NONJURORS EJECTED.
There remained no alternative but to eject the disaffected, and to induct loyal successors. As the crisis approached, questions were raised and discussed by Nonjurors, touching the treatment of those so inducted. Lloyd, Sancroft’s busy correspondent, now wrote to say how perplexed he felt; for, extreme as might be his views, they were surpassed by the views of others. He reported that they asked, what they should do in case they appeared at any of the new Episcopal elections,—should they oppose them? From such a proposal he shrunk, for to carry it out might incur a premunire. Further, he inquired whether for him to recommend their absenting themselves would not be cowardly? Nonplussed by these problems, he despondingly added, “What, then, is to be done? Here I stick.” His friend Wagstaffe informed him, some had resolved to resist all Erastian intrusion, and expected the displaced Bishops would assert their rights. Lloyd grew testy at such an excess of zeal, and wished to know what the self-appointed critics would advise the Prelates to do? Had not those very critics submitted to deprivation? Of what use would it be for their superiors to do otherwise?[204]
1691.
Presently the question came again on the carpet.
“May it please your Grace,” wrote the indefatigable Lloyd, “I had last Saturday a fit opportunity to discourse with Sir Edward Entwich about the vexatio questio, and found him—upon consideration of the whole matter—to be of the same opinion with Mr. N—— th. The first question that I proposed was, whether it was advisable for us to keep possession till we were ejected by legal processes; his answer was, we might, if we judged it meet, dispute the possession; but then, saith he, you must at last expect to be outed, and to pay the costs and charges of the suit, and to be called to Westminster Hall, and perhaps elsewhere, to answer hard questions, and that with all rigour. I then asked whether he would advise us so to do, and appear for us, and draw pleas as occasions offered? To this his answer was, that he knew not to what purpose we should put ourselves to fruitless trouble; for, saith he, if a happy turn should come, all the proceedings against you will be out of doors. This is the sum of our discourse.”
He adds a paragraph respecting a Nonjuror whose Jacobitism had plunged him into serious danger:
“I saw Dr. B[ea]ch last week, who hopes shortly to be at liberty, or at least to be abroad upon bail.
“It was well for him that the informer blundered in his depositions against him, and indeed, so did the justices who took the information; for there is not in the deposition any express mention of the time or place, when and where the Doctor said, that the same power which put our Saviour on the pinnacle of the Temple, put William and Mary upon the throne; but I am told that there are other informations against him. His successor has broke into his Church in his absence, and got possession in his absence, and this is a very great trouble to the Dr.
NONJURORS EJECTED.
“I hear that Mr. Dean of Worcester begins to appear again, and hopes that the storm will blow over him. I heartily wish it may, sed timeo Danaos; for commonly they are not so generous.”[205]