new light on it, and can only beget heat. Let every man say Yes or No. But I can not consent to be bound by the vote of the majority. I shall be sorry to cause a breach of unity. But this declaration I can not in conscience read." Tillotson, Patrick, Sherlock, and Stillingfleet declared that they were of the same mind. The majority yielded to the authority of a minority so respectable. A resolution by which all present pledged themselves to one another not to read the declaration was then drawn up. Patrick was the first who set his hand to it; Fowler was the second. The paper was sent round the city, and was speedily subscribed by eighty-five incumbents.* Meanwhile several of the bishops were anxiously deliberating as to the course which they should take. On the twelfth of May a grave and learned company was assembled round the table of the primate at Lambeth. Compton, bishop of London, Turner, bishop of Ely, White, bishop of Peterborough, and Tennison, rector of St. Martin's parish, were among the guests. The Earl of Clarendon, a zealous and uncompromising friend of the Church, had been invited. Cartwright, bishop of Chester, intruded himself on the meeting, probably as a spy. While he remained, no confidential communication could take place; but after his departure, the great question of which all minds were full was propounded and discussed. The general opinion was that the declaration ought not to be read. Letters were forthwith written to several of the most respectable prelates of the province of Canterbury, entreating them to come up without delay to London, and to strengthen the hands of their metropolitan at this conjuncture.† As there was little doubt that these letters would be opened if they passed through the office in Lombard Street, they were sent by horsemen to the nearest country post-towns on the different roads. The Bishop of Winchester, whose loyalty had been so signally proved at * Johnstone, May 23, 1688. entitled the Clerical Cabal. There is a satirical poem on this meeting + Clarendon's Diary, May 22, 1688. Sedgemoor, though suffering from indisposition, resolved to set out in obedience to the summons, but found himself unable to bear the motion of a coach. The letter addressed to William Lloyd, bishop of Norwich, was, in spite of all precautions, detained by a post-master; and that prelate, inferior to none of his brethren in courage and in zeal for the common cause of his order, did not reach London in time. His namesake, William Lloyd, bishop of St. Asaph, a pious, honest, and learned man, but of slender judgment, and half crazed by his persevering endeavors to extract from Daniel and the Revelations some information about the pope and the King of France, hastened to the capital, and arrived on the sixteenth.† On the following day came the excellent Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells, Lake, bishop of Chichester, and Sir John Trelawney, bishop of Bristol, a baronet of an old and honorable Cornish family. On the eighteenth a meeting of prelates and of other eminent divines was held at Lambeth. Tillotson, Tennison, Stillingflect, Patrick, and Sherlock were present. Prayers were solemnly read before the consultation began. After long deliberation, a petition embodying the general sense was written by the archbishop with his own hand. It was not drawn up with much felicity of style. Indeed, the cumbrous and inelegant structure of the sentences brought on Sancroft some raillery, which he bore with less patience than he showed under much heavier trials; but in substance nothing could be more skillfully framed than this. memorable document. All disloyalty, all intolerance, was earnestly disclaimed. The king was assured that the Church still was, as she ever had been, faithful to the throne. He was assured, also, that the bishops would, in proper place and time, as lords of Parliament and members of the Upper House of Convocation, show that they by no means wanted tenderness for the conscientious scruples of Dissenters. But Parliament had, both in the late and in * Extracts from Tanner MS. in Howell's State Trials; Life of Prideaux; Clarendon's Diary, May 16 and 17, 1688. + Clarendon's Diary, May 16 and 17, 1688. the present reign, declared that the sovereign was not constitutionally competent to dispense with statutes in matters ecclesiastical. The declaration was therefore illegal; and the petitioners could not, in prudence, honor, or conscience, be parties to the solemn publication of an illegal declaration in the house of God, and during the time of divine service. This paper was signed by the archbishop and by six of his suffragans, Lloyd of St. Asaph, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, Ken of Bath and Wells, White of Peterborough, and Trelawney of Bristol. The Bishop of London, being under suspension, did not sign. It was now late on Friday evening; and on Sunday morning the declaration was to be read in the churches of London. It was necessary to put the paper into the king's hands without delay. The six bishops set off for Whitehall. The archbishop, who had long been forbidden the court, did not accompany them. Lloyd, leaving his five brethren at the house of Lord Dartmouth, in the vicinity of the palace, went to Sunderland, and begged that minister to read the petition, and to ascertain when the king would be willing to receive it. Sunderland, afraid of compromising himself, refused to look at the paper, but went immediately to the royal closet. James directed that the bishops should be admitted. He had heard from his tool Cartwright that they were disposed to obey the royal mandate, but that they wished for some little modifications in form, and that they meant to present a humble request to that effect. His majesty was therefore in very good humor. When they knelt before him, he gra ciously told them to rise, took the paper from Lloyd, and said, "This is my Lord of Canterbury's hand." "Yes, sir, his own hand," was the answer. James read the petition; he folded it up; and his countenance grew dark. "This," he said, "is a great surprise to me. I did not expect this from your Church, especially from some of you. This is a standard of rebellion." The bishops broke out into passionate professions of loyalty; but the king, as usual, repeated the same words over and over. "I tell you, this is a standard of rebellion." "Rebellion!" cried Trelawney, falling on his knees. do not say so hard a thing of us. "For God's sake, sir, No Trelawney can be a rebel. Remember that my family has fought for the crown. Remember how I served your majesty when Monmouth was in the west.” "We put down the last rebellion," said Lake. "We shall not raise another." "We rebel!" exclaimed Turner; "we are ready to die at your majesty's feet." "Sir," said Ken, in a more manly tone, "I hope that you will grant to us that liberty of conscience which you grant to all mankind." Still James went on. "This is rebellion. This is a standard of rebellion. Did ever a good Churchman question the dispensing power before? Have not some of you preached for it and written for it? It is a standard of rebellion. I will have my declaration published." "We have two duties to perform," answered Ken; "our duty to God, and our duty to your majesty. We honor you, but we fear God." "Have I deserved this?" said the king, more and more angry; "I, who have been such a friend to your Church! I did not expect this from some of you. I will be obeyed. My declaration shall be published. You are trumpeters of sedition. What do you do here? Go to your dioceses, and see that I am obeyed. I will keep this paper. I will not part with it. I will remember you that have signed it." "God's will be done,' said Ken. "God has given me the dispensing power," said the king, "and I will maintain it. I tell you that there are still seven thousand of your Church who have not bowed the knee to Baal." The bishops respectfully retired.* That very evening the document which they had put into the hands of the king appeared word for word in print, was laid on the tables of all the coffeehouses, and was cried about the streets. Every where the people rose from their beds, and came out to stop the hawkers. It was said that the printer cleared a thousand *Sancroft's Narrative printed from the Tanner MS.; Citters, This is pounds in a few hours by this penny broadside. probably an exaggeration, but it is an exaggeration which proves that the sale was enormous. How the petition got abroad is still a mystery. Sancroft declared that he had taken every precaution against publication, and that he knew of no copy except that which he had himself written, and which James had taken out of Lloyd's hand. The veracity of the archbishop is beyond all suspicion. It is, however, by no means improbable that some of the divines who assisted in framing the petition may have remembered so short a composition accurately, and may have sent it to the press. The prevailing opinion, however, was, that some person about the king had been indiscreet or treacherous.* Scarcely less sensation was produced by a short letter which was written with great power of argument and language, printed secretly, and largely circulated on the same day by the post and by the common carriers. A copy was sent to every clergyman in the kingdom. The writer did not attempt to disguise the danger which those who disobeyed the royal mandate would incur, but he set forth in a lively manner the still greater danger of submission. "If we read the declaration," said he, "we fall to rise no more. We fall unpitied and despised. We fall amid the curses of a nation whom our compliance will have ruined." Some thought that this paper came from Holland. Others attributed it to Sherlock. But Prideaux, dean of Norwich, who was a principal agent in distributing it, believed it to be the work of Halifax. The conduct of the prelates was rapturously extolled by the general voice; but some murmurs were heard. It was said that such grave men, if they thought themselves bound in conscience to remonstrate with the king, ought to have remonstrated earlier. Was it fair to him to leave him in the dark till within thirty-six hours of the time fixed for the reading of the declaration? Even if he wished to revoke the order in council, it was too late * Burnet, i., 741; Revolution Politics; Higgins's Short View. |