royal word. But no course was too bold for James. The deanery of Christ Church became vacant. That office was, both in dignity and in emolument, one of the highest in the University of Oxford. The dean was charged with the government of a greater number of youths of high connections and of great hopes than could then be found in any other college. He was also the head of a cathedral. In both characters it was necessary that he should be a member of the Church of England. Nevertheless, John Massey, who was notoriously a member of the Church of Rome, and who had not one single recommendation except that he was a member of the Church of Rome, was appointed by virtue of the dispensing power; and soon within the walls of Christ Church an altar was decked, at which mass was daily celebrated.* To the nuncio the king said that what had been done at Oxford should very soon be done at Cambridge.†

Yet even this was a small evil compared with that which Protestants had good ground to apprehend. It seemed but too probable that the whole government of the Anglican Church would shortly pass into the hands of her deadly enemies. Three important sees had lately become vacant, that of York, that of Chester, and that of Oxford. The bishopric of Oxford was given to Samuel Parker, a parasite, whose religion, if he had any religion, was that of Rome, and who called himself a Protestant only because he was incumbered with a wife. "I wished," the king said to Adda, "to appoint an avowed Catholic; but the time is not yet come. Parker is well inclined to us; he is one of us in feeling; and, by degrees, he will bring round his clergy." The bishopric of Chester, vacant by the death of John Pearson, a great name both in philology and divinity, was bestowed on Thomas Cartwright, a still viler sycophant than Parker. The arch

* Gutch's Collectanea Curiosa; Wood's Athena Oxonienses; Dialogue between a Churchman and a Dissenter, 1689.

Adda, July, 1686.

+ Adda,

July 30 1686. Aug. 9'

bishopric of York remained several years vacant. As no good reason could be found for leaving so important a place unfilled, men suspected that the nomination was delayed only till the king could venture to place the miter on the head of an avowed papist. It is, indeed, highly probable that the Church of England was saved from this outrage by the good sense and good feeling of the pope. Without a special dispensation from Rome, no Jesuit could be a bishop, and Innocent could not be induced to grant such a dispensation to Petre.

James did not even make any secret of his intention to exert vigorously and systematically for the destruction of the Established Church all the powers which he possessed as her head. He plainly said that, by a wise dispensation of providence, the Act of Supremacy would be the means of healing the fatal breach which it had caused. Henry and Elizabeth had usurped a dominion which rightfully belonged to the Holy See. That dominion had, in the course of succession, descended to an orthodox prince, and would be held by him in trust for the Holy See. He was authorized by law to repress spiritual abuses; and the first spiritual abuse which he would repress should be the liberty which the Anglican clergy assumed of defending their own religion and of attacking the doctrines of Rome.*

But he was met by a great difficulty. The ecclesiastical supremacy which had devolved on him was by no means the same great and terrible prerogative which Elizabeth, James the First, and Charles the First had possessed. The enactment which annexed to the crown an

"Ce prince m'a dit que Dieu avoit permis que toutes les loix qui ont été faites pour établir la réligion Protestante, et détruire la religion Catholique, servent présentement de fondement à ce qu'il veut faire pour l'établissement de la vraie réligion, et le mettent en droit d'exercer un pouvoir encore plus grand que celui qu'ont les rois Catholiques sur les affaires ecclésiastiques dans les autres pays."-Barillon, July 12, 1686. To Adda his majesty said, a few days later, "Che l'autorità concessale dal Parlamento sopra l'ecclesiastico senza alcun limite con fine contrario fosse adesso per servire al vantaggio de'

almost boundless visitatorial authority over the Church, though it had never been formally repealed, had really lost a great part of its force. The substantive law remained, but it remained unaccompanied by any formidable sanction or by any efficient system of procedure, and was, therefore, little more than a dead letter.

The statute which restored to Elizabeth the spiritual dominion assumed by her father and resigned by her sister contained a clause authorizing the sovereign to constitute a tribunal which might investigate, reform, and punish all ecclesiastical delinquencies. Under the authority given by this clause, the Court of High Commission was created. That court was, during many years, the terror of Nonconformists, and, under the harsh administration of Laud, became an object of fear and hatred even to those who most loved the Established Church. When the Long Parliament met, the High Commission was generally regarded as the most grievous of the many grievances under which the nation labored. An act was therefore somewhat hastily passed, which not only took away from the crown the power of appointing visitors to superintend the Church, but abolished all ecclesiastical courts without distinction.

After the Restoration, the Cavaliers who filled the House of Commons, zealous as they were for the prerogative, still remembered, with bitterness, the tyranny of the High Commission, and were by no means disposed to revive an institution so odious. They at the same time thought, and not without reason, that the statute which had swept away all the courts christian of the realm, without providing any substitute, was open to grave objection. They accordingly repealed that statute, with the excep tion of the part which related to the High Commission. Thus the Archidiaconal Courts, the Consistory Courts, the Court of Arches, the Court of Peculiars, and the Court of Delegates, were revived; but the enactment by which Elizabeth and her successors had been empowered to appoint commissioners with visitatorial authority over the

Church was not only not revived, but was declared, with the utmost strength of language, to be completely abrogated. It is therefore as clear as any point of constitutional law can be, that James the Second was not competent to appoint a commission with power to visit and govern the Church of England; but, if this were so, it was to little purpose that the Act of Supremacy, in highsounding words, empowered him to amend what was amiss in that Church. Nothing but a machinery as stringent as that which the Long Parliament had destroyed could force the Anglican clergy to become his agents for the destruction of the Anglican doctrine and discipline. He therefore, as early as the month of April, 1686, determined to create a new court of High Commission. This design was not immediately executed. It encountered the opposition of every minister who was not devoted to France and to the Jesuits. It was regarded by lawyers as an outrageous violation of the law, and by Churchmen as a direct attack upon the Church. Perhaps the contest might have lasted longer but for an event which wounded the pride and inflamed the rage of the king. He had, as supreme ordinary, put forth directions, charging the clergy of the establishment to abstain from touching in their discourses on controverted points of doctrine. Thus, while sermons in defense of the Roman Catholic religion were preached on every Sunday and holiday within the precincts of the royal palaces, the Church of the state, the Church of the great majority of the nation, was forbidden to explain and vindicate her own principles. The spirit of the whole clerical order rose against this injustice. William Sherlock, a divine of distinguished abilities, who had written with sharpness against Whigs and Dissenters, and had been rewarded by the government with the mastership of the Temple and with a pension, was one

* The whole question is lucidly and unanswerably argued in a little cotemporary tract, entitled "The King's Power in Matters Ecclesiastical fairly stated." See, also, a concise but forcible argument by Archbishop Sancroft. Doyly's Life of Sancroft, i., 229.

of the first who incurred the royal displeasure. His pension was stopped, and he was severely reprimanded.* John Sharp, dean of Norwich and rector of St. Giles's in the Fields, soon gave still greater offense. He was a man of learning and fervent piety, a preacher of great fame, and an exemplary parish priest. In politics he was, like most of his brethren, a Tory, and had just been appointed one of the royal chaplains. He received an anonymous letter which purported to come from one of his parishioners who had been staggered by the arguments of Roman Catholic theologians, and who was anxious to be satisfied that the Church of England was a branch of the true Church of Christ. No divine, not utterly lost to all sense of religious duty and of professional honor, could refuse to answer such a call. On the following Sunday Sharp delivered an animated discourse against the high pretensions of the See of Rome. Some of his expressions were exaggerated, distorted, and carried by tale-bearers to Whitehall. It was falsely said that he had spoken with contumely of the theological disquisitions which had been found in the strong box of the late king, and which the present king had published. Compton, the bishop of London, received orders to suspend Sharp till the royal pleasure should be further known. The bishop was in great perplexity. His recent conduct in the House of Lords had given deep offense to the court. Already his name had been struck out of the list of privy counselors. Already he had been dismissed from his office in the royal chapel. He was unwilling to give fresh provocation; but the act which he was directed to perform was a judicial act. He felt that it was unjust, and he was assured by the best advisers that it was also illegal, to inflict punishment without giving any opportunity for defense. He accordingly, in the humblest terms, represented his difficulties to the king, and privately requested Sharp not to appear in the pulpit for the present. Reasonable as were Compton's scruples, obsequious as were his apologies, * Letter from James to Clarendon, Feb. 18, 168.