parliament. It is sufficient for our purpose to state, that the new oath was taken by the two houses in March, 1688-9, with the exception of some, who entertained scruples on the subject. The oath was taken by the Archbishop of York, and by the Bishops of London, Lincoln, Bristol, Winchester, Rochester, Llandaff, and St. Asaph's and subsequently, by the Bishops of Carlisle and St. David's: it was refused by Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells, Turner, Bishop of Ely, Frampton, Bishop of Gloucester, Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, White, Bishop of Peterborough, Thomas, Bishop of Worcester, Lake, Bishop of Chichester, and Cartwright, Bishop of Ches

Thomas, Lake, and Cartwright, died during the year, and thus six prelates were left, who refused to swear allegiance to the new sovereigns. The act of parliament required all ecclesiastical persons to take the oath before the first of August, 1689, under pain of suspension from the performance of their duties; but six months were allowed, after suspension, before deprivation: so that those who did not comply before the first day of February, 1689-90, would be deprived of their ecclesiastical preferments.

That the approach of the day was contemplated with much anxiety, by all parties, is evident. Some of those, who had hitherto scrupled to take the oath, complied at the last moment, and thus avoided deprivation: but the majority had counted the cost, and remained firm in their adherence to the principle, on which they had acted ever since the new oath had been proposed. On the first day of February, therefore, Sancroft, Turner, Frampton, White, and Ken, were deprived by act of parliament of their sees. They were restrained from the exercise of their office in their dioceses, as well as deprived of the incomes of their respective bishoprics; but their spiritual character could not be touched by an act of parliament. After the first of February, 1690-91, they were bishops of

the Catholic Church, though they were precluded from the public exercise of their sacred functions, by authority of the civil power. The example of the bishops was followed by about four hundred of the clergy, most, if not all of whom, would have lived quietly and peaceably, discharging the duties of their office with diligence, if the government would have dispensed with the oath of allegiance. This was a considerable number; and when we consider, that all of them were so conscientious, as to prefer principle to expediency or interest, we cannot but regret, that some means were not adopted to prevent such a sad separation. The names of many of these peaceable sufferers are preserved in the Life of Kettlewell. Some, however, were omitted, and it is not now possible to recover them. In this list are the names of some of the chief men in the kingdom, both with respect to learning and influence. Not unfrequently the nonjurors are spoken of contemptuously, as men of narrow minds and perverted principles but no one, who fully examines the subject, will indulge in such a tone of remark respecting men, who suffered so much from adherence to their principles.

Most of the clergy quietly quitted their livings on the first of February: but some of the bishops and dignitaries felt themselves bound to offer such resistance as they were able. Such was the case with Dr. Hickes. retained his deanery in fact till the following May, no one appearing to molest him, though he refused to take the oaths.

He

When reading in the gazette that the deanery of Worcester was granted to Talbot, afterwards Bishop of Oxford, Salisbury, and Durham, successively, he immediately drew up a claim of right to it, directed to all the members of that church, and in 1691 affixed it over the great entrance into the choir. The Earl of Nottingham, then secretary of state, called it Dr. Hickes's Manifesto against Government; and it was afterwards published by Dr. Francis Lee, in the appendix to his Life of Mr.

Kettlewell, with this title, The Protestation of Dr. George Hickes, and claim of right, fixed up in the cathedral church of Worcester. Expecting on this account the resentment of the government, he privately withdrew to London, where he concealed himself for many years, till May 1699, when Lord Somers, then chancellor, procured an act of council, by which the attorney-general was ordered to cause a noli prosequi to be entered to all proceedings against him. During a portion of this period he resided with White Kennet, wearing a lay-habit, and affecting to be unknown. Disagreeing as they did, they could not converse on ecclesiastical matters: consequently they met on the common ground of literature. At Kennet's suggestion he undertook his most laborious work, the “Thesaurus." At last, a fellow of a college in Oxford, coming to Kennet's house, knew him, and called him by his name. This alarmed him: so that he immediately repaired to London, where he remained until the lord chancellor interposed. It is stated that he once contemplated taking the oaths: but the authority on which the report rests appears doubtful. The inscription on his tomb, written by his own direction in his will, is adduced as evidence, simply because it does not notice the fact of his appointment as a suffragan bishop. The inscription was as follows: "Depositum Georgii Hickes, S. T. P. non ita pridem Coll. Linc. Oxon. Socii, et Ecclesiæ Cathedralis Wigornensis Decani, qui Obiit 15 Die Decembris 1715." It is very properly remarked, that no mention of the title of the suffragan would at that time have been permitted: consequently nothing can be inferred in favour of the notion that he disclaimed the title.

Soon after their deprivation, Archbishop Sancroft and his colleagues began to consider about maintaining and continuing the episcopal succession among those who adhered to them; and, having resolved upon it, they sent Dr. Hickes over to France, with a list of the deprived

clergy, to confer with James II. about that matter. The doctor set out in May, 1693, and had several audiences of the king, who complied with all he asked. Dr. Hickes returned to England in February, 1694, and on the eve of St. Matthias, the consecrations were performed by Dr. Lloyd, Bishop of Norwich, Dr. Turner, Bishop of Ely, and Dr. White, Bishop of Peterborough, at the Bishop of Peterborough's lodgings in the Rev. Mr. Giffard's house, at Southgate. Hickes was consecrated suffragan Bishop of Thetford, and Wagstaffe, suffragan of Ipswich; at which solemnity Henry, Earl of Clarendon, is said to have been present.

An account of this matter was drawn up and left in MS. by Hickes; and it is thus alluded to by Lindsay, a nonjuror of eminence in the last century. "I have seen an account of this affair in MS., drawn up (I suppose) by Dr. Hickes himself; out of which I shall oblige my reader with the following particulars: viz. that after the deprivation of the Archbishop and his brethren, they immediately began to think of continuing their succession by new consecrations, and often discoursed of it, without taking any particular resolutions, till after the consecration of the intruders (as they called them) into their sees; that then the deprived archbishop and bishops resolved to continue the same, and to write to the late King James about it: that in their discourses on this matter, the deprived Bishop of Ely acquainted the archbishop and his brethren with the letters in St. John's College Library in Cambridge, which had passed upon the like occasion between chancellor Hyde and Dr. Barwick; and thereupon they had recourse to those letters, and resolved to impart the secret to the then Earl of Clarendon, who had been his father's secretary in that correspondence ; that from those letters, and the additional light which they received from that noble lord, it appeared that, in that case, in regard of the difficulties of making elections, it was resolved to consecrate the new bishops with suffra»

gan titles, according to the statute of King Henry VIII. That therefore the deprived archbishop and bishops resolved upon the same method in this case also, and to write to the late King James for his consent to it in the way directed by that statute; though (it seems) they judged it a matter of so great importance as to resolve to do it even without his consent rather than not at all : that upon their application, the late King James returned his answer, that he would readily concur with it, and required them to send some person over to him, with whom he might further confer about the matter, and along with him a list of the deprived clergy: that Dr. George Hickes being made choice of for that purpose, set forward from London May 19th, 1693, and, after many difficulties, arrived at St. Germains in about six weeks time that there the late King James acquainted him that, for the further satisfaction of his own conscience, he had consulted the Archbishop of Paris and the Bishop of Meaux, and the Pope himself, who severally determined that the Church of England being established by the laws of the kingdom, he (though a Papist) was under no obligation of conscience to act against it, but obliged to maintain and defend it, as long as those laws are in force that the late King James put their said determinations into the doctor's hands: which he read and found to be to the effect aforesaid; that the said late King James also assured him, that he had on all occasions justified the Church of England since the revolution. That the doctor returned to London, 4th of February, 1693, and was consecrated on the 24th." Such is Lindsay's account of this remarkable circumstance.

Hickes was from this time the chief man among the nonjurors. When the last of the deprived bishops was no more, Dodwell, Nelson, and other celebrated nonjurors conformed once more to the Church, as established. They adhered to the deprived bishops, and regarding those who had succeeded them in their sees as intruders