kuown, it was soon discovered that the great body of the clergy were determined to follow the example of their ecclesiastical superiors, and at all hazards to decline the obnoxious task enjoined upon them by their bigotted Sovereign. The indignation of James at this conduct must have been extreme: but he felt in some measure the difficulty of his situation, and seemed for a time uncertain what measures to pursue. His true policy would doubtless have been to retrace his steps: but at last he determined to prosecute the petitioning bishops for a misdemeanour; and they were accordingly summoned before the Council. On the appearance of the Archbishop and his six venerable brethren, who had now to sustain in their own persons the great cause of Liberty and Religion, they were, after some preliminary matters, examined about the petition: how well they acquitted themselves will be seen by the following statement. "The Lord Chancellor said, 'His Majesty has commanded me to require you to answer this question, Whether these be your hands which are set to this petition?' His Majesty himself also said, I command you to answer this question.' Then the Archbishop took the petition; and having read it over, acknowledged that he wrote and signed it. The other bishops also acknowledged their respective signatures. "The following questions were put by the King at this interview, and thus answered by some of the bishops". "This is given from a paper in the Archbishop's handwriting, which states it to be what passed after the third or fourth coming in.' To make it consistent, however, with the narrative, drawn up also by him, of the whole which passed at the several interviews, it must have taken place after the second time of their coming in. It is manifest that the Archbishop afterwards put down on paper what had passed, either from his own recollection, or from that of the bishops perfect accuracy, therefore, as to the very words that passed, was not to be expected." 66 A. The words are so plain that we cannot use any plainer. "Q. What want of prudence or honour is there in obeying the King? "A. What is against conscience is against prudence, and honour too, especially in persons of our character? "Q. Why is it against your conscience? "A. Because our consciences oblige us (as far as we are able) to preserve our laws and religion according to the Reformation. "Q. Is the dispensing power then against the law "A. We refer ourselves to the petition. "Q. How conld the distributing and reading the Declaration make you par. ties to it? "A. We refer ourselves to our peti. tion, whether the common and reasonable construction of mankind would not make it so. "Q. Did you disperse a printed letter in the country, or otherwise dissuade any of the clergy from reading it? "A. If this be one of the articles of misdemeanour against us, we desire to answer it with the rest. "General. We acknowledge the pe tition we are summoned to appear here to answer such matters of misdemeanour as should be objected; we therefore humbly desire a copy of our charge, and that time convenient may be allowed us to advise about it, and answer it. We are here in obedience to his Majesty's command to receive our charge, but humbly desire we may be excused from answering questions from whence occasion may be taken against us." Vol. I. pp. 277–280. They were now informed, that it was his Majesty's pleasure to proceed against them for the petition, and they were required to enter into recognizances to answer in Westminster Hall. This they steadily refused, and were in consequence committed to the Tower. There are few events, in the history of this country, more interesting and more affecting than those connected with this narrative: and we scarcely know whether most to admire, the warmth of affectionate regard which was shewn to them by all classes of the people, or the calm and truly Christian deportment of the prisoners themselves. The result of their trial is known to every reader: and it is on record, that the very soldiers immediately around the King,in the camp at Hounslow, could not refrain from uniting in the general acclamations. But James was apparently incapable of profiting by experience and what he could not accomplish by the courts of law, he was determined, if possible, to effect by intimidation. This weapon was, to the objects of it, as harmless as the other: an impulse had been given to public feeling, which required another hand than his to check and control it. The zeal of the Archbishop at this crisis was exhibited both by the animated calls with which he endeavoured to excite the vigilance of the clergy on behalf of the National Church, and by the pains which he took, in conjunction with other ecclesiastics of eminence, to set on foot a scheme of compre hension, which might reconcile to the Establishment Protestant Dissenters. Concerning the details of this plan, little is known: but, according to the statement afterwards made by Dr. Wake, then Bishop of Lincoln, the design was, “To improve, and, if possible, amend our discipline; to review and enlarge our Liturgy by correcting some things, by adding others, and, if it should be thought advisable by authority, when this matter should be legally considered, first in Convocation, then in Parlia ment, by omitting some few ceremonies which are allowed to be indifferent in their nature, also indifferent in their usage, so as not to make them of ne cessity binding on those who have conscientious scruples respecting them, till they should be able to overcome either their weaknesses or their prejudices respecting them, and be willing to com ply." Vol. I. p. 328. Circumstances at that time prevented the accomplishment of the design and it is now too late to speculate upon the effect it would have had, if it could have been fairly tried. Dr. D'Oyley is inclined, from failure in other instances, to conclude, that this also would have been attended with no successful result. We so far lean to this opinion, as to believe, that the success of it would not have been universal: but, had the work been undertaken in the spirit of true Christian charity, we can have no doubt that it would have gained the great mass of the more moderate of the Dissenters. The affection, which these men at that time entertained for the Archbishop, and for the noble little phalanx which stood so firmly against all the violence of the Court, would doubtless have also disposed them to receive favourably any proposal thus recommended: and, if their objec tions to certain parts of the ceremonies or discipline of the church could have been removed, we see no reason to conclude, that to a considerable extent, the plan might not have been successful. But, independently of this consideration, it is at all times a clear and incumbent duty to remove every ground of offence and objection, the removal of which does not involve any sacrifice of principle. The warlike preparations of the Prince of Orange at length discovered to James the precipice upon which he stood: and he now coudescended both to make concessions to the popular feeling, and to consult the very prelates whom he had so earnestly laboured to crush. They readily obeyed the summons, and repaired to court. The advice which they tendered on this occasion was worthy of their station and characters: and although it must have been very unpleasant to the King, he returned to them his thanks, and began without delay to comply with it. But concessions had now lost all their grace: the Nation reposed no confidence in the King; and the very prayers which, by Royal command, had been composed by the Primate, for public use in the threatened danger of invasion, served in some measure to confirm the people in their determination to resist all encroachments upon their liberties and their religion. The Prince of Orange having asserted, in his Declaration, that several of the lords spiritual and temporal had invited him into England, the King, sensible of the high popularity of the bishops, took the opportunity of pressing the Archbishop for some public disavowal of the statement on the part of himself and his brethren; and expressed a desire, which he bad previously urged upon the Primate, that the prelates should draw up a paper avowing their abhorrence of the projected invasion. The bishops, with Sancroft at their head, readily declared*, that they had not either directly Compton bishop of London, it since appears, must have acted with duplicity on this occasion. CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 239. or indirectly invited the Prince of Orange, and they knew not of any that bad; but, for reasons satisfactory to themselves, they refused to draw up a paper expressing their abhorrence of it. alluding to a celebrated conference of "Of the prelates," says Dr. D'Oyley, the bishops with the King," who bore a part in this conference, two, the Archbishop of Canterbury, and Kenn Bishop of Bath and Wells, afterwards refused to take the oaths to King Wil liam; and their conduct has, in conse- consequences which they had not con- "But the firmness of the Archbishop and the other bishops in steadily resist ing, on this occasion, the pressing solicitations of James, had, it is probable, a very important effect on the issue of the great struggle in which the nation was now engaged. These prelates were then deservedly standing on the highest ground of popularity, as the great supporters of the Protestant cause, and the champions of the public liberties. If they, therefore, had publicly expressed their disapprobation of the Prince's expedition, their opinion would have had a powerful effect on the public feeling at this critical juncture; many of those who were favour ers of the expedition would have begun to doubt their own judgment, when opposed to such high authority, and would either have shrunk entirely from the support of the cause, or would have supported it with less zeal and activity. Thus the least consequence would have been, that the parties would have been more equally balanced, and that the Revolution would not have been effect. ed with that full concurrence of the nation which eventually took place. "In addition to this, it has been surmised that, had the bishops, as a body, publicly expressed their abhorrence of the Prince's design, they would have been so decidedly committed in opposition to the principles on which the Revolution was effected, that they could not have borne a part in the subsequent establishment of the government, and that even the downfall of Episcopacy might have been the consequence. Bishop Sprat is strongly of opinion that the contrary conduct of the Scotch bishops at this juncture was the main and principal cause of the abolition of Episcopacy in that kingdom. The Scotch bishops were drawn into a declaration expressing their abhorrence of the Prince of Orange's design: they were, in consequence, prevented, from a regard to their own consistency, from acting in parliament immediately after the Revolution; and their absence from parliament left the field entirely open to the Presbyterian party, who made good use of the opportunity, and procured their establishment by law. Thus,' says Bishop Sprat, " as the refusal of the English bishops to stand by the doctrines of passive obedience saved Episcopacy in England, so the adherence of the Scotch bishops to those doctrines destroyed it in Scotland.'" Vol. I. pp. 378-382. After joining with the peers in their attempts to obtain from Jame s a free parliament, and bearing his part in the other measures which became his station in the country, the Archbishop concluded his public political life, by attending the meeting held at Guildhall after the King had left London. The result of this meeting was, an ap plication to the Prince of Orange, to rescue the nation from the dangers and disorders which threatened it, with as little effusion of blood as possible;" and a decla ration that they would" assist him in obtaining a free parliament, by which the interests of the church and state might be secured." (p.395.) To this extent, and to this only, was the Archbishop pledged; and the probable reason for his declining to attend at the subsequent meetings, was his discovering that public opinion went considerably farther, even to the exclusion of James from the throne. The inconsistency which seems to attach to the conduct of Sancroft, in proceeding thus far, without being prepared to follow up the measures adopted at Guildhall to their uatural results, is perhaps only in appearance: but it is difficult to vindicate him entirely from this of charge, except at the expense his political sagacity. About this period, he was tempted by an unsolicited offer, which few academics could easily resist, of the chancellorship of the uni versity of Cambridge, This, how ever, he promptly declined. The election actually took place, but no entreaties could induce him to change his resolution. The chief reason for his decision was probably one which he did not care at that moment very distinctly to avowhis unwillingness to acknowledge the Prince of Orange as his king. without hopes that he might be inHis friends, however, were not duced to comply with the new government. His private papers relative to this question, the substance of which is given by Dr. D'Qyley, shew that he examined the subject with very deliberate attention, and he held frequent consultations with his friends upon the bench. But in the house of lords he never appeared: and, so far as he was personally concerned, the new government might have taken any shape which faction or folly might think proper to give it. That a person, holding the most important ecclesiastical situation in this kingdom, and possessing great weight both with the hereditary advisers of the Crown and with the people at large, should have stood perfectly aloof at this eventful period, and have suggested or countenanced no measures for the welfare of the church, and the settlement of the state, is a fact by no means easy to be explained; and it has naturally exposed the Archbishop to severe animadversions. Dr. D'Oyley expresses himself on the subject in these terms. "The most probable supposition is one which, although it may account for his conduct, will certainly not excuse it; namely, that, under the conflicting views which presented themselves to his mind, he really could not satisfy himself as to the course which, on the whole, was best, and, therefore, abstained from taking any part at all. On the one hand, his long experience of James's bigotted temper, and of the impossibility of relying on his promises and assurances in matters where his religion was concerned, must have excited in him a latent conviction that no real security could be afforded to the liberties of the subject, and to the Protestant Church, while an opening was left for his resumption of the government. On the other hand, his strong feeling of that monarch's indefeasible right to the throne, and his fixed conscientious determination not to transfer his allegiance to another, prevented his acquiescing in the measure of his total exclusion, without which he still felt that nothing effectual would be done. As to the notion which, as we have seen, he, in common with others privately entertained, of declaring the King incapable of reigning on account of his invincible prejudices, and therefore appointing a person to govern in his name, he must soon have seen the nu merous objections to such a step. For what would this have been, but to depose the King in fact, though not in name, by forcibly depriving him of the government which belonged of right to him? And what an unsettled form of government would thus have been set up! For the invincible prejudices' which were held to disqualify James, must have disqualified every popish successor to the throne, or else the same struggle for the civil and religious liberties of the kingdom would probably have recurred. But, if all popish successors to the throne had been made nominally kings, but disqualified from acting personally in the office on account of their invincible prejudices, a most strange and inconvenient mode of administering the government would have been introduced. The Archbishop's clear and discerning mind must soon have seen the numerous objections to this plan; and it was probably his knowledge of these objections, and his inability to devise a better plan, or one more to his satisfaction, which prevented him from taking any public part at all." Vol. I. pp. 432-434. mea The clergy, who refused the oath of allegiance, were treated with great moderation, and no pains were spared by the Government to conciliate them; but mild means having proved ineffectual, sures were at length adopted for suspending, and eventually depriving, those who held ecclesiastical offices, if they should, within a limited time, refuse to conform to the new order of things. The case of the prelates excited much commiseration, because it was generally admitted that they suffered for conscience' sake; and Sancroft, in particular, was regarded with veneration and respect. But the Government had scarcely an alternative; and to leave men who virtually disowned its authority in situations of trust and importance, was contrary to every principle of good policy. In the end, therefore, the Act of Suspension and Depri. vation was suffered to take effect; and, together with Sancroft, were deprived, Lloyd Bishop of Norwich, Turner of Ely, Frampton of |