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.