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