and though this was done under pretence of liberality, it was well known to be intended to favour the Romanists in particular; and it was obviously a blow directed against the Established Church, and against the credit of the clergy. The bishops were now forced upon the hard alternative of disobeying the command of their sovereign, or of sacrificing their own honour and the interests of the Church, and all principles of law and conscience. In this strait, Archbishop Sancroft called together so many of his suffragans as were in and about London, and some of the more eminent of the clergy of the second throne, to consult on the line of conduct which they ought to pursue. Bishop Ken was among the number who accordingly met; first on the 12th, and again on the 18th of May. After much deliberation, the following petition was prepared, and presented in person, on the same evening, by all the subscribing bishops, except Sancroft, who was forbidden the court from a late displeasure of the king. "TO THE KING'S MOST EXCELLENT MAJESTY. "The humble petition of William, archbishop of Canterbury, and of divers of the suffragan bishops of that province, now present with him, in behalf of themselves and others of their absent brethren, and of the clergy of their respective dioceses, 66 Humbly sheweth, "That the great averseness they find in themselves to the distributing and publishing in all their churches your Majesty's late declaration for liberty of conscience, proceedeth neither from any want of duty and obedience to your Majesty, our holy mother the Church of England being, both in her principles and constant practice, unquestionably loyal, and having (to her great honour) been more than once publicly acknowledged to be so by your gracious Majesty; nor yet from any want of due tenderness to dissenters, in relation to whom they are willing to come to such a temper as shall be thought fit, when that matter shall be considered and settled in parliament and convocation: but among many other considerations, from this especially, because that declaration is founded upon such a dispensing power as hath often been declared illegal in parliament, and particularly in the years 1662 and 1672, and in the beginning of your Majesty's reign; and it is a matter of so great moment and consequence to the whole nation, both in Church and State, that your petitioners cannot, in prudence, honour, or conscience, so far make themselves parties to it, as the distribution of it all over the nation, and the solemn publication of it over and again in God's house, and in the time of his divine service, must amount to in common and reasonable construction. "Your petitioners, therefore, most humbly and earnestly beseech your Majesty, that you will be graciously pleased not to insist upon their distributing and reading your Majesty's said declaration. "And your petitioners shall ever pray, &c. "W. CANT. W. ASAPH. Jo. CICESTR. THO. BATH AND WELLS. This petition was presented by the bishops on their knees. The king received it with marked displeasure, and called it "a standard of rebellion." The Bishop of Bath and Wells was among those who respectfully, yet firmly, expressed their feelings on the occasion. "Sir," said he, "I hope you will give that liberty to us which you allow to all mankind." On James still insisting that they should publish his declaration, he was answered by Ken in terms at once dutiful and resolute. This serving only to provoke the king to threatening language, the bishop calmly repeated the words, "God's will be done,-God's will be done." And thus they were dismissed from the royal presence. Of all the rash determinations to which a rash prince ever came, perhaps that of King James to prosecute the seven bishops was the most rash. The cause which they had espoused was already so popular, that many had signed the petition after it was presented, who were not in London when it was prepared and even in those dioceses whose bishops had sanctioned the declaration for liberty of conscience, the great body of the clergy had refused to publish it. It was only to exasperate this spirit to cite the seven bishops "to appear personally before his majesty in council, upon the 8th day of June next, at five in the afternoon, to answer to such matters of misdemeanour as, on his majesty's behalf, shall be then and there objected against them." This summons they obeyed; and after a long conversation with the king, for which they had, of course, been prepared by previous consultation and by legal advice, having refused to enter into recognizances, which they held it a breach of privilege to demand, they were committed to the Tower under the following warrant: "These are in his majesty's name, and by his command, to require you to take into your custody the persons of William, Lord Archbishop of Canterbury; William, Lord Bishop of St. Asaph; Francis, Lord Bishop of Ely; John, Lord Bishop of Chichester; Thomas, Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells; Thomas, Lord Bishop of Peterborough; and Jonathan, Lord Bishop of Bristol; for contriving, making, and publishing a seditious libel in writing against his majesty and his government; and them safely to keep in your custody until they shall be delivered by due course of law. For which this shall be your sufficient warrant. At the Council-chamber, in Whitehall, this 8th day of June, 1688." This warrant was signed by the infamous Jeffreys, and eighteen other privy-counsellors. Their trial took place on the 15th of June; and on the following morning the jury returned a verdict of acquittal. The people, who had followed the bishops in crowds to the Tower, imploring their blessing,* and The affection of the people for one of the seven bishops was expressed by a popular song, in his own county: "And shall Trelawney die? Then twenty thousand Cornish boys who had greeted them with acclamations, and attended them with prayers as they passed by water from the Tower to Westminster Hall, received the verdict with 66 a wonderful shout," says the Earl of Clarendon, who was present," that one would have thought the hall had cracked." The news was communicated rapidly through the city and to the suburbs, and no sign or expression of popular rejoicing was omitted. King James was in his camp at Hounslow, when he was startled by a noise and stir among the soldiers, and asked Lord Feversham what it meant. "It is nothing," said he, "but the soldiers rejoicing at the acquittal of the bishops." "Call you that nothing?" said James; "but so much the worse for them." The bishops themselves expressed their thankfulness to God, as it became them, in Whitehall chapel; and as it had been observed before, that at the first service that they had attended in the Tower chapel, one of the lessons of the day (2 Cor. vi.) was most applicable to them as sufferers for the Church's sake, so was it now observed that the epistle, from Acts xii. (it being St. Peter's day), was equally appropriate. We cannot follow the king in the hasty steps with which he rushed to the brow of the precipice from which he was about to cast himself; but one feeble effort which he made to arrest his mad progress must be noted, because it brings us again into contact with Bishop Ken. The Archbishop of Canterbury, with several of his suffragans, and Ken among others, were summoned to attend the king on the 28th September. The bishops obeyed the summons; but were ill contented with an interview at which nothing was permitted to them but to express their duty in general terms; and of which no use was made, but politically to represent the king in friendly and confidential communication with them. They demanded, therefore, another audience; and on the 3d October presented a memorial to James, in which they recounted the several grievances of the Church and State, and in so many separate articles proposed their cure. Perhaps it is too much to say, that had the king, with entire faith, acted upon the advice then tendered, he would have retained his crown; but certainly had he sought the bishops' advice, and followed it, but a few weeks earlier, the position of affairs had been reversed. When the Prince of Orange had been put into possession of the crown, and the oath of allegiance to King William and Queen Mary was tendered in the House of Lords, the following bishops refused to take it:-Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury; Ken, bishop of Bath and Wells; Turner, of Ely; Frampton, of Gloucester; Lloyd, of Norwich; White, of Peterborough; Thomas, of Worcester; Lake, of Chichester; and Cartwright, of Chester. By this refusal to transfer their allegiance to a new sovereign, these prelates incurred the penalty of immediate suspension, and of deprivation ultimately;-so far, that is, as an act of parliament can suspend or deprive ecclesiastics; and they were all, except the Bishops of Worcester, Chichester, and Chester, who died before the process of law had run, forcibly expelled from their sees. Between the sentence of suspension and that of deprivation six months intervened, to which indulgence there was no parallel in the treatment of any but the clergy. Indeed, it is not to be denied, that the greatest indulgence which circumstances would admit was afforded to the bishops. But justice had been set aside, and so lenity lost its grace; and even impunity would have been a boon scarcely to be accepted. Yet the bishops insisted not on the justice of their cause, so much as on the incompetence of the authority to which they were forced to bend. They would doubtless have submitted to harder measures, even to degradation itself, if it had been dealt to them through the arm of the Church. It was their unhappiness to be placed at issue with the civil power, by principles which they dare not sacrifice, and which even their enemies must respect. They refused not to suffer any loss or deprivation which the state could lawfully inflict; but they were ecclesiastics, and held a trust which the state had not committed to them, and could not remit. It |