The Mental Universe of the English Nonjurors By
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
The Mental Universe of the English Nonjurors by John William Klein A dissertation submitted to the Graduate Faculty of Auburn University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Auburn, Alabama 10 May 2015 Copyright 2015 by John William Klein Approved by Donna J. Bohanan, Chair, Joseph A. Kicklighter Professor of History Christopher J. Ferguson, Assistant Professor of History Joseph A. Kicklighter, Professor of History Kathryn H. Braund, Hollifield Professor of Southern History T. Randall Beard, Professor of Economics Abstract The Glorious Revolution of 1688, which pushed James II from the throne of England, was not glorious for everyone; in fact, for many, it was a great disaster. Those who had already taken an oath of allegiance to James II and “to his heirs and lawful successors” now pondered how they could take a second oath to William and Mary. Those who initially refused to swear the oath were called Nonjurors. In 1691, Archbishop Sancroft, eight bishops, and four hundred clergy of the Church of England, as well as a substantial number of scholars at Oxford and Cambridge, were deprived, removed from their offices and their license to practice removed, for their refusal. This nonjuring community over time adopted hybridized ideas, long-embraced and called out by the times and circumstances. Five paradigms shaped the English Nonjurors’ mental universe: a radical obedience, a Cyprianist mentality, using printing presses in place of the pulpits they had lost, a hybridized view of time, and a global ecumenical perspective that linked them to the Orthodox East. These patterns operated synergistically to create an effective tool for the Nonjurors’ survival and success in their mission. The Nonjurors’ influence, out of proportion to their size, was due in large measure to this mentality; their unique circumstances prompted creative thinking, and they were superb in that endeavor. Those five ideas constituted the infrastructure of the Nonjurors’ world. This study helps us to see the early eighteenth century not only as a time of rapid change, but also as an era of persistent older religious mentalities adapted to new circumstances. ii Acknowledgments J.R.H. Moorman once wrote, “All history that is worthy of the name is biased, because every writer who is a true historian and not a mere annalist, must have a point of view which will inevitably reveal itself in his pages.”1 I must acknowledge that I write as an Anglican Christian with over forty years in the priesthood, having served as a curate in the Church of England, as rector or vicar of six parishes in the Episcopal Church, and as an army chaplain. I began this project at sixty-one years of age. My past experience is never far from my writing in the pages of this work. I have strived to let the documents speak for themselves, but am constantly aware that the narrative that I have constructed contains an inevitable subjectivity. In the forefront of all my acknowledgments is Dr. Donna Bohanan, my major professor, for whom kindness is a natural instinct. She directed my work throughout this dissertation and was my teacher for over eight years. It was from her that I learned of Lucien Febvre, Fernand Braudel, Pierre Goubert and other Annales historians, whose notions of the persistence of ideas over time – the almost imperceptible slowness of longue durée, the slow speed of social changes, conjunctures, and the rapid pace of political events, événments – are so much a part of this dissertation. The chapter on William Bowyer sprang from her idea and was finished exclusively under her direction. The chapter on “Time in the Nonjurors’ Worldview” is also largely an inspiration drawn 1 J.R.H. Moorman, A History of the Church in England, third ed. (Harrisburg, PA: Morehouse Publishing, 1980), v. iii from ideas that I learned from her. This entire dissertation grew out of a separate essay on “The Mental Universe of Ambrose Bonwicke,” which she both inspired and directed. Dr. Christopher J. Ferguson was my primary guide through eighteenth-century Britain. The dynamics of change at the turn of that century were all taught me by him. The structure of this entire work was his idea and every chapter shows his teaching. He introduced me to J.C.D. Clarke, whose perspective differs from his own, but for me captured the idea of persisting religious ideas that are central to my thesis. Dr. Ferguson’s near photographic memory and his command of the historiography were invaluable. Professor Joseph A. Kicklighter was instrumental in my admission to Auburn University and the beginning of this work. He originally suggested I study the Nonjurors. On the occasion of our first meeting, he grasped the fact that I was doing this “for the love of learning,” and at every difficult turn I knew he was there as my patron. Professor Kathryn H. Braund, who assisted my colleague Paul Fox in the writing of his dissertation, was no stranger to the British Nonjurors. As an accomplished historian of the Southern United States, she brought broader perspectives to the entire work. She also had the good fortune, like me, to have married a veterinarian. Frank Smith toiled without reward editing my work. His analytical mind, honed by years of practicing the law, coupled with invaluable literary understanding, produced a far better result than I alone could have accomplished. My wife, Linda, DVM, MFT, is not only the joy of my life, but equally, my perennial encourager. Her strength and academic experience convinced me that it was not brilliance but perseverance that would bring this work to completion. Dr. Paul Fox, already mentioned, was both my colleague and dear friend throughout graduate school. iv He advised me from the beginning, and his advice, usually over lunch, was always correct. Professor Daniel Szechi, with whom I hoped to study, left for the University of Manchester before I had the opportunity. Nevertheless, he suggested the chapter on the Eastern Orthodox overture and his George Lockhart of Carnath was the model for my concept of a nonjuring “mental universe.” Dr. Abigail Swingen was my professor through three years of this study, and her instruction and constructive criticism challenged my understanding and articulation of the English Nonjurors. Under her direction I also did considerable work investigating the women of the nonjuroring community. Dr Rupali Mishra labored hard to refine both my research and my writing skills and spent many hours directing my essay on “Francis Cherry, Patronage, and the Shottesbrooke Nonjurors,” which, while not included in this dissertation, was instrumental in shaping it. History involves the telling of a story, a task that is both art and science. Dr. Tiffany Sippial, my Latin American History professor, taught me the art of history. Dr. Ralph Kingston, my modern European professor, taught me its science. Their influence is felt in every chapter. None of my professors are responsible for my errors and omissions; all are equally to be thanked for the best of these pages. And, the English Nonjurors have been my constant companions on this way. I have learned much from them. Finally, I must with Will Durant confess: “Education is a progressive discovery of our own ignorance.”2 There is so much I have not understood; I have learned most of humility. 2 Time Magazine, "Books: The Great Gadfly", October 8, 1965. v Table of Contents Abstract………………….………………………………….………………………….… ii Acknowledgments………………………………………….…………………………….iii Introduction ……………………………………………………………………………….1 Chapter 1: Historiography of the Nonjurors…………………………………….………24 Chapter 2: “Neither from any want of Duty and Obedience”…………………………....57 Chapter 3: A Cyprianist Mentality...…………………………………………………....111 Chapter 4: William Bowyer: Publishers, Printers, and Priests……………..…………..163 Chapter 5: Time in the Nonjurors’ Worldview…………………………………...…….200 Chapter 6: “The Orthodox and Catholic Remnant of the British Churches”…………..276 Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………...306 Bibliography…………………………………………………………………………. 321 vi Figures 1. The Medal: “Trial of the Seven Bishops” by G. Bower, 1688, British Museum, Department of Coins and Medals, No. 273……………………………..……..…84 2. Ambrose Bonwicke’s Self-Examination…………………………………….….312 3. The Nonjurors’s Liturgy, 1718…………………………………………………317 vii Tables 1. Nonjuring Fellows at Cambridge and Oxford………………….….…………....14 2. Nonjuring Schoolmasters……………………………………….………….…...17 3. Congregations of Nonjurors……………………………………………….……21 4. The Usagers, Non-Usagers and their writings………..………………………..158 5. George Hickes’s published works……………………….…………….………175 6. Nathaniel Spinckes’s published works……………..…..….…………….…….177 viii Introduction The Nonjuring schism was the clerical counterpart of Jacobitism. The Nonjurors believed the Established Church born of the Revolution of 1689, was as illegitimate as the new political regime. They stood beyond the pale of the Revolution and cherished a self-image of martyrdom to a purer Anglicanism, now perverted by an Erastian state. And yet their energetic churchmanship was not to run into the sands of the wilderness, for they exerted a profound intellectual influence over Augustan England. Time after time they traversed the boundary between the conformists and themselves and lent massive scholarly and polemical support to Anglican, Tory, and Country causes. Mark Goldie This dissertation is about the English Nonjurors; it is about their mentality, how they conceived their world, and what they sought to do about it. In understanding the dynamics of our ancestors, as Daniel Szechi says, it is necessary that we ask at least three questions: What principles mattered most to them? How did they reconcile their ideals with their reality? Whose conduct did they admire and seek to imitate?1 This work is such an investigation. The history of the Nonjurors was constructed layer upon layer in an interrelated and synergistic manner over time. Their time and place were very different from ours, and from the century before them and the one that followed. The Nonjurors faced decisions under very specific conditions set in situations not of their own choosing.