Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
The altered and improved tone of Sancroft on the subject of
Nonconformity just after the trial of the seven will be noticed in its
proper place;[215] but certainly the language which the seven now
employed looked too much as if introduced to serve a purpose. Their
expressed objection to the Royal proceedings as unconstitutional, and
as fraught with perilous consequences to the liberties of the country,
and their implied maintenance of the authority of Parliament as the
conservator of national freedom deserve, however, an Englishman’s
gratitude; although here again, it is provoking to remember, that
the current teaching of the High Church school, to which some of the
prelates belonged, had been such as to exalt the power of Kings far
above the power of Parliaments. The ostensible ground of defence, that
the Declaration and the order were unconstitutional, gave the Bishops
the appearance of being confessors in the cause of civil liberty,
but this is a view of their character entirely contradicted by their
previous career. The real ground of their conduct, no doubt, is to be
discovered in their alarm at the King’s patronage of Roman Catholicism,
in their persuasion that the Indulgence, which they were commanded to
publish, had been contrived for that end, and in their conviction, that
by active compliance with the Royal mandate at this crisis, they would
be betraying the Church of England, and degrading their own character.
[Sidenote: THE SEVEN BISHOPS.]
The seven Bishops just described or mentioned, signed the petition. On
the evening of the day on which they performed that momentous act, six
of them crossed the water, to seek an interview with the King,--the
Archbishop not accompanying them, because he had been forbidden access
to Court. The prelates were admitted after ten o’clock to the Royal
bedchamber, and then into the King’s closet,[216] where the Bishop of
St. Asaph, dropping on his knees, presented the petition. The King
exclaimed, “This is my Lord of Canterbury’s own hand.” “Yes, Sir,” said
the Bishops, “it is his own hand.” “What,” cried His Majesty, in a
furious tone, “the Church of England against my dispensing power? The
Church of England! They that always preached it.” The prelates told him
they never preached any such thing, but only obedience and suffering
when they could not obey.[217] “This,” added James, as he folded up the
paper, “is a great surprise to me; here are strange words--I did not
expect this from you. This is a standard of rebellion.” The Bishops
rejoined--“That they had adventured their lives for His Majesty, and
would lose the last drop of their blood rather than lift up a finger
against him.” The King repeated, “I tell you this is a standard of
rebellion; I never saw such an address.” The Bishop of Bristol burst
into an exclamation, “Rebellion, Sir! I beseech your Majesty, do not
say so hard a thing of us. For God’s sake do not believe we are, or
can be guilty of a rebellion.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account