§ 24. It was unfortunate that while she was thus developing her power of usefulness, the Church should have been still distracted by the quarrels of High Church and Low Church, and by the division effected by the Jacobite secession. Many clergy, who had at first refused the oaths to William, would, on the death of James, in 1701, have been ready to swear allegiance, had it not been for the unfortunate policy of the Government which enacted the Abjuration oath. By this the clergy were called upon not only to renounce allegiance to the family and descendants of James, but to pronounce William to be rightful and lawful king. The enforcement of this oath produced a second crop of Nonjurors. Many whose consciences had not been altogether easy at having taken the oaths originally, now welcomed this opportunity of recanting. Others, who were quite willing to accept a de facto government, if it was called such, could not bring themselves to describe it as de jure. The policy which dictated this oath inflicted a mischief on the Church without any corresponding benefit. In spite, however, of the great loss it suffered in the Nonjurors, at the death of King William, in the beginning of 1702, the Church was in a far more vigorous condition than it had been at any time since the Restoration. During the next reign it will be seen displaying an increased energy, while its clergy enjoy an extreme popularity in the land. " NOTES AND ILLUSTRATIONS. (A) THE LATER NONJURORS. The persons principally engaged in propagating the schism of the Nonjurors were Lloyd, late Bishop of Norwich, and Turner, late Bishop of Ely. These, together with White, late Bishop of Peterborough, consecrated, on November 24, 1694, Dr. George Hickes and Mr. Wagstaffe clandestinely to the Episcopate, under the titles of the suffragan Bishops of Thetford and Ipswich. Bishops Ken and Frampton disapproved of this step. Turner, late Bishop of Ely, was involved in a plot for bringing back King James by aid of a French army, and narrowly escaped execution. Dr. Hickes was chiefly instrumental in continuing the succession of bishops. Wagstaffe, who had been consecrated with him, did not take any active part in the matter; but Hickes, in 1713, applied to the Scotch bishops to join with him. and, together with Bishops Campbell and Gadderar, consecrated Jeremy Collier, Samuel Hawes, and Nathaniel Spinkes to be bishops. In 1716, Collier, Spinkes, and Hawes consecrated two more bishops, Gandy and Brett. About this time a great dispute arose in the rapidly-diminishing Nonjuring body on the subject of Ritual. One party among them, with Collier at the head, desired to revive the first PrayerBook of Edward VI., with the Ritual and Usages which it presented. The other party, led by Spinkes, was in favour of keeping close to the Prayer-Book of the last review. They formally separated one from the other in the year 1718. The Usagers, as they were termed, drew up and published a new communion office. Both parties, by the aid of the Scotch bishops, among whom a similar dispute prevailed, consecrated more bishops to continue the succession. They were reunited in 1733, but again separated on other points, and continuing in disunion, gradually dwindled away, until they became extinct towards the close of the eighteenth century. At an earlier period (1617-1725) the Nonjurors had carried on negotiations with the Eastern Church to be received into communion, but the negotiations fell through. A very interesting account of this and other points in the history of the Nonjurors will be found in Mr. Lathbury's History of the Nonjurors. (B) THE TRINITARIAN CONTROVERSY OF THE REVOLUTION PERIOD. This controversy was commenced by Dr. John Wallis, Savilian Professor of Geometry at Oxford, who published in 1690 a pamphlet called The Doctrine of the Ever-blessed Trinity explained. Applying his mathematical notions to this mysterious subject, the professor thought to make it intelligible by illustrating it by the three fundamental properties of solid bodies-length, breadth, and height. The effect of this treatise was to stir up men's thoughts on this matter, and to bring forth a number of writings. A tract called A Brief History of the Unitarians was answered by Dr. Sherlock in a publication called A Vindi- ' cation of the Doctrine of the Ever-blessed Trinity. The dean's work introduced new terms and new definitions, and provoked an audacious reply, called A Clear Con futation of the Doctrine of the Trinity. Dr. Sherlock was unpopular, as having changed his views on the question of the oaths; and Dr. Robert South, the leader of the High Church party at Oxford, assailed his book in a witty and clever brochure, but with somewhat too great freedom of writing for such a subject. Dr. Sherlock replied angrily, and Dr. South rejoined with still more unseemly wit and levity. He accused Sherlock of sacrificing the unity of the Godhead and endeavouring to establish three distinct gods. Sher- lock, on the contrary, charged South with rank Sabellianism, in speaking of three modes, subsistencies, and properties. So fiercely did the quarrel rage that the learned Joseph Bingham, Fellow of University College, was formally censured by the University and obliged to quit Oxford for defending Sherlock's views. At length a weighty and calmly-written work came forth from the learned Bishop Stillingfieet, who takes occasion, in his preface, severely to reprove the bitterness and evil-speaking which had been so freely indulged in in this controversy. CHAPTER XXXVIII. CONVOCATION DISPUTES-HIGH CHURCH ENTHUSIASM. 1702-1710. § 1. Good prospects for the Church at the beginning of the reign of Queen Anne. § 2. Queen abolishes the Commission for Church preferment. § 3. Archbishop Sharp her religious adviser. $ 4. Bill for preventing Occasional Conformity. § 5. Passes the Commons. § 6. Is rejected by the Lords. § 7. Queen in favour of it. § 8. Bill again before Parliament, but fails to pass. § 9. Queen Anne's Bounty. § 10. Occasional Conformity Bill again rejected by Lords. § 11. The two Houses of Convocation again opposed to each other. § 12. The declaration as to Divine right of Episcopacy. § 13. The Lower House complain of scandals. §14. The Representation of the Lower House. § 15. The Archbishop defends the Bishops. § 16. Charges made by the Lower House against the Bishops. § 17. Further complaints; the Lower House refuses to be admonished. §18. The Memorial of the Church of England. § 19. "The Church in danger." § 20. Resolution of Parliament that the Church is not in danger. § 21. Renewal of disputes in Convocation. § 22. The Moderate party. § 23. Convocation prorogued during the Union Settlement. § 24. Anger of the Clergy; further prorogations. § 25. Controversy on the origin of government, and the duties of the governed. § 26. Dr. Sacheverell's sermon. § 27. Ordered by the Commons to be impeached. § 28. Trial of Dr. Sacheverell. § 29. His sentence. § 30. Effects of the sentence. § 1. THE Church of England escaped a considerable peril at the period of the Revolution. Had the clergy as a body adhered to James, the nation, disgusted with his tyranny, might have visited the sins of the king on his clerical allies, and welcomed Presbyterianism. Had, on the contrary, the whole of the clergy favoured William, the changes in the discipline and ritual of the Church, and its comprehensiveness, so much desired by Tillotson and others, might have been attempted with success. But there was among the clergy a readiness to accept the new rulers sufficient to obviate any popular outbreak against them, and an opposition to change sufficient to make it unsafe for the government to attempt anything in the way of a Latitudinarian comprehension. The Church, having escaped these dangers, came to the new reign with increased vigour and power, and everything seemed to promise it a rapid advance and development. The Princess Anne was known to be a thorough Churchwoman. Against her the Jacobites had no dy nastic prejudices, and all, it was hoped, might be reunited under her rule. § 2. Her first act was to supersede the Commission for Ecclesiastical Preferments, which under William had given to a few Whig bishops the complete control of the Church, and had tended more than anything, perhaps, to excite the ill will of the High Churchmen. § 3. She selected as the preacher of her Coronation sermon, and her chief adviser in ecclesiastical matters, Dr. Sharp, Archbishop of York, a High Churchman, though not an extreme man; and the tendency which the queen thus exhibited seemed to be zealously seconded by the country, which returned a Tory Parliament ready to go into extremes against those favoured by the late king. § 4. The Test Act, which pressed heavily on the Nonconformists, had been wont to be practically evaded by them by the device of receiving once the holy sacrament of the Lord's Supper, as a qualification for office, and then continuing to worship as Dissenters. The Church party were now earnestly bent to stop this, which they considered an evasion of the law, and with this view they brought into the House of Commons a bill for preventing occasional conformity. § 5. By this bill it was attempted at once to compel the Nonconformists to serve those offices for which the sacramental test was required, and at the same time to refuse to acknowledge one reception as a sufficient compliance with the test. It was, in fact, a bold attempt to repeal the Toleration Act. It enacted heavy fines against any officials who should attend a conventicle, and held them incapable of office, until, by the reception of the Holy Communion three times in the year, they had qualified themselves. This bill quickly passed the House of Commons. § 6. In the Lords a milder view was taken. They would not agree to the attendance at a conventicle disqualifying from office, and they desired a milder fine. The Commons refused their amendments. A conference was held between the Houses. The Lords adhered to their amendments, and the bill was lost.1 § 7. The queen had desired the passing of the bill, and she brought the session of Parliament to a close in a speech in which she freely professed her zeal for the Church, and that "upon all occasions of promotion to any ecclesiastical dignity she would have a just regard for those who were eminent and remarkable for their piety, learning, and constant zeal for the Church," " 2 Ib. vi. 145. 1 Parl. Hist. vi. 61-93. § 8. In the next session (1703) the bill against occasional conformity was revived. The penalties were now somewhat lowered, and the definition of what constituted a conventicle made wider. It passed the Commons by a large majority, but when brought up to the Lords was opposed with great power by Bishop Burnet, who pointed out the disgrace and mischief which had been produced by the persecuting legislation of the Restoration period, and declared that the Act of Toleration had made the Church both stronger and safer. The Dissenters had lost a fourth or third of their numbers, but would soon become strong again if this measure passed. The bill was again rejected by the Lords, the majority of the bishops voting against it. In the country among the clergy and High Churchmen the excitement was intense, and the bishops were violently denounced. § 9. On the anniversary of her birthday (1704) Queen Anne sent a message to the House of Commons to signify that, out of her tender care for the Church, she desired to resign the right of the Crown to the first-fruits and tenths of benefices, and to grant the funds accruing from these payments for the use of the poorer clergy. She desired that a bill might be brought into Parliament to effect this. Upon this message a bill was introduced, which provided for the application of these funds in the way the queen desired, and at the same time repealed so much of the Statutes of Mortmain as to allow benefactions by deed or by will for the augmentation of benefices. This practical benefit to the Church ought to have convinced those of the clergy who were indignant at the failure of the attempt to prevent occasional conformity, that the queen at least had their interest at heart. § 10. Once more (1704) the occasional conformity measure was brought into the Commons, and a design was entertained of forcing it through the Lords by the device of tacking it to a money bill, in which, by ancient custom, the Lords can make no alterations. But this stratagem did not commend itself to a majority of the Commons, and the bill was passed separately. In the Lords its fate was the same as before, though the queen herself was present during the debate, and made her wishes in the matter plainly known. § 11. The acrimonious disputes which had appeared between High and Low Churchmen in Parliament were still more bitterly developed in the Convocation of Canterbury. The disputes of the last reign about the right of prorogation still continued. The Lower House insisted on their right to hold assemblies as an inde 1 Boyer's Reign of Queen Anne, p. 119. For an historical account of first-fruits, etc., see Notes and Illustrations to this chapter. |