[257] Bingham’s Works, viii. 292, 319, 320.

[258] Bingham’s Memoir, i. 6. Dorner’s Doctrine of the Person of Christ, Div. ii. vol. iii. 355.

[259] Animadversions upon Dr. Sherlock’s Book, 69.

[260] He says that God had taken the matter into His own hands, “and made this scornful man eat his own words (the hardest diet, certainly, that a proud person can be put to), and after all the black dirt thrown by him on the Schoolmen and their terms, to lick it off again with his own tongue,” p. 381.

[261] South’s Animadversions, 240, and Considerations on the Explications of the Doctrine of the Trinity, &c., written to a Person of Quality. 1693. Another example of the same kind occurs in The Doctrine of the Trinity placed in its due Light. “We have seen two men that were made one Admiral by a joint Commission; and we see every day many men incorporate into one political body by patent, whereby they are one person in law. And in this known sense are the Godhead and manhood joined together in one Person, whereof comes one Christ, and very God, and very man.” The author was the Dr. Bury, mentioned on p. 213, who was deprived of his University preferment by the Bishop of Exeter.

[262] On the controversy, see The Distinction between Real and Nominal Trinitarians Examined, in Answer to a Socinian Pamphlet. 1696.

[263] Works, v. 111.

[264] See on this subject Roger’s Life of Howe, 419. Sherlock differed from Howe in some respects, and censured him for it. Howe defended himself in A Letter to a Friend, and A View of the late Considerations, &c. Works, v.

[265] Lords’ Journal.

[266] Ben Mordecai’s Letters, i. 70, quoted in Toulmin, 182.

[267] Tenison’s Life, 51. In this dispute, and the proceedings which it occasioned, ridicule, satire, and abuse were employed. Dignitaries of the Church were lampooned in coarse and vulgar ballads, and the most sacred doctrines of the Gospel became associated with what is ridiculous and absurd. See The Battle Royal, South’s Posthumous Works. Memoirs, 128–130.

[268] Wilkin’s Concilia, iv. 577.

[269] That clause excepts from the Act “any person that shall deny in his preaching or writing the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity, as it is declared in the aforesaid Articles of Religion,” i.e. the XXXIX. Articles.

[270] Parl. Hist., v. 1172. February 9, 1698.

[271] There is a full account of this horrible affair in Arnot’s State Trials, xiii. An eminent advocate of the period remarked, respecting the unhappy young man, whose name was Thomas Aikenhead, “I do think he would have proven an eminent Christian had he lived; but the ministers, out of a pious, though I think ignorant zeal, spoke and preached for cutting him off” (p. 930). A book was published in England in 1697, by one John Gailhard, entitled, The Blasphemous Heresy Disproved, in which he says, “Blasphemy and idolatry, by God’s express command, ought to be destroyed out of the land.”

[272] Lindsay’s Hist. View, 302.

[273] Calamy’s Abridgment, 561.

[274] Lindsay’s Hist. View, 304. Wallace, i. 388.

[275] Mazure, quoted in Macaulay, vii. 15.

[276] An Impartial Hist. of the Plots and Conspiracies against William III., p. 90.

[277] 1693, October 16. Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 452.

[278] 1693, October 16. Ibid, 455.

[279] 1693, close of the year. Ibid., 459.

[280] 1693, December. Macpherson’s Original Papers, 467.

[281] 1694, January. Ibid., 474.

[282] 1694, May. Ibid., 484.

[283] 1694, August. Ibid., 493. Some correspondents were more faithful, and told James not to believe that Protestants would support him (p. 490).

[284] Lathbury’s Hist. of Nonjurors, 169.

[285] Collier’s Defence.

[286] Wilkins, iv. 627.

[287] Answer to Animadversions, 10.

[288] State Papers: Letter from Shrewsbury to William III., Whitehall, July 28, 1696.

[289] See Macpherson’s Orig. Papers, i. 514, 595.

[290] Burnet, i. 683.

[291] It appears, in the course of Fenwick’s trial, that he had said Shrewsbury came into the office of Secretary to William “by the operation and consent of King James.”—Parl. Hist., v. 1051.

[292] State Papers: Shrewsbury to William III., Whitehall, Sept. 8, 1696.

In Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 481, Captain Floyd, a Jacobite emissary, tells James that Shrewsbury, according to his mother’s account, accepted the seals of office from the Prince of Orange “only in order to serve your Majesty more effectually hereafter.”

[293] The substance of his discoveries is given in Tindal’s History.

[294] Parl. Hist., v. 1127–1130.

[295] Memoirs of Tenison, 62.

[296] Ibid., 63.

[297] Burnet, ii. 193.

[298] Lathbury (Hist. of Nonjurors, 178), on the authority of the State Tracts, ii. 561, states that Fenwick was permitted to seek the aid of any of the Clergy who had taken the oaths, or any of the Bishops who had opposed the attainder; that on his refusal of the offer, the names of three or four Nonjurors were mentioned, but they declined to attend him, fearing the oaths might be tendered. Macaulay (vii. 404), however, says White was with him at the last.

[299] Impartial Hist. of Plots, 176.

[300] Evelyn notices, “16 Nov., the King’s entry very pompous, but is nothing approaching that of King Charles II.”

[301] Evelyn’s Diary, Dec. 2nd.

[302] Milman’s Annals of St. Paul’s, 427. Evelyn says, “5th December was the first Sunday that St. Paul’s had had service performed in it since it was burnt in 1666.”

[303] Kennet’s Hist. of England, iii. 777.

[304] Tallard, the French Ambassador, writing home, says the Catholic religion “is here tolerated more openly than it was even in the time of King Charles II., and it seems evident that the King of England has determined to leave it in peace, in order to secure his own.”

“I hear from Calais of priests coming over every day, and here they get into the herd, so that it is hard to distinguish them.”—Vernon Cor., ii. 193.

[305] Burnet, ii. 229; Statutes 11 and 12 Will. III. c. 4.

“The judges put such constructions upon the clause of forfeiture as eluded its efficacy; and I believe there were scarce any instances of a loss of property under this law.” (Hallam’s Const. Hist., ii. 333.) The Act was repealed in 1779.

[306] Memoirs of Tenison, 65–73.

[307] Le Neve’s Lives, part i. 247–254.

[308] Letter from Shrewsbury to Mr. Secretary Vernon (State Papers), December 19, 1697 (?) or 1 (?), acknowledges letter offering him the post of Governor to the Duke of Gloucester, pleads his many defects, but especially his health, which may render it necessary for him to seek a warmer climate.

In a letter to Lord Hatton, described in the First Report of the Historical MSS. Commission, p. 23, it is said, “The Duke of Shrewsbury would be a greater person than he is, if his health would permit him to stay at Court; but it is wonderful that the laborious diversion of fox-hunting should agree so well with his Grace.”

[309] Burnet, ii. 211.

[310] Stanley’s Memorials of Westminster Abbey; Supplement, 136.

[311] Mr. Shippen.

[312] Ralph, ii. 908.

[313] Stanhope’s Queen Anne, 19.

[314] Clarke’s Life of James II., ii. 606.

[315] Clarke’s Life of James II., ii. 590–594.

[316] Life of James II., ii. 598, 599. Memoir of Louis XIV., ii. 184.

The Earl of Middleton is reported to have been converted to Catholicism by this death-bed scene; miracles were absurdly said to be wrought by the dying King’s intercession; and there is reason to believe that, if the Stuart family had been restored, James would have been canonized.—Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 595–597.

[317] Correspondence of Lord Clarendon, ii. 389.

[318] Life of Calamy, i. 437.

[319] Crosby, iii. 357.

[320] Parl. Hist., v. 1331.

[321] Edmund Burke.

[322] Whiston’s Memoirs, 32.

[323] Lords’ Journals, February 24, 1702.

[324] Life, i. 440.

[325] 1702, January. Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 602.

[326] English Hist. Library, 133.

[327] See in Appendix the form of writ now issued.

[328] The letter has been attributed, on the authority of the editor of the Somers’ Tracts (last edit., xi. 363), to Sir Bartholomew Shower; on the authority of the editor of Atterbury’s Correspondence (ii. 25, iii. 71), to Dr. Binckes, Vicar of Leamington at the time, and in 1703 made Dean of Lichfield. I cannot ascertain the evidence on which either of them proceeds.

[329] The Authority of Christian Princes over their Ecclesiastical Synods, 1697.

[330] See Farrer’s Critical History of Free Thought, 186.

[331] See Hallam, ii. 396.

[332] Since writing the above I find Mr. Freeman, in his Norman Conquest (vol. iv. 343), speaking of an Ecclesiastical Synod in 1070 as beginning to be distinguished from the general Gemotes; and, again (360), noticing that the King held his Court for five days, and then the Archbishop held his Synod for three days more. “Here are the beginnings of the anomalous position of the two Convocations in England, half ecclesiastical Synods, half estates of the Realm—each character hindering the effectual working of the other.”

[333] Convocation is now (1872) entering upon a new phase of its history, the results of which deserve careful study.

[334] Burnet, ii. 280.

[335] Atterbury’s Corresp., iii. 10.

[336] Ibid., 11, 13, 17.

An address was presented to the Archbishop of Canterbury by the Clergy of the Diocese of Wells, assembled to elect Proctors, stating that they were advised they had a right to be summoned to Westminster by virtue of the præmunientes clause.—Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 1.

But the next paper in the same volume is an address to the elected Proctors, breathing a spirit of profound submission to the Archbishop, and calling the King “His Sacred Majesty, and the Supreme Head of the Church on earth.”

At the election of Proctors for the Diocese of Bristol, a paper was introduced advocating the view of the præmunientes clause taken by Atterbury.—Gibson, vi. 3.

[337] The Bishop of Norwich wrote to the Archbishop of Canterbury on the 8th January, 1701, remarking, “I could with humble submission wish there might be no license for business this first session, for if there should be, it will be thought the effect of Mr. A.’s book, and they will not greatly regard the strength of any answer while they carry their chief point; it is also to be suspected they will vote it their right and privilege to sit and do business as often as the Houses of Parliament do; but if a good answer to that book shall precede the sitting of the Convocation, persons will probably meet with more settled and easy minds, and fall more kindly to business, and also suppose there was more than ordinary reason for their meeting.”—Lambeth MSS., Gibson, 933, 41.

[338] Atterbury’s Correspondence, iii. 22. He says, writing to Trelawny on the 20th of February, “We met yesterday upon our adjournment. The Prolocutor was presented by Dr. Jane, who made an admirable speech, and spoke very plainly about the state of our affairs. It was both written and spoken with more life and vigour than I could have imagined Dr. Jane, under his present ill state of health, could have exerted. The Dean of Canterbury’s, too, was extremely commended, and had several artful wipes in it. Neither of them, I believe, went very well down with the Bench to which they were addressed, but against the first of them (the Dean of Gloucester), my Lord of Sarum declared very loudly” (p. 26).

[339] Atterbury’s Correspondence, 31.

[340] Letter to a Clergyman in the Country, p. 1. Answer to the Letter, p. 4.

[341] The New Danger of Presbytery, 3.

[342] These extracts are given in Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 351.

[343] The main facts in the history of this Convocation are given by Lathbury, c. xi. In drawing up this account I have used, besides Kennet’s and Burnet’s Histories and the Memoirs of Tenison, The Narrative of the Proceedings of the Lower House, &c., from Monday, February 10, to Wednesday, June 25, 1701, drawn up by order of the House; A Letter to the Author of the Narrative, &c., and The History of the Convocation, drawn up from the Journal of the Upper House, &c. The Narrative gives the High Church view; The History the Lower. It is ascribed to Kennet. A number of contemporary pamphlets in Dr. William’s Library I have also consulted.

[344] See Letters described in First Report of Hist. MSS. Com., 52. What Trelawny says I have noticed before.

[345] Burnet, ii. 285.

[346] See Ecclesiastical Synods, 99–149, 245.

[347] See Ecclesiastical Synods, 299.

[348] Atterbury’s Correspondence, iii. 53.

[349] Ibid. 57.

[350] Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 363.

[351] See Gibson’s Synodus Anglicana, 21.

[352] Lathbury’s History of Convocation, 363–365.

[353] “Upon coming to Henry VII.’s Chapel, we found it very convenient, by a curtain across the upper end, and matting on the floor.”—Lambeth MSS., Gibson Papers, vi. 8.

[354] Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 9, 10.

[355] Present State of Convocation, 5.

[356] Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 11.

[357] Faithful account of some transactions in the three last sessions of the present Convocation. Attributed to Atterbury.

[358] Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 18.

[359] Faithful account, &c.

[360] Lambeth MSS., Gibson, vi. 11.

[361] Burnet, ii. 303.

[362] Hist. of King William III, 513.

[363] Dr. Willis, William’s Military Chaplain, who became Bishop of Gloucester in 1714, was an extempore preacher. To this he “was at first led, no doubt, by the temper of his master, King William, who was accustomed to hear such kind of preaching in Holland, and could scarcely have borne to hear Doctor or Prelate read a sermon out of the pulpit at the congregation.”—Anecdotes of the Wesley Family, ii. 243.

[364] Own Time, ii. 305.

[365] It would look as if the conduct of William in reference to patronage did not please some of the Bishops. Patrick says, “We cannot serve His Majesty unless he will countenance those whom we commend to him, purely because they have deserved well of him, and have no friends to make their worth known but we alone.” Patrick’s Works, ix. 621. The date is misprinted 1731; I take it for 1701.

[366] The Bishop of Sarum’s Four Treatises appeared in 1695.

[367] See Life and Character of Stillingfleet, 93, 104, 111, 119, and Twelve Sermons preached on several occasions, between 1666 and 1672. Published 1696. The first of his episcopal charges is the only one I have seen. For the rest, I depend on the report of the biographer.

For an account of Stillingfleet’s earlier writings, see Church of the Restoration, vol. ii.

[368] A Discourse about Tradition. Works, vol. vi.; i. 30–34; vii. 294.

[369] Burnet, Evelyn and Dunton bear witness to Patrick’s preaching power.

[370] Patrick’s Works, vi. 156.

[371] Preface to sixth edition.

[372] Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll., 987, 294.

[373] This gave origin to the well-known epigram (attributed by some to Dr. Trapp; by others to Mr. Warton, his successor in the poetry professorship), added to the circumstance of the ministry’s sending at the same time a troop of horse to Oxford, to suppress some disturbances that had happened there.

It is but fair to subjoin the reply, particularly as it is the best thing that ever came from the pen of Sir William Browne, the physician; and extorted praise, even from Johnson himself, in favour of a Cambridge man.

Noble’s continuation of Granger ii. 89.

[374] Observer. The following note by Onslow occurs in the Oxford edition of Burnet’s Hist. of his own Time. “I have heard that the first notice or thought which that extraordinary man, the Bishop Cumberland, had of his promotion, was by reading it in a newspaper at Stamford, where he was minister.” Vol. iv. 131.

[375] Noble’s continuation, ii. 88.

[376] Ibid., 87.

In the Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll., 987, 356, it is said Fowler “had a very superstitious fancy in catching at stories of apparitions and witches.”

[377] Noble, ii. 101. Kidder’s Autobiography is printed in Cassan’s Lives of the Bishops of Bath and Wells.

[378] A high character is given to Nicholas Stratford for kindness, courteousness, and charity in Lansdowne MSS., Kennet Coll., 987, 304.

[379] This curious piece of eulogistic Latinity may be seen in Le Neve’s Archbishops, part ii. 286.

[380] Thoresby’s Diary, i. 224.

[381] Tyerman’s Life of S. Wesley, 385.

[382] Memoirs of Whiston, 31.

[383] Noble’s Continuation, ii. 82.

Anthony Wood, in his strange Autobiography, relates a practical joke played by Lloyd when he was at Oxford. He contrived that a London citizen should disguise himself as a Greek Patriarch, and get people, including learned professors, to kneel before him for a blessing. “It was a piece of waggery to impose upon the Royalists, and such that had a mind to be blest by a Patriarch instead of Archbishop or Bishop, and it made great sport for a time, and those that were blest were ashamed of it.”—Lives of Eminent Antiquaries, ii. 132.

[384] The change produced by the Revolution is thus estimated in Tracts for the Times, No. 80, p. 77. “Since the great loss of Christian principle, which our Church sustained at the Rebellion of 1688, when she threw, as it were, out of her pale the doctrine of Christ crucified (together with Ken and Kettlewell), a low tone of morals has pervaded her teaching, and not founded on the great Christian principle; and that Baptism, which implied it, has been much forgotten.”

[385]

“Fulham, Nov. 20, 1701.

“Sir,—I entreat you to let the Clergy of your Deanery know that it is my opinion that the peace, honour, and safety of this Church and nation depend in a great measure upon the good success of the next election, and that I do therefore think it was common duty, especially for us of the Clergy, to contribute all we can to get in good ones. Now I confess from these considerations, and as matters stand in Essex, in my judgment we shall be greatly wanting to ourselves and our common good, if we do not make the best interest we can, and be vigorous ourselves for the choice of Sir Charles Barrington and Mr. Bullock. It will be for the reputation of the Church, and for its service, if we be unanimous.—H. London.”—Strype Correspondence, iii. 219. Cambridge. Other letters of the same kind are preserved.

[386] Visitation Charges, 1693–4.

[387] Hist. of his own Time, ii. 630.

[388] Grainger, iv. 293.

[389] “Captain Crisp assures, that the Bishop of Exeter is entirely in the King’s (James’) interest.” January, 1694. Macpherson’s Original Papers, i. 474.

[390] Life and Errors, ii. 668.

[391] Johnson’s Lives of the Poets.

[392] Discourse made by the Lord Bishop of Rochester at his Visitation, 1695.

[393] There is a most amusing letter in the Lambeth Library from Dr. Wm. Beau, Bishop of Llandaff, giving particulars of his life—of his service in the army—his promotion in the Church—the poverty of his See—and an interview he had with the Archbishop, at Lambeth, in order to get a better Bishopric. “I was passing through the hall up the stairs, thinking to have found him in the wonted place of reception in the old lodgings; but he no sooner heard of me, than he came himself to direct me, and introduce me into his new ones. When he told me, almost at the first word, that the Bishop of Hereford would die; no, my Lord, said I, for he is newly married. Oh, said he, the sooner for that.”—Gibson Papers, ii. 49.