Page images
PDF
EPUB

manner.

maintaining this body, although the primate, San-/ In the autumn of 1687, the Princess of Orange croft, refused to become a member of it. By wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury, expressing means of the commission, which was chiefly com- her sympathy with him and his brethren. “He deposed of very objectionable persons, he had inter- clared, in his reply, that their only earthly hope fered with the proper liberty of the pulpit, in the was in her highness and the prince; but that no case of Dr. Sharp, and had suspended the Bishop amount of suffering could " in the least shake their of London for refusing to carry out his views steady loyalty to their sovereign and the royal against that divine in an arbitrary and irregular family."* The bishops who presented to the king

He had set forth, in 1687, a declaration, their petition against the order for reading his by which the penal laws against nonconformity declaration, endured his anger with a respectful were suspended. On republishing it a year later, firinness. “ We are told,” said Ken, Bishop of he had required the clergy to read it in their Bath and Wells, “ to fear God and honor the churches; a command with which only two hun- king; we desire to do both; we shall honor you; dred of the whole body complied. For petitioning we must fear God.” In the midst of the ferment against this measure, the primate and six other which followed on their acquittal, the archbishops bishops had been imprisoned in the Tower; they and bishops issued directions to their clergy, enhad been tried, and had been acquitted, (upon joining on them to teach “ loyalty and obedience merely technical grounds, indeed,) amidst an uni- to his majesty in all things lawful, and patient subversal uproar of rejoicing.

mission in the rest ;' and at the same time, to In all these proceedings the king was rather maintain the doctrine of the church, and guard miserably injudicious than intentionally criminal. their flocks against the practices of Romish emisWith those who afterwards refused their allegiance saries. When James in his distress applied to to the government established at the Revolution, it them for counsel, they advised him to redress was a favorite belief that James was urged on to ecclesiastical grievances, and to abstain from quesembroil himself with the church by Sunderland tionable stretches of power; he thanked them, and and others, in order to work his ruin.* These conceded most of the points which they mentioned. faithless counsellors, it was said, encouraged him At a later time, James questioned the bishops who to suppose that English churchmen would hold were in London as to the Prince of Orange's declathemselves bound, by their principles, to endure ration, that spiritual lords had been concerned in any oppression without resistance; and from this inviting him to England. The archbishop said, confidence proceeded the outrages which, even at that “ he owed his majesty a natural allegiance, as the time, filled the more discerning members of his having been born in his kingdom, and that he had own communion with apprehension for his inter- oftentimes confirmed this allegiance by taking ests, and those of their religion. On the other voluntary oaths ; that he could have at once but hand, he had, shortly before his accession, received one king.” The other prelates all denied the : a warning from one whose wisdom and experience truth of the assertion as regarded themselves might have pleaded for a better reception of it. (which it is to be feared that Compton, Bishop of Bishop Morley, on his death-bed, desired Lord London, could not do with a good conscience ;) Dartmouth to tell the Duke of York, that“ if ever they professed a belief that their absent brethren he depended on the doctrine of non-resistance, he were equally innocent. But when the king prowould find himself deceived ; for there were very ceeded io require that they should publicly declare - few of that opinion, though there were not many their abhorrence of William's designs, they deemed of the Church of England that thought proper to it expedient to refuse, saying, that it was enough .contradict it in terms." Lord Dartmouth often for them if his majesty were himself convinced of reminded James of this, but in vain.t

their indccence. On the 10th of June, 1688, two days after the After the first retirement of James, the primate committal of the bishops to the Tower, the queen joined in an address to the Prince of Orange, praygave birth to a son. llitherto men had reckoned ing him to call a free parliament, but not offering on a Protestant successor to the throne in the per- him any authority in the state. He refused, how: son of one of the king's daughters ; the new pros- ever, to wait on the prince, and took no part in the

pect of a popish dynasty was too much for the subsequent proceedings, by which William was endurance ; many persons of rank and influence raised to the throne. In a paper discussing the

requested the intervention of the Prince of Orange, circumstances of the crisis, he approves the scheine · who was married to the Princess Mary. We need of a regency: had this been adopted, there is not dwell on the circumstances of the history reason to believe that all the bishops who became which follows ;-the prince's preparations; James' nonjurors would have regarded it as not incontoo late abandonment of his offensive measures ; sistent with their oaths of allegiance to King the desertion of his troops and friends ; his flight James. Henry Wharton, who, as one of Sanfrom London, his return, and second disappear-croft's chaplains, had good opportunities of obserance; the debates in the convention as to the man-vation, gives it as his opinion, that the scruples ner of settling the government; and the conclusion which eventually determined the primate's course, of them by William's intimating, that, unless he were infused into him while things were doubtmight reign in his own name, he would return to ful, by the Bishops of Norwich, Chester, and Holland. On the 13th of February, 1688–9, the Ely.t Prince and Princess of Orange were declared king On the 11th of April, 1689, the new king and

queen were crowned by the Bishop of London, the Let us now look at the conduct, while these primate still remaining in retirement at Lambeth. · events were passing, of those bishops who were The great body of lords and commons swore alleto be regarded as representing the cause of the giance to them in the month of March, and towards church.

the end of April it was enacted, that all persons

and queen.

.

* Life of Kettlewell, folio, pp. 63, 73, 76.

ote in Burnet, Own Time, ii. 440. Oxford: 1833.

* Doyly's Life of Sancroft, 2d edition, p. 148. + Doyly, 259.

holding civil or military appointments should take on without him, as an individual; but from fearthe oath before the 1st of August, on pain of ing even the appearance of schism; from a sense deprivation ; while for ecclesiastical persons who of the ties which bound him to his flock; from should refuse it, the penalty was to be suspension knowing that without the many, of whom he was on that day, and deprivation unless they should one, there would be no church or ministry which comply within a further period of six months. could pretend to be adequale to the wants of the The suspension was incurred by eight prelates, of nation. And, doubtless, to a good man who whom ke, Bishop of Chichester, Thomas, of retained his preferment, it would be a sore trial 10 Worcester, and Cartwright, of Chester, died within bear the altered looks, the cold and slighting the year: the remaining five,-Sancroft, Arch- words, the estranged affections, of old friends, bishop of Canterbury, Ken, Bishop of Baih and who had abandoned theirs; to know that he must Wells, Turner, of Ely, Frampton, of Gloucester, suffer himself to be accounted as one who for gain and White, of Peterborough-and with them and for the world's favor had chosen a questionable about four hundred of the inferior clergy-endured and selfish course. These, we conceive, are sacthe penalty of deprivation.

rifices not to be left out of the consideration, when Mr. Lathbury takes great pains—we must we compare the nonjurors with the jurors.* think very superfluously—to convince the world And in proportion as any one had before agreed that these nonjurors acted on pure and conscien- more closely with those who eventually became tious motives. We cannot understand why any nonjurors, the imputations on him would be the one should question this; and our author is not more severe if he complied with the new governdisposed to argue that their sincerity was equalled ment. Extreme churchmen, and people of no by their judgment, which is the only point as to churchmanship or belief at all, would join in conwhich the bitterest liberal could with any show of temptuous judgment of such persons. Yet, surely, reason blame them. We, who make no profession among these there might have been found the men of liberalism, are not inclined to blame them at who of all were most entitled to our respect and all; but we feel ourselves called on to say a few sympathy; men who in what they felt to be a words in behalf of those who complied with the new great difficulty, embraced the course which they government; not against Mr. Lachbury, but against honestly believed to be the best, and to whom that assertions and impressions which we believe to course was really one of far greater self-denial and have become very rife within these last few years. endurance than the forsaking of their station could

What, then, would have been the course of a have been. right-minded churchman in the circumstances of To a man of tender conscience there would, in 1688? We agree with the most exclusive admirers the painful circumstances of that time, be nothing of the nonjurors, in holding, that it would have more likely to bias his judgment than a fear of been wrong to originate, or to share in, any active acting on reasons of worldly interest ; a fear which measures against the king; and of this there is no would be felt the more strongly as the interest at reason to suspect any prelate except Compton, or stake was greater. And this is curiously exempliany considerable number of the clergy. But a fied in the actual history. Of the bishops, more deliverance from James' arbitrary measures was than a fourth became nonjurors; of the inferior to be desired by every one who loved the Church clergy, perhaps not a twentieth. Bishop Frampof England ; the passive resistance of the bishops ton, who after his deprivation communicated with and clergy was warranted, and even exacted, by the national church, and acted as catechist in the iheir sense of duty to God. And if, without active parish where he resided, might, probably, not proceedings of their own, they had a prospect of have thought it his duty to refuse the oaths, if the relief through the intervention of a prince so legit- preferment to be forfeited had been nothing more imately interested in the affairs of Great Britain as than a poorly-endowed benefice or curacy. Ken, William was, the conduct of Sancroft and his in his latter years, advised nonjurors of less eminent brethren proves to us, that in the opinion of men station to join the established communion, and loyal to their sovereign, as well as to their church, declared, that he hiniself held aloof from its consuch intervention might have been regarded as a gregations only because he was “a public person.' blessing. When, however, it appeared that deliv- Some divines took the oaths of allegiance to erance from James was not to be had, except on King William, yet showed their disinterestedness condition of transferring allegiance, the question by refusing promotion to sees vacant by the depritook a new aspect. Were churchmen to comply vation of living prelates. Tillotson's reluctance to with this condition, or to endure the consequences intrude into the seat of Sancroft is well known; of refusing?

Sharp would not accept the bishopric of Norwich ; It is very easy to condemn those who complied, Scoti refused Chester, and other high preferas if it were a clear case of sin; but this we must ments; South refused a bishopric; Kidder refused take leave to question. We deny that the motives Peterborough, and it was not without a trick pracof the nonjurors were necessarily purer than those tised on him, that he was brought to accept of of others. Surely the penalty of deprivation was Bath and Wells, which had been already refused nothing so excessive for a Christian to bear. It by Beveridge. The circumstances of this last had been borne by the great body of the clergy case are remarkable. Evelyn, on calling at Lamforty years before-Sancroft, and perhaps other beth, was told by Sancroft ihat Dr. Beveridge had aged confessors of 1689, having been among the just been taking his opinion on the question of number; it had been borne by the preshyterians at the restoration of Charles II.' A hot and rash man by Ken in 1702. (Works, ed. Round, p. 61.)

* We may quote here a passage from a letter written

* Dr. Bull might be ready to throw up his charge on any being in my way, I called upon him ; which he took the slight occasion. One of a more sober and peacea- more kindly, because he thought we had as much aban. ble spirit might desire to keep it, if it might be doned him as he seems to have abandoned us ; and the kept without

shipwreck of conscience ; not for the respect, I perceive, surprised him, and the rather, because sake of the profits attached to it, nor from any but he has reason to value his old friends, for his new

he never has taken any notice of our deprived brethren self-important fancy that the world could not go have little regarded him."

accepting the bishopric. “ He told him," writes on the throne, yet, now they were on it, they Evelyn, " that though he should give the advice, would be true to them and defend them ;"* and he believed he would not follow it. The doctor many of the clergy, on taking the oath, declared said he would. Why, then,' replied the arch- to those by whom it was administered, that in this bishop, when they come to ask, say Nolo, and sense they understood it, and consented to become say it from the heart; nothing is easier than to bound by it. When this was allowed by the resolve yourself what is to be done.'” Put into imposing power, surely it is not for us to blame plain language, the archbishop's speech comes to those who submitted to the oaths. Kelilewell, This—" There is but one course for an honest indeed, composed a treatise against taking them man; but I do not believe that you have the virtue" in a lower sense,” arguing that the high and to take it."

We think that Beveridge did well in awful nature of an oath ought to forbid anything declining the bishopric; but it is clear that he like a tampering with the meaning of its words; declined it out of deference to Sancroft's opinion, and “some," writes his biographer, “refused it, rather than from any scruples of his own; and if not because they thought it absolutely in itself he had accepted without consulting the deprived unlawful, but because they thought it unlawful primate, is it to be said that his molives must have to take it with a doubting conscience.” We been impure? Or if Ken had resumed his see in respect the scruples of these conscientious persons ; the reign of Queen Anne, (as he would have done but we think it not unreasonable to claim from but for a scruple about the new oath of abjura- ihose who would share their scruples a respect for tion,) is it to be imagined that his acceptance others who considered themselves free to take the would have been less pure than his refusal? oaths, and who acted on that conviction. But it

In these cases of preferments vacant by depriva- is an impertinence to argue against imputations tion, we have unquestionable proofs of disinter- of perjury on Bull and Patrick, Beveridge, and estedness in the complying clergy; surely it is not Wilson. charity, but the merest necessary justice, to sup- There followed, however, other difficulties. pose that the same principle actuated them in | The nonjurors were deprived ; and among them other things; that they took the oaths because were the primate and four bishops. Now, we they believed themselves justified in so doing; and do not wish to be regarded as the apologists of the if justified, then bound by duty to remain in their government in imposing the oath, in depriving the stations.

bishops, or in any other of its measures ; but we The oath, we have all along been supposing, must observe, that it is utterly unwarrantable to was felt as a difficulty. In its terms it was sim- talk of these as if they were nothing better than plified by the omission of such words as had the oppressions of an unchristian tyranny: Reimplied a hereditary title in the sovereign. It was peated overtures had been made to the bishops, merely a promise of “true allegiance to their for the purpose, if it were possible, of avoiding Majesties, King William and Queen Mary.” But the extreme step of a deprivation. There was how was this to be reconciled with the earlier oath manifested in parliament a strong disposition to of allegiance to James as “rightful and lawful deal tenderly with such as had scruples of conking?"

science about transferring their allegiance. There There were many theories and arguments, of was a long delay before filling up the sees ; thus, which that advanced by Sherlock, master of the in the case of Canterbury, Tillotson was not conTemple, was the most noted on account of the secrated until Whit-Sunday, 1691, and Sancroft author's conduct. This divine, who had been retained possession of his palace until the end of among the ablest champions of non-resistance, at June in that year. And whatever we may think first refused the oath, but between the suspension of the ejection of the nonjurors, and of the appointand the deprivation made up his mind to take it, ment of other bishops in their room, there were and published a treatise in which it was argued divines of very high reputation to warrant these from Bishop Overall’s Convocation-Book,* that, acts by an imposing array of arguments. The according to the principles of the Anglican Church, government had very strong reasons for avoiding settled possession of a government is a sufficient such forcible measures. Whether they could have title to allegiance, independent of all questions as been avoided, we will not now consider; but it to legal riglit. We shall not enter into a discus- is only justice to say that they were not hastily or sion of this argument, or of others which were wantonly resolved on, nor were they executed with brought forward by various parties ; but we must violence or insult. The sees .were not filled up quote the contemporary whig historian's statement until after it had been discovered that Turner, as to the intention of the oath. “ The true mean- Bishop of Ely, was implicated in a Jacobite plot.t ing of the words,” writes Bishop Burnet, whose The questions which had now arisen called concern in the affairs of the Revolution gives him forth, says Bishop Burnet, a great deal of angry a high degree of authority in this case which he reading on both sides.” The display is indeed is not always entitled to claim, “and the express alarming. On turning over a few pages of any sense of the imposers, was, that whether men were satisfied or not with the putting the king and queen * Own Time, iii., 402.

† Mr. Lathbury reflects severely on the government in * Kettlewell's biographer says that this work, which the matter of this plot. (p. 79.) He questions Turner's was first printed in the summer of 1689, was put forth for concern in it, without any good grounds, as appears to the purpose of producing on the clergy in general the us; and argues, that as it was discovered in December, effect which it had on Sherlock. Burnet, on the other and some of the conspirators were executed in January, a hand, says that it was sent forth by Sancroft as favoring charge which connecied the nonjuring bishops with it was the nonjuring cause, and that he overlooked the passages the very thing to excite the public mind, and to deprive on which Sherlock's argument was afterwards founded. them of that sympathy” which migbt have been expected This appears to be the more probable story, since the to attend them, when the act for their deprivation should MS. came out of the custody of Sancroft, to whom it had be carried into effect on the 1st of February. The fact been given many years before by Bishop Cosin ; and the is, however, that they had been deprived in February, licensing it for the press was one of the archbishop's last 1689-90——the February before the plot of December, 1690 official acts before his deprivation,

-as Mr. Lathbury rightly states at p. 45.

66

treatise of the time, we find a vast mass of author- shame. The saintly Kettlewell and the meek ities and precedents brought to bear on the subjects Frampton lamented to each other over the “ bitterof allegiance, oaths, and deprivations. Divines, ness and heat of temper” which possessed their casuists, jurists, canonists, historians-Grotius, brethren. The former, on his death-bed, while he Puffendorf, De Marca, Sanderson, Overall, Bellar- professed a confident belief that the refusal of the mine, Ridley, Lady Jane Grey, Henry VIII., oaths was “a most righteous and rewardable Henry VII., York and Lancaster, Robert of Nor- cause of suffering," was yet disturbed by the mandy, William the Conqueror, Sigebert, Egbert, thoughts of this evil spirit, which threatened to Kenulph, Vortimer, emperors of East and West, ruin all ; " and,” we are told, “ he would often popes, patriarchs, fathers, councils, Photius, Jus- say that a Christian demeanor under sufferings tinian, Theodosius, Jovian, Julian, Constantius, was as necessary as a good cause to render them Chrysostom, Ambrose, Athanasius, Donatus, No- acceptable to God."* vatus, Cyprian, Nero, Nebuchadnezzar, Jeroboam, In addition to all this, there were, even among Abiathar, Solomon, Filmer's "6 · Patriarcha." the best men of the party, varieties of opinion as Was it to be expected, that every one to whom the to the reasons of their cause, which, although at oaths might be tendered, should thread his way first all could agree in the main act of refusing the through all this maze of learning, ecclesiastical, oaths, contained in them the seeds of difference and secular? The idea is, of course, absurd ; the and division, which could not fail ere long to be bulk could do nothing else than follow such lead- manifested in action. ers as they supposed to be trustworthy; and of Now that they were deprived, what were the these the great majority was on the side of com- nonjurors to do? How were they to regard their pliance. The list of ihe original nonjurors ap- position? Were they and their children to be dispended to the life of Kettlewell (in which we may affected to all governments so long as Janies and be sure that no one of any note is omitted) con- his posterity should be excluded ? Were they to tains, besides the names of the bishops, hardly pray and to intrigue for the restoration of a perhalf a dozen which either possessed at the date son, who, although some might be foolish enough of the Revolution, or afterwards acquired, any to fancy him the ideal of a Christian sovereign, as pretension whatever to celebrity in theological lit- soon as his reality ceased to be felt, was yet an erature.

alien from their belief and communion, and had in The four hundred ejected clergy were, as a the day of his power done all that he could to opbody, by no means the flower of the church. press, corrupt, and degrade the church? Were Most of them resorted to London; and it is very they to found and keep up a church of their ownevident from the terms of Ketilewell's proposals declaring the rest of the clergy schismatical, while for their relief, in 1695, that the conduct of 100 yet they themselves could not, like the late secemany was not such as to win the reverence of the ders from the Scotch establishment, attempt to furworld by any superiority to that of the complying nish for the whole country a system of rival minisclergy. It appears to have been a common prac- trations ? Were they to hegin an enduring schism tice among them to haunt the coffee-houses, by for the sake of worldly politics—of which politics way of picking up a living from those who fre- they themselves could not, consistently with their quented them. Wheli Ken was questioned by the religious principles, desire the success ? Surely privy council, as to the funds raised in furtherance the wiser way would be, to look on their condition of the charity, he was told that “the money had as one of merely personal disability ; to communibeen abused, and given to ery ill and immoral cate with the rest of the church, unless the terms men, and particularly to one who goes in a gown of communion were intolerable ; to submit peaceaone day, and in a blue silk waistcoat the next." bly to the ruling powers, and to advise all to swear Unfortunately this gentleman possessed the prop- allegiance who were not, like themselves, preerties of the chameleon only in part. He and cluded by previous engagements. such as he would seem to have gone far towards We do not see how, on any other understanding, justifying the somewhat startling opinion of John- the deprived bishops could defend much of their son, that “perhaps a nonjuror would have been past conduct. They might be, and were, reless criminal in taking the oaths imposed by the minded, that they had withstood the banished ruling power, than in refusing them ; because re- king until his power was at an end ; that they had fusing them laid him under almost an irresistible shared in overtures to the Prince of Orange; that temptation to be more criminal; for a man must they had been willing to consent to the exclusion live, and if he precludes himself from the support of James by the expedient of a regency; that they furnished by the establishment, will probably be had granted commissions for the discharge of their reduced to very wicked shifts to maintain him- functions in consecration, ordination, institution, self."*

and the like, to bishops and others who had conBesides the disreputable doings of the lower formed to the new order of things; that, as lords clergy, a controversial spirit was soon manifested of parliament, they had not protested against the among the nonjurors, which could not fail to lessen measures of the revolution, the oath of allegiance, the sympathy of Christian-minded men in general. and their own deprivation ; that, as pastors, they One of them, named Grascome, poured forth had not warned their flocks to avoid their intruded painphlet after pamphlet, written in a tone, and successors. How were these things, and others with a style of argument, which could have no which might easily be mentioned, to be accounted other effect than to irritate and disgust. His vio- for, on the supposition that the duty of Christians lence, and that of others, which rages in the very had been clear throughout, and that the commutitles of their productions, so as to destroy all wish nion of those who had transferred their allegiance for an acquaintance with the contents, drew hard was schismatical and apostate? The true explanusage from the ruling powers on the whole non-'ation and apology is evidently this : that there had juring body, while to ihe better-spirited of their been great and very perplexing difficulties, in own communion, it was a source of grief and which Christian men might, without deserving the * Boswell, V., 259. ed. 1835.

* Life, p. 175.

blame of their fellows, be divided in opinion; that generality of the nonjurors until many years later, they had acted for the best, but could not preterid whereas it was alleged, that all consecrations of to have been infallibly right in every point; that Catholic bishops ought to be immediately notified the question was, for the clergy, one not of poli- to the faithful,) objections were afterwards taken tics, but of religion ; that the deprivation was to to the authority of Hickes and Wagstaffe, by those be regarded as a personal disqualification, which who were opposed to the continuance of the schism. should end with those who had been bound by Ken and Frampton took no part in the consecraoaths to James, and not as a ground for a perma- tion. The latter, as we have already mentioned, nent schism.

was living quietly in the country, attending the And such would seem to have been the view parish church, catechising the children publicly, originally taken both by themselves and by others. and explaining, in the afternoon, the sermon which Thus Sancroft, for a time, admitted the ministry had been preached by the curate in the morningof his chaplains who had taken the oaths, and a ministration which it might have been curious to even after his retirement into Suffolk, in August, wirness. Ken found an honorable asylum under 1691, received them kindly as visitors, and suffered the roof of Lord Weymouth, at Longleat. He them to share in the service before him. It was earnestly opposed the measures for continuing the proposed in parliament that the king should be at succession, believing them to have originated in a liberty to refrain from tendering the oaths, with a political influence, which could intend no good toview, doubtless, of exempting those whose scruples wards the Church.* He sighed after a reunion, it was not thought desirable to press on. The act and rejoiced in all approaches towards it. In the which enforced the oaths contained a proviso, that reign of Anne, he was almost persuaded to resume the king might reserve to any twelve spiritual per- his see, from which Kidder was willing to resons who should refuse them a portion of the in- move; and on being told, after the sudden death come of their preferments. The deprived clergy of that prelate, that Hooper, bishop of St. Asaph, did not refuse to admit jurors to partake of their had on his account refused a translation to Bath administrations, as, for example, in the communion and Wells, he himself requested this valued of the sick. Those of Cambridge, and others, friend to accept the offer, and made over all his continued with the church in lay communion.* rights to him. • Receive the see," he said,

The change of view was gradual. Sancroft," with as good a conscience as I have quitted it." soured, as it would seem, by age and by a sense And when blamed for this cession by the more poof ill-usage, and wrought on by men naturally less litical members of his party, we find him declartemperate than himself, came by degrees, in his ing, “ It is not the first time I dissenied from retreat at Fresingfield, to speak of his nonjuring some of my brethren, and never saw cause to reobedience as the Church of England, and of the pent of it." + established communion as apostate and rebellious. The death of James in September, 1701, and In February, 1691–2, he granted to Lloyd, de- the accession of Anne in the room of William a few prived bishop of Norwich, a commission to exe- months later, were circumstances favorable to the cute “Quicquid est muneris mei et pontificii.healing of the schism; but unhappily the French Quoscumque,” it is said in this instrument, " tu, king, by recognizing the son of James, induced frater, prout res et occasio tulerit, assumpseris et the English government to procure an act for the adjunxeris tibi, elegeris et approbaveris, confirmave- abjuration of this “ pretender.” This added little ris et constitueris, ego quoque (quantum in me est, to the number of separatists, but it formed, doubtet jure possum) assumo pariter et adjungo, eligo et less, a bar to the return of many who would now approbo, confirmo et consti 0." About the same have had no scruples about the oath of allegiance. time, a list of the deprived clergy was sent to the The learned and excellent Dodwell had not beexiled king. He nominated Hickes and Wag-come a nonjuror until after the deprivation of the stasfe for advancement to the episcopate ; and they bishops, and had always maintained that the state were consecrated on St. Matthias' day, 1693-4, by prayers of the liturgy and occasional offices were Lloyd, (who acted as the chief of the body after no sufficient ground for separation from the public the death of Sancroft, in November, 1693,) in communion. "In 1705, he published “ The Case conjunction with White and Turner.

in View," a work devoted to the discussion of the Even this step, however, did not commit the question-What would be the duty of those who nonjurors to that determined separateness from had adhered to the deprived bishops, when these the Church which we read of at a later time. It should all have been removed by deaih? In 1707 was said to be taken by way of provision for the appeared, “A Further Prospect of the Case in future, in order that the episcopal succession View ;” and in 1710, the occasion arrived for acimight be kept up, “if affairs should continue to ing on the principles which he had laid down in stand in the same posture.” The new bishops these publications. Bishop Lloyd died on the were not to exercise their powers until the failure 1st of January I in that year; and Ken, on being of those who had been deprived ; and, by way of formally asked by Dodwell and Nelson whether guarding against a collision with bishops in pos- he still claimed their obedience, replied that he session, if circumstances should afterwards favor a made no such claim, and rejoiced in the prospect reconciliation with the established communion, of seeing the schism ended. No one, it was arthey were designated, not from any occupied sees, gued by Dodwell, could now have a right to obebut' from the towns of Thetford and Ipswich; dience, unless he could show a better lile than places which had been named as seats of suffra- that of the incumbent in possession, to some one gans by the act of the 26th of Henry VIII., and particular altar; which no suffragan, (if such there both situated within the chief consecrator's late were,) could pretend to do, since the authority of diocese. From the questionable position of suffra- suffragans ought to terminate with the life of the gans, and from the secrecy of the consecration, bishop to whom they were assistant. Dodwell, (which was not formally made known even to the

* Works, p. 51.

+ Works, p. 67. * Ken's works, p. 49.

So Mr. Lathbury rightly states at p. 203; but at p. 209 he gives Jan, 30 as the date.

« ՆախորդըՇարունակել »