A History of the Nonjurors

Front matter

A

History of the Nonjurors:

THEIR CONTROVERSIES AND WRITINGS;

Preface

E.

The 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, 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 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 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 imagine 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 Socinianism, 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.

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.

Jan. 23, 1845.

Chapter 1

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.

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. 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."

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. 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. 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 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.

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." 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." 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.

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." 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." 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." 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." 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."

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." 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." 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."

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." 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."

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. 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.

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." Of the works published by Churchmen on the controversy with Rome, a portion, and only a portion, was reprinted by Bishop Gibson. 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." 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. 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.

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.

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.