Of the disposition of the petitioners to obey the commands of the King, so far as their conscience allowed, there can be no doubt; for some at least of the Bishops had maintained, or countenanced, the doctrine of passive obedience and non-resistance. Nor did they consider themselves as now acting inconsistently with that doctrine,--inasmuch as they distinguished between active and passive obedience, and refused only an active compliance with authority, which they had never held to be binding in cases where conscience interposed to the contrary. They would not do what the King commanded, but they would, as Confessors, patiently accept the consequences, should all constitutional and legal defence of themselves prove in vain. They would countenance no forcible resistance, they would not sanction taking up arms against His Majesty, and they would oppose the accession to the throne of any other claimants, however supported by the nation, so long as the anointed prince continued to live; and hence the attitude which they assumed as nonjurors. Respecting their conduct on this occasion, I must, without a grain of sympathy in their opinions, say, that they did not act so inconsistently as is supposed. But if justice requires this to be said, it requires also something more. As it regards Sancroft his conduct must be pronounced inconsistent. For although he now refused to read the Royal Declaration it appears that in the Prayer Book of Cosin,--amongst MS. suggestions, where it is said that nothing is to be read in church, but by direction of the Ordinary,--Sancroft had added the significant words “_or the King’s order_:”[212] and, moreover, he had recommended, or approved, at a recent period, the publishing of Royal declarations by the clergy in service-time.[213] As it regards the seven Bishops generally, in their relation to Dissenters, they now declared that they did not resist the Royal demand from any want of tenderness to them,--a plea which would have been valid had they all shown a tolerant and charitable spirit, but they had not done so. It is notorious that persecution had continued nearly up to the time of the first Declaration; and this, too, with the connivance or encouragement of some of the Bishops. The Bishop of St. Asaph, indeed, had distinguished himself by his moderation, Ken had not manifested a persecuting temper, but Sancroft, though appearing to advantage in comparison with Sheldon, cannot be defended from a charge of intolerance, for a letter exists, in which, after alluding to Conventicles at Bury and Ipswich, he expresses His Majesty’s pleasure, that effectual care should be taken for the suppression of unlawful assemblies.[214] [Sidenote: 1688.]