mean

establishment as to right of membership, by being admitted to the table

of the Lord.

[523] _Ibid._, 97.

[524] _Guestwick Church-Books._

[525] _Hist. of Church at Cockermouth_, 94.

[526] _Ibid._, 90, 98, 99, 100.

[527] Palmer, in his _Vindication of Dissenters_, 1705, says, p.

99, “In all our churches we administer the Sacrament twelve times, at

least, in a year.” From the records of Castle Gate Church, Nottingham,

it appears the Lord’s Supper was there celebrated once in six weeks.

[528] These particulars are taken from the records of the Trust, of

which I have the honour to be a Trustee.

[529] De Foe says of him--

“His native candour and familiar style,

Which did so oft his hearers’ hours beguile,

Charmed us with godliness; and while he spake

We loved the doctrines for the teacher’s sake;

While he informed us what those doctrines meant

By dint of practice more than argument.”

[530] _Dr. Williams’ Life of Annesley_, p. 134, published by

Dunton, 1697.

[531] _Williams’ Life of Annesley_, and _Kirk’s Mother of the

Wesleys_.

[532] _Toulmin_, 522.

[533] _Palmer_, i. 103.

[534] _Howe’s Works_, vol. vi. 306.

Oliver Heywood’s death occurred in May, 1702. No particular account

of it is given by Mr. Hunter in his biography. Thoresby notes down,

“May 7: Rode with Mr. Peters to Northowram, to the funeral of good

old Mr. O. Heywood. He was interred with great lamentations in the

parish church at Halifax; was surprised at the following Arvill, or

treat of cold possets, stewed prunes, cake and cheese, prepared for

the company, where had several Con. and Noncon. ministers and old

acquaintance.”--_Diary_, i. 362.

[535] _Rogers’ Life of Howe_, 357, 316. “I well remember that

he himself once informed me,” says Calamy, “of some very private

conversation he had with that Prince (William III.) not long before his

death. Among other things the King asked him a great many questions

about his old master Oliver, as he called him, and seemed not a little

pleased with the answers that were returned to some of his questions.”

Those answers would throw some additional light on the popular question

of Oliver’s character.

[536] _Crosby’s Hist. of Baptists_, iii. 246–258.

[537] _Crosby_, iii. 259, 264–270.

[538] _Crosby_, iv. 298–301.

[539] _Ibid._, Appendix No. 1.

[540] _Crosby_, iv. 330.

[541] _Sewell_, ii. 370, 448. The early meeting has been since

fixed for the month of May.

[542] “Forasmuch,” it is recorded in the minutes of Quaker Meetings

in Worcester (1695), “as it hath been the good advice of our friends

of the yearly meeting that friends shall in all plainness so habit

themselves as truth requires, and to lay aside those flowered and

striped stuffs, with the changeable fashions of this world, it is

thought meet by this meeting, that what in us lies it may be put for

the future into practice, and that none do wear them or sell them,

when those by them are disposed of; also that friends take care to

train up their children in the fear of the Lord, and bring them up not

only in plainness of habit, but take care to bring them up in plain

language also, that there may be no good Nehemiah grieved to hear

half Hebrew and half Ashdod spoken.” Complaint is made of sleeping at

public meeting. Those so overtaken were informed, “they must be openly

dealt with, if a more private admonition will not do.”--Extracted from

records preserved by the Society of Friends at Worcester.

[543] _Miscellanies._ Compare pp. 326 and 340 with 334.

Transcriber’s Notes:

1. Obvious printers’, punctuation and spelling errors have been

corrected silently.

2. The words Yeomansee Indians could be a error for Yamassee or

Yemassee.

3. Italics are shown as _xxx_.

4. Superscripts are represented using the caret character, e.g.

D^r. or X^{xx}.

5. Bold text is shown as =xxx=.

6. The corrigenda have been silently corrected.

7. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have

been retained as in the original.