Talk:Nonjuring schism

Non-jurors - etymology?

How is the Non-juror / Nonjuring name derived? Why were those who would not support the Orangeman called Non-jurors? --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

jurare is Latin for swear or make an oath, and they would not swear allegiance to the new king (often because they had already sworn allegiance to the old one). --Rumping (talk) 08:20, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Non-jurant Jacobite Protestants

Most, if not all, of the Clan Chattan association of Clans were non-jurant (Episcopalian), yet came out in support of Charles Stuart in the last Jacobite rebellion (1745-46), giving their lives in center field at Culloden. Thus I think it not exactly true that " they generally did not actively support the Jacobite rebellions in 1715 or 1745." This record was lost in part because they were killed, imprisoned, deported, or escaped to other countries. Beanmf (talk) 22:30, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Definition

The current wording states it was a split in the 'Anglican churches of England, Scotland and Ireland,' a fundamental and highly significant error in respect of Scotland. In modern terminology, 'Episcopalian' (rule by bishops) and 'Presbyterian' (rule by elders) denote differences in both doctrine and governance; at the time, they primarily related to governance.

The Church of Scotland or kirk (not to be confused with the modern Scottish Episcopal Church) was Calvinist in doctrine; before 1690, Scottish bishops were Calvinists presiding over Presbyterian structures. The Church of England was far more complex in doctrine and even Scots bishops viewed many of their practices as little better than Catholicism. This was why the English church rejected a number of proposals for union, the last in 1690 when bishops were finally removed from the Church of Scotland.

This also explains why the Common Prayer book and other reforms by Charles I led to the Civil Wars. The article needs some work but the opening sentence should be 'a split in the established churches of England, Scotland and Ireland.

Happy to discuss.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Discussion elsewhere worth putting on here

I think something needs clarifying here. Monod (who is my main source here not Szechi) explicitly says that the "majority" of Nonjuring clergy were what he calls 'active', rather than 'passive' Nonjurors (such as Bishop Ken).

He does however say that "many lay nonjurors", i.e. of gentry families, took the oath after James II's death, partly as they were by then subject to the usual civil penalties.

I have read Overton (he's also cited by Monod, who takes the time to disagree with Overton's attempt to dissasociate 'nonjurors' from 'Jacobites', so I'm sure Monod's read him too) and the cited page says nothing about the majority of the Nonjuring clergy returning to the church after James's death. So is this actually the case? It seems to me that, based on Monod, the majority either died over time or joined the new church. They did not rejoin the established church. Many lay Nonjurors took the oaths, but even then Monod observes that the majority of congregations were middle class or plebian and would not have been called on to take the oaths anyway.Svejk74 (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Apologies for the wrong reference (in a hurry); let me dig them out. Discussion always improves things, and I've updated the article on Non-Jurors (so the detail is there).

My biggest problem is Monod's statement (P139) Nonjurors were by definition Jacobite. This is just wrong and displays zero understanding of the theological issues underlying it.

There were two types of Non Jurors; those who never left the CofE (the vast majority), and those who went with the schismatic church in 1693. The former were an internal pressure group, who objected to the 1689 Act of Toleration and reflected a long-standing debate between authoritarian and permissive elements within the church. Atterbury came into this category.

Numbers. 400 clergy refused to take the Oath in 1690, but as in Scotland, most stayed in place and continued to serve. William did everything he could to delay depriving the bishops, but finally got forced into it; even then, ex-Bishops Ken and White continued to attend CofE services. There were a number of key separation points, apart from the Oath of Allegiance;

(1) 1693; Sancroft's decision to appoint schismatic bishops; he did so on the basis Parliament had no role in ecclesiastical appointments. The vast majority refused to follow him, and for those who did, it wasn't simply support for the Stuarts - exotic theological debate featured heavily.

(2) 1701; James' death in 1701 and the succession of his daughter Anne (worth remembering the Act of Succession excluding the Stuart exiles was passed by a Tory administration).

(3) 1711; Ken's death; another element (led by Dodwell) restricted it to the lifetime of the deprived bishops and returned to the C of E when Ken died in 1710.

By 1713, the schismatic church consists of a small band of fanatics, who spent most of their time arguing about theological issues (the Usager discussions) and trying to merge with the Greek Orthodox church - which hardly supports the idea Jacobitism was their over-riding concern. The congregation led by Collier in London (ca 1712) had '50 at Easter' but couldn't sustain services every day; they could only afford a stipend of £40 a year. That gives an indication.

Monod's point about attendees not taking oaths isn't relevant; you were also fined for not attending CofE services. Per Parson Woodforde's Diary (for one), even 70 years later clergy were required to keep lists of those who didn't attend; Woodforde had details of Catholics, Nonconformists etc.

I'll leave you to make any changes you consider appropriate, tx. Robinvp11 (talk) 16:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)