A HISTORY OF LONDON by the imprisonment of Samuel Johnson, nearly every sermon, and even those preached before the royal household,'* had a controversial tone." James II soon showed that he w^ould do all in his power to promote the conversion of England. He caused the publication in 1686 of papers describing the conversion of Charles II and of the late Duchess of York. He allowed it to be known that he expected Parliament to repeal the disabling laws,"' and when this was not done he admitted his co-religionists to office without tests. In 1685—6, when the archbishop's visitation had emphasized the necessity of catechizing, James proposed the abolition of afternoon lectures, ostensibly to allow more time for catechizing,'"" but really to prevent the reiterated attacks on the Roman Church, of which he complained, though Compton denied his charges. Simon Patrick was especially singled out for reprimand, delivered through Sancroft and also by the king in person."' James then reissued the Directions to Preachers of 1662,"^ with a royal letter desiring the clergy to abstain from con- troversial topics, which Compton recommended to the clergy with the advice that they should be ' as cautious of flattering our Prince into tyranny as of stirring up the people to sedition and tumult.' '"^ At the same time James constituted an ecclesiastical commission consisting of the Arch- bishop of Canterbury, Jeffreys, Sunderland, Rochester, Sir Edward Herbert, and the Bishops of Durham and Rochester, to inquire into all offences contrary to the ecclesiastical law ; Sancroft, however, refused to sit on this illegal body.'"* The first action of the commission was against Dr. John Sharp, rector of St. Giles in the Fields, and afterwards Archbishop of York, who in a sermon preached on 9 May 1686 in answer to questions put by his congregation, denied to the Church of Rome the style of the only visible Catholic Church. Jeffreys informed Sharp of the king's displeasure, and on 17 June James requested Compton to suspend him. This the bishop was unable to do except after formal suit, but he asked Sharp to abstain from preaching until he received leave.'"' The real attack was against Compton,'"* whose removal was essential to the king's plans. Compton, who had been made Bishop of London in 1673, had earned James's enmity and lost the archbishopric of Canterbury '" in 1676 by complaining of Roman Catholic publications. He increased the royal dislike by his speeches in the House of Lords after Hales' case, and in consequence lost his post as Dean of the Chapel Royal. '"^ His keen interest in politics and controversy, his devotion to the Anglican position, and the intimate knowledge of his diocese which he gained by monthly conferences with his clergy and constant change of resi- dence,'"' made him a formidable enemy to the Romish party. It was known in July that Compton would be the first object of attack,"" though some " Evelyn, Diary, i April 1688. " Overton, Nonjurors, 47. " Reresby, Mem. I Mar. 1686. »' Ibid. 4 May 1685. '"» Bodl. Lib. Tanner MS. 31, fol. 268. "" Patrick, op. cit. I 25. "" Kennett, op. cit. 454. "" The Bishop of London's Seventh Letter 0/ the Conference with his Clergy, 4. '" Kennett, op. cit. iii, 454, 456. '°^ Sharp, Life of John Sharp, i, 70, 8 1 ; ^n Exact Account of the uihok Proceedings against . . . Henry Lord Bishop of London (B.M. Pressmark, 517, g, 22, no. 2), pp. 7, 19. '»« Evelyn, Diary, 8 Sept. 1686. '»' Diary of Dr. Edward Lake (Camd. Soc. Misc. 1), 19. "" Evelyn, Diary, i Jan. 1685 ; Ellis, Orig. Letters of Eminent Literary Men, 189-92. "" Compton, Episcopalia (ed. S. W. Cornish), p. xxiii ; ibid. 167 ; Birch, Life ofTillotson, 201 ; Diary of Dr. Lake, 21 (5 Jan. 1 677-8). "» H. C. Foxcroft, Life of Halifax, i, 467. 346
