Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution

by John Stoughton

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. The corrigenda have been silently corrected.
4. Some hyphenated and non-hyphenated versions of the same words have been retained as in the original.