WILLIAM AND MAEY.

195

that he was forced to quit Saint Germains. Lest some otherAnglican doctor should be equally importunate, James wroteto inform his agents in England that he wished no Protestantdivine to come out to him.* Indeed the nonjuring clergy wereat least as much sneered at and as much railed at in his palaceas in his nephew’s. If any man had a claim to be mentionedwith respect at Saint Germains, it was surely Saneroft. Yet itwas reported that the bigots who were assembled there neverspoke of him but with aversion and disgust. The sacrifice ofthe first place in the Church, of the first place in the peerage,of the mansion at Lambeth and the mansion at Croydon, of im-mense patronage and of a revenue of more than five thousand ayear was thought but a poor atonement for the great crime ofhaving modestly remonstrated against the unconstitutional De-claration of Indulgence. Saneroft was pronounced to be justsuch a traitor and just such a penitent as Judas Iscariot. Theold hypocrite had, it was said, while affecting reverence andlove for his master, given the fatal signal to his master’senemies. When the mischief had been done and could not herepaired, the conscience of the sinner had begun to torturehim. He had, like his prototype, blamed himself and be-moaned himself. He had, like his prototype, flung down hiswealth at the feet of those whose instrument he had been. Thebest thing that he could now do was to make the parallel com-plete by hanging himself.**

James seems to have thought that the strongest proof of

* A View of the Court of St, Germains from the Year 1690 to 1695,1696; Ratio Ultima, 1097. In the Nairnc Papers is a letter in which thenonjuring bishops are ordered to send a Protestant divine to Saint Ger-mains. This letter was speedily followed by another letter revoking theorder. Both letters will be found in Macpherson's collection. They bothbear date Oct. 16. 1693. I suppose that the first letter was dated ac-cording to the New Style and the letter of revocation according to the OldStyle.

** Ratio Ultima, 1697; History of the late Parliament, 1699.

ia*

CHAP.

XX.

J693.