Nonjurors is the name applied to those English and Scottish Episcopalians who from religious scruples would not, at the Revolution of 1C88, take the oath of allegiance to the prince of Orange, for they had already promised to bear true allegiance to king James ; and al- though many persons thought that his departure from the kingdom had released them from that allegiance, there were others who considered the oath to be still binding, and the more so because it bound them to the king's direct heir, as well as to himself, that heir being now the infent prince of Wales, and not the princess of Orange. Some, on reflection, adopted the principle indicated (though at a much later date) by Nicolson, bishop of Carlisle. " Whenever," he writes, " a sover- eign de facto is universally submitted to and recognised by all the three estates, I must believe that person to be lawful and rightful monarch of this kingdom, who alone has a just title to my allegiance, and to whom only I owe an oath of fealty" {Ejiist. Correspond, ii, 387). But although in modern times this principle might be conceded by many persons without hesitation, it was not so easy to act upon it in an age when the displace- ment of one sovereign by another was a rare occurrence. Hence the clashing of the two oaths was a real difficulty to the consciences of a large number of the clergj-, as well as to some of the official laity. This difficulty is well stated in a letter written by Dr. Fitzwilliam, canon of Windsor and rector of Cottenham, to lady liussell, and dated May 13, 1G89 : " What now I shall "do in this present emergency I am irresolved ; but if, having first debated it with myself and advised with mj' friends, it shall seem most expedient to make such a retreat, I will depend upon your honor's mediation for that favor. . . . It may lie I have as sad thoughts for the divisions of the Church and as ardent desires for its peace as any ; and let my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth if I prefer not Jerusalem before my ciiief joy. But I can- not esteem it a good way to seek the attainment of this by any act which shall disturb mj' own peace. ... In the mean time I entreat you, very good madam, not to call boggling at an oath clashing against another, as far as I can discern, which I formerly took an unnecessary scruple. I believe, were you under such an engage- ment, your tenderness and circumspection would be rather greater than mine. The former oath of allegi- ance runs thus :
'I will hear faith and true allegiance to his majesty king Charles, or kin<; James, and his lieiis and succes- sors, and him and them will defend. Of supremacy I will bear faith and true allegiance to the king's highness (Charles or James), his heirs and lawful successors, and to my power shall assist and defend all jurisdictions, privileges, pre-emiueuces, and authorities granted or be-
longing to the king's highness, his heirs and successors, or united and annexed to the imperial crowu of this realm.'
Now I am informed by the statute 1 Jac. c. 1, that lin- eal succession is a privilege belonging to the imperial crown, and by 12 Car, II, c. 30, § 17, that by the un- doubted and fundamental laws of this kingdom neither the peers of this realm, nor the commons, nor both to- gether, in Parliament or out of Parliament, nor the peo- ple collectively nor representatively, nor any persons whatsoever, hath or ought to have any coercive power over the kings of this realm. The present oath runs thus:
'I will bear true allei;iauce to their majesties, king William aud queen Mary.'
Now let any impartial person resolve me -whether one of these, king James having abdicated, be his heir or lawful successor, or could be made so had the people met cither collectively or representatively, which they did neither" (Lady Kussell's Letters [ed. 1792], p. 458), No one can complain that men who had such scruples of conscience on this subject should be willing to give up their bishoprics and their parishes rather than do an act which they considered as Avilful perjury. Macaulay says: "Those clergymen and members of the universi- ties who incurred the penalties of the law were about four hundred in number. Foremost in rank stood the primate and six of his suffragans — Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Frampton of Gloucester, Lake of Chichester, AVhite of Peterborough, and Ken of Bath and Wells. Thomas of Worcester would have made a seventh, but he died three weeks before the day of suspension. On his deathbed he adjured his clergy to be true to the cause of hereditary right, and declared that those di- vines who tried to make out that the oaths might be taken without any departure from the loyal doctrines of the Church of England seemed to him to reason more Jesuiticalh' than the Jesuits themselves." It may be added that Ilickes and Jeremy Collier and Dodwell also belonged to the number.
Nevertheless, the nonjuring bishops were still left responsible for the cure of souls in their dioceses, and the nonjuring priests for the cure of souls in their parishes. Yet there does not seem to be any instance on record of either bishop or priest endeavoring to carry out their responsibilities in any such complete manner as to justify the claims which they made, or which were made on their behalf, that they coidd not be excluded from their sees or parishes by order of Parliament, as that would appear to give to the state ecclesiastical au- thorit}' which it did not possess. Bancroft issued a commission to three of his suffragans to consecrate Bur- net to the bishopric of Salisbury, and under tliis com- mission the consecration took place on May 31, 1G89. But after this act of Parliament had come fully into force, Sancroft made no further attempt to carry out his duties or to assert his spiritual jurisdiction, only remaining at Lambeth imtil he was turned out, wliich was little if anything more than an assertion of his temporal rights to his benefices; rights which possibly an act of Parliament could really extinguish. INIany of the other bishops, and any number of the clergy, seem to have been surprised into yielding their spirit- ual charges, and so letting their sees and parishes prac- tically lapse into the hands of those whom they con- sidered unlawful intruders. They vacated their sjiirit- ual charges as James had vacated his throne, and yet claimed to be still the rightful occupants of the jiosts they had vacated. Thus if there was a grave error on the part of Parliament in omitting to provide for others doing what Parliament itself could not do in omitting to release the nonjuring clergy from their spiritual re- siionsibilities, there was also a grave error on the part of the latter in acting as if they had been so released. And while this latter course went far to cut the groimd from imder their feet as regards the claim which the nonjurors asserted, styling themselves the only rightful