A history of the Nonjurors: their controversies and writings: with remarks on some of the rubrics in the Book of common prayer

Front matter

0i ft* j,

~ PRINCETON, N. J.

BX 5087 .L3 1845 Lathbury, Thomas, 1798-1865 A history of the Nonjurors '

Preface

|HE present work originated in the feeling, that the history and principles of the Nonjurors were but very imperfectly known to the public in general. In prosecuting my task I have also deemed it to be my duty to correct the misrepresentations, which, in some cases from ignorance, in others from prejudice, have been so frequently circulated respecting this body of patient sufferers for conscience sake.

An account will be found of many of their works, together with the chief productions which appeared against them, as well as of the controversies in which they were so much engaged.

One portion of the volume will be read with considerable interest. I allude to the correspondence of the Nonjurors with the Greek Church in the east, which, with the exception of some brief extracts, is now for the first time published. For a copy of this correspondence, which is preserved among Bishop Jolly's MSS, I am indebted to the kindness of I. R. Hope, vi preface.

Esq. D.C.L. Chancellor of the Diocese of

Sarum, to whom my best thanks are due.

It was originally my intention to have printed, in an Appendix, some of the Forms used on various occasions by the Nonjurors, especially the new Communion Office : but this was rendered impossible by the size of the volume. Should the present work, however, be favourably received, I may probably publish a separate volume, containing the Forms in question, which are so important in illustrating the principles of the Nonjurors.

The remarks on Mr. Hendley's case were written many weeks before the articles on that subject appeared in the Times. It may be remarked in addition, that the Rebellion had recently been suppressed ; and the government of that day chose to consider many of the most faithful of the Clergy as favourers of the Pretender. The trial, being intended to strike terror into the Clergy, may be appealed to as one of the grossest acts of oppression on record. But though the Times had given such prominency to the subject, no notice whatever was taken of a printed copy of my remarks, which was forwarded by the Publisher, with a request that it might be inserted ; in order that a fair view might be obtained of the matter. Thus did the Times refuse to permit any other view than its own to be put forth through its columns. But perhaps we cannot be surprised preface. vii at such an act of injustice, when we take into consideration the vast and sudden change in the principles of that journal. Not long since it condemned such meetings on Church questions as those which have been held in the Diocese of Exeter, which it now approves. The views, therefore, of a paper, in which a petty dispute of a proprietor with the Clergyman of his parish is made a national grievance, and by which a flame is attempted to be kindled throughout the country, are entitled to little consideration.

While the last chapter was going through the press, my attention was directed to a most extraordinary statement in the Record. Because the Prayer for the Church Militant has been neglected in many Churches, the editor of the Record, a paper professing to be conducted on religious principles, actually designates the use of that Prayer as a change. The prayer was enjoined by the Reformers, whom the Record boasts of following, and until modern times it was universally read. In Cathedral Churches and College Chapels it is still read on Sundays and holy-days : and on the latter also in all parochial Churches in which the festivals are observed. Of this fact the editor would have been aware, had he been accustomed to attend public worship on such occasions. Whether the Rubric enjoining the Prayer be right or wrong, it was framed by viii preface, the Reformers, and to call the use of it a change, is disparaging to the memory of those great and holy men.

The same paper also recommends an application to Parliament, the Crown first issuing a commission. But surely the editor of the Record cannot imag-ine that the House of Commons would stop just where he would wish ! or that they would be content with rescinding such Rubrics only as he might select. Should the matter ever come before Parliament, changes of a most serious character will be proposed, and probably carried. Whatever may be the Record's views of the Liturgy, is the editor prepared to surrender the Articles ? Yet were such a suicidal act as that which he recommends to be carried into effect, the Articles would fare no better than the Liturgy. Both would be placed in jeopardy. Besides, is it consistent to recommend the settlement of such questions in such an assembly, an assembly in which Romanists and Socinians, to say nothing of other Dissenters, have seats and votes !

That such a course will be adopted by the present Government I have no apprehension whatever. Sir Robert Peel and all the members of the Cabinet are too warmly attached to the Anglican Church to allow her Articles and Liturgy to be subjected to Parliamentary revision. But the Record and the Times are using their exertions, though in different ways, to bring us into a state of confusion.

Much is said of the danger of Popery : but is no danger to be apprehended from any other quarter? Let us suppose that the Record's advice were followed, and that the matter were submitted to Parliament ; what would be the danger? Certainly not of Popery. Whatever may be the case with individuals : though their inclinations may be towards Rome, yet the Church is not committed by their acts any more than by the act of certain Clergymen in England in encouraging schism in Scotland. Nor is it within the compass of probabilities, that the Liturgy and the Articles should be altered so as to approximate towards Rome. But on the other hand, should the question be submitted to Parliament, there would too probably be a change of an opposite character, a change, which would so liberalise both the Articles and the Liturgy, that Socinians and all others might be comprehended within what must in such a case be deemed, not a Church, but the establishment. The Record, in looking to Parliament, knows not what it asks. If changes are once permitted, who can venture to predict where they will end !

The question of the Rubrics arose out of my subject, since the neglect, into which some of them have fallen, may be traced to principles, which had their origin in the period of which this volume treats.

x preface.

The whole question of the Offertory, both with respect to the law and the benefits to be expected from its general adoption, is most satisfactorily and ably discussed in a recent work, " Remarks on English Churches, and on the Expediency of rendering Sepulchral Memorials subservient to Pious and Christian Uses. By I. H. Markland, F.R.S. and S.A." Mr. Markland devotes a chapter to the consideration of the subject, and it is treated in a spirit which must commend the work to every candid reader.

Contents

Page

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 Parties. The Convention. Discussions. Settlement of the Crown. The Question of a Regency considered. The Views and Conduct of the Prince of Orange 1

Chapter II

The Oath of Allegiance. Arguments respecting it. Death of Bishop Lake. His Confession. Death of Bishop Thomas. Various Views of the Oath. Kettlewell. Difficulties of the Case. Latitudinarian Principles of the Time. Sancroft's Commission. Form of Prayer for King William. A new Liturgy. The Bishops clear themselves. Plans suggested for preventing the Schism. Some comply after the Battle of the Boyne. Burnet's Influence. His Conduct examined. Sancroft. Trial of Lord Preston and Mr. Ashton. Charge against Bishop Turner. Prayers 44

Chapter III

The Deprivations. Numbers. Sancroft's Retirement. Hickes's Protest. Dodwell's Letter to Tillotson. Beveridge and others refuse to accept the Vacant Sees. Kidder's Scruples. Still ingfleet's Letter. Forgery by Young and Blackhead. The Deprived Bishops separate from the Church. Sancroft delegates his Powers to Lloyd. Hickes and Wagstaffe consecrated. Death of Sancroft. His Character and Sufferings. The Nonjurors' Defence of their Proceedings. Some object to a Separation. The Difficulties of their Case. Severity of the Government 83

Contents.

Page

Chapter IV

Controversies. Collier. Controversy respecting the Oath. Sherlock. Some Compilers retract. Controversy respecting the Deprivations. Stillingrleet. Grascome. Williams. Sharpe. Hickes. Hill's Soloman and Abiathar. Answered by Grascome. The earlier Writings of some of the Compilers contrasted with their Productions subsequent to the Revolution. Bisby's Unity of Priesthood. Hody and the Baroccian MS. Dodwell. He engages in the Controversy with Hody. KettlewelPs Views of the Separation. Stillingfleet on the Oath of Allegiance 112

Chapter V

Tillotson's Death. Hickes's Remarks on Burnet and Tillotson. Attacks on the Archbishop. On Burnet. Fund for the Relief of the Nonjuring Clergy. Proceedings of the Government. Circumstances of the deprived Bishops. The Absolution of Perkins and Friend by Collier, Cook, and Snatt. Works on the Subject. Sir John Fenwick. Death of Bishop White. The Succession to the Throne. Dodwell and Hody. Death of Bishop Turner. Death of King James. Oath of Abjuration. Death of King William 1.53

Chapter VI

Anne's Accession. State of Parties. Death of Kidder. Dodwell's Case in View. Controversy. Dodwell's Parsenesis. His further Prospect, &c. Its Arguments. Death of Bishop Frampton. Death of Bishop Lloyd. Applications to Ken. His Reply. Wishes the Schism closed. Dodwell, Nelson, and Brooksby, return to the National Church. Hickes's Views. Letters of Nelson and Brooksby. Dodwell's Case in Fact. Arguments. Dodwell's Death. Replies to Dodwell 188

Chapter VII

Separation continued. Death of Ken. WagstafFe's Death. New Consecrations. Controversies. Higden. Bedford. Sacheverel. Death of Queen Anne and Accession of George I. The Whigs. Death of Nelson and others. Death of Compton. Lockhart's Memoirs. Death and Character of Hickes. Bonwicke. Brett joins the Nonjurors. Is consecrated a Bishop. The Rebellion. Sufferings of the Nonjurors. Welton's

Content**.

Page

Conduct. Question how far the Nonjurors implicated. Writings. Bennet's Nonjurors' Separation. Hoadley's Preservative. Hickes's Catholic Church. Marshall's Defence. Earbury. Internal Disputes on the Usages. New Communion Office. Collier's Works in Defence of the Usages. Spinkes's Works in Opposition. Leslie's Views. Brett's Works. Collier's Desertion Discussed. Separation of Nonjurors into two Communions. Various Works. Campbell's Middle State. Sclater and King. 223

Chapter VIII

Case of Mr. Hendley. His Trial. Conduct of the Judge. The Sufferings of the Clergy. The Nonjurors' Correspondence with the Greek Church in the East. The contemplated Union. Its Failure. Arsenius Archbishop of Thebais. Charge of Popery refuted by this Correspondence 304

Chapter IX

The Nonjurors divided into two Communions. Both ordain Bishops. Death of Collier ; of Spinkes ; of Leslie ; of Lawrence Howell. The Succession continued. The Divisions on Usages cease. Communion Office generally adopted. Blackburn and Law. Orme. Jenkin. Death of Gandy ; of Samuel Parker. Account of Hearne. Harte. Controversies. Waterland and Smith. Nonjurors again divided. Lawrence a Bishop of the Separatists. His Works on Lay-Baptism. Death of Brett; of Baker. The Rebellion, 1745. Sufferings of the Nonjurors. Deacon. His Works. Blackburn's Death. George Smith's Death. Lindsay. His Works. Controversies. William Law. Carte, the Historian. The Pretender. Question respecting his Religious Views. His Death. Gordon, the last Bishop of the regular Body. The Line ceases. Bishops of the Separatists' Line. Extinction of this Line, and of the Party in England. Services rendered by the Nonjurors. . . 362

Chapter X

Scottish Bishops in 1688. Bishop Rose and King William. Causes of the Abolition of Episcopacy. The Convention. Oath of Allegiance. Sufferings of the Clergy from the Rabble : from the Presbyterians. The Assurance. State of the Episcopal Clergy who complied. Conduct of the Presbyterians. Queen Anne's

Contents!.

Page

Accession. Condition of the Clergy bettered. Attempt at a Toleration. Granie's Case. Union. Greenshields's Case. Hostility to the Liturgy. A Toleration. Introduction of Liturgy. Rebellion in 1715. Severe Laws against the Clergy. The Appeal of the Clergy. Divisions on the Usages. Discussions. Relaxation of Penal Laws. Rebellion of 1745. Severe Measures. George III. Communion Office. Condition of Clergy improved. Consecration of Bishop Seabury. Bishops and Clergy comply in 1788 on the Death of Charles Edward. Penal Laws Repealed. Opposition to Communion Office from English Clergymen. Its unreasonable Character 412

Chapter XI

Offices of Nonjurors. Communion Office. Deacon's Collection. Its Departures from the Book of Common Prayer. Differences between the Separatists and the Regular Body. Reflections. Neglect of certain Rubrics traced to the Latitudinarian Spirit at the Revolution, and to the Practices of the Nonjurors. The Rubrics Considered. Obedience in General. Lessons. Mutilations. Omissions. Neglected Rubrics. Surplice. Prayer for Church Militant. Offertory. Conduct of the Objectors to the Rubrics. Conclusion 492 i^t^torp of tl)e Jl5onjuror0*

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 Parties. — The Convention. — Discussions. — Settlement of the Crown. The Question of a Regency considered. — The Views and Conduct of the Prince of Orange.

HE 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 he 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.

B

2 l£t0rorp of ttjc i^onfurocss.

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

^isStorp of tlje iJ5onfttroref. 3 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

4 ^(tftorp of rfje i(5onjurorjJ.

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.3

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 theClergy against theChurch 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 a 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 qusedam Ecclesiastica rite peragendi ex Rituali Romano Jussu Pauli Quinti Edita extractus. Pro Anglia, Hibernia, et Scotia. Permissu Superiorum. Londini Typis Hen. Hills, Regiae Majestati, Pro Familia et Sacello Typography m.d.c.lxxxvi."

read in all the churches in their respective dioceses.0 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

b 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."

6 ^i0tocp of ttje iRonjuroc0.

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." Dairy mple remarks : " There is no doubt that the petition and the imprisonment of the Bishops were the immediate causes of the dethronement of King James. '"c

On the contrary, the Dissenters pursued a course c 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, 111. 154.

li^sftorp of tfje iponjurora. 7 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.d 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.6 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."' 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 d D'Oyley's Sancroft, i. 257-270. Macpherson, i. 448-9. Somerville, 162, 165, 166. Kennet, Hi. 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.

e 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.

' Baker's Life, pp. 5-6.

8 l^itftoup of rtje jponjurorg.

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.8

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." h These Addresses encouraged the King in his course ; for he never conceived it possible, that he should be defeated by the Church. The Disc Mackintosh, 252.

h Biog. Brit. Art. Alsop. Kettlewell's Life and Works, p. 61. In others, the expression " our brethren the Roman Catholics " occurred. Swift's Works, fecott's Ed. viii. 399.

^(sstorp ot tlje i^onjucocsf. 9

senters, says one who was by no means unfriendly to them, " were in general ripe for attaching themselves to the party of the King." 1 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. k

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."1 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.""1 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

' Dalrymple, i. 189.

k Macplierson, i. 43'2. Calamy, i. 380. Hallam, iii. 91. Rapin, ii. 758.

1 Hallam, Const. Hist. iii. 101.

Swift's Works, viii. 401.

io ^tftorp of tlje ilJonj'urorsi.

magnanimity raised to the skies."" 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."0 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." p n 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." Bennct's Memorial, 328.