CHAP.

VIII.

1688.

would neither hear them nor pay them. Alsop, who had flattered himself that he should be able to bring over a great body of his disciples to the royal side, found himself on a sudden an object of contempt and abhorrence to those who had lately revered him as their spiritual guide, sank into a deep melancholy, and hid himself from the public eye. Deputations waited on several of the London clergy imploring them not to judge of the dissenting body from the servile adulation which had lately filled the London Gazette, and exhorting them, placed as they were in the van of this great fight, to play the men for the liberties of England and for the faith delivered to the Saints. These assurances were received with joy and gratitude. Yet there was still much anxiety and much difference of opinion among those who had to decide whether, on Sunday the twentieth, they would or would not obey the King's command. The London clergy, then univertion of the sally acknowledged to be the flower of their profession,

Consulta

London

clergy.

The

held a meeting. Fifteen Doctors of Divinity were pre-
sent. Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, the most celebrated
preacher of the age, came thither from a sick bed.
Sherlock, Master of the Temple, Patrick, Dean of Peter-
borough and Rector of the important parish of St. Paul's,
Covent Garden, and Stillingfleet, Archdeacon of Lon-
don and Dean of St. Paul's Cathedral, attended.
general feeling of the assembly seemed to be that it was,
on the whole, advisable to obey the Order in Council.
The dispute began to wax warm, and might have pro-
duced fatal consequences, if it had not been brought to
a close by the firmness and wisdom of Doctor Edward
Fowler, Vicar of St. Giles's, Cripplegate, one of a small
but remarkable class of divines who united that love of
civil liberty which belonged to the school of Calvin with
the theology of the school of Arminius.*
Standing up,

That very remarkable man, the late Alexander Knox, whose elo

*

quent conversation and elaborate letters had a great influence on the

Fowler spoke thus: "I must be plain.
“I must be plain. The question is
so simple that argument can throw no new light on it,
and can only beget heat. Let every man say Yes or
No. But I cannot consent to be bound by the vote of
the majority. I shall be sorry to cause a breach of
unity. But this Declaration I cannot in conscience
read." Tillotson, Patrick, Sherlock, and Stillingfleet
declared that they were of the same mind. The ma-
jority yielded to the authority of a minority so respect-
able. A resolution by which all present pledged them-
selves 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 Tenison, 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

birth and breeding of the honest
tinker in some degree excuse.

minds of his contemporaries, learned, thing can justify, but which the
I suspect, much of his theological
system from Fowler's writings.
Fowler's book on the Design of
Christianity was assailed by John
Bunyan with a ferocity which no-

Johnstone, May 23. 1688. There is a satirical poem on this meeting entitled the Clerical Cabal.

CHAP.

VIII.

1688.

CHAP.
VIII.

them to come up without delay to London, and to strengthen the hands of their metropolitan at this con1688. juncture.* 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 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 postmaster; 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.† namesake, William Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, a pious, honest, and learned man, but of slender judgment, and half crazed by his persevering endeavours 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 honourable Cornish family.

Consulta

tion at Lambeth Palace.

His

On the eighteenth a meeting of prelates and of other eminent divines was held at Lambeth. Tillotson, Tenison, Stillingfleet, 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

* Clarendon's Diary, May 22. 1688.

† Extracts from Tanner MS. in Howell's State Trials; Life of

Prideaux; Clarendon's Diary, May 16. 1688.

Clarendon's Diary, May 16 and 17. 1688.

VIII.

1688.

of the sentences brought on Sancroft some raillery, CHAP. which he bore with less patience than he showed under much heavier trials. But in substance nothing could be more skilfully framed than this memorable document. All disloyalty, all intolerance, was earnestly disclaimed. The King was assured that the Church still was, as she had ever 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 the present reign, pronounced 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, honour, 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.

to the King.

It was now late on Friday evening: and on Sunday Petition of morning the Declaration was to be read in the churches the seven Bishops of London. It was necessary to put the paper into the presented 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

CHAP.

VIIL

1688.

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 humour. When they knelt before him, he graciously 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

"This,"

folded it up; and his countenance grew dark.
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." "Rebel-
lion!" cried Trelawney, falling on his knees. "For
God's sake, sir, do not say so hard a thing of us. 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 honour 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.