“Upon which they went directly to their Chapel, and Dr. Pudsey proposing whether they would obey the King and elect the Bishop, they answered every one in his order; they were always willing to obey His Majesty in all things that lay in their power, as any of the rest of His Majesty’s subjects, but the electing of the Bishop of Oxford being directly contrary to their Statutes, and to the positive oath they had taken, they could not apprehend it in their power to obey him in this matter. Only Mr. Dobson, who had publicly prayed for Dr. Hough, the undoubted President, answered doubtingly, he was ready to obey in every thing he could. And Mr. Charrochi, a Papist, that he was for obeying in that.”[196]
PROMOTION OF ROMANISTS.
1687.
James found this a much more troublesome business than he had expected; and in October he thought it necessary to send to Oxford a Special Commission to endeavour to reduce Magdalen College to obedience. Forty years before this, when the Parliamentary army had taken possession of the University, Puritan Commissioners had visited the City to eject from office the loyal Episcopalians; and now, Commissioners of a far different character, and escorted by troops of cavalry, appeared in the same place, to eject men of the same stamp as had been ejected in 1647. Traditions of the past must have risen before Hough and his companions; and as they compared their own treatment by the King, with the treatment of Dr. Oliver by the Parliament, they must have felt the aggravated cruelty and injustice which they had to endure in the present instance; for, before it was a warfare of one Church against another Church—now opposition came not only from a Monarch sworn by law to support the Establishment, but from a prelate who was bound by his most religious vows to do the same; Cartwright, Bishop of Chester, being one of the Commissioners on the occasion. Conscientious Churchmen suffered persecution from the powers they had long honoured even to excess: they could, in this instance, as in so many others at the same period, complain both of treachery and ingratitude, if there be any obligations arising from oaths on the one side, or any obligations arising from loyalty on the other. What the King’s Commissioners did, and how the President and Fellows of Magdalen behaved, are well represented by the chisel of Roubiliac upon the famous sarcophagus to the memory of Hough, in Worcester Cathedral, and are succinctly described in the well-known words which form the inscription upon that work of art. “Having adjourned till the afternoon, the President came again into the Court, and having desired to speak a few words, they all took off their hats, and gave him leave; whereupon he said, ‘My Lords, you were pleased this morning to deprive me of my place of President of this College; I do hereby protest against all your proceedings, and against all that you have done, or hereafter shall do, in prejudice of me and my right, as illegal, unjust, and null; and, therefore, I appeal to my Sovereign Lord the King, in his Courts of Justice.’”[197]
The sequel of the affair, briefly told, was this. Hough was deposed, and deprived; and Parker was installed by proxy, only two members of the College, however, taking part in the ceremony. The humblest officers resented the insult put upon the noble foundation—porter, butler, and blacksmith, all refused to execute the commands they received to disturb the President elected by the Fellows, and to acknowledge the President nominated by the Crown. The ejection of the Fellows who supported Hough speedily followed. All were deprived of their income. But men of the same, or of other Colleges would not accept the vacant fellowships; the excitement raised at Oxford spread over the country, and subscriptions poured in from various quarters, for the support of the deposed Collegians. Parker died in the midst of the struggle; and then, to make bad worse, James designated a Roman Catholic Bishop, Bonaventura Giffard, as head of this Protestant institution. Twelve Romanists became Fellows—whilst Protestants, applying for fellowship, met with rejection. These proceedings agitated the whole country. Churchmen considered it as an attack upon the Establishment, Nonconformists as an attack upon Protestantism, politicians as an attack on chartered liberty, and people, who did not care for religion or politics, as an attack on the rights of property.[198]
NEW DECLARATION.
The King renewed the Declaration of Indulgence in April, 1688; and on the 4th of May issued an order that it should be read in all churches, and that the Bishops should see the order obeyed. He intended to test the obedience of the clergy; and he placed them in the dilemma of exposing themselves to his displeasure, or of degrading themselves by compliance with his arbitrary command. Crew of Durham, Barlow of Lincoln, Cartwright of Chester, Wood of Lichfield and Coventry, Walters of St. David’s, and Sprat of Rochester, presented addresses of thanks to the Sovereign for his promise to maintain the Church as by law established. The Chester clergy issued an address, maintaining that they were bound by “statute law, the rubric of their liberty,” to publish what the King or the Bishop required; and Herbert Croft, who still presided over the see of Hereford, read the Declaration, justifying his conduct, and recommending it as an example by the Scripture words, “Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake, whether it be to the king as supreme, or unto governors as unto them that are sent by him.”[199]
1688.
A meeting of the clergy was held in London, including Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, Sherlock, and other well-known men. They canvassed arguments for and against compliance, the latter being reinforced by an assurance conveyed to the meeting, in a note from some Nonconformists, who said that “instead of being alienated from the Church they would be drawn closer to her, by her making a stand for religion and liberty.”[200] Fowler, another distinguished clergyman, declared that whatever the majority might decide he was determined not to read the Declaration.[201] His speech encouraged the waverers, and an unanimous resolution of refusal resulted from the discussion. A paper to that effect rapidly received signatures from eighty-five London Incumbents. This meeting was held on the 23rd of May.
A more important meeting still had been held on the 18th of the same month, at Lambeth Palace. Then also Tillotson, Stillingfleet, Patrick, and Sherlock were present, together with Grove, Rector of St. Mary’s Undershaft, and Tenison, Vicar of St. Martin’s. But the most important personages taking part on that occasion were Compton, Bishop of London, then under suspension; Sancroft, Archbishop of Canterbury, also under the King’s displeasure; and the six Bishops, who, with Sancroft, make the seven so illustrious in English History. The six included Turner, Bishop of Ely; Lake, Bishop of Chichester;[202] White, Bishop of Peterborough; Trelawny, Bishop of Bristol; Ken, Bishop of Bath and Wells; and Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph. The last two alone require particular notice.