FN 51 Wharton’s Collectanea quoted in D’Oyly’s Life of Sancroft; Narcissus Luttrell’s Diary.

FN 52 The Lambeth Ms. quoted in D’Oyly’s Life of Sancroft; Narcissus Luttrell’s Diary; Vernon to Wharton, June 9. 11. 1691.

FN 53 See a letter of R. Nelson, dated Feb. 21. 1709/10, in the appendix to N. Marshall’s Defence of our Constitution in Church and State, 1717; Hawkins’s Life of Ken; Life of Ken by a Layman.

FN 54 See a paper dictated by him on the 15th Nov. 1693, in Wagstaffe’s letter from Suffolk.

FN 55 Kettlewell’s Life, iii. 59.

FN 56 See D’Oyly’s Life of Sancroft, Hallam’s Constitutional
History, and Dr. Lathbury’s History of the Nonjurors.

FN 57 See the autobiography of his descendant and namesake the dramatist.  See also Onslow’s note on Burnet, ii. 76.

FN 58 A vindication of their Majesties’ authority to fill the sees of the deprived Bishops, May 20. 1691; London Gazette, April 27. and June 15. 1691; Narcissus Luttrell’s Diary, May 1691.  Among the Tanner MSS. are two letters from Jacobites to Beveridge, one mild and decent, the other scurrilous even beyond the ordinary scurrility of the nonjurors.  The former will be found in the Life of Ken by a Layman.

FN 59 It does not seem quite clear whether Sharp’s scruple about the deprived prelates was a scruple of conscience or merely a scruple of delicacy.  See his Life by his Son.

FN 60 See Overall’s Convocation Book, chapter 28.  Nothing can be clearer or more to the purpose than his language

“When, having attained their ungodly desires, whether ambitious kings by bringing any country into their subjection, or disloyal subjects by rebellious rising against their natural sovereigns, they have established any of the said degenerate governments among their people, the authority either so unjustly established, or wrung by force from the true and lawful possessor, being always God’s authority, and therefore receiving no impeachment by the wickedness of those that have it, is ever, when such alterations are thoroughly settled, to be reverenced and obeyed; and the people of all sorts, as well of the clergy as of the laity, are to be subject unto it, not only for fear, but likewise for conscience sake.”

Then follows the canon

“If any man shall affirm that, when any such new forms of government, begun by rebellion, are after thoroughly settled, the authority in them is not of God, or that any who live within the territories of any such new governments are not bound to be subject to God’s authority which is there executed, but may rebel against the same, he doth greatly err.”