Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 11.djvu/125

 NON-JURORS

99

NONNOTTE

1868, in which, in the above words, it sanctioned the motto: "Neitiier elector nor elected". UntU then there had been in the Italian Parliament a few eminent representatives of Catholic interests — Vito d'Ondes Reggio, Augusto Conti, Cesare Cantil, and others. The principal motive of this decree was that the oath talcen by deputies might be interpreted as an approval of the spoliation of the Holy See, as Pius IX declared in an audience of 11 October, 1874. A practical reason for it, also, was that, in view of the electoral law of that day, by which the electorate was reduced to 650,000, and as the Government manipu- lated the elections to suit its own purposes, it would have been hopeless to attempt to prevent the passage of anti-Catholic laws. On the other hand, the masses seemed unprepared for parliamentary government, and as, in the greater portion of Italy (Parma, Mo- dena, Tuscany, the Pontifical States, and the King- dom of Naples), nearly all sincere Catholics were partizans of the dispossessed princes, they were liable to be denounced as enemies of Italy; they would also have been at variance with the Catholics of Piedmont and of the provinces wrested from Austria, and this division would have further weakened the Catholic Parliamentary group.

As might be expected, this measure did not meet with universal approval: the so-called Moderates accused the Catholics of failing in their duty to society and to their country. In 1S82, the suffrage having been extended, Leo XIII took into serious consideration the partial abolition of the restrictions established by the Non Expedit, but nothing was actually done (cf. "Archiv fiir kathol. Kirchenrecht ", 1904, p. 396). On the contrary, as many people came to the conclusion that the decree Non Expedit was not intended to be absolute, • but was only an admonition made to apply upon one particular occasion, the Holy Office declared (30 Dec, 1886) that the rule in question implied a grave precept, and emphasis was given to this fact on several subse- quent occasions (Letter of Leo XIII to the Cardinal Secretary of State, 14 May, 1895; Congregation of Extraordinary Affairs, 27 January, 1902; Pius X, Molu proprio, 18 Dec, 1903). Later, Pius X, by his encychcal "II fermo proposito" (11 June, 1905) modified the Non Expedit, declaring that, when there was question of preventing the election of a "subver- sive" candidate, the bishops could ask for a sus- pension of the rule, and invite the Catholics to hold themselves in readiness to go to the polls. (See Mar-

GOTTI, GlACOMO.)

Cimltd Callolica (Rome), ser. VIII, IV, 652; VI, 51; VIII. 653; VIII, 362; Queslioni politico-rdigiose (Rome, 1905).

U. Benigni.

Non-Jurors, the name given to the Anglican Churchmen who in ItlS!) refu.sed to take the oath of allegiance to William ami Mary, and their successors under the Protestant Succession Act of that year. Their leaders on tlie episcopal bench (William San- croft, Archbisho]) of Canterbury, and Bishops Francis Turner of Ely, William Lloyd of Norwich, Thomas White of Peterborough, William Thomas of Worcester, Thomas Ken of Bath and Wells, John Lake of Chi- chester, and Thomas Cartwright of Chester) were re- quired to take the oath before 1 August, under pain of suspension, to be followed, if it were not taken by 1 Feb., by total deprivation. Two of them died before this last date, but the rest, persisting in their refusal, were deprived. Their example was followed by a multitude of the clergy and laity, the number of the former being estimated at about four him- dred, conspicuous among whom were George Hickes, Dean of Worcester, Jeremy Collier, John Kettle well, and Robert Nelson. A list of these Non-jurors is given in Hickes's "Memoirs of Bishop Kettlewell", and one further completed in Overton's " Non-jurors". The original Non-jurors were not friendly towards

James II; indeed five of these bishops had been among the seven whose resistance to his Declaration of Indul- gence earlier in the same year had contributed to t he invitation which caused the Prince of Orange to come over. But desiring William and Mary as regents they distinguished between this and accepting them as sovereigns, regarding the latter as inconsistent with the oath taken to James. Deprived of their benefices the bishops fell into great poverty, and suffered occa- sional though not systematic persecution. That they were truly conscientious men is attested by sacrifices courageously made for their convictions. Their lives were edifjdng, some consenting to attend, as laymen, the services in the parish churches. Still, when cir- cumstances permitted, they held secret ser\'ices of their own, for they firmly believed that they had the tnie Anglican succession which it was their duty to preserve. Hence they felt, after some hesitation, that it was incumbent on them to consecrate others who should succeed them. The first who were thus conse- crated, on 24 Feb., 1693, were George Hickes and John Wagstaffe. On 29 May, 1713, the other Non-juring bishops being all dead, Hickes consecrated Jeremy Collier, Samuel Hawes, and Nathaniel Spinkes. When James II died in 1701, a crisis arose for these separat- ists. Some of them then rejoined the main body of their co-religionists, whilst others held out on the ground that their oath had been both to James and to his rightful neirs. These latter afterwards disagreed among themselves over a question of rites. The death of Charles Edward in 1788 took away the raison d'etre for the schism, but a few lingered on till the end of the eighteenth century. In Scotland in 1689 the whole body of Bishops refused the oath and became Non-jurors, but the resulting situation was somewhat different. As soon as the Revolution broke out the Presbyterians ousted the Episcopalians and became the Established Kirk of Scotland. Thus the Non- jurors were left without rivals of their own commun- ion, though they had at times to suffer penalties for celebrating unlawful worship. Their difficulties ter- minated in 1788, when on the death of Charles Ed- ward they saw no further reason for withholding the oath to George III.

Hickes, Memorials of the Life of John Kettlewell (London, 1718); Lathburt, A history of the Non-jurors, their controversies, and writings (London, 1845); Grub, An Ecclesiastical History of Scotland (4 vols., Edinburgh, 1861); Overton, William Law, Non-juror and Mystic (London, ISSl) ; Plumptree, Life of Thomas Ken (2 vols., London, 1S8S) ; Carter, Life and Times of John Kettlewell (London, 1895) : Overton, The Non-jurors, their Lives, Principles, and Writings (London, 1902).

Sydney F. Smith.

Norma, Saint. See Gregory of Nazianzus, Saint.

Nonnotte, Claude-Adrien, controversialist; b.in Bcsangon, 29 July, 1711; d. there, 3 September, 1793. At nineteen he entered the Society of Jesus and preached at Amiens, Versailles, and Turin. He is chiefly known for his writings against Voltaire. When the latter began to issue his "Essai sur les moeurs" (1754), an attack on Christianity, Nonnotte published, anonymously, the " Examen critique ou Refutation du livre des moeurs"; and when Voltaire finished his publication (1758), Nonnotte revised his book, which he published at Avignon (2 vols., 1762). He treated, simply, calmly, and dispassionately, all the historical and doctrinal errors contained in Voltaire's work. Nonnotte's work reached the sixth edition in 1774. Voltaire, exasperated, retorted in his "Eclaircisse- ments historiques ", and for twenty years continued to attack Nonnotte with sarcasm, insult, or calumny. Nev(>rtheless Nonnotte's publication continued to circulate, and was translated into Italian, German, Polish, and Portuguese. After the suppression of the Jesuits, Nonnotte withdrew to Bcsangon and in 1779 added a third volume to the "Erreurs de Voltaire", namely, "L'esprit de Voltaire dans ses Merits", for which it was impossible to obtain the approval of the