A History of the Nonjurors/Chapter 1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
←
Preface
A History of the Nonjurors
by Thomas Lathbury
Chapter 1
Chapter 2
→
2888086A History of the Nonjurors — Chapter 1Thomas Lathbury
​

History of the Nonjurors.

CHAPTER I.

Introductory Remarks.—Causes of the Schism.—Proceedings of King James.—Declaration of Indulgence.—Conduct of Dissenters; of the Clergy.—Conduct of the Clergy and Dissenters Contrasted.—The Prince of Orange.—Invitation to the Prince.—The Bishop of London.—The Fabrication of Speke.—The Prince undertakes the Administration.—Views of the Parties.—The Convention.—Discussions.—Settlement of the Crown.—The Question of a Regency considered.—The Views and Conduct of the Prince of Orange.

The history of the schism in the Church of England, occasioned by the Revolution in 1688, constitutes one of the most interesting chapters in our Ecclesiastical Annals. The views and proceedings of the Nonjurors, from their origin as a party to their extinction, must be contemplated with much interest by members of the Church of England. Few persons are aware how much the cause of religion, as well as of Sacred Literature, was indebted, during the last century, to the exertions of the Nonjurors, who, when they were excluded from the National Church by their scruples respecting the oaths, devoted themselves to useful and laborious study. ​Whatever we may think of their views, we cannot deny, that they suffered much for conscience' sake, and that they generally suffered with meekness and in silence, not parading their wrongs, whether real or imaginary, before the public, as was the case with the Nonconformists subsequent to the year 1662.

Much misapprehension exists, even at present, respecting the character and conduct of the Nonjurors. By some persons they are regarded as Romanists: by others as enemies to their country. It will be my aim to give an impartial account of their principles, as well as of their proceedings. At the present time we may come to the consideration of the subject with calmness. We may form a dispassionate judgment of their case, and of the difficulties, in which they were involved. It has been the custom to speak of them as a set of unreasonable men: and should I succeed, in any measure, in correcting these erroneous impressions, I shall feel, that my labour has not been in vain.

As churchmen, indeed, we must regret, that the Nonjurors did not co-operate with the great mass of the Clergy: yet still we must reverence them as men acting conscientiously, and suffering much in the cause, which they espoused. The first race of Nonjurors quitted their preferments, and ended their days in obscurity: while those, who succeeded them, excluded themselves from those distinctions, to which, from their talents and learning, but for the barrier interposed by their scruples, they must certainly have attained.

My first object will be, to trace the causes, which led to such a schism in the Anglican Church. Some of the events, therefore, connected with the Revolution, must be reviewed. Long before the death of ​his brother, James, Duke of York, had been reconciled to the Church of Rome—a step to which all his subsequent misfortunes must be attributed. Unlike his brother, he was not so indifferent on the subject of religion as to conceal his opinions. He openly declared himself a Roman Catholic. On his accession, however, he expressed his determination, to maintain and defend the Church of England. Had he been influenced by such a determination, he would undoubtedly have preserved his crown. Many persons were inclined to rely on the King's promise: and probably at the time his Majesty intended to keep his word. It was supposed, that he would be content with the private exercise of his own religious system. There were many inducements for making such a promise. He knew that he was suspected by the Church of England. Recollecting the proceedings connected with the Exclusion Bill, he was anxious to make a favourable impression on churchmen, who would not have supported him with zeal, had they foreseen his intentions respecting the establishment of Popery.

It is singular, that the Dissenters, equally with Churchmen, were deceived by his Majesty's promises: the former by his avowal of sentiments respecting liberty of conscience: the latter by his promise of maintaining the Church in her integrity. Churchmen hoped that he would maintain the Church: Dissenters expected an indulgence in their nonconformity. The King's intentions soon became evident to Churchmen. On the other hand, the Dissenters were so delighted with the prospect of indulgence, that they either did not, or would not, see the danger, and consequently remained perfectly quiet during that period of excitement and alarm. While the Clergy commenced ​an active warfare against the Church of Rome, the Dissenters flattered and thus deceived his Majesty, by leading him to suppose, that his measures respecting the Indulgence were really approved by the people. They contributed nothing whatever towards the support of the great cause which was then in jeopardy.[1]

A review of the conduct of Dissenters at this time may be permitted in the present volume, especially as, subsequent to the Revolution, they were the loudest in their complaints of the inconsistency of the Nonjurors. The works published by the Clergy against the Church of Rome will ever remain as a monument of their piety, their zeal, and their learning: but the voice of the Dissenters was not raised in favour of that cause, for which, afterwards, they professed so strong an attachment.

In the year 1687 King James issued his Declaration of Indulgence. His object was to favour the Church of Rome through the means of the Dissenters. The Declaration was repeated in 1688, with this addition, that the Bishops were commanded to forward it to their clergy, and to see that it was ​read in all the churches in their respective dioceses.[2] King James was no friend to toleration; but he claimed the power of dispensing with the penal laws, in order that the Romanists might reap the benefit. The Bishops and Clergy generally resisted the attempt as unlawful. They knew that James only wished to tolerate Popery. They warned the Dissenters of the danger, and to their noble conduct the salvation of the Church must be attributed.

Feeling that the attempt was illegal, the Bishops agreed upon a petition to his Majesty, which must be regarded as a proof of their unshaken determination to resist the encroachments of the Church of Rome. Of so much importance was this petition deemed, that an answer was prepared and published by the King's Printer. Most of the Bishops and Clergy, therefore, refused to read the Declaration. They were in a very difficult position. By reading it they would violate their consciences; by refusing they would incur the royal displeasure. The first declaration, since it was not commanded to be read in churches, did not involve such consequences. Undoubtedly this addition was intended to make the ​Bishops and Clergy instrumental to their own degradation. But, by the overruling Providence of Almighty God, this step proved the most eventful in its consequences of all the measures adopted by his Majesty. Sancroft and six of his brethren ventured to present their petition to the King: an act for which they were committed to prison. The trials, with the proceedings connected with their liberation, need not be entered upon in this volume: and I allude to the subject thus far, merely for the purpose of shewing that the country was indebted to the Bishops, not to the Dissenters, for the successful resistance to the King's measures. To the Bishops of that day are we indebted for our present privileges. They were steady and firm in the defence of their principles, while the Dissenters were ready to comply with the King, even when his measures were calculated to let in Popery. Yet Dissenting writers are constantly charging the Bishops and Clergy, who refused to take the oaths subsequent to the revolution, with Popery, though they were the very persons to oppose its introduction. Lord Halifax, writing on the conduct of the Bishops to the Prince of Orange, says: "I look upon it as that which hath bound all the Protestants together, and bound them up into a knot, that cannot easily be untied." Dalrymple remarks: "There is no doubt that the petition and the imprisonment of the Bishops were the immediate causes of the dethronement of King James."[3]

On the contrary, the Dissenters pursued a course ​which, had they not been checked, must have issued in the establishment of the Church of Rome. While they received the Declaration, it was rejected by almost all the Bishops and Clergy. It was read only in four churches in London. Some few of the Bishops forwarded it to their Clergy, who generally refused to read it. In the Diocese of Norwich, containing 1200 parishes, it was read only in three or four churches.[4] Croft, Bishop of Hereford, forwarded it to his Clergy, and then published a singular pamphlet, containing his reasons for the course which he had adopted.[5] He laments the necessity of acting in opposition to his metropolitan: and, at the same time, assures the King, that the non-complying Bishops were attached to his Majesty's person. The conduct of Crew, Bishop of Durham, was equally singular. He requested Baker to read the Declaration in his chapel at Aukland. Baker had already requested his own curate at Long Newton not to read it. "When all was over, the Bishop (as a penance I presume) ordered me to go to the Dean (as Archdeacon) to require him to make a return to Court of all such as had not read it, which I did, though I was one of the number."[6] The Bishop, however, joined in the vote, that King James had abdicated. He also took the oaths to William and Mary, and retained his bishopric until his death in ​1722. When time had elapsed sufficient to ascertain the numbers, it was found that not more than 200 Clergymen throughout the whole country had read the Declaration. It was read by Sprat in Westminster Abbey; but few persons remained to hear it, besides the Choristers and the Westminster Scholars.[7]

Unable to shew that the Dissenters took any part in the great struggle, and unwilling to award any merit to the Bishops and Clergy, Dissenting writers frequently labour to find out something, on which they may rest a charge against the members of the Anglican Church. They pretend, therefore, that the Clergy opposed the King merely because he favoured the Dissenters, and not from any love of liberty. They claim the Revolution as the offspring of their own principles, though Dissenters really supported the King in his unconstitutional course. Instead of defending the liberties of their country, they actually addressed the King in the most flattering style. To encourage them, they were told by some of the courtiers, that the royal intentions had all along been thwarted by the Church of England. The language of not a few of the addresses must have surprised the King himself. Alsop, a man of some influence with the body, prepared an address, in which the parties wished the King success in his "great councils and affairs."[8] These Addresses encouraged the King in his course; for he never conceived it possible, that he should be defeated by the Church. The Dis​senters, says one who was by no means unfriendly to them, "were in general ripe for attaching themselves to the party of the King."[9] It is said too, that Sunderland and others, who were in the interest of the Prince of Orange, fell in with the Dissenters, and persuaded the King to persevere.[10]

Hallam admits, that the Dissenters have been ashamed of their conduct. Some Addresses were presented by the Clergy; but they "disclose their ill-humour at the unconstitutional indulgence, limiting their thanks to some promises of favour the King had used toward the Established Church."[11] Swift says, speaking of the Bishops, "if the Presbyterians expressed the same zeal upon any occasion, the instances are not, as I can find, left upon record or transmitted by tradition."[12] Efforts have been made to defend the Dissenters in addressing the King, but it is not possible to remove the reproach under which they lie, not only of not acting against Popery, but even of forwarding James's views. "Addresses came from all sects and persuasions throughout the kingdom, filled, with the most rapturous professions of loyalty. Anabaptists, Presbyterians, and Quakers promiscuously crowded the royal presence, and laid their offerings at the foot of the Throne. James was compared to Cyrus, to Moses, to several other deliverers of the people of God in the ancient world, his piety was praised, his moderation exalted, his ​magnanimity raised to the skies."[13] This extract does not overstate the matter: and Calamy and others are compelled to admit the fact. The Dissenters supported the King against the liberties of their country; but the Nonjurors, who have been so much traduced by that party, were among the foremost to oppose their sovereign in his unconstitutional career. Surely these facts ought to keep dissenting writers silent. Whatever may have been their views respecting the Revolution, they contributed nothing whatever towards its accomplishment. "Whatever opposition was made to the usurpations of King James proceeded altogether from the clergy and one of the universities. The Dissenters readily and almost universally complied with him."[14] Scott also remarks, "in accomplishing the Revolution, the services of the established Church had been chiefly conspicuous. The Dissenters had at one time, (if the expression can be permitted) coquetted with James II. and shewed some disposition to accommodate themselves to his plans of arbitrary power in order to gratify their vengeance by enjoying the degradation and perhaps the fall of the Church of England. And although they recovered from this delusion, yet they must be considered rather as falling in with and aiding the general current of opinion, than as leading and directing it against the abdicated monarch."[15]

​It is amusing to read the defences which have been set up for the Dissenters by Calamy and others. "The Dissenters were not so fond of hard usage as to refuse a liberty so freely offered them: nor did they think it good manners to enquire too narrowly how that indulgence came about." Speaking of Alsop, Calamy says, "I could be content to draw a veil over his conduct, in the reign of King James; but who is wise at all times." He adds, "none more rejoiced in the Revolution or were more hearty in King William's cause."[16] Yet Alsop was as hearty in the cause of King James, and did all he could, by supporting his Majesty, to prevent the accession of the Prince of Orange. "They were glad," says another of their defenders, "to see the work in so good hands, and the controversy managed to so good purpose by their protestant brethren of the Church of England. They thought it but reasonable to leave them to lay the devil they had done so much many of them to raise."[17] Such attempts at a defence only serve to prove the charge.

But it was not only at the period of the Declaration that the Dissenters pursued so strange a course. If we look back over the latter part of the reign of Charles II. we shall find that they were silent on the subject of Popery. It was improbable that men, who could so flatter King James, would write against his Church. Yet soon after the Revolution, the Dissenters were constantly bringing the charge of Popery, not only against the Nonjurors, but against all consistent members of the Anglican Church. "In less than ​seven years before, one of the main objections brought against them was their inclinableness to Popery. But when the falseness of this accusation was made to appear beyond contradiction, by the strenuous opposition that was generally by them, both from the pulpit and the press, carried on against that which they were accounted before favourers of; it was more than a little remarkable, that those, who had made the outcry, were themselves now not only generally silent, but were also the very first to join hands with this very Popery against the Church of England." Thus some years before the Revolution the Dissenters raised the cry of Popery against the Church of England: in 1688 they actively supported King James: and a few years after, when the victory had been gained, though they had favoured his Majesty, they actually revived the cry of Popery against the clergy. The same writer remarks again: "Surely nothing could appear more odd and extravagant, than the conduct of these new allies with Popery."[18]

The Dissenters, therefore, if they were the supporters of the Revolution, were so unwittingly and not intentionally. By flattering the monarch they encouraged him in that course, which issued in his ruin, and which he would not have pursued so long, if they had acted faithfully like the Bishops and Clergy. King James could fairly say, that "he had been encouraged by multitudes of addresses."[19] No merit, therefore, is due to the Dissenters; for they never contemplated opposition. "Though the Clergy of the Church of England bore the burden and heat of the day, and bravely defended their religion, while the Dissenters lay silent, and concurred in all the ​measures of the court, yet had they the confidence to pretend a mighty share of merit at the Revolution."[20]

As the Nonjurors were subjected to so much reproach from the Dissenters, it appears desirable in this work to expose the conduct of the latter at, and immediately prior to, the Revolution of 1688. Still I would not have entered upon this exposure, had not Dissenting writers, from that time down to the present moment, been in the habit of charging Popery against many of the most faithful children of the Anglican Church. It must strike reflecting persons as somewhat remarkable, that, like their forefathers, modern Dissenters are making Common Cause with Popery: while the Church of England still remains the chief bulwark against the encroachments of Rome. As soon as the Dissenters had entered into the harvest, which certainly was prepared by others, they became very virtuous and zealous, and charged the Nonjuring Clergy with Popery. This was marvellous inconsistency in men, who had done so much to further the cause of Romanism. They encouraged the King in his measures: and, but for that encouragement, his Majesty would never have proceeded to a prosecution of the imprisoned prelates.[21] The most active supporters of King James were William Penn, a Quaker, and Henry Care, a Dissenter. They asserted the dispensing power in the Crown: so that according to their doctrine the King could not be bound by any laws.[22]

​It may, therefore, be alleged without fear of contradiction, that the Clergy of the Anglican Church prevented the introduction of Popery. Nobly did they defend the truth, both at the Revolution, and during several previous years. In a catalogue of books against Popery during the reign of James II. the compiler, after specifying two books, says: "These are all I find written by Nonconformists. I need not here to beg our Nonconformist brethren's pardon upon this slender account of their writings against Popery during the reign of King James II, because I have used great diligence to attain an exact account of them."[23] Of the works published by Churchmen on the controversy with Rome, a portion, and only a portion, was reprinted by Bishop Gibson.[24] In a sermon at Oxford in 1705, the writer, alluding to this subject, says, "I shall not bring in here that all those noble defences, that were written against popery in these times, were done by the hands of Churchmen: all besides three cold Pamphlets, that stole out as it were in moonlight, as if the authors had been ashamed of them, and perhaps they had some reason. But I will not urge this any longer as an objection against these men, that they wrote no ​more against Popery, for it may be they were not able: I am sure 'tis an argument of our charity for them if we think so. When the Dissenters paid all their addresses and compliments to the government, these good men could then comply with any thing, if they could lessen the Church's authority."[25] At that time the Dissenters were raising the cry of Popery against the Church: and the preacher very properly reminded them of their conduct at the Revolution.

The King attempted to prevent the Clergy from introducing the subject into their pulpits: but a sense of duty led them to persevere in their course. They chose rather to obey God than the King. Among other measures adopted to silence the Clergy, the Press was artfully employed by command of his Majesty. Several publications made their appearance: but they were promptly answered by some of those champions, who had undertaken the defence of the Church and the truth.[26] In short, the supporters of the Church ever stood ready to defend the great doctrines embodied in our Formularies. As a specimen of the lengths to which the royal supporters ​were encouraged to proceed, it may be mentioned, that a work was actually published to shew Protestants how they should conduct themselves under a Roman Catholic Sovereign.[27]

Thus the contrast between the Dissenters on the one hand, and the Bishops and Clergy on the other, including those who subsequently became Nonjurors, was most striking. Still the Church of England flourished notwithstanding the lukewarmness of the Nonconformists. "The Church of England was never known to be in a more flourishing condition than at this time; all things duly weighed it became much more powerful by the opposition made against it, and grew by the favours indulged to its adversaries. The number of converts made in the reign of this king to his religion was most inconsiderable, and their service to him still more inconsiderable, if it could be said to be any at all. On the other side, for every one that was lost to the established religion, it was thought there were ten at least added to it another way: for certain great numbers of Dissenters were brought into the communion of the Church by the learned writings of the orthodox clergy." It was remarked as a proof of the flourishing state of the Church, that the rites and ceremonies were better observed, the Churches were full, and the communions more frequent.[28]

The birth of a Prince of Wales, however, alarmed the country. The Princess of Orange was the next heir to the throne, consequently the birth of a Son ​filled the minds of the people with apprehension. This event took place on the 10th of June, during the imprisonment of the Bishops; so that Sancroft could not have been the author of the Form of Prayer, which was ordered to be used on the Day of Thanksgiving. This general apprehension of danger led some of the principal men in the kingdom to look to the Prince of Orange for support. They were members of the Church of England: so that, whatever merit attaches to the Revolution, belongs to them, not to the Dissenters. Into the particulars connected with the Prince's arrival, I need not enter at any length, since my narrative properly commences with the period fixed for taking the oaths to William and Mary. I shall only touch, therefore, on those points which appear to me to be necessary in order to illustrate the subject.

As soon as William landed in England, he published a Declaration explanatory of his views in coming to this country. He stated, that he wished to preserve the religion and the liberties of the people: and that he had been invited by several of the Lords, spiritual and temporal. King James summoned Sancroft and the Bishops into his presence, to question them respecting the Declaration, who denied all knowledge of the Prince's intentions, or that they had given him any invitation. It was subsequently proved, that the Bishop of London had actually signed the invitation to the Prince, though he positively denied it in the presence of his Majesty. He was the only Spiritual Peer who did sign it: and his solemn denial must ever remain as a blot upon his memory. Sancroft signed a paper, declaring that he never concurred in inviting the Prince of Orange, and expressing his belief, that all the Bishops ​were guiltless of any such imputation. He had no suspicion of Compton.[29] A writer, whom I shall have occasion to notice presently, is very severe on Compton, and also upon Burnet, for the part they took in this matter: "Nor will any that know the men allow, that Jack Boots or Cambric Sleeves embarked in dethroning or driving away the King, out of any regard unto, or concernedness for the reformed doctrine and worship: but that they did it out of pique and revenge, and upon the motives of ambition and covetousness, in the one to get a bishopric, and in the other to preserve one."[30] Compton is designated Jack Boots, from the fact of his heading a troop of horse at the Revolution. Burnet is called Cambric Sleeves, on the alleged ground, that he declined to wear lawn sleeves after he became a Bishop, having them made of a different material.

On the Bishops declaring, that they had not concurred in inviting the Prince, and that they were altogether ignorant of his design, the King requested them to sign a Paper expressive of their abhorrence of the invasion. This, however, they declined. They honestly declared that they had taken no part with the Prince: they advised his Majesty to preserve the religion and liberties of the country; but they would not sign any Declaration of Abhorrence. Throughout this anxious period, Sancroft and his brethren, with the exception of Compton, acted a most consistent part. They resisted the King's il​legal schemes; but they did not adopt measures to set him aside: and no charge of inconsistency, between their conduct at this time and a subsequent period, can be sustained. The only inconsistent man was Compton, who said to his Majesty, "I am confident the rest of the Bishops will as readily answer in the negative as myself."[31] In the reasons which Compton assigned for not signing a Declaration of Abhorrence, he intimates, that, "as only few Bishops were in London, to sign any paper would lead the world to expect, that they were divided in opinion; who, we hope, are very well united." He also argues, that the clause in the Declaration joined the Lords temporal and spiritual; "so that if it has any meaning, it must intend, that there is a concurrence of both orders to invite them to this attempt, which would make it more improper in us, even though all the Bishops were here, to make a separate vindication, when the accusation is joined, and comprehends the temporal Lords in it."[32] This reasoning was intended to convey the impression, that he had not signed the Invitation to the Prince. Nothing could be more reprehensible than such conduct.

Of those, who refused to sign a Declaration of Abhorrence of the Prince's designs, several subsequently became Nonjurors: and their refusal to take the oaths has been considered as inconsistent with their conduct on this occasion. But surely this is a most groundless charge. They saw the necessity of some interference with King James: and they believed, ​that nothing would be so effectual as the interposition of the Prince; but they never contemplated the removal of his Majesty or the advancement of William to the throne. They pursued a uniform course of opposition to those measures, which were illegal, uninfluenced by any sinister considerations. They were anxious to preserve the Church; they wished also to preserve the rights of the King; consequently they were perfectly consistent in their refusal of the oaths, notwithstanding their previous refusal to express their abhorrence of the attempt of the Prince of Orange. The Nonjurors never objected to the interference of the Prince; but they neither invited him to come, nor would they express their disapprobation of his coming.

A singular circumstance occurred after the arrival of the Prince, which, as having a special bearing on the Revolution, merits a notice in this volume. The Prince issued a second Declaration; but in December another document, purporting to be a third, was published and circulated. No one appears to have doubted the genuineness of the paper. It contained some very strong allusions to the Roman Catholics; and Dr. Lingard and Ralph appear to attribute the flight of King James to this document. The Prince did not publicly disown the paper: neither did he avow it as his own. Thus the mystery remained unravelled, until some years after, when Speke, the real author, had the effrontery to claim it as his own production, and also to plead a merit for the fabrication. The document was dated from Sherbourne Castle, the 28th of November. Burnet, however, says, that the Prince disowned it as soon as he saw it; but this was only in private. Speke says he presented it to the Prince at Sherbourne Castle, and that all his attendants, after some consideration, be​lieved that it would serve the cause. The author of the History of the Desertion asserts, that it was not circulated till the sixth of December; and as the Prince had left Sherbourne at or before the beginning of the month, there was sufficient time to have contradicted the paper through the Press. Ralph exclaims, "How amazing! that a man should betray an ambition to be thought the author of so nefandous a contrivance, which might have occasioned a general massacre of the Papists." Speke's own account proves him to have been a dishonest man, for he boasts of acting as a spy for King James, while he was serving the Prince of Orange. The Paper was undoubtedly the means of bringing many persons to acquiesce in the proceedings of the Prince.[33]

The members of the Church of England generally concurred in looking to the Prince of Orange as a mediator, however they might differ on certain points. This is allowed by King James himself.[34] But James was determined on quitting the country. It must be admitted, that he met with many provocations: and being under the influence of his Priests, who persuaded him that his life or his liberty was in danger, and that he would be restored by a foreign force, he took a step which proved fatal to his interests. Had he remained, the idea of setting him aside could not have been entertained, in which case the nonjuring schism would never have existed. He must have remained the sovereign, whatever measures might ​have been adopted for restraining the exercise of the prerogative. The leaders could not have avowed an intention of placing the Prince of Orange on the throne, had King James continued in the country: but when he actually retired into a foreign land, they supposed, that he would never return except on his own terms. Hence it became their interest to resort to measures to prevent such a return.

When the King had quitted the country, the Archbishop and the Bishops concurred with the temporal Peers in calling upon the Prince to take upon himself the administration of affairs. It was necsesary that vigorous measures should be adopted, while the Prince was unquestionably the fittest person to carry them into execution. It is difficult to decide on the views of all parties at this juncture; but in a very short space the question relative to offering the crown to William was publicly discussed. Tories and Whigs had united in supporting the Prince on his arrival. The former contemplated nothing more than a parliamentary settlement for the security of religion and liberty: but probably the latter, even from the beginning, were desirous of setting King James aside altogether. It seems that the most pressing calls upon the Prince to undertake the administration of affairs were from the Tories; so that no difference of opinion existed respecting the character of the measures, which James had adopted.[35] Scott remarks, that the Tories greatly contributed towards the Revolution, but afterwards repented.[36] This is applicable only to one section of the Tories; ​and Scott himself mentions facts which are opposed to the previous statement. "The Whigs were willing to seize liberty under a new leader; and the Tories deemed it not incompatible with their principles of obedience to receive it from the hands of a Prince, whose consort would, in all probability, have a right to their future allegiance. In one thing only the Tories and Whigs differed: the Tories intended no more by asking the protection of the Prince of Orange, than to procure a great parliamentary settlement for the security of the national religion and laws: but the Whigs, concealing their intentions in public, animated each other thus in private."[37] Dalrymple observes, that the Whigs were of opinion, that they could compel the King to descend from the throne by the voice of the people. The duplicity of the Whigs will be manifest from other proceedings, which will be detailed in the progress of this work. On all occasions they appear to have consulted their own interests rather than their country's welfare.

To illustrate the motives by which the various parties of that period were influenced, and to show that a combination of circumstances contributed to the completion of the Revolution, I may refer to the state of things on the Continent. It is a fact, that the Pope himself contributed money towards the expense of William's expedition. This circumstance is placed beyond a doubt. The Pope was opposed to the interests of France: consequently he promoted the design of the Prince, in order that he might weaken the French monarch. "The finest stroke of the Prince's policy was his art in deluding the Pope. Taking advantage of that Pontiff's animosity against ​France, he had made him believe, that the Emperor was to send a great army to the Rhine, that he was to join it with one equally great from Holland, and march at the head of both into France. For the advancement of this project great sums were remitted by the Pope to the Emperor: and those sums thus got from the head of the Roman Catholic world were employed in the dethronement of a Roman Catholic King."[38] This account, indeed, reflects no credit on the Prince, since it attributes his success with the Pope to a false representation. But the fact shews, that a combination of singular circumstances contributed to the Revolution. The Pope's "aversion to France threw him into the arms of the Emperor: and he supported in some degree the cause of the Allies with the money of the Church."[39] It seems clear, that the Pope actually knew of the Prince's design, though he could not have contemplated his accession to the throne of Great Britain. "Innocent was by no means a friend to King James. His aversion to Lewis XIV had joined him to the Allies, and even connected him with the Prince of Orange. Many Catholic princes followed the example of the Father of the Church. The Spanish ambassador at the Hague ordered masses to be said publicly in his chapel for the success of the Prince's expedition. ​The Emperor espoused his cause with all his influence at Rome: and he himself had the address to persuade the Pope, that the interests of the Roman Catholics and the restoration of their religion in Britain, were connected with the success of his enterprise."[40] Macpherson relates the following anecdote, which, he says, "may be joined to other known proofs of this circumstance." He states that Prince Vaudemont was in the confidence of the Prince of Orange, who argued "that the Pope and the Roman Catholic Princes were in the wrong to expect any thing from King James in favour of the Romish faith: that his being declared of that religion made every body jealous of the least and most indifferent step he took: and it was, therefore, impracticable for him to do them any service: for the whole nation would oppose it, as tending to destroy the Church of England: whereas himself being a Protestant, might take any step whatever, and serve them effectually, without the least suspicion: and in case they would favour and promote his attempt upon England, he would undertake to procure a toleration for the Roman Catholics." It is added, that the Pope favoured the scheme under the influence of such feelings: and it is remarked, that the Prince, throughout his reign, gave the Roman Catholics a connivance equal to a toleration.[41] From this statement, the truth of which ​seems to be fully established, it is evident that the Prince acted with considerable craft.

The previous facts moreover are supported from James's own memoirs. Before he went to Ireland, the King wrote to the Emperor. But the Emperor reminded his Majesty, that had he listened to his ambassador, "instead of hearkening to the fraudulent suggestions of France, he would have been in a different position." James, commenting on the severity of the Emperor's answer, says: "Yet that was the treatment his Majesty experienced from the Courts of Vienna and Madrid, who, forgetting the oppressed Prince, made haste to compliment the Usurper, and entered into a stricter league with him than before."[42] The state of Europe, therefore, was favourable to William's enterprise. Hatred to France, and the desire of William's alliance, led the Emperor, the King of Spain, and the Pope himself, to countenance the Prince's attempt. The writer of the Life of Bolingbroke admits that the alliance with France was the ruin of James. "This suggested the scheme of the Revolution, promoted the execution, and secured the success of it. The Pope, the Emperor, the King of Spain, and several princes of Germany, lent their assistance willingly, and lent it to a Prince the most capable of managing such a design with that secresy and address, which could alone hinder it from proving abortive."[43]

The question of the Prince's views on entering upon this expedition, I shall discuss presently: but the previous extracts shew, that the dethronement of King James was contemplated as a probable thing.

​No person, however, could have calculated on the consequences that ensued: and had James remained in the country, the utmost elevation at which the Prince could have arrived would have been to the post of Regent. The King evidently thought, with his priests, that he might be restored by the assistance of France. He imagined, that his absence would involve the Prince of Orange in great difficulty: but he could not have been prepared for the course which was adopted by the Convention.

To this time, therefore, namely, the departure of the King, there was no difference of opinion among the Bishops and the Clergy. All regarded the Prince as a mediator. Sancroft, with his brethren, united with the temporal Lords in beseeching the Prince to adopt measures for the safety of the kingdom.[44] There was no reluctance on the part of the Archbishop and the Bishops in begging the Prince to act: but they did not contemplate his accession to the throne. In the Address to the Prince, he was requested to take steps for calling a free Parliament, in order that measures might be adopted for the safety of the Church, and also to secure due liberty to Protestant Dissenters. This proposal emanated from the Church, and at a moment when the Dissenters were flattering King James. Burnet insinuates, that Sancroft's concurrence, in this Address to the Prince, was inconsistent with his subsequent conduct in refusing the oath: but the disingenuousness of such a reflection is obvious, since the Bishops only regarded him as a mediator, not as a sovereign. It surely becomes us to judge favourably of the conduct of men, who were involved in difficulties of no ordinary kind.

​From this period it is said, that William acted more like a king than a mediator. Those gentlemen, who had been members of previous Parliaments, were summoned to meet at Westminster: and writs were afterwards issued for convening the Convention Parliament, which met on the 22nd of January 1688-9. Previous to this the Prince had publicly conformed to the Church of England, by receiving the Lord's Supper at the hands of the Bishop of London in the Chapel Royal at St. James's.[45]

Before the Convention assembled, the settlement of the government was the great subject of discussion throughout the whole kingdom. Still no one could foresee what would be the result of the deliberations of that assembly. Evelyn mentions a visit, which he paid to the Archbishop on the 15th of January. The Bishop of St. Asaph's was also present, with the Bishops of Ely, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, and Chichester. The conversation turned on the state of public affairs. Some persons, it was said, wished the Princess of Orange to be made Queen: others advocated a Regency: while another party recommended the recall of King James on certain conditions. Evelyn assures us that the Romanists were busy among all these parties, in order ​to produce confusion. He adds: "I found nothing of all this in this assembly of Bishops, who were pleased to admit me into their discourses: they were all for a Regency, thereby to salve their oaths: and so all public matters to proceed in his Majesty's name, by that to facilitate the calling of a Parliament according to the laws in being."[46] With the exception of Burnet and some few Whigs, none of the Clergy and people of England had the most distant idea of setting aside King James, though they wished to see a Regency established. Nor could the Whigs of this time have expected more than a Regency, whatever may have been their wishes. "Nay," says a writer, "the Prince of Orange himself, by disclaiming all pretensions to the crown in the Declaration, seems to have been thoroughly persuaded that the people in general had no design, nay, were abhorrent from the thoughts of dispossessing their sovereign."[47] This may be true respecting the Prince's expectations: but that he intended to assume the sovereignty, if circumstances should prove favourable, is evident from the facts which are stated in this volume.

When the Convention assembled animated discussions ensued. The Commons at length declared the throne vacant: but the Lords hesitated. A conference was proposed between the two Houses, which was protracted to a considerable length: but at last the Lords concurred with the Commons in declaring the throne vacant. Two plans were open to the Convention: the one the establishment of a Regency, the other a declaration of the vacancy of the throne. Those who argued for the vacancy, contended that the Princess of Orange, as the next heir, must neces​sarily ascend the throne. In the Lords, the debate turned on the question between a vacancy and a Regency: and the former was carried by a majority of only three votes.[48] Sancroft, and several of the Bishops, were not present on this occasion. Their presence, therefore, would have turned the scale in favour of a Regency. The Archbishop of York and eight other Prelates voted for a Regency; while two only, the Bishops of London and Bristol, voted with the majority. Had the Lords been left to their own unbiassed decision, without any influence from the Commons, they would not have voted for the vacancy of the throne. William himself saw this, and became alarmed. Contrary to his natural reserve, he called some of the Peers around him, and assured them that he would not be the Regent. He also asserted, that he would not accept the crown in the right of his wife, and that he should return to Holland unless he had the power as well as the title. Undoubtedly this declaration alarmed many of the Lords, and led to their concurrence with the Commons.[49]

The Prince knew that the country would be at the mercy of King James, if he withdrew his army: consequently "he threatened to return to Holland, and leave them to the mercy of their exasperated Prince, which soon silenced all his opposers in the debates concerning the abdication."[50] It must be admitted, that William's desire for his own aggrandizement was stronger than his love for the Church of England, since he was ready to leave the Church to the mercy of King James, if he could not secure the crown for ​himself. "The Prince had declared that he had no design upon the crown, and now sought it all he could: he came to settle the Protestant religion, and yet brought over with him four thousand Papists in his army: a number not far short of what the King had in his."[51]

It was generally known, during the debates in the Convention, that William would be content with nothing less than the crown, for, at this period, he saw that the prize might be secured. For a time, however, the advocates of a Regency proceeded as though they knew nothing of the Prince's wishes.[52] In a conversation with Lord Hallifax, Burnet "with great violence argued, that the Prince was to be crowned: and urged that England could never be happily settled till his Highness was at the helm, and this kingdom in strict conjunction with Holland."[53] Even before the Convention met, William's claims were publicly advocated. Thus a writer says: "That which remains then to be done, is to declare the Prince of Orange King, and to settle upon him the Sovereignty and regal power: allowing in the mean time unto the Princess the privilege of being named with him in all leases, patents, and grants."[54] It has been stated, and I must confess that there is in my opinion some foundation for the statement, that King James apprehended personal danger by remaining in the kingdom, and that William wished to produce ​such an impression, in order that he might be induced to quit the country. It appears that an intimation was made to the King, that he was in danger. To determine on flight therefore under such an apprehension was not unnatural.[55] If William expected the crown, he must have been anxious for the removal of the King. James fancied that the Prince wished him to depart. He remarks that the guards at Rochester were not so particular in watching him, "which confirmed him in the belief that the Prince of Orange would be well enough contented he should get away."[56]

In forming an opinion of the men, who did not concur in raising William to the throne, we must endeavour to place ourselves in their circumstances. Whatever may have been the views of some of the intriguing Whigs, the greater part of the nation must have been taken by surprise at such a result. "Whatever the Prince and some particular persons, whom our author mentions, might design or hope for, possibly not one man in a hundred at that time ever thought of seeing themselves delivered in the manner they were afterwards."[57] All, who subsequently became Nonjurors, were ready to admit that circumstances might arise to render a Prince incapable of government: and some of them thought, that an immoveable persuasion in a false religion was sufficient to warrant the interference of the legislature.[58]

It must, therefore, be borne in mind, that all those excellent men, who subsequently became Nonjurors, were prepared to support a Regency, and to constitute ​the Prince of Orange the Regent. It cannot be supposed that a Regency would not have preserved the Church and the liberties of the people; and had King James remained in the country, a Regency only could have been contemplated, for the two Houses would not in that case have proceeded to depose their sovereign. The Bishops and Clergy had no wish to see King James restored to power: but they conceived, that every purpose connected with the safety of the country would have been answered by a Regency. In considering the plan of a Regency, apart from the consequences which have resulted from the Revolution, we must, I think, admit, that it was open to the fewest objections. The Schism would thus have been prevented. Sancroft and his brethren would have cordially concurred in such a settlement; and the peace of the Church would have been unbroken. The Bishop of Ely argued, in the debates on the subject, for a Regency, and that the throne was not vacant in the sense implied in the word abdicated. He considered the word to be of too large a signification: and that another might be adopted implying "the ceasure of the exercise of a right." We may be assured that if Turner would have been satisfied with a Regency, none of the other Bishops would have objected.

The chief argument, used by the advocates of the Prince was this: that no safety could be expected under a Popish Prince: and that, therefore, they must look to the next heir being a Protestant. The leaders of this party were friends to monarchy and episcopacy: nor would they have departed from the direct line of succession, if they had not considered such a procedure necessary for the preservation of the liberties of the country. The Princess of Orange ​was the next Protestant heir: but as the Prince had been so instrumental in the deliverance, it was deemed necessary to associate both together in the government.[59] The settlement was made in a very brief space. The period from the arrival of King William on the coast of Devon, to the final departure of King James, comprehended forty-three days: and only one hundred days elapsed from the fifth of November, 1688, to the day on which William and Mary were declared to be King and Queen of England. The Convention waited on the Prince and Princess on the seventh day of February, 1688-9, with an act of resolution, by which they were recognized as sovereigns of this country. The order of Council, for altering the Prayers for the Royal Family, was issued on the 16th of February: but an entry in Evelyn, on the 30th of January, shews that the ruling powers began very early to accommodate the services of the Church to the new state of things: "the anniversary of King Charles the First's martyrdom: but in all the public offices and Pulpit Prayers, the Collects and Litany for the King and Queene were curtailed and mutilated."[60]

The consideration of the Prince's own views has been partly anticipated in the preceding observations: but, as the question is one of some interest, and since ​its settlement is absolutely necessary to a due appreciation of his character and principles, I intend to devote a few pages to the subject. His sentiments were not revealed by himself, not even to his friends; but they were gathered from certain indications in his conduct. It must, I think, be admitted, that some other feeling than the desire to preserve the Protestant religion, influenced William in his invasion. As long as King James had no son, the Prince expected the sovereignty for his wife; but when a male heir was born he evidently became alarmed. He, therefore, affected to believe, that the Prince of Wales was not the son of King James. In his declaration he stated, that he came to preserve the liberties of the people, and also to inquire into the birth of the Prince of Wales. After his accession, however, we hear no mention of the Prince of Wales. It may, I think, be argued, that if William had been only anxious to secure the liberties of the country and the safety of the Protestant religion, he might have been satisfied with a Regency, in which all power would have been vested in himself. But William, as we have seen, was prepared to leave the country, and consequently open the door to the unconditional return of King James, unless the crown were placed upon his own head. However we may revere his memory, for acting as our deliverer at an important crisis, we cannot close our eyes to the fact, that a feeling of ambition prompted him to undertake his expedition: nor can it be denied, that there was some foundation for the severe remarks which were made at the time on his proceedings. "I must needs say," observes a contemporary writer, "that the Prince's tenderness and zeal for the Protestant religion, and his compassionate care to secure it to us ​and our posterity, when it was in imminent and immediate danger of being extirpated, and which there was no other visible human means to prevent; was then, and continues still to be made, the pretence of his invading these dominions." This idea is combated by the writer, who asserts, that other motives induced the Prince of Orange to undertake the enterprize: "Nor did those abroad that co-operated in the Revolution act any more upon motives that respected the Protestant religion, than we here did. Nor did the great man who keeps his palace at Kensington bring an army into England, and screw himself into the throne, upon any motives of saving the Protestant religion; but merely upon the impulse of pride, haughtiness, and ambition, and to gratify his aspirings after a crown. I will challenge all mankind, who have not abjured truth and common honesty, to believe any longer or to continue to avouch, that his coming into England was out of any other respect to our religion save making it the cloak and stalking horse to his towering and ambitious designs. It was King Charles having no children, and the Duke of York having no male ones that lived, and his own marriage with the said Duke's eldest daughter, and therefore coming into some probable and nearer prospect of arriving sooner or later at the sovereignty over these kingdoms, that made him put on the vizard and mask of a zealot for the reformed religion; having before lived in all the coldness and indifference in that matter that was consistent with his keeping the posts he held in Holland." In reference to the question of the Prince of Wales's legitimacy, the same writer remarks: "Even then," when the Declaration was issued, "and until a few days before he actually embarked on that design, he had the royal ​babe prayed for in his own chapel by that distinguishing and princely title." It was said, that one of the Prince's friends stated, " that they neither questioned the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales nor were concerned about it; for that the Prince was now got into the throne, and was resolved to keep it so long as he lived, and cared not who ascended it when he was gone."[61]

There is another passage in the same tract, in which the writer argues the question to the disadvantage of the Prince. "They must have forfeited common sense, as well as moral honesty, who can be prevailed upon to allow, that the many Catholic Princes who approved of that undertaking could design any good to the Protestant religion, or believe that any advantage would accrue unto it by that attempt. It is to buffoon us, and treat us in ridicule, to endeavour to impose upon our belief, that the late Prince Palatine, who together with the Prince of Orange, was the original contriver of a descent upon England: or that the Emperor, King of Spain, Eector of Bavaria, who concurred unto and countenanced it; or that old Oldischalchi and Innocent XI. who winked and connived at it, though against both a Catholic monarch and the first of the Romish Communion, that hath sat upon the throne of Great Britain for above these hundred years; could do it in kindness to the Protestant religion, or foresee that it was undertaken by the Prince of Orange upon any motive relating to the safety of it. No, they very well knew, that there was nothing of reli​gion in this case; but they were willing to make use of the ambition of the Prince of Orange to seek their own revenge against France, and on our being bubbled into it through a foolish credulity that it was entered upon in behalf of our religion."[62]

Though such a conclusion is unfavourable to the character of King William, yet it can, I think, scarcely be denied that ambitious views did very materially influence the Prince of Orange. "Whether the Prince intended by his enterprise only to inquire into the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales, to reconcile the King to his people, and to engage both in a war against France, or to dethrone him and take the direction of that war to himself, is only known to that God who is the searcher of hearts. It is probable he resolved to direct himself by events, according as they should present themselves. For as he had formerly urged on the exclusion, when seconded by one half of the nation, he fell upon the same principles to accept the crown, if offered by the whole."[63]

It is clear that William did not in reality question the legitimacy of the Prince of Wales. We must, therefore, conclude that the question was introduced into his Declaration, in order to inflame the public mind. An infamous attempt was made some few years later, to shew that the child was the offspring of one Mary Grey, and that she was put to death in Paris to avoid a discovery. No notice was taken of the matter, and the unprincipled writer was suffered to remain in obscurity. His book was a most impudent forgery. The two Houses of Parliament, to whom it was addressed, very wisely permitted the ​author to remain unnoticed. The author pretended that the letters were written by the Queen in secret ink, and that he had deciphered them by means of a compound of sulphur. In one of the letters, the Queen is made to give an account of Mary Grey's death by some priests at Paris.[64] Some years before this book was published, Fuller offered to give evidence before the House of Commons of a pretended plot, but his character was so well known, that the House voted him to be a notorious imposter and false accuser; yet notwithstanding this severe rebuke, he had the effrontery to publish the book relative to James's son. In 1702, the very year of his publication, he was sentenced to stand in the pillory for a libel.[65]

The treatment which Fuller received shews, that there was no wish to revive the silly story of the Prince's illegitimacy: and it is very evident, that it was originally invented for party purposes. He was, "as it suited with the designs of party, lawfully born, or a supposititious child."[66] But the imputation ​must lie on William's memory of making use of the story, a story which he did not believe, for the purpose of advancing his own designs. In the Declaration he stated, that he and the Princess were deeply concerned in that matter. It was asked just after the Revolution, "Did they write to the King about this point? Did the King refuse to satisfy them? If not, could a greater impiety or a more execrable imposture be charged against the most flagitious and profligate persons." It was stated that, before the Prince left Holland, some persons drank the health of the Prince of Wales, adding, "if he die, our business is spoiled, and we shall never stir hence, meaning the Invasion would stop."[67] The Prince was charged with a design upon the crown even as soon as he had published his Declaration. This charge was contained in a Pamphlet entitled "Some Reflections on the Declaration." A reply was immediately put forth, supposed to be from the pen of Burnet, in which the question respecting the design on the crown is evaded; but evaded in such a manner as to be considered at that time as a denial. It was Burnet's policy to evade the question, for had the design been avowed, the enterprise must have failed.[68] Sherlock appeared at this time as a writer in favour of the King, in a tract, "Reflections on the Late and Present Proceedings in England," in which he calls for proofs of the various charges contained in the Prince's Declaration.[69] The publications of the period shew, how ready many persons were to invent reasons against the legitimacy of the Prince. Thus in one of the numerous productions of the Press, it was even said, that the ​Queen had passed the age "at which it was usual for Italian women to bear children."[70] Yet the Queen had several children afterwards. In short there was much truth in the following passage from "Observations on the Revolution;" "By which Declaration, whoever observes, that the shoe pinches chiefly in the point of the Prince of Wales, who put the Prince of Orange by his hopes of succession even more if it were true than if it were fictitious; and that therefore (at that time especially when it was not to be imagined that the crown could be got upon any other foot) it was absolutely necessary to make him appear fictious if possible."

Upon the whole, we must regard the Prince's conduct, respecting the Prince of Wales, as a blemish in his character. Nor can any impartial person, however he may be impressed with a sense of the advantages which we are still reaping from the Revolution settlement, fail to acknowledge, that ambition mingled largely with the motives by which William was influenced. We cannot be surprised, therefore, at the strong feelings of some of the Nonjurors towards his Majesty, regarding him, as they did, as the supplanter of their lawful sovereign.[71]

There is another question, upon which a remark may be made, namely, King William's views re​specting the Church of England. He was educated as a Presbyterian; but I apprehend, that he was indifferent as to the particular form of Protestantism which might prevail. Notwithstanding his sanction of the abolition of Episcopacy in Scotland, I do not consider him as so hostile to the Church of England as many of the Whigs. "As for those called Whigs, who were the warmest supporters of the Revolution, and are supposed more than others to have acted in it upon the motive of securing our religion,—I will make bold to say of many of them, and that both with truth and justice, that they have no religion but their interest, nor sacrifice to any deity but themselves. The Whig party is, generally speaking, a compound of the atheistical of all opinions and persuasions whatsoever: and they can be of any religion because they are really of none. They will take the sacrament in the Church of England to be qualified to get or hold a place; and then will herd with the fanatics ever after, that they may be esteemed partizans for our Sovereign Lord, the people."[72] Undoubtedly the Whigs contemplated strong measures against the Church: but happily they were defeated. Nor did the King go the same lengths as his Whig servants. But for the safety of the Church we are indebted to the clergy of that period. The clergy "now began to change their note, both in pulpit and discourse, on their old passive obedience, so as ​people began to talk of Bishops being cast out of the House."[73] It is evident, that but for the clergy the Church would have been in jeopardy. "The new Privy Council," says Evelyn, "have a republican spirit, manifestly undermining all future succession to the throne, and property of the Church of England, which yet I hope they will not be able to accomplish so soon as they expect, though they get into all places of trust and profit."[74] At length the Commons became sensible, that the Church was in some danger; and, therefore, they petitioned the King for a Convocation, at which Burnet and others were angry, but which they could not prevent. Burnet said, that a Convocation would "be the utter ruin of the Comprehension Scheme."[75] He proved a true prophet: for the Convocation was true to the principles of the Church, and the Scheme of Comprehension was dropped—a scheme, which would not have satisfied Dissenters, but which must have disgusted many of the best friends of the Church.

  1. ↑ It would occupy too much space to enter upon all the acts of King James, which evidenced his intention of reestablishing the Church of Rome in this country: but I cannot refrain from alluding to his republication of the little Book of Offices, which, during the reigns of James I and Charles I, had been used by the Missionary Priests in the exercise of their functions in England. The following is the Title of the Book as published by King James: "Ordo Baptizandi aliaque Sacramenta Administrandi et Officia quædam Ecclesiastica rite peragendi ex Rituali Romano Jussu Pauli Quinti Edita extractus. Pro Anglia, Hibernia, et Scotia, Permissu Superiorum. Londini Typis Hen. Hills, Regiæ Majestati, Pro Familia et Sacello Typographi. m.d.c.lxxxvi."
  2. ↑ The First was dated April 4th 1687; the Second April 27th 1688. A large number of Tracts was published on both sides of the question. The reader's attention is directed especially to the following: "Reflections upon the New Test, and the Reply thereto." "A Letter to a Dissenter." "A Letter of a Dissenter to his Friend at the Hague." "Some Considerations about the New Test." "A Letter from a Clergyman, containing his Reasons for not reading the Declaration." "Reasons why the Church of England as well as Dissenters should make their Addresses of Thanks." This last was printed by Hills, the King's Printer. The Oxford Clergy published their "Reasons for not Addressing;" To this there was a Reply printed also by Hills: "A Reply to the Reasons of the Oxford Clergy against Addressing."
  3. ↑ Dalrymple's Memoirs, iii. 145. James afterwards acknowledged his error in imprisoning the Bishops, and cast the blame on the Chancellor. But this was in exile, after he had time for reflection. Macpherson's Papers, III. 154.
  4. ↑ D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 257-270. Macpherson, i. 448-9. Somerville, 162, 165, 166. Kennet, iii. 482-6. Comber's Life, 259-64. Prideaux's Life, 40. Gutch's Collectanea, i. 328-41. Rapin, ii. 762. Stillingfleet's Mis. Discourses, 368-71.
  5. ↑ A Short Discourse concerning- the Reading His Majesty's Declaration in the Churches, set forth by the Right Reverend Father in God, Herbert, Lord Bp. of Hereford, 4to. 1688.
  6. ↑ Baker's Life, pp. 5-6.
  7. ↑ Mackintosh, 252.
  8. ↑ Biog. Brit. Art. Alsop. Kettlewell's Life and Works, p. 61. In others, the expression "our brethren the Roman Catholics" occurred. Swift's Works, Scott's Ed. viii. 399.
  9. ↑ Dalrymple, i. 189.
  10. ↑ Macpherson, i. 432. Calamy, i. 380. Hallam, iii. 91. Rapin, ii. 758.
  11. ↑ Hallam, Const. Hist. iii. 101.
  12. ↑ Swift's Works, viii. 401.
  13. ↑ Macpherson, i. 436-437. See also Kettlewell's Life, 62-63. Rapin, ii. 758. The accuracy of the picture is admitted in the following sentence from a Dissenting writer: "If some of them exceeded on this occasion in their compliments to the King, it must be considered that oppression will make a wise man mad." Bennet's Memorial, 328.
  14. ↑ Swift's Works, viii. 259.
  15. ↑ Ibid. 351.
  16. ↑ Calamy, i. 376. ii. 487. Life of Howe, 132-6.
  17. ↑ Bennet's Memorial of the Reformation, 324. Defence, 165-168.
  18. ↑ Kettlewell's Life, 59, 60.
  19. ↑ Ibid. 62, 63.
  20. ↑ Salmon's Examination of Burnet, ii. 1024.
  21. ↑ Kettlewell's Life, 75, 76.
  22. ↑ Johnston, his Majesty's physician, published a work in defence of the dispensing power: "The King's Visitorial Power asserted, &c. 4to London, Printed by Henry Hills, Printer to the King's Most Excellent Majesty, for his Household and Chappel. 1688." It was ably answered in "Some Observations upon the Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction of the Kings of England; with an Appendix in answer to a late Book intitled 'The King's Visitorial Power Asserted. London, 8vo. 1689.'"
  23. ↑ "The catalogue of all the discourses against Popery during the reign of King James II, by members of the Church of England and by the Nonconformists, with the names of the authors. 4to. London, 1689." The number of distinct treatises is 230. See also "The present state of the controversie between the Church of Rome and the Church of England: and an account of the works written on both sides. 4to. London, 1687."
  24. ↑ Gibson's Preservative, Folio, 3 Volumes.
  25. ↑ Tilley's Sermon, 1705, 8vo, 22. 28. 29. Burnet, who was not unfriendly to the Dissenters, says: "The Clergy began to preach generally against Popery, which the Dissenters did not."
  26. ↑ I subjoin the titles of some: "Good Advice to the Pulpits, delivered in a few Cautions for the keeping up the Reputation of those Chairs and preserving the Nation in Peace. 4to, 1687." This was printed by the King's Printer. It was answered in "An Apology for the Pulpits," being an answer to a late book, "Good Advice to the Pulpits, 4to, 1688." The King's friends replied in "Pulpit Sayings, or the Character of the Pulpit-Papist Examined, in answer to the Apology for the Pulpits." This was answered in "Pulpit Popery true Popery: being an answer to Pulpit Sayings, 4to London, 1688."
  27. ↑ How the Members of the Church of England ought to behave themselves under a Roman Catholic King, with respect to the test and penal laws, 12mo, London, 1687.
  28. ↑ Kettlewell's Life, 59.
  29. ↑ Gutch's Collectanea, i. 442, 444; vol. ii. 366.
  30. ↑ Whether the preserving the Protestant Religion was the motive unto, or the end that was designed in the late Revolution, 4to.
  31. ↑ Macpherson, i. 458. Dalrymple, i. 238, vol. iii. 136-7-8. Kennet, iii, 482. Rapin, ii. 770. James's Memoirs, ii. 210. Macpherson's Papers, i. 275-6-7.
  32. ↑ Gutch's Collec. i. 445.
  33. ↑ Speke's Secret History of the Revolution. Ralph i. 1051-52-64. Dalrymple, i. 264. Rapin, ii. 780. Lingard xiv. 263. Echard's Hist. of Revolution, 182-3. King James's Memoirs, ii 257. Echard's History of England, iii.
  34. ↑ James's Memoirs, ii. 171-4.
  35. ↑ Dalrymple, i. 217. Rapin, ii. 800. Tindal's Introduction, xxi.
  36. ↑ Life of Dryden, 308.
  37. ↑ Dalrymple, i. 204-5.
  38. ↑ Dalrymple, i. 222.
  39. ↑ Macpherson's Papers, I. 299. "It happened," says Ralph, "most favourably for the Protestant religion, that the quarrel between his Holiness and his eldest son now raged with more fury than ever." Ralph, i 976. The Pope, Innocent XI, died in 1689. He was called the Protestant Pope, "though," says Ralph, "for no better reasons that appear than his opposition to France, and the share he had in setting the Prince of Orange on the throne of England." Ibid. ii. 164.
  40. ↑ Macpherson's Papers, i. 299. To this statement may be added another of Calamy's respecting the Dutch. "They had public prayers in the Churches every day for a good while together, which was an unusual thing in that country: and I observed the ministers prayed for a north east wind, by name, which would bring the forces thence hither to the best advantage." Calamy's Account of his own Life, i. 52.
  41. ↑ Macpherson's Papers, i. 299, 300.
  42. ↑ James's Memoirs, ii. 324-327.
  43. ↑ Life of Bolingbroke, 68, 69.
  44. ↑ Kennet, iii. 500. Echard's Revolution, 214. Salmon's History, 382-3.
  45. ↑ Echard's Revolution, 219. Ralph remarks from Reresby, that the Prince at first favoured the Presbyterians, which startled the Clergy. He adds, on this act of receiving the Sacrament, "The Prince was as much a politician as his intractable temper would allow him to be, and suited his behaviour, as far as he could, to his interest. He was of opinion, that the champions for a divine hereditary right would never be champions for him; and therefore he thought it worth his while to be well with the Dissenters, who had no such difficulty to surmount. And this open professing himself of the Church of England was no more than an occasional conformity."—Ralph, vol. ii. 7.
  46. ↑ Evelyn, iii, 263.
  47. ↑ Life of Ormonde, 209.
  48. ↑ Evelyn, iii. 268. Fifty-four voted for the vacancy: Fifty-one for a Regency.
  49. ↑ Macpherson, i. 507.
  50. ↑ Salmon, i. 252.
  51. ↑ Reresby, 387.
  52. ↑ Macpherson, i. 500.
  53. ↑ Reresby, 380.
  54. ↑ A Brief Justification of the Prince of Orange's Descent into England, and of the Kingdom's late Recourse to Arms. With a modest disquisition of what may become the wisdom and justice of the ensuing Convention in their disposal of the crown. 4to. London, 1689. p. 36.
  55. ↑ Reresby, 383.
  56. ↑ James's Memoirs, ii, 267.
  57. ↑ Salmon on Burnet, ii, 1026.
  58. ↑ Salmon on Burnet, ii, 1068.
  59. ↑ Particulars connected with the settlement of the Crown may be seen in the following works. The Desertion Discussed. Life of James, 232—36. Macpherson, i, 503—506. 508—512. Kennet, 507—14. Tindal's Introduction, xxiv—vii. Sherlock's Letter in State Tracts. D'Oyley's Sancroft, i, 415—30. Somerville, 179—89. 199. Echard's History of the Revolution, 222—30.
  60. ↑ Vol. iii, 269. The King quitted the country on the 24th of December, and on the 30th, Evelyn records the following entry in his Diary: "This day Prayers for the Prince of Wales were first left off in our Church." Vol. iii, 262.
  61. ↑ Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion was the motive unto, or the end that was designed in the late Revolution. 4to. pp. 4, 33, 36, 37, 39.
  62. ↑ "Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion," &c. pp. 40, 41.
  63. ↑ Dalrymple, i. 214.
  64. ↑ A full Demonstration that the pretended Prince of Wales was the son of Mrs. Mary Grey, undeniably proved by original letters of the late Queen and others: and by depositions of several persons of worth and honour, never before published: and a particular account of the murther of Mary Grey, at Paris. Humbly recommended to the consideration of both Houses of Parliament; by William Fuller, Gent. London, 8vo. 1702.
  65. ↑ Salmon's History, i. 265. 319.
  66. ↑ Life of Ormonde, 210. Ralph was severe upon the Duchess of Maryborough on this point. She passes over the subject in her account of her own life. He says that the world "expected that many important secrets would have been brought to light: that especially no consideration whatever would have prevailed with you to stifle all you knew relating to that birth which has been so often represented as an imposture, though never proved to be one." Ralph's Other Side of the Question, &c. pp. 5, 6.
  67. ↑ Somers' Tracts, i, 300, 301.
  68. ↑ Ibid. 309.
  69. ↑ Ibid. 319.
  70. ↑ Somers' Tracts, vol. iv. 89.
  71. ↑ The Tories equally with the Whigs, admitted the necessity of some interference, and were ready to render a tribute of gratitude to William. Thus Ralph, a Tory, but an impartial historian, remarks: "The state of the kingdom, in consequence of the arbitrary proceedings of the Stuart-family, and of the particular phrenzies and violences of King James was certainly such as required some extraordinary assistance; and the extraordinary assistance then vouchsafed by the Prince of Orange, from what motive soever, certainly deserved the highest acknowledgments a kingdom so happily rescued could make. But having admitted this, we may be allowed to wish, perhaps, that the constitution, like some ships in like manner thus overset, had been able to right itself; without being obliged to pay such an extraordinary price for salvage." Ralph, ii. 1023.
  72. ↑ Whether the Preserving the Protestant Religion, &c. p. 31.
  73. ↑ Evelyn, iii. 268, 269.
  74. ↑ Ibid. 279.
  75. ↑ Reresby, 405.
​

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=A_History_of_the_Nonjurors/Chapter_1&oldid=9561611"