An Answer To Dr Snape S Second Letter To The Bishop Of Bangor Dr Hoadly Concerning His Sermon With Occasional Observations On Three Other The Most Celebrated Treatises Against His Lordship Viz Dr Sherlock S Answer To A Letter Etc Concerning His Sermon Of 5th November 1712 Mr Law S And The Remarks In A Letter To Dr Snape

This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work is in the "public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.

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 oaths 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. The loss of this talent to the realm was incalcuable. Ten different paradigms shaped the English Nonjurors' worldview: Passive Obedience was paramount, the Apostolic Succession essential, a Cyprianist mentality colored everything, they held a conscientious regard for oaths, the Usages Controversy brought Tradition to the fore, printing presses replaced lost pulpits, patronage was a means of protection and proliferation, they lived with a hybridized conception of time, creative women spiritual writers complemented male bishops, and a global ecumenical approach to the Orthodox East was visionary. These ten operated synergistically to create an effective tool for the Nonjurors' survival and success in their mission. The Nonjurors' influence, out of all 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. These perspectives constituted the infrastructure of the Nonjurors' world, and they help 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.