Chapter XXVIII: Appendix: I.--P. 107 (2)

Nonjurors, their Objection to taking the Oaths, 89, _et. seq._
Their Disaffection, 146
Prelates, 146
Clergy, 151
Their Numbers, 154
Authorship of Prayers for James ascribed to them, 157
In Ireland, 166
Their Sympathy with Jacobite Conspirators, 167
Treated with Consideration, 169
At last Ejected, _ib._
Find Fault with Tenison’s Funeral Sermon, 200
Trouble the Church, 206
Join in a Conspiracy against William, 232
Divisions among them, 238
Their Political Views, 259, 395
Their Judgment of Ministers who took the Oaths, 325, 326
Appoint Bishops, 374
Circumstances of Clergy among, 375
Eminent Divines among, 377–384
Laymen, 384
Centres of Influence, 387
Deaths of Prelates, 391
Religious Spirit, 396
Modes of Worship, 398

Norfolk, Duke of, 50

Norris, John, his Writings, 315, 333, 350
His Mysticism, 458

North, 190

Nottingham, Earl of, 102
Appointed Secretary of State, 83
Moves Toleration Bill, 107

Oath of Allegiance, 80, 88–97
Coronation Oath, 97

Oglethorpe, Sir Theophilus, 231

Oldfield, Joshua, 415

Oldfield, Nathaniel, 410

Overall, Bishop, his _Convocation Book_, 162

Owen, James, 429

Oxford University, Supports the Prince of Orange, 50
William’s Visit to, 209
Condemns the Doctrines of Sherlock and Bingham on the Trinity,
222
Presents an Address to William, 243

Palmer, 415, 416

Paman, Dr., 59

Parker, Samuel, Bishop of Oxford, 302, 308

Parkyns, Sir William, a Jacobite Conspirator, his Execution, 232,
233

Parliament, Debates on Oaths of Allegiance, 88
Bill for Repealing Corporation Act, 92
Coronation Oath, 97
Comprehension Bill, 101–107
Requests William to Summon Convocation, 107
Comprehension Bill dropped, 107
Passes Toleration Act, 114
Excitement at Election of New Parliament, 156
In 1698 passes Act against anyone Denying the Doctrine of the
Trinity, 225
Repealed in 1813, 226
Passes Bill against Roman Catholics, 245
Succession Bill, 250
Abjuration Bill, 256

Patrick, Dr. Simon, receives Tidings of William’s Intention to come
to England, 13
Visited by Tenison and Lloyd, 58
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 127, 128
Made Bishop of Chichester, 300
Translated to Ely, 300
His Writings, 301
His Character, 308
Discipline Exercised by, 322
His _Century of Select Psalms_, 324
Deplores Carelessness in Religion, 333
His Letter to the Rector of Dodington, 418, note

Payne, William, 439

Pelham, Sir Nicholas, 160

Penn, William, 71, 114, 457

Pepys, Samuel, 392, 393

Petiver, 309

Phillips, Sir John, 367

Plunkenet, 309

Pool, his _Annotations_, 176

Portland, Earl of, 122, 295

Powle, 74

Prayers for King James ascribed to Nonjurors, 157
Authorship Denied by them, 158
Attributed to Hickes, Kettlewell, or Sherlock, _ib._

Presbyterians, their Hopes in William III., 10
Their Meeting with Independents, 60
Advocates of Comprehension, 110
Present an Address of Condolence to William on the Death of Mary,
200
Their Political Views, 257
Their Places of Worship, 401
Ordinations, 405
Synods, 407
Attempts at Union with Independents, 420
Lord Mayors, 429–431
Difference between Independents and Presbyterians, 436

Preston, Richard Graham, Viscount, Head of the Jacobite Conspiracy,
167
Tried and Convicted, _ib._
Pardoned, 167

Psalms, Prayer-book Version, 126
Other Versions, 324, 325

Pullin, 234

Quakers, 114, 398
Advocates of Toleration, 116
Protected by Toleration Act, 120
Special Provision for their Relief, 121
Their Political Views, 258
Attempts to Convert them, 368
Benefited by the Revolution, 456
Their Leaders, 456
Self-government, 457
Mysticism, 458

Rapin-Thoyras, 35–36

Ray, 309

Reresby, Sir John, 97

Richard I., 206, 207

Robartes, Francis, 30, note

Rochester, Earl of, 140

Roman Catholics, Bill against them, 245
Their Political Views, 259
Attempts to Convert them, 368

Rooke, Sir George, 366

Rookwood, 241

Rosse, a Nonjuror, 376

Roussel, a French Protestant Minister, 145

Russell, Lady Rachel, 186

Russell, Lord William, 152, 252

Ryswick, Peace of, 242, 244

Sacheverel, 107, note

Sackville, Major-General, 231

Saint Germains, 57
James’ Court at, 228, 229

St. Paul’s Cathedral, 243, 352

St. Vincent de Paul, 356

Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, 5, 25, 42, 59, 63, 204, 229
Trelawny’s Letter to him, 16
Admonitions to his Clergy, 18
His Scheme of Comprehension, 19
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Excuses himself, 21
Signs Paper of Advice, 23
His Interviews with the King, 30, 31–33
Denies Signing Invitation to William, 30, 31, note
Mew’s Letters to him, 45, 56
His Discourse with Clarendon and Tenison, 65
Favours a Regency, 66–68, 82, 91
Refuses to Attend the Convention, 69
Reprimands his Chaplain for Praying for William and Mary, 2
Objects to Burnet being made Bishop of Salisbury, 85
Refuses to take Oath of Allegiance, 97
Favours Comprehension, 101, 108
Shuts himself up at Lambeth, 147
Lloyd’s Letters to him, 155, 165, 166, 169, 170, 189, 322
Ejected from Lambeth, 171
Retires to Freshingfield, 187
Suspected of Intrigues against William, 188
His Hatred against the Establishment, 189
Appoints Lloyd his Vicar in Ecclesiastical Matters, 189, 374
Last Days, 190
His Character, 191, 192, 308
A Tory, 195

Sanderson, 348, note

Sawyer, Sir Robert, 156

Schomberg, Count of, 34

Scot, Dr., 132, 133

Scotland, 28
Scotch Bishops Send an Address to James II., 43
Constitutions for the Church of, 204, note

Searle, 39, note

Seymour, Sir Edward, 39, note, 64

Sharpe, Dean of Norwich, 101, 414
Proposes Tillotson as Prolocutor, 140
Made Archbishop of York, 306, 308
Objects to Religious Societies, 357, 362

Sheldon, Gilbert, 302

Sherlock, Dr. William, 68, 70, 158
A Nonjuror, 161
Change in his Opinions, _ib._
Takes the Oaths, 162
Outcries against him, 163
Takes part in the Trinitarian Controversy, 214–222

Shorter, Sir John, 429

Shower, Sir Bartholomew, 263, note

Shower, John, 410

Shrewsbury, Duke of, 10, 83, 208, 363
His Letters to William III., 234, 237, 248
Fenwick’s Accusations against him, 235, 236

Shute, 365

Slingsbie, Sir Henry, 376

Smith, John, 300

Smithies, 356

Snatt, a Nonjuring Clergyman, 232, 233

Societies for Religious Purposes, their Origin and Development,
354–357
Advocated from the Pulpit, 361
S.P.C.K., 364
S.P.G., 369

Somers, Lord, 208, 363

Sophia, Princess, 250, 251

South, Dr. Robert, 160, 194, 223, note
Joins in the Trinitarian Controversy, 216–221

Speke, 52, 54

Spinoza, 341

Sprat, Thomas, Bishop of Rochester, 23, 77, 270
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Present at the Interview of the Bishops with the King, 31
Extract from his Account, 32, note
Takes Part in Coronation, 99
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 126–128
Arrested on Charge of Conspiracy, 188
Exposes Falsehood of his Accusers, 189
His Want of Principle, 284
His Popularity as a Preacher, 310, 311

Stamford, Earl of, 105

Stancliffe, 59, 72

Standish, 392

Stanhope, Dr., 344

Sternhold, 324

Stillingfleet, Dean of St. Paul’s, 101, 122, 427
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 125, note, 131, 132
Bishop of Worcester, 195, 299, 308
His Writings, 299, 302
Bentley’s Patron, 342

Stratford, Nicholas, Bishop of Chester, 306, 308, 361

Stretton, Richard, 411

Strutwick, 176

Strype, John, 115, note, 316, 324, 365

Sunderland, Earl of, 20, note

Swift, 265

Sylvester, Matthew, 179, 180, 410, 411

Symms, a Nonjuror, 376

Symons, 366

Synods, 268, 269, 285

Tallard, the French Ambassador, 244, note

Tallents, Francis, 415

Tate, Nahum, 325

Taunton, Maids of, 38, note

Taylor, Jeremy, Advocates Toleration, 116

Taylor, Nathaniel, 410

Temple, Sir William, 4, 265

Tenison, Thomas, Bishop of Lincoln, 68, 101, 261, 381
His Interviews with Patrick, 13, 58
His Discourse with Sancroft and Clarendon at Lambeth, 65
His Library, 143
Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 195
His Funeral Sermon for Queen Mary, 196–199
Censured in a Letter supposed to have been Written by Ken, 200
Defended in another Letter, 201
Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204
His Circular to his Bishops, 205
Appointed one of the Lords Justices, 206, 208
Urged to Plead with William for Fenwick’s Life, 239
His Pastoral Letter, 246
At Meetings of Convocation, 271, 277–281, 287–295
Presents an Address to William, 274
Prorogues Convocation, 276, 294
Attends William on his Death-bed, 295
His Character, 298, 308
One of Boyle’s Trustees, 341
His Interest in Foreign Missions, 369, 371

Test Act, 94

Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, 97, 128, 146, 308

Thomond, Earl of, 148, note

Thoresby, Ralph, 322, 411, 412

Thorpe, Edmund, 415

Tillotson, John, 19, 101, 159, 181, 261, 353, 357
His Views on Comprehension, 122
His Committee, 124
An Ecclesiastical Commissioner, 129, 132, 133
Proposed as Prolocutor, 140
Rejected, _ib._
Made Archbishop of Canterbury, 162, 186
Account of him, 184–187
Seeks Church Reform under Cover of Royal Authority, 203, 204
His Archiepiscopal Career, 191, 203, 204
His Death and Character, 192, 382
His Writings, 193–195
A Latitudinarian, 192, 384
His Influence, 308
His Wig, 332

Toland, John, his _Christianity not Mysterious_ Examined by
Convocation, 275, 277
His Works, 348, note, 350–352

Toleration Bill, 105, 114, 211
Locke’s Letters on Toleration, 116
Advocates of, _ib._
Causes of the Bill being Passed, 118
What it Accomplished, 119, 120

Tong, William, 428

Tories, 93, 96, 110, note, 156
Their Discussions with Whigs, 251

Trapp, Dr., 303, note

Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, Translated from Bristol, 52, 75, 270
His Letter to Sancroft, 16, 17
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
Denies that the Bishops Invited the Prince of Orange, 30, note,
283
His Character, 310

Trenchard, Secretary, 41, note

Trinitarian Controversy, 211–226, 327, 333

Trotman’s Trust, 439, 440

Turner, Francis, Bishop of Ely, 23, 53, 63, 64, 69, 76, 97
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
His Interview with the King, 21
His Letter to Trelawny, 52
Holds a Meeting at Ely House, 68
A Nonjuror, 148
Accused of Joining in the Jacobite Conspiracy, 168
His Death, 392

Unitarians
Join in Trinitarian Controversy, 211, 220
Their Doctrines Condemned by the House of Lords, 221
William urged to Deprive them of the Liberty of the Press, 225

Upton, Dr., 410

Veal, Edward, 415

Vernon, Secretary of State, 362

Vincent, Nathaniel, 444

Vincent, Thomas, 416

Voltaire, 349

Wagstaffe, Thomas, a Nonjuror, 169, 171, 374

Wake, Dr., 19, 285
His Answer to _Letter to a Convocation Man_, 264, 266

Walgrave, Lady, 235

Wallis, Dr., his Pamphlet on the Trinity, 213, 218

Walter, Hubert, Archbishop, 207, 208

Ward, Seth, 84

Warren, Matthew, 415

Warton, 303, note

Watson, Bishop of St. David’s, 30, 31
His Trial and Deprivation, 312
His Death, 314, note

Watts, Dr., Isaac, 439, 440

Wesley, John, 330

Wesley, Samuel, 87, 307, 365, 439, 443
His Eulogy on Queen Mary, 200, note
His _Athenian Oracle_, 325–331
His Domestic Life, 328
Anecdotes of, 330, 334, note
Enters himself as a Servitor at Exeter College, 415

Weymouth, Lord, 390

Wharton, Henry, 316

Wharton, Lord, 46, 63, 94

Wheeler, 365

Whigs, 73, 93, 96, 110, note, 156
Invite William to come to England, 11
Recover Power, 208
Their Discussions with Tories, 251
Pleased with the King’s Speech, 255

Whiston, 307, 326

White, Bishop of Peterborough, a Nonjuror, 23, 53, 68, 69, 240, 308
Summoned to Attend the King, 20
At Interview with the King, 31
Refuses to take the Oath, 97
Ejected, 171
Attends Fenwick on the Scaffold, 241
His Death and Funeral, 391, 392

Wickart, Dean of Winchester, 292

William III.
His Early Days, 1–3
His Character, 3
Marriage, 4
Religious Opinions, 4
His Protestantism, 6, 7
His Interest in England, 8, 9
Invited to England, 11
His Diplomatic Negotiations Abroad, 12
Military Preparations at Home, 13
His Declaration, 27
Appeals to the Army, 28
Sets Sail, 34
Lands at Torbay, 36
Marches with his Army to Exeter, 38
At Wells, 42
Takes Possession of Salisbury, 47
His Private Conference with Clarendon, 48
His Popularity, 49
False Declaration in his Cause, 50–51
Deputation waits upon him, 54
Forces James to Surrender, 57
Clergy Present him with an Address, 59
Sancroft’s Proposal to make him Regent, 67, 68
He Summons a Meeting, 72
Entrusted with Administration of Affairs, 73
Declared King by the Lords, 77
By the Commons, 78
His Speech at Whitehall, 80
Proclaimed King, 81
His Appointments to Office, 82
Nominates Burnet to the Bishopric of Salisbury, 84
Desires Alteration in Test Act, 94
His Coronation, 99
Requested by Parliament to Summon Convocation, 107
His Conversation with John Howe, 113, note
An Advocate of Liberty, 118
Appoints the Ecclesiastical Commission, 125
Desires to make Tillotson Archbishop of Canterbury, 140, 186
His Message to Convocation, 141
His Answer to their Address, 143
Disgusted with his Position, 156
Resolves to go to Ireland, 156
Assembles a New Parliament, 156
Wounded at the Battle of the Boyne, 159
His Esteem for Tillotson, 191
Sympathy with him on the Death of his Queen, 199
Articles Published in his Name for Ecclesiastical Reform, 203, 209
His Frequent Absence from England, 206
Appoints Lords Justices, 206
Administers Foreign Affairs, 208
His Return to England after Surrender of the Castle of Namur, 208
His Injunctions Relative to the Trinitarian Controversy, 209,
210, 223
His Inconsistency, 224
Conspiracy against him, 231
His Perilous Position in England, 236
Recognised as a Constitutional King by the Peace of Ryswick, 242
His Entry into London, 242, 243
Obliged to give up his Dutch Guards, 244
Devolves Part of Responsibility of Bestowing Church Preferment on
others, 247
Provides for Education of the Duke of Gloucester, 248, 249
Anxious about the Succession, 250
His Speech on Opening Parliament, 254
His Declining Health, 256
Instability of his Throne, 259
His Death, 295
Character, 296
Objects to Touching for King’s Evil, 339

Williams, Solicitor-General, 14

Williams, Daniel, 411, 425–427

Williams, Bishop of Chichester, 125, note

Willis, Dr., 296

Willoughby, Lord, 50

Wilson, Thomas, Bishop of Sodor and Man, 331

Winchester, Marquis of, 103, 105

Winshup, a Nonjuror, 376

Witchcraft, 335–339

Woodhouse, John, 415

Woodward, Dean of Salisbury, 288, 289, 292

Wren, Sir Christopher, 287

Yorke, a Nonjuror, 375

Young, Robert, 188, note

Zulestein, Count of, 6, note

CORRIGENDA.

Page 144, line 13, _for_ Kingsale _read_ Kinsale.
„ 222, „ 1, _for_ Unitariam _read_ Unitarian.
„ 343, „ 30, _for_ Blackall _read_ Blackhall.

UNWIN BROTHERS, PRINTERS, LONDON AND CHILWORTH.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] For the early life of the Prince of Orange, see _The Life of William III._ 8vo., Lond., 1703; _The Hist. of King William III._, 3 vols. 8vo., 1703; _The Life of William, Prince of Orange_, 8vo., Lond., 1688.

[2] _Own Times_, ii. 305, i. 689.

[3] _Own Times_, i. 691.

[4] Burnet evidently wished to make William appear as much of a Churchman as possible.

[5] These anecdotes are found in a MS. _Life of Hooper_, by Prouse. See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 101–3.

[6] _Hawkins’ Life of Ken_, 7. In the _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 105, we are told that William was much offended at the marriage of Count Zulestein with a lady whom he had seduced--which marriage is represented as brought about by Ken, to William’s displeasure. Macaulay, who examined William’s correspondence with Bentinck, on the contrary, informs us of his vexation at learning that one of his household, after ruining a girl of good reputation, refused to marry her. Which is right?

[7] _Dalrymple’s Memoirs_, i. 183.

[8] _Clarendon Correspondence_, ii. 484.

[9] _Calamy’s Hist. Account_, i. 147. He describes the prophetic dream of a Quaker respecting the Revolution, i. 148. Sewell, in his _Hist. of the Quakers_, ii. 353, speaks of a prophetic letter (containing, I presume, an account of that dream), written by a Quaker at London to his friend, as a forgery.

[10] _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. part i. 228.

[11] _Ibid._, 238.

[12] See curious correspondence in _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. i. 240. Throughout the business it was “diamond cut diamond.”

[13] _Patrick’s Works_, ix. (autobiography) 513.

[14] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 510.

[15] _Gutch’s Collectanea Curiosa_, i. 393–397.

[16] My friend, the Rev. D. Hewitt, of Exeter, informs me: “I find the Mayor of Exeter for the year 1688 was a Jefford, or Gifford, as it is sometimes spelt. He had acquired a fortune in business as a dyer. In religion he was a Presbyterian. He was made Mayor by Order of the Privy Council, when James II. required many Corporations to surrender their charters. The King’s mandamus to his ‘trusty and well-beloved,’ commanding them to remove the then present Mayor (J. Snell) and other members of the Corporation, and to elect and admit ‘our well-beloved Thomas Jefford’ to be Mayor, is dated 28th of November, 1687. Jenkins, our local historian, says, ‘that not only the Mayor, but the other members of the newly-created Chamber, were Presbyterians. When the Corporation sent up an address to the King, congratulating him on the birth of a Prince, the Mayor received the honour of knighthood. When the King turned penitent, as you are aware, one of the fruits of his repentance was the restoration of their charters to corporate towns, and this caused Sir Thomas to descend from his corporate dignity, and return into an obscurity where, thus far, I have not been able to trace him. Perhaps the well-known fact that the Mayor was a Presbyterian, might have something to do with the Bishop’s allusion to the Conventicle.”

[17] Aug. 16, 1688. _Bodleian, Tanner MSS._, xxviii.

[18] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 113, printed in _Gutch’s Collectanea_, i. 404.

[19] July 27, 1688. _Wilkin’s Concilia_, iv. 618.

[20] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 326–8. I am very sceptical about this report.

[21] _London Gazette_, 2384.

[22] Trelawny wrote an obsequious letter (21st of May, 1686) to the Earl of Sunderland, stating that he had reproved a clergyman for an impudent sermon with innuendoes, that though not absolutely in fear, yet they were not wholly free from some apprehensions of Popery. Trelawny himself, in this letter, declares that His Majesty was so careful of the interests of the Church of England, that though the “foolish heates” of some of its members had given him just provocation, he had curtailed none of its liberties. The Bishop complains of his Episcopal income being desperately poor. _Facsimiles of National MSS._, iv. 92.

[23] _Clarendon Correspondence._ Lord Dartmouth says, “Not long before his (Bishop Morley’s) death (for he then kept his chamber), my father carried me with him to Farnham Castle. I was not above twelve years old, but remember the Bishop talked much of the Duke, and concluded with desiring my father to tell him from him, that if ever he depended upon the doctrine of non-resistance, he would find himself deceived, for there were very few of that opinion, though there were not many of the Church of England that thought proper to contradict it in terms, but was very sure they would in practice. My father told me he had frequently put King James in mind of Morley’s last message to him, though to very little purpose; for all the answer was, that the Bishop was a very good man, but grown old and timorous.” _Dalrymple_, iii. appen. 289.

[24] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 317.

[25] _Clarendon Correspondence._

[26] _Gazette_, 2386.

[27] _Tanner MSS. D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 339–344.

[28] _D’Oyley_, i. 345.

[29]

_For the King._

O Almighty God, the blessed and only Potentate, we offer up our humble supplications and prayers to Thy Divine goodness, beseeching Thee in this time of danger to save and protect our most Gracious King. Give Thy Holy Angels charge over him; preserve his Royal Person in health and safety; inspire him with wisdom and justice in all his counsels; prosper all his undertakings for Thy honour and service with good success; fill his princely heart with a fatherly care of all his people; and give all his subjects grace always to bear faith and true allegiance to his Majesty, that both King and people, joining together to promote Thy glory, and conscientiously discharging their duties in their several stations, may all give Thee thanks and praise for Thy most mighty protection, and for all other Thy great mercies vouchsafed to us, through Jesus Christ Thy Son our Saviour. _Amen._

_For Repentance._

Almighty God and most merciful Father, we miserable sinners do here humbly acknowledge before Thee, that we are unworthy of the least of all Thy mercies. We confess, O Lord, in the bitterness of our souls, that we have grievously sinned against Thee; that all orders of men amongst us have transgressed Thy righteous laws; that we have hitherto rendered both Thy mercies and Thy judgments ineffectual to our amendment. It is of Thy mere mercy, O Lord, that we are not consumed; for which our souls do magnify and bless Thy name. O God, who hast hitherto spared us, to the end that Thy goodness might lead us to repentance, let it be Thy good pleasure to give unto us all that godly sorrow which worketh repentance to salvation not to be repented of; that Thou mayest turn from Thy heavy displeasure against us; and mayest rejoice over us to do us good, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ our Lord and only Saviour. _Amen._

There is a third prayer, for Unity. The three were ordered by His Majesty to be printed.

[30] Macpherson (_Hist._ i. 518) succinctly and completely refutes the assertion.

[31] _Gutch_, i. 414.

[32] _Tanner MSS._, vol. xxviii. 153. There is another letter on the same subject, vol. xxvii. 5.

[33] _Dalrymple_, i. 210.

[34] _Ibid._, i. 211. Reresby, who sympathized with James, remarks, respecting the invasion: “Neither the gentry, nor the commonalty were under any concern about it: said they, ‘The Prince comes only to maintain the Protestant religion--he will do no harm to England.’” p. 358.

[35] _D’Oyley_, i. 355.

[36] Compton’s own account. _Gulch_, i. 443.

[37] The following passage in a memorandum, written by Trelawny, Bishop of Exeter, shows how anxious one at least of these Bishops was afterwards to deny that they had anything to do with bringing William over to England:--“Having in a discourse with Mr. Francis Robartes, a little time after the coronation of King William, resented to him the impudence of the person, whoever he was, that insinuated in the Prince of Orange’s Declaration, as if the Bishops had invited him to come over, &c., which I verily believe to be utterly false; he replied, ‘I took an occasion to discourse Will Harbord about the particular, and asked him whether it was true; his answer was, No, damn ’em, they were not so honest, but I caus’d it to be put in, to raise a jealousy and hatred on both sides, that the King, believing it, might never forgive them, and they, fearing that he did believe, might be push’d for their own safety to wish and help on his ruin.’”--_First Report of the Royal Commission on Hist. MSS._, 52.

There is also “Draft of a letter to the Bishop of Worcester, dated 25th Jan., 1716, denying that the Prince of Orange was invited by the Bishops; and another, dated 26th Feb., asking the Bishop of Worcester to draw up a paper showing that the Bishops did not invite, &c., &c., ‘tho’ we thought ourselves obliged to accept of the deliverance.’”--See same _Report_.

[38] Whether or not on this occasion a paper was introduced by Sancroft of the land demanded by the King, certainly such a paper is in existence, bearing date the day of this meeting. “Whereas there hath been of late a general apprehension, that His Highness the Prince of _Orange_ hath an _intention_ to invade this kingdom in hostile manner; and (as ’tis said) makes this one reason of his attempt, that he hath been thereunto invited by several _English_ Lords, both temporal and spiritual; _I William_, Archbishop of _Cant._, do for my own discharge profess and declare That I never gave him any such invitation by word or writing or otherwise, nor do I know, nor can believe, that any of my reverend brethren, the Bishops, have in any such wise invited him. And all this I aver upon my word, and in confirmation [for which word in MS. _attestation_ is substituted] thereof have subscribed my name, here at Lambeth, this 3rd day of November, 1688, W. C.” _Gutch_, ii. 366.

[39] The following paragraph, omitted by D’Oyley, occurs in the original document: “Here also something was added which I (the Bp. of Rochester) do not distinctly remember. I think it was to this effect, that this way of men’s being so called to purge themselves might be a thing of very tender concernment to the liberties and properties of the subject, especially of the Peers, and therefore we begged His Majesty would require no more of us in particular, but would rest contented with publishing this our declaration of our innocency.” _Tanner MSS._

[40] _Gutch_, i. 426–440.

[41] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 232.

[42] _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.

[43] _Rapin_, iii. 285.

[44] _Macaulay_, iii. 226. Dr. Stanley, whose words I have quoted, refers to M’Cormick’s preface to Carstairs. _State Papers, Lectures on the Church of Scotland_, 116.

[45] _Burnet_, i. 789.

[46] “The crimson and gold purse and pincushion, which she is said to have worn at her girdle on that occasion, and her chain and locket, are still preserved in the family.”

“Before this,” adds my informant, “one of the ‘Taunton maids,’ who assisted in working a banner for Monmouth, was sent away, to be hidden from Judge Jeffreys and his creatures, who where hunting up all they could lay hands upon to extort fines from; and our ancestors having an estate near, and perhaps connections at Taunton, the girl was sent to Totnes to them, and was hidden in the roof of their house for some time. The place could only be reached by a ladder, which was removed when not wanted. There the poor girl’s food was taken to her at night, and her presence was only known to the heads of the family. The house stood where the entrance to the Priory now is.”

[47] _Harl. Miscell._, i. 449.

“But being soon undeceived on our landing, we found the benefit of their provision; and instead of ‘_Votre serviteur, Monsieur_,’ they were entertained with ‘_Mynheer, can ye Dutch spraken_,’ upon which they ran away from the house, but the Lady Carey and a few old servants.”

[48] “A farmer, named Searle, had holdings at this time, under the Dean and Chapter of Exeter, in the parish of Staverton. One of his grandsons died at an advanced age about seven years ago. He used to state that when he was a boy there lived an old man at Staverton, over ninety years of age, who told him that he, and others, were sent by his master, Mr. Searle’s grandfather, to the high road, with cartloads of apples, that the Prince’s troops might help themselves.

“Macaulay mentions the fact that Sir Edward Seymour was the first person of importance who joined the Prince at Exeter. It is however believed that the two had met privately, before Sir Edward publicly gave in his adhesion. A cottage still exists near Longcombe, on the borders of the parish of Berry Pomeroy, adjoining Totnes, still known as ‘Parliament House,’ where the Prince is said to have held a Council. The cottage is situated on the property of Sir Edward, in a retired spot, and not above two miles from the line of march from Brixham to Newton.” _MS. Information._

[49] _Le Neve’s Archbishops_, 269.

[50] Quoted in _Smiles’ Huguenots_, 256.

[51] I give this story as it is found in the _Harleian Miscellany_, and _Murch’s Hist. of the Presbyterian Churches_. Ferguson was first a Presbyterian, then an Independent, and for some time he acted as assistant to Dr. Owen. Calamy, chiefly on the authority of Burnet, gives him a bad character, and this is endorsed in _Palmer’s Nonconf. Memorial_, and by Wilson in his _Dissenting Churches_, i. 284.

It is said that there are letters in existence which authorize a different idea of Ferguson than the current one. However this may be, there can, I apprehend, be no doubt of his eccentricity and violence, and of his taking the side of the Jacobite plotters after the Revolution, as he had taken the opposite side before. See his own extraordinary letter to Secretary Trenchard. Ralph (ii. 524) gives a full account of it.

[52] _Dalrymple_, i. 225.

[53] Note in _Wilson’s Life of Defoe_, i. 110.

[54] _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 311. Dec. 29, 1688.

[55] _Ken’s Life, by a Layman_, 324.

[56] See _Gazette_, Nov.

[57] _Life of James II._, ii. 209–212.

[58] _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_, 62. Macpherson mentions a meeting held the same evening by the friends of the Prince of Orange, at which Compton was present. _Hist. of Great Britain_, i. 530. _Original Papers_, i. 281. Reresby is referred to as an authority, but I can find nothing about this circumstance in his Diary.

[59] Farnham Castle, Nov. 25, 1688. _Tanner MSS._, xxviii.

[60] _Ralph_, i. 1073.

[61] _Gazettes_ under dates.

[62] _Clarendon’s Diary_, Dec. 3; ii. 214.

[63] _Ibid._, Dec. 5, 6.

[64] _Reresby_, 363, 364.

[65] _Burnet_, i. 793.

[66] _Life of William III._, 1703.

[67] _Ralph_, i. 1051.

[68] _Burnet_, i. 793.

[69] See _Sprat’s History of the Desertion_.

[70] _Wilson’s Life of De Foe_, i. 159.

[71] _Tour through Great Britain_, ii. 64–70. The excitement extended into Essex.

“Dec. 12. We were in a fright at Coxall (Coggeshall) in the night, and in many places, by reason of lies that were raised about some Irish soldiers that were coming, they said.” _Buftons Diary, Dale’s Annals of Coggeshall_, 269.

[72] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 188–191.

[73] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 506.

[74] These notes are preserved amongst the _Tanner MSS._, xxviii. 285, 286.

[75] _Dalrymple_, i. 248. _Memoirs of James II._, ii. 270.

[76] Account of the Life of Symon Patrick, _Works_, ix. 514. The Dean says it was the 17th, but this is incorrect; it must have been the 18th.

[77] This account is taken from a Diary in what is called the _Historical Register Entering Book_, vol. ii. 383. _Morice MSS._, Dr. Williams’ Library.

[78] _Ralph_, i. 1073.

[79] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 235.

[80] _Ibid._, ii. 234.

[81] _Stuart Papers_, quoted in _D’Oyley_, i. 410.

[82] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 237.

[83] _Ibid._, ii. 238.

[84] _Diary and Correspondence_, Jan. 3, 1689. Vol. ii. 240.

[85] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 415.

[86] “It is most certain that in the Palace of Lambeth, there were meetings of the Bishops and several of the Clergy, both before and after the Archbishop’s suspension, frequently held; so as they were even publicly taken notice of by their enemies, who, in derision, were wont to call them the Lambeth Club, and the Holy Jacobite Club.” _Lansd. MSS. Kennet’s Coll._, 987, 151.

[87] _D’Oyley’s Life of Sancroft_, i. 424.

[88] _Diary_, Jan. 15, 1689.

[89] _Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 247.

[90] _Patrick’s Life. Works_, ix. 515.

[91] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 358.

[92] _Life of Philip Henry_, 187.

[93] _Parl. Hist._, v. 24.

[94] _Ralph_, ii. 28. They were the Bishops of London, Rochester, Norwich, Ely, Chichester, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Peterborough, Lincoln, Bristol, and St. Asaph.

[95] Quoted in _Lathbury’s Hist. of Convocation_, 317.

[96] _Journals of Lords._ Compare _Clarendon’s Diary and Correspondence_, ii. 257.

[97] _Parl. Hist._, v. 51.

[98] The thanks were conveyed to the two Archbishops, who acknowledged them, repeating expressions of attachment to Protestantism, which they again pronounced “absolutely irreconcilable both to Popery and arbitrary power.” _Gutch_, i. 447.

[99] _Parl. Hist._, v. 59.

[100] _Dalrymple_, i. 267.

[101] _Parl. Hist._, v. 75.

[102] _Burnet_, i. 818.

[103] _Dalrymple_, i. 269.

[104] _Hallam’s Const. Hist._, ii. 256.

[105] It is not my province to discuss the political aspect of the Revolution; but I hope I shall be forgiven for quoting the following passage by a distinguished Frenchmen, M. d’Pressense; it is gratifying to all Englishmen and Americans:--“I call restorative the Government of a William III., or the Presidency of a Washington, because these great, good men have established society on respect for right, and have given to it for safeguard a well-regulated liberty, that is to say, a liberty which regulates itself: but I call, on the contrary, anarchical and destructive, every arbitrary _régime_, whether it be democratic or monarchical, and I find it so much the more dangerous the more skilfully it has organised the country of which it disposes at its pleasure.”

[106] _Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France._ _Works_, v. 103.

[107] _Parl. Hist._, v. iii.

[108] _Parl. Hist._, v. 111–113.

[109] _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 42.

[110] _Burnet_, i. 803.

[111] _Hist. of his Own Time_, ii. 8.

[112] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 330.

[113] _Parl. Hist._, v. 129–131. Feb. 20.

[114] _Ralph_, ii. 63.

[115] _Memoirs of Sir John Reresby_, 398. It must be remembered that his sympathies were with James.

[116] _Clarke’s Memoirs of the Wesley Family_, i. 320.

[117] See _Commons’ Journals_, March 7, April 1, and _Parl. Hist._, v. 137.

[118] _Lords’ Journals_, March 16.

[119] _Journals_, March 23.

[120] _Burnet_, ii. 9, 10.

[121] _Commons’ Journals_, April 13.

[122] _Reresby_, 401. March 28.

[123] _Life of Kettlewell_, 217, 218.

[124] _Parl. Hist._, v. 199–206.

[125] _Macaulay_, iv. 121. _Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey_, &c., 94, and _Bufton’s Diary_ in _Dale’s Annals of Coggleshall_, 270.

[126] See _Church of the Restoration_, ii. 145.

[127] _Autobiography_, 516.

[128] _Somer’s Tracts_ (old edition), i. 380. There is a scheme of Comprehension by altering the Prayer-Book in several ways amongst the _Tanner MSS._, 290, 242, without date. Also another for indulgence that Dissenters be registered, and make a declaration that their Nonconformity is simply on account of conscience, and in no way through crossness, worldly interest, or design to disturb the peace of Church or State. As for such as lead loose lives, and are openly profane, the Magistrate may require their conformity until, in the judgment of charity, they may be comprehended within the number of conscientious Dissenters. _Tanner MSS._, 80, 108.

[129] March 23. _MSS. Journal_ (_Historical Register, Entering Book_, ii.), Dr. Williams’ Library.

[130] _Burnet_, ii. 10. Soon after this, the Dissenting Diarist reports (_Entering Book_, ii. 511) a “variety of debates in the House of Lords for Comprehension and Indulgence. The Bishop of Lincoln would by no means let the surplice be laid aside, for the Church had established it, and the taking of it away would be a reflection upon the Church, as if it had erred in establishing it. The Archbishop of York said he thought the Dissenters were no Christians, for they refused to receive the Sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and the Sacrament of Baptism, in such manner as it had been used in this and other Christian Churches, nobody knows how long; and therefore were not to be comprehended or indulged.”

[131] See _Lords’ Journal_.

[132] _Entering Book_, April 13. The following entry appears on the 20th:--“The Lords have sent down their Bill for uniting Protestant subjects to the Commons, and the Commons have yet before them a Bill of their own, both for the uniting of Protestant subjects and for giving indulgence to those that cannot be comprehended. The Commons’ Bill for ease and indulgence was on Monday, the 15th, ordered to be read a second time this day fortnight.”

[133] April 13. _Parl. Hist._, v. 217. The following passage occurs in the _Entering Book_, 217, Wednesday, May 15:--“Commons proceeded upon their Indulgence and Toleration Bill for Dissenters. The anti-interest seemed to be that day very calm and mild; and Sir Thomas Clarges took notice that the Lords’ Bill for Indulgence seemed very grateful to those whom it most concerned, and he was very well content it might pass. Yet he thought fit the House of Commons’ own Indulgence Bill should also be committed, and both of the Bills being committed, they might take anything that was good out of their own Bill and insert it into the Lords’ Bill. Of this opinion was Mr. Sacheverel.” It is added, “The Commons’ Bill has one excellent passage in it that is not in the Lords’ Bill, _i.e._ it repeals all the penal statutes against the Protestant Dissenters, when the Lords’ Bill does only suspend them, and restrain them to that matter of meetings alone, but leaves them in force upon all other accounts.”

[134] The Lords’ Bill for uniting their Majesty’s Protestant subjects will be printed in the Appendix.

[135] “The party which was now beginning to be formed against the Government pretended great zeal for the Church, and declared their apprehension that it was in danger; which was imputed by many to the Earl of Nottingham.”--_Birch’s Tillotson_, 178.

[136] _Reresby_, 390.

[137] _Burnet_, ii. 11.

[138] _Somerville’s Political Transactions_, 275: _Smith’s remarks--Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 158.

[139] _Ralph_, ii. 73.

[140] _Life, by Matthew Henry_, 181.

[141] There were laymen who longed for Comprehension; but they looked with suspicion upon the proceedings of the Lower House. “The truth of the story,” says one of them, “is that neither House of Parliament was able to reform any one thing that was amiss in the State. And the House of Commons was stronger by eighty or one hundred voices to reform things amiss in the State than in the Church, and therefore, in such a juncture as this, none but malicious enemies and weak friends to Dissenters would bring in any Bill for the uniting or giving impunity to Dissenters, because all wise men knew they would be prostituted and made ineffectual to their end, and were intended so to be by those cunning men that brought them in, or influenced others so to do, so that all true friends to the Reformation or to the uniting of Protestants would fain have them laid aside, at least till a better opportunity.”--April, 1689. _Entering Book_, 534.

[142] The following remarks by Dalrymple are worth insertion:--“Although in history the causes of events should be pointed out before the events themselves are related, yet a contrary method becomes sometimes necessary. There were various causes of these disappointments. The Church party was by far the most numerous in Parliament, many being Tories in the Church who were Whigs in the State. A number of members who had deserted their duty in Parliament, returned, and took their seats during these debates, in order to protect the Church from the invasion--as they called it--which was making on her. The assistance of the Dissenters against Popery, and in defence of liberty, was now no longer needed; and their short-lived connections with the late King were recollected. Ancient antipathies with new jealousies started up in the minds of the Tories, and both were increased by the freedoms with which some of the Whig Lords, particularly Macclesfield and Mordaunt, treated the Church in their speeches and protests; for even those could not bear to hear her treated with indecency, who had never attended to her tenets. Of the Whig party of the established communion, many looked upon matters of religion with indifference, and thought, that the toleration in favour of all opinions would be the more easily maintained in proportion to the greater numbers who stood in need of it. Of the Dissenters themselves, many of the Presbyterians were afraid lest they should weaken the strength of their party by dividing the Dissenting interest; and the more rigid Sectaries looked with envy at that participation of honours in Church and in State, which the Presbyterians were to obtain, and from which they themselves were to be excluded. There were a few in Parliament too, of firm minds and remoter views, who, reflecting that the Dissenting interest had been always as much attached to liberty, as the Church of England had been to prerogative, thought that opposition and liberty would be buried in the same grave, and that great factions should be kept alive, both in Church and in State for the sake of the State itself.”--_Dalrymple_, i. 318.

[143] _Hunter’s Life of Heywood_, 200.

[144] The following entries in the _Hist. Register, Williams’ MSS._, relate to subsequent conversations and rumours on the subject:--Wednesday, June 12. “Mr. John Howe, the Nonconformist, had some occasion to go to Hampton Court, and His Majesty seeing him, was pleased to call him to him, and speak to him much to this purpose: ‘That he hoped the Indulgence Bill did fit them well.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘It did so, and they had some purpose to return His Majesty their humble thanks for it, if it was his pleasure that they should do.’ The King answered, ‘That he was very well satisfied of their good affection to his person and Government, that were mostly concerned in that Bill, and therefore on that account it was not needful.’ His Majesty said to this purpose, ‘He wished the Comprehension Act might also pass.’ Mr. Howe answered, ‘So did he, heartily, if it might be of latitude sufficient to answer its ends,’ etc. Saith His Majesty, ‘What clauses must be in it to make it to answer its end?’ ‘Amongst others, a clause that may allow for the time past such ordination as is allowed in Holland and other Reformed Churches, for we can never concur to any clause that condemns their ordination. And besides, in Queen Elizabeth’s time the Parliament did allow of ordination by Presbyters’ (13 Eliz., c. 12). Saith His Majesty, ‘It is a very good suggestion, and there is great reason they should grant all now, they did then, and more.’ This, and much other respective discourse of this kind, His Majesty was pleased to move to Mr. Howe.”--Saturday, June 22. “There has been some consideration had of the Comprehension Bill for the fortnight last past. The Bishops seem to have entrusted the Bishop of St. Asaph and the Bishop of Salisbury in that affair. Mr. John Hambden manageth it together with them, and Mr. Spanhemias (the son of the famous Spanhemias) doth very much concern himself in it. Of what latitude he is in point of Conformity I well know not, whether he fall off to the Conformists as Mr. Alex (Allix) and other Frenchmen. They seem to be contented to allow of Presbyterian ordination till 1660 or 1662; but the most that are living were ordained since then, and so will be kept out. The form of subscription is yet somewhat unsatisfactory. It were very well if the Bill were quite laid aside, or were made of latitude enough to answer its ends. His Majesty shows himself very well affected to it, and would be very glad that it should pass, so as to make those concerned easy.”

[145] _Parl. Hist._, v. 263. It is greatly to be lamented that the debates on many important questions of the period are totally lost, and those reported are given in such a confused state as to be in some cases unintelligible. Such is the case with the debates here noticed. Reporters were proscribed. In 1694 a news-letter writer, named Dyer, was summoned by the House of Commons, and reprimanded for reporting their proceedings.

[146] See Toleration Act, in Appendix. The following passage occurs in the _Entering Book_, May 25:--“I do not understand the mystery of it, nor the true reason why the Lords Spiritual, and those Lords and Commons of their sentiments, did pass that Bill; some say the Bishops passed it with that latitude, concluding it would have been stopped in the Commons’ House, and the Commons would not stop it, because then the imputation of persecution would have been laid upon them. But I think there was some greater reason, that at that time induced them to pass it. Certain it is the Devil’s Tavern Club did call for it, and did promote the passing of it. _Nota._--And its as certain, that they do now heartily repent they have passed it, and if it were not passed they would stop it.”

Amongst the Camb. MSS. (_Strype Cor._, iii. 191) I find this note addressed to Strype: “I desire you will give your Deanery notice, that I shall be glad to meet them at Woodford upon Thursday, the 26th of this instant, at nine o’clock in the morning, to confer about the Act of Toleration. Be pleased to employ the Apparitor to summon them, and he shall be satisfied for his pains by, Sir, your assured friend and brother,

“H. LONDON.
“_June 19, 1689._”

[147] _Life_, by _Lord King_, 341. Preface to _Letters on Toleration_, 1765. Locke remarks, in a letter dated June 6, 1689, “You have no doubt heard before this time that Toleration is at length established by law, not perhaps to the extent which you, and such as you, sincere, and candid, and unambitious, Christians would desire; but it is something to have proceeded thus far. By such a beginning, I trust that those foundations of peace and liberty are laid on which the Church of Christ was at first established.”--_Familiar Letters_, 330.

[148] _Ralph_, ii. 225.

[149] _Gough’s Hist. of the Quakers_, iii. 232–235.

Sewel says nothing like what I have quoted from Gough. He remarks respecting the Bill, “By this we now see the religion of the Quakers acknowledged, and tolerated by an Act of Parliament.”--_Hist._, ii. 357.

[150] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 182–184.

[151] _Ibid._, 180.

[152] Stillingfleet was in the Commission, but he was prevented from attending by a fit of the gout. _Life of Stillingfleet_, 75.

Dr. Williams, afterwards Bishop of Chichester, kept a diary of the proceedings of the Commission, which, with a _Copy of the Alterations_, is printed in a _Parliamentary Return_, 1854. To this _Return_ I am chiefly indebted for what follows. The papers printed in it had long been desired by historical students.

[153] Spelt Aldridge in the _Parliamentary Return_.

[154] _Return_, 98.

[155] _Return_, 15. It would be beside the mark to enter upon a discussion relative to the creed itself, but I would call attention to a valuable little book on the subject, by my friend Professor Swainson, and another by Mr. Ffoulkes. I need scarcely refer to the _Fourth Report of the Ritual Commission_. The theological part of the Creed I consider to be a valuable exposition of truth; but how any charitable Christian can justify the damnatory clauses is to me inexplicable.

[156] Friday, Nov. 1; Monday, Nov. 4; Wednesday, Nov. 6; Friday, Nov. 8.

[157] So in _Return_, 103, it means Dr. Stillingfleet.

[158] _De Trinitate_, l. 15. c. 27.

[159] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 448. The alterations cover 90 pages, and amount to 598 in number.

[160] _See Letter to a friend containing some queries_, and also _Vox Cleri_.

The Commission was complained of as usurping Convocational rights, and there was a prevalent feeling of opposition to any change in the formularies of the Church. “When we saw that,” says Burnet, “we resolved to be quiet, and leave the matter to better times.”--_Triennial Visitation Charges_, 1704.

[161] This is noticed by _Macaulay_, v. 112.

[162] _Tillotson’s Life_, 202. Jane, it should be recollected, was a friend of Compton. He was his chaplain, and preached at his consecration.

[163] _Cardwell’s Conferences_, 434, 451. _Synodalia_, 692–700.

[164] _Kennet Hist._, iii. 552.

[165] _Tanner MSS._, 28, 377. Letter from Lloyd to Sancroft, March 31, 1689.

[166] _Dalrymple_, i. 322.

[167] _Macpherson’s Hist._, i. 630.

[168] _Oldmixon_, iii. 18.

[169] _House of Commons’ Journals._ Amongst the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 161, is a _Letter from a Fellow of St. John’s College, Cambridge, to a member of the House of Commons, vindicating the College from the charge of disaffection to the Government_.

[170] _Salmon’s Lives_, 388.

[171] _Life of Kettlewell_, 199.

[172] _Life of Kettlewell_, 203.

The original declaration is in the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 77. The signature of the Bishop is in a trembling hand.

_Witnesses._

Thos. Greene, D.D., the Bishop’s Chaplain.
G. Hickes, D.D.
R. Jenkyn, Precentor.
Nat. Powell, Not. Pub.
John Wilson, Not. Pub.

MS. copies of the Declaration were circulated at the time. I have one in my possession.

[173] _Tanner MSS._, 27, 16. Letter from the Hague, April 23, 1689.

[174] _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 365.

[175] _Ibid._, 366. The following extracts respecting Turner are curious:

He is said to have very heartily repented of what he did at the trial of the Seven, “and to have acknowledged that their going to the Tower, when they might easily have prevented the same by entering into mutual recognizances for each other, as the King would have had them, was a wrong step taken, and an unnecessary punctilio of honour in Christian Bishops. Howsoever it was, he reflected upon all that had passed, and was so sincere as to condemn himself in whatsoever he conceived that he had not acted as became his order and station.” “When he was Bishop of Rochester, he came to St. Mary’s, when a very bright sermon was preached by his brother of Trinity College. The Earl of Thomond sat next the Bishop, and seemed mightily pleased with the sermon. He asked him the name of the preacher. The Bishop told him it was one Mr. Turner. ‘Turner,’ says my Lord Thomond, ‘he can’t be akin to Dr. Turner, Bishop of Rochester. He is the worst preacher in England, and this is one of the best,’ seeming not to know the Bishop, when certainly he knew him very well.”--_Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll._, 987, 138.

[176] I state this on the authority of a paper in the same collection, 987, 310.

[177] _An examination of the case of the suspended Bishops._ 1690, p. 12.

[178] _Life of Kettlewell._ Appendix, Nos. ii., iii.

The following note to the Archbishop is among the _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 101:--

“I find from St. Asaph’s that its your opinion, and some learned lawyers, that we are to be deprived the 15th or 16th of January, reckoning by the moon. I told him of Sir Edward Coke’s opinion--2d Instit. c. 5, fol. 361. and 6 Rep. Catesby--who, referring to a record in Edward the Second’s time in which the word _menses_ occurs, says, ‘_Qui menses in Calendario computantur_.’

“27 December, 1689. W. NORW.”

[179] _Lathbury’s Nonjurors_, 85.

[180] It occurs in the _Life of Kennet_, 47.

[181] _Dunton’s Life and Errors_, 370.

[182] _Life of Kettlewell_, 152.

[183] _Ibid._, 98.

[184] _Life of Kettlewell_, 134.

[185] 19th February, 1689–90. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 91, 92.

[186] _Burnet_, ii. 39.

[187] _State Tracts_, ii. 95.

[188] _A Modest Enquiry_, printed in _State Tracts_, vol. ii.

[189] See _Life of Ken, by a Layman_, 370–376. Compare _Life of Kettlewell_, 255–263.

[190] _Dalrymple_, iii., appen. ii. 130, 132.

[191] Macaulay has graphically described all this.

[192] _Birch’s Life of Tillotson_, 306.

[193] _Life_, Patrick’s _Works_, ix. 529.

[194] _Convocation Book_, b. i. c. 28. Edition in _Library of Anglo Cathe. Theology_, 50, 51.

[195] _Case of Allegiance_, Preface.

[196] Macaulay (vi. 47) overstates the effect on Sherlock of the Convocation Book when he says, “His venerable Mother the Church had spoken, and he, with the docility of a child, accepted her decree.”

[197] These inconsistencies are set forth in a pamphlet entitled _Sherlock against Sherlock_, a long extract as given by Ralph (ii. 270), from the vindication of some among ourselves as a specimen of the attacks on the Master of the Temple.

Amongst the _Baker MSS._, 40, 75, Cambridge University Library, is an undated letter written by

“Dr. Sherlock to my Lord of Canterbury,--

“In obedience to your Grace, I have again read over the first part of Bp. Overall’s Convocation Book, but cannot give such an account of it as your Grace possibly may desire; for the more carefully I read it, the more evidently it appears to be the sense of that Convocation, that we owe and ought to pay allegiance to a Prince, who is settled on the throne, though he ascend thither by wicked arts, and without any legal rights.”

After debating on this point at considerable length, fortifying his argument by reference to the Convocation Book, he concludes by saying: “I beg your Grace’s pardon for the hasty and impolished draught, for my thoughts are all on fire, and it seems a very amazing providence to me that such a book should be published in such a juncture as this, as serves, indeed, the end it was designed for; but does a great deal more than ever was intended, and that which nobody thought of, to reconcile the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance, with a submission and allegiance to usurped powers, when their Government is thoroughly settled. I will wait on your Grace on Saturday or Monday next.”

[198] There is in the British Museum (_Cole MSS._, xxx. 168) a curious letter by Sherlock on taking rash vows, addressed to some one who had sworn to God he would not follow the trade in which he had been brought up.

[199] 5th August, 1690. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 176.

[200] 9th February, 1691. _Ibid._, 247.

[201] _Mant’s Hist. of the Church of Ireland_, ii. Preface.

[202] January 20, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvii. 236.

[203] _Ken’s Life_, 381.

D’Oyley says that Turner was suspected “probably with great reason,” i. 461. And the author of _Ken’s Life_ describes Turner as engaging “in a plot un-English and un-Christian,” 380.

[204] 9th of May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvi. 84.

[205] From the Bishop of Norwich, 18th May, 1691. _Tanner MSS._, xxvi. 59.

[206] _Life_, 391.

[207] Camb. Univ. Library. _Baker MSS._, 40, 90.

[208] _Thoresby’s Diary_, i. 197. _Calamy’s Life_, i. 300.

[209] _Crossby’s Hist. of the Baptists_, iii. 230.

[210] _Humble Requests, &c._, inserted in _Calamy’s Abridgment_, i. 497.

[211] _Memoir by Offer._ Bunyan’s _Works_, iii. lxxiii.

[212] Mr. Maurice observes that “this story, which is told of Flavel the Nonconformist, is told also, and upon perfectly good evidence, of Francis Xavier the Jesuit. There is almost a curious resemblance in the words of the two narratives.” (_Kingdom of Christ_, ii. 344.) I wish to resemble Mr. Maurice’s ideal historian in his honesty and impartiality. I do not introduce the anecdote of Flavel to prove anything respecting his opinions. I take it as I find it--a remarkable psychological fact.

[213] _Palmer_, i. 354.

[214] _Calamy’s Abridgment_, 469–475.

[215] _Life of Mr. John Hieron, &c._, by D. Burgess, 1691.

[216] _Grub’s Ecclesiastical History of Scotland_, iii. 188. _Birch’s Tillotson_ [2nd Edition], 18, 387.