was after.vants substituted Parker, bishop of Oxford, who avowed himself a Romanist at heart), and on their refusal were cited before an ecclesiastical commission and expelled. See Hough, John (1). Determined, if possible, to gain over the Nonconformists, whose aid he evidently needed to carrj' out successfully his projects, James pubUshed, April 27, 1688, a second declaration of indidgence to dissenters, and commanded it to be read by the clergy immediately after divine service in all the churches of England. On this, Sancroft, archbishop of Canterbury, and six bishops — Lloyd of St. Asaph, Ken of Bath and Wells, Turner of Ely, Lake of Chichester, White of Peterborough, and Trelawney of Bristol— met in the archbishop's palace at Lambeth, May 18, and drew up a petition to the king, representing their aver- sion to obey the order, for many reasons, and especially because the declaration was founded upon such a dis- pensing power as Parliament had often declared illegal. For this they were all, June 8, sent to the Tower, on the charge of publishing a false, fictitious, malicious, pernicious, and seditious libel. The history of the trial, and the verdict of Not guilty by the jurj-, June 29, 1688, which the nation approved, and which was hailed by the whole kingdom as a great national trium]ih, forms one of the most glowing passages in the splendid narra- tive of IMacaulay (ii, 293). This defeat, however, in no degree checked for a moment the infatuated king. To quote t^e summary of Hume, "He struck out two of the judges, Powel and HoUoway, who had appeared to favor the bishops ; he issued orders to prosecute all those clergymen who had not read his declaration, that is, the whole Church of England, two hundred excepted ; he sent a mandate to tlie new fellows whom he had ob- truded on jMagdalen College to elect for president, in the room of Parker, lately deceased, one Gilford, a doc- tor of the Sorbonne, and titiUar bishop of Jladaura ; and he is even said to have nominated the same person to the see of Oxford." It was in the midst of this great contest with the Church and the nation that, June 10, a son was claimed to have been born to Jame. received, however, bj' the jjeople with a strong suspicior chat the child was supposititious, and that the queen had never been delivered or been pregnant at all. For this notion, however, it is now generally admitted that there was no good ground. But the fact that a direct heir had been born, Avho, in all probability, would restore popen,', in which, no doubt, he would be instructed from earliest infancy, turned the Protestants' eyes towards James's son-in-law, the prince of Orange, " for the deliverance of their country from the perils with which it Avas threatened; and James, before the end of September, learned w^ith consternation that his own son-in-law, iu obedience to their call, was preparing to land upon his coasts." On the night of the same day on w-hich the seven prelates of the English Church had been pro- nounced not fjnilti/, an invitation was dispatched to Wil- liam, prince of Orange, signed by seven of the leading English politicians, to come over to England and occu- py the throne. November 5, William landed at Torbay with 14,000 men. Vainly did James now attempt to regain his subjects' confidence by retracing his steps; no one would trust his promises, made in the hour of misfortune, and, finding himself deserted not only by the nation, but even bj' his own children, he retired to France, where he Avas hospitably received by his co-re- ligionist and royal friend, Louis XIV, and obliged to live upon a pension settled upon him by the king of the French until his death, Sept. 6, 1701. For England his exit "effected a revolution (November, 1088) which has deserved the epithet of glorious, not less through its bloodless character than from its identification with those civil and religious liberties which it secured to every class of Englishmen." See, besides the authori- ties cited under James I, Hetlieringt'iii. Ch. of Scotland, ii, 146 sq.; Stoughton, ^(vA.^/u.sV/co/ lliM. of Emilaml (see Index) ; Macaulay, ///.</. of Knijhini], vol. i and ii ; Clarke, /.//e oJ'Jamcs H iLon'd. 1816.2 vols. 4to); De-
I
JAMES
(67
JAMIN
bary, Hist, of the. Church of Entjland from James J I to 1717 (Lond.'l8G0, 8vo), chap, i-v; Macpherson, Hist, of Great Britain, i, 450 sq. ; Burnet, Jieii/n of James If (etl. 1852). See 1'kp;sbyteuians ; Scotland ; Irel^vnu ; Englani>. (J.H.W.)
James, John, a minister of the ^Methodist Episco- pal Church South, was bora in Buckingham County, Va., August 1, 1782. He entered the Kentucky Conference in 1820, and successively "lilled some of the most im- jiortant and responsible appointments acceptably and successfully." He was an ardent worker in the vineyard of the Lord, and espoused the cause of his Master amid persecutions and heavy loss of property : his father-in- law, a wealtliy man, disinherited his daughter (the wife of John James) because her husband was a Methodist preacher. Mr. James dieil, after a service of half a cen- tury in the Church, in 18G0. As a preacher, his ability was superior, but his sermons were more of a hortatory nature than severe logical doctrinal discussions. " Dur- ing his ministerial life he won many souls to Christ, and was regarded in his old age as a father in Israel. He loved his work to the last, and may be saitl to have de- scended from his horse to the grave." — Min, A nn. Conf. M. E. Ch. S. ii, 193 sq.