The cause of this great and successful measure lay in a deeper region than that of political intrigue and party faction. Powerful and telling arguments had long been pressed upon the abettors of intolerance; and the impiety, the injustice, the absurdity, and the uselessness of attempting to coerce the conscience, had been demonstrated hundreds of times on grounds of Religion, Reason, and History. No class of writers had performed this important service so fully as certain Baptists and Independents, whom we have had occasion to notice. They had contended against intolerant laws, not in the spirit of indifference, not because religion was to them a matter of trivial or secondary importance, but because it was to them all in all, and they shuddered to see its name tainted by an alliance with despotic principles. Although their pleas and appeals did not perhaps to any appreciable extent directly affect public opinion, yet they secretly leavened the minds of religious people, and prepared for the coming change.

The doctrine of Toleration has of late been described as the offspring of scepticism. What kind of scepticism? If it mean scepticism or unbelief as to the obligation to punish men for opinions, or as to the moral criminality of errors purely intellectual, or as to the wisdom of vesting political power in ecclesiastical persons, to say that this lies at the basis of Toleration is simply to repeat an identical proposition. But if it mean doubt or disbelief as to religion in general, or Christianity in particular, then to say Toleration arose from that cause in this country is simply untrue. Herbert and Hobbes, according to such a theory, ought to have been the apostles of freedom; but they were not. Baptists, Independents, and Quakers, according to such a theory, ought not to have been the apostles of freedom; yet they were. The same thing may be said of Jeremy Taylor and John Locke. Whilst, however, the chief advocates of Toleration were religious men, it is not to be denied that the measure when carried was the work of the State rather than of the Church. The Liberal Bishops supported it; but the great body of Churchmen were averse to its provisions. With regard to a number of the clergy and the laity, the State came forward as a constable to keep the peace between them and their Nonconformist fellow-citizens, whose rights they had violated.

Books and pamphlets were not the only nor the main agencies which brought about the Religious Revolution of 1689. It is remarkable, that the first of Locke’s famous letters on Toleration was printed in Holland, in the Latin language, in the year 1689, and was not translated into English and circulated in this country time enough to assist in the passing of the Toleration Bill. It threw into form, and it made plain to the common sense of humanity, those sentiments which were almost universal amongst the Dutch, and were beginning to be common amongst the English. It rather justified what was being done at the time by the Legislature, than prompted or supported the Legislature in its career. It formulated the reasons of a conclusion at the moment practically reached; it expounded principles just being embodied in an Act of Parliament.

John Locke brought out the philosophy of Toleration. Toleration had become the genius of his character. Men whose minds have many sides, and who, from large human sympathies, tolerate those who differ from them, are made what they are by wide intercourse with the world. Born of Puritan parents, educated at Oxford under Dr. Owen, attached to the preaching of Whitecote, intimate with Cudworth’s family, connected with Lord Shaftesbury, friendly with Le Clerc, Limborch, and other Divines of the Remonstrant school, Locke caught and, in the advocacy of Toleration, reflected influences emanating from diversified sources. Reduced to a simple formula, the basis of his scheme was this: The State and the Church are essentially distinct. The Law recognized a Jewish commonwealth; the Gospel recognizes no Christian commonwealth. He repudiated all connection between the State and the Church; but he did not repudiate all connection between the State and Religion, for he excluded Atheists from Toleration. He also excluded Papists, not however on religious, but on political grounds.

Locke’s principle, followed out, would have made him a Dissenter; and it is a fact that he wrote a defence of Nonconformity, which he never published. Though nominally in communion with the Establishment to the day of his death, he generally attended the ministry of a lay preacher.[147]

A paper by John Howe—in which he stated the case of Protestant Dissenters—came nearest, in point of time, to the position of a manifesto in advance, clearing ground for the new law. His paper was drawn up in the beginning of 1689, yet it may be doubted whether it had any wide influence in consummating the change.

Amongst the immediate causes of the Bill being passed must be numbered old promises made to Dissenters by men in power, again and again; the pledges of political parties of all sorts, Whigs and Tories, Low Churchmen and High Churchmen, given amidst struggles against Popery in the preceding summer, all originating in religious impulses; and especially the influences of William, who honestly advocated liberty on a wide scale. Beyond this, and more effectual still, there existed a state of public feeling which, although most reasonable, had not been produced by reasoning and, though it could be victoriously defended by argument, had not really been reached by logical formulas. It is only one of a number of instances in which a change comes over the legislative enactments of a nation through a change wrought in the minds of rulers, wrought also in the minds of a people,—the Zeit-Geist, or spirit of the age,—produced by the discipline of circumstances, and by sympathetic impulses, in which pious men recognize the finger of Providence. What the Earl of Nottingham said in defence of his measure when he laid his Bill upon the table, I do not know; but I apprehend that, as a High Churchman he must have found it difficult to show how his advocacy could be reconciled with his antecedents. He might have been unable to explain how, by reasoning, he had passed from his former to his present position. He and others might be fairly charged with inconsistency; a suspicion of it might even now and then cross their own minds. But, like all mankind, they were the subjects of influences more powerful than syllogisms, they bent beneath a force mightier than logic. Sophistical theories ingeniously spun, fondly watched, and for a time vigilantly guarded, get blown to the winds by the breath of inexorable facts, and of the spirit which throbs at the heart of them. False systems and ideas are found to be impracticable; as such they are given up by everybody. It is of no use to preserve them; they must be thrown away. So with the doctrine of religious intolerance. Englishmen could endure it in its old form no longer. A new spirit had taken possession of the age, and ancient restrictions must at last be sacrificed. But for such facts, men like Leonard Busher and John Goodwin might have gone on arguing for ever in vain.

In estimating the worth of what was done at this period, it betrays a narrow philosophy to harp upon the word “Toleration” as being an offensive term, and to ask, Has any man a right to talk of tolerating another man in the worship which his conscience bids him render to the infinitely glorious Creator? It is a curious fact that the word was not used in the Bill from beginning to end. It is entitled, “An Act for exempting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects dissenting from the Church of England from the penalties of certain laws.” Why dwell upon what the measure was popularly called—the question is, What did it accomplish? Its provisions confessedly are imperfect. Restrictions inconsistent with its principle were left, reminding us, how much more, certain feelings connected with certain events have to do with producing them than any abstract conceptions whatever. But the Act did this, it afforded to all Protestants, with few exceptions, a legal protection in carrying out their systems of doctrine, worship, and discipline. It not only granted, but it guarded liberty of conscience. It threw the shield of law over every religious assembly within open doors. To interrupt the Independent, the Baptist, the Quaker, in the service of God, became a criminal offence. The amount of relief thus afforded can be appreciated only by those who are familiar with the harassing persecutions of the preceding reigns. By shielding Dissent, the law, though of course not endowing it, might be said, in a certain sense, to establish it. It placed Dissent upon a legal footing, and protected it side by side with the Endowed Church. It confined national emoluments to Episcopalians; but it secured as much religious freedom to other denominations as to them. Nay, it secured more—a consequence necessarily resulting from the difference in relation to the State, between voluntary Churches and one nationally endowed. By the change which the Act effected in the legal position of Nonconformity, it produced a relative change in the legal position of the Establishment. From the moment that William gave his assent to the Act, that Church ceased to be national in the sense in which it had been so before. The theory of its constitution underwent a revolution. It could no longer assume the attitude it had done, could no longer claim all Englishmen, as by sovereign right, worshippers within its pale; it gave legalized scope for differences of action,—for their growth, and advancement, and for the increase of their supporters in point of numbers, character, and influence.

The restrictions of the Act pressed upon two classes of religionists. It distinctly provided that the law should not be construed as giving any ease, benefit, or advantage to any Papist, or Popish recusant, whatever. It therefore left in full operation the old laws pointed at the adherents of Rome,—laws with which James had dispensed, laws which, with most mistaken views, at that period almost all Protestants maintained. But not satisfied with a prohibition of Roman worship, the Government caused to be issued Royal proclamations requiring all reputed Papists to depart out of London and Westminster, and confining all Popish recusants within five miles of their respective dwellings.[148] In connexion with this fact it should be noticed, that in the month of July, the Royal assent was given to an Act which vested in the two Universities, the presentations of benefices belonging to Papists.

The other class of persons to whom liberty of worship was refused, consisted of such as denied, in preaching or writing, the doctrine of the Blessed Trinity declared in the Articles of the Church of England,—a stipulation which indicated zeal for orthodoxy on the part of a large majority of the House, and which ought to be noted amidst the strong rationalistic tendencies of the age. Zeal of this kind we shall find manifesting itself again and again during William’s reign.

Special provision was made for the relief of Quakers. Instead of being required to take any oath, they were allowed to make a declaration, first, in common with others, of their abhorrence of Papal supremacy, and next, of their orthodoxy. The latter declaration ran in these words: “I, A. B., profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His eternal Son, the true God, and in the Holy Spirit, one God blessed for evermore; and do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by Divine inspiration.” It would appear that this declaration was altered from the original one to satisfy the Quakers, who, represented by four of their number during the passing of the Bill, objected to the expression “coequal with the Father and the Son” as applied to the Holy Spirit, and to another expression, “the revealed will and word of God” as applied to the Scriptures. These expressions were accordingly struck out. A Quaker historian observes, “That as a profession of faith is required of this Society only, it evinces the truth of the conjecture, that this profession of faith was started with a view to exclude the people called Quakers from a participation in the benefits of the Act.” If the remark be true in reference to the original form of the declaration—but of this I find no proof—it certainly is not true of the revised declaration, which received the sanction of Friends, before it was introduced into the Bill, and was affirmed by them after it became law.[149]

Comprehension fared differently from Toleration; but Tillotson would not let the former drop. Nobody was more sincere and earnest about it, and the view he took of the grounds on which Christians of different opinions might be brought together, appears from a paper copied into his commonplace book under the title of “Concessions, which will probably be made by the Church of England for the union of Protestants, which I sent to the Earl of Portland by Dr. Stillingfleet, September 13, 1689.

“I. That the ceremonies injoined or recommended in the Liturgy or Canons be left indifferent.

“II. That the Liturgy be carefully reviewed, and such alterations and changes therein made, as may supply the defects, and remove, as much as is possible, all ground of exception to any part of it, by leaving out the Apocryphal lessons, and correcting the translation of the psalms, used in the public service, where there is need of it; and in many other particulars.

“III. That instead of all former declarations and subscriptions to be made by ministers, it shall be sufficient for them that are admitted to the exercise of their ministry in the Church of England, to subscribe one general declaration and promise to this purpose, viz., that we do submit to the doctrine, discipline, and worship of the Church of England, as it shall be established by law, and promise to teach and practice accordingly.

“IV. That a new body of Ecclesiastical Canons be made, particularly with a regard to a more effectual provision for the reformation of manners both in ministers and people.

“V. That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, to remedy the great abuses and inconveniences, which by degrees, and length of time, have crept into them; and particularly, that the power of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers, and placed in the Bishop, and not to be exercised for trivial matters, but upon great and weighty occasions.

“VI. That for the future those who have been ordained in any of the foreign Reformed Churches, be not required to be re-ordained here, to render them capable of preferment in this Church.

“VII. That for the future none be capable of any ecclesiastical benefice or preferment in the Church of England, that shall be ordained in England otherwise than by Bishops; and that those who have been ordained only by Presbyters shall not be compelled to renounce their former ordination. But because many have, and do still doubt of the validity of such ordination, where episcopal ordination may be had, and is by law required, it shall be sufficient for such persons to receive ordination from a Bishop in this or the like form: If thou art not already ordained, I ordain thee, &c., as in case a doubt be made of any one’s baptism, it is appointed by the Liturgy that he be baptized in this form, If thou art not baptized, I baptize thee, &c.”[150]

Burnet, as I have noticed, thought at the end of April that to entrust Convocation with the business of Comprehension would be its ruin; Tillotson at the same time considered that ecclesiastical affairs ought to be submitted to Synodical authority, lest a handle should be offered for objecting that, as in the case of the Reformation, the change was accomplished by the State rather than the Church. The Dean, however, considered it expedient that, in the first instance, a Commission should be issued for a number of Divines, of diverse opinions, to digest a scheme for “establishing a durable peace.”[151] His object was good, his motives were amiable, but his method was unwise; for what chance would there be that Commissioners, in case of coming to an agreement, could induce Convocation to adopt their views? It was to renew Archbishop Williams’ Committee in 1641; it was to repeat the inconsistency of the Savoy Conference. It is true the relation between Tillotson’s Committee and the Convocation was more definite than that between the two bodies in a former instance, still it was of an abnormal kind, and open to objections from ecclesiastical lawyers. Though Burnet had in April predicted the failure of the scheme, he in the course of the summer fell in with it, and the King, influenced by the Dean’s persuasion and by Burnet’s concurrence, issued, on the 13th of September, an instrument for bringing together ten Bishops and twenty Divines to confer upon this matter. The Commissioners on the 3rd of October met in the Jerusalem Chamber—that old theological battle-field, that famous arena of ecclesiastical warfare. Proceedings opened at 9 o’clock; there were 17 of the 30 Commissioners present.[152] After listening to the Commission, they discussed the question, whether the Apocrypha ought to be publicly read in Church. Beveridge, the Archdeacon of Colchester, contended, that dropping the old custom would give great offence to the people; and he was supported by Dr. Jane, Professor of Divinity at Oxford, who had a hand in drawing up the famous University decree in 1683, against seditious books and damnable doctrines. Jane recommended, that if not the whole Apocrypha, yet some of its most useful portions should be retained; on the other hand, it was urged that not only were particular parts objectionable, but all the books were deficient in authority, and to take lessons from them was to countenance the baseless pretensions of the Church of Rome. Meggot, Dean of Winchester, wished the Commissioners to defer their decision until a larger number should meet; to which it was replied that, inasmuch as a decision would not be binding, but would be referred to Convocation, they might as well vote at once; upon which the Commissioners decided against the use of Apocryphal lessons.

The Prayer-Book version of the Psalms next came under review, when Kidder, then one of the London clergy, and regarded as an authority on the subject, was appealed to by the Bishops present, and gave his opinion, that the author of the first half of the version, growing weary of his patchwork, translated the second portion afresh, greatly to the improvement of the whole, although the entire translation differed from the Septuagint, as well as from the original Hebrew. Nothing was determined, and the meeting broke up about 12 o’clock.

At the next sitting (October the 16th), a serious discussion arose as to the authority of the Commission itself. Sprat, Bishop of Rochester—then, as Dean of Westminster, living next door to the Jerusalem Chamber—had been an active member of James’ High Commission, and now, inconsistently enough, objected to the Low Commission appointed by William; yet this was as constitutional as the former had been the reverse, for this amounted to no more than a committee of advice, whereas that claimed judicial prerogatives. Sprat either overlooked or pretended not to see the distinction, and talked of the danger of incurring a premunire by venturing to proceed with business. He said a burnt child dreads the fire, and as he had been deceived with regard to the other Commission, though some of the Judges were in its favour, he should not be satisfied with the Commission under which they were now brought together, unless the whole Judicial bench sanctioned its appointment. After quibbles about the altered official position of some Commissioners, and the small number left at the close of the last meeting, he urged the inconsistency of touching formularies to which they had given their assent and consent; the impropriety of forestalling Convocational debates; and the probability of provoking Parliament by usurping its functions. Sprat found a supporter in Jane—“a double-faced Janus,” as people called him, for, after being a staunch supporter of non-resistance, he had conveyed to the Prince of Orange the offer of the University to coin its plate in the Deliverer’s service; and next, disappointed of a mitre, had on that account (so said his enemies) abandoned liberal opinions, and gone over to the camp of Toryism, where he found a more congenial atmosphere and a more agreeable home.

Another of Sprat’s allies was Dr. Aldrich,[153] Dean of Christchurch, a man of much higher character than Jane, architect of the Peckwater Quadrangle, munificent in his patronage and gifts, a master of logic, a proficient in music, and generous and genial in his hospitality. But Patrick, the new Bishop of Chichester, came to the rescue, dwelling upon the difference between the two Commissions, and urging the high legal sanction of their present operations. Compton, Bishop of London—still zealous on the liberal side—told his brethren that what they were doing had received the sanction of the Lords; that if they did not execute their trust, it would be taken out of the hands of the Clergy altogether; and that discharging their duty now would facilitate the business of Convocation, in the same way as Committees helped on the work of Parliament. Already it appeared that the reverend and right reverend Commissioners were sitting on barrels of gunpowder; presently the first explosion occurred, when Lloyd, Bishop of St. Asaph, one of the most zealous advocates of Comprehension, hastily rose to move that those who were not satisfied with the Commission were at liberty to withdraw. This offended Sprat, Aldrich, and Jane; the last rose in a pet to leave the room, but was persuaded to remain, and it was prudently advised “that all things that happened at that time might be kept secret.” The stormy discussion lasted beyond noon, when the Bishops of London and Worcester and several others retired to the hospitable table of Dr. Patrick in the neighbouring cloister, and then went over several amendments to be made in the Liturgy. Two days afterwards, on the 18th, the Commissioners entered upon the consideration of ceremonies distasteful to Dissenters. Aldrich and Jane left soon after the debate commenced, and those who remained came to the conclusion that, as for receiving the Sacrament, “it should be in some posture of reverence, and in some convenient pew or place in the church, so that none but those that kneeled should come up to the rails or table, and that the persons scrupling, should some week-day before come to the minister, and declare that they could not kneel with a good conscience. This was agreed to, and drawn up. Only the Bishop of Winchester moved that the names of such persons might be written down, but that was not approved, and after all he dissented from the whole.”[154]

At the next meeting they took up the question of godfathers, Beveridge contending for the retention of them as being agreeable to ancient practice; some, on the other hand, declared that the custom often became a mere matter of interest, and even went so far as to assert, “that it was hard to find an instance of a child baptized before St. Cyprian’s time.”

The calendar underwent revision, and several Saints’ days were struck out of the list. Respecting the Athanasian Creed, much was said. Its use, its theological meaning, especially its damnatory clauses, had become in an age of rational inquiry, religious toleration, and latitudinarian sentiment, momentous moot-points. The atmosphere of theological thought existing at the time, indicated by the controversies on the Trinity, to be hereafter described, could not but fix attention on a formulary, which, viewed either as a creed or as a hymn, not only embodies definite opinion on the most abstruse of mysteries, but declares that those who do not keep it whole and undefiled must “without doubt perish everlastingly.” Burnet and Tillotson were willing to drop the so-called creed out of the service altogether; so was Fowler—the first of these Divines urging that the Church of England received the four first General Councils; that the Ephesian Council condemns all new symbols; that the Athanasian Creed is not very ancient; and that it condemns the Greek Church, which, said the Bishop, “we defend.” The utmost amount of change finally recommended as to this formula was its less frequent use and an explanation of its damnatory clauses. Its repetition was to be discontinued on the Epiphany, and the Feasts of St. Matthias, St. John the Baptist, St. James, St. Bartholomew, St. Matthew, St. Simon and St. Jude, and St. Andrew; but its use on All Saints’ Day was recommended. The word sung was struck out of the rubric, leaving the creed to be said; and the following came at the end:—“The Articles of which (creed) ought to be received and believed as being agreeable to the Holy Scriptures. And the condemning clauses are to be understood as relating only to those who obstinately deny the substance of the Christian faith [according to the 18th Article of this Church].” These last words were afterwards cancelled.[155]

The subject of Ordination occupied the members through four successive meetings.[156] Questions were discussed—first in reference to those who had been Ministers of other communions; secondly, with regard to new candidates; and thirdly, as to the ceremony of conferring orders. The Bishop of Salisbury took a prominent part in this debate, on the first of these points, contending—that there was room to challenge the orders of the Romanists, “because that they ordained without imposition of hands,” and without the words, “whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted,” and mixed up the matter with the theory of intention—that the Church of England had allowed the orders of Foreign Churches in the case of Du Moulin, Prebendary of Canterbury—that Presbyterians had been consecrated Bishops of the Scotch Church without being first ordained as Priests; James I. stiffly insisting upon it, being present at their consecration in Westminster Abbey; Bishop Andrewes, after having opposed it, also yielding assent to the service. As to Dissenters, Burnet strove to apply to their case the allowed validity of Donatist ordination in the early Church, on the ground of necessity for the healing of schism. But it was on the Conservative side objected, that Romanist orders were owned by the Anglican Church, the Bishop of London admitting that no question arose about the validity of Roman Catholic orders, but only about the sufficiency of evidence as to their being properly conferred. Beveridge, in this debate as in others, distinguished himself by maintaining Anglican views, and showed that if cheats were put upon the Church by Romanists, so they might be by the Reformed; yet he admitted, in reference to the case of Du Moulin, that regular Episcopal ordination is not necessary, where no cure of souls is involved; upon which the Dean of Canterbury affirmed that he had heard even of laymen having been made Prebendaries. Beveridge met the case of the Donatists by pointing out that they were Episcopalians, and therefore in point of orders did not present any resemblance to Nonconformists.

Two passages in the report of the proceedings are well worthy of attention.

“It was sometimes queried, What good would this do as to the Dissenters? It was answered by Dr. Still:[157] We sat there to make such alterations as were fit, which would be fit to make were there no Dissenters, and which would be for the improvement of the service.”

“It was said, I think by Dr. F., that some of the Nonconformists desired to be heard. It was replied by Dr. Still: That was not to be allowed, because doubtless they had no more to say by word of mouth than they had in their writings; and, that they might do them justice, there were several of their books laid before the Committee, that they might consult if there be occasion.”

In answer to the suggestion of the old compromise of a hypothetical reference to the invalidity of any former ordination, Beveridge remarked that it looked like equivocation on the part both of ordainer and ordained; the first believing the second not ordained before, contrary to the belief of the second, who did not doubt his former orders. Burnet replied, there could be no ground for this objection, if a statement were annexed to the effect that each reserved his own opinion. Dr. Grove suggested that the former rite might be esteemed, not as wholly invalid, but as merely imperfect, and that the Bishop’s laying on of hands would complete what had been previously commenced. “But to this the Dean of St. Paul’s (Stillingfleet) replied, that in this point we were to respect two things—first, the preservation of the Church’s principle about the necessity of Episcopal ordination, when it might be had; and secondly, the case of the Dissenters,” in reference to whom he relates, or supposes, a most extraordinary and indeed unintelligible story, “that it was much like the marrying of the man, and the woman refusing; but after a term of years she consenting to go on, the woman was then married alone, without beginning again with the man.” What that means I leave the reader to find out. The study of the whole Report is dreary work.

Yet Tillotson, rich in common sense, must have been amused with these debates. He simply asked why might not the Church of England admit other orders, as it had been proposed its own should be admitted by the Church of Rome, when Queen Mary wrote to Gardiner, saying, “Quod illis deerat, supplebit Episcopus.” The Bishop’s supplement was alone sufficient for the potestas sacrificandi, without any invalidation of what had been previously accomplished. At last the Commissioners resolved upon adopting the hypothetical scheme—Beveridge and Scot alone dissenting from that conclusion.

The subject of exercising care relative to candidates occasioned no controversy; it was proposed that a month before ordination, testimonials should be sent to the Bishop; and that candidates should be tested by being required to compose some short discourse in writing “upon some point or article.” Burnet, not much to the satisfaction of some of his brethren, who eschewed all ecclesiastical precedents taken from the north of the Tweed, reported the Scotch method of requiring the composition of a doctrinal and practical discourse, and the examination of the candidate in the original Scriptures and in sacred chronology.

In the Ordination Service the use of the words “receive the Holy Ghost” gave rise to much discussion, as a command to receive involves the possession on the speaker’s part of a power to bestow; and Burnet contended that such a use could not be traced back above 400 years, it having been introduced in the Middle Ages for the purpose of exalting the priesthood. The form was originally, that of a humble prayer, not of an absolute bestowment. Thus it appeared in the Apostolical Constitutions, in the writings of Dionysius the Areopagite, and in the Canons of the Councils of Carthage—the alteration being the fruit of Hildebrand’s time. The Bishop of St. Asaph and Dr. Scot, however, vindicated the Church of England in her employment of the Saviour’s words, and asserted that if they be not retained, “there is no form of ordination authoritatively,”—a very unfortunate ground of defence, for, as it was justly said, if so, then, the words not being used in the absolute form until within the previous four centuries, no valid ordinations had previously taken place. Tillotson selected a quotation from St. Augustine,[158] proving Christ to be God, because He bestowed the Holy Ghost; thus suggesting the argument that the Church could not authoritatively confer the celestial gift, but only pray that it might be conferred by the Divine Being. The rest of the time was spent in revising the Daily Prayer, the Communion and Confirmation Services, the Catechism, and other formularies, and in preparing new Collects.

The second paragraph of the general rubric at the beginning of the order for Morning and Evening Prayer was struck out, and the following passage was inserted instead:—“Whereas the surplice is appointed to be used by all ministers in performing divine offices, it is hereby declared, that it is continued only as being an ancient and decent habit. But yet, if any minister shall come and declare to his Bishop that he cannot satisfy his conscience in the use of the surplice in divine service, in that case the Bishop shall dispense with his not using it, and if he shall see cause for it, he shall appoint a curate to officiate in a surplice.” The new paragraph was afterwards scored down the side, the following memorandum being appended:—“This rubric was suggested but not agreed to, but left to further consideration.” Another memorandum followed in these words, “A Canon to specify the vestments.”

Numerous verbal alterations were introduced into the Litany,—“sudden death” being altered into “dying suddenly and unprepared;” and new versicles and responses were inserted, “From all infidelity and error, from all impiety and profaneness, from all superstition and idolatry,—Good Lord deliver us.” With the Litany it was proposed to connect the rehearsal of the Ten Commandments, and the response, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and incline our hearts to keep this law.”

To the Prayers and Thanksgivings upon several occasions were added two new forms: one a prayer to be said before receiving the Communion, another a prayer for any time of calamity. Forty-two new Collects were composed; and in the administration of the Lord’s Supper, after the Ten Commandments, came the insertion of the Beatitudes, with this petition after each of them, “Lord, have mercy upon us, and make us partakers of this blessing.” Here, and throughout the whole Prayer-Book, for the title priest is substituted that of minister. In the office for Baptism of Infants, the presentation of children for that purpose by godfathers and godmothers is acknowledged as an ancient custom to be continued; it is added, that if any person comes to the Minister, and tells him he cannot conveniently procure godfathers and godmothers for his child, and that he desires the child may be baptized upon the engagement of the parent or parents only, in that case the Minister, after discourse with him, if he persists, shall be obliged to baptize such child, or children, upon the suretiship of the parent, or parents, or some other near relation or friends. If any Minister objected at his institution to use the sign of the cross, the Bishop might dispense with that particular, and name a Curate to act for him. In reference to the doctrine of Regeneration, the form of Baptism remained the same as before.

Large additions were made to the Catechism and to the Confirmation Service, the prayers after the last answer being considerably modified; and a new prayer and exhortation prepared for the confirmed, who were required to stay and listen to it.

The “Solemnization of Matrimony,” with several verbal changes, remains substantially unaltered; but in “the Order for the Visitation of the Sick,” together with fresh interrogatories, there is this important change in the words of absolution: “Our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath left power to His Church to absolve all sinners who truly repent and believe in Him, of His great mercy, forgive thee thine offences; and upon thy true faith and repentance, by His authority committed to me, I pronounce thee absolved from all thy sins, in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.”

In the Burial Service the word “dear” before the word “brother” is struck out; so are the words “as our hope is this our brother doth.” “Through any temptations” is substituted in place of the expression “for any pains of death;” and the last prayer but one is so altered that the latter portion becomes quite different. It runs thus: “We give Thee hearty thanks for that it hath pleased Thee to instruct us in this heavenly knowledge, beseeching Thee so to affect our hearts therewith, that seeing we believe such a happy estate hereafter, we may live here in all holy conversation and godliness, looking for and hastening unto the coming of the day of God; that being then found of Thee in peace without spot and blameless, we may have our perfect consummation and bliss, both in body and soul, in Thy eternal and everlasting glory, through Jesus Christ our Lord.”

No one who takes the trouble to read through the report of these tedious proceedings but must be astonished at the extent of the proposed alterations. They prove that some of the Episcopalian Divines who took part in the revision of 1689 must have been a very different class of men from the Episcopalian Divines who took part in the revision of 1662. Calamy became acquainted with the alterations, and said he thought if the scheme had been carried out, it would “have brought in two-thirds of the Dissenters.”[159] No doubt a considerable number might have been satisfied, but I consider Calamy to have been too sanguine in his expectation; his expectation resting mainly on what he knew of Presbyterians, who were much more disposed to return to the Establishment than were brethren of other denominations. But in addition to circumstances already mentioned unfavourable to Comprehension, the triumph of Presbyterianism in Scotland, which involved the abolition of Prelacy in that country, produced in Prelatists a great deal of bad feeling, and stood in the way of the present attempt; this obstacle was greatly increased by Nonconformist attacks at the time upon the use of Liturgies, and by a constantly augmenting number of Nonconformist ordinations. Besides, although extensive alterations came under discussion, very few Episcopalians were disposed to go to such lengths as were proposed; some who were active in the affair were also cautious, and an immense majority outside the Committee utterly disliked the whole business, and were opposed to any alteration whatever in the formularies.[160]

The changes proposed did not touch any articles of faith, and therefore exhibit the English Latitudinarian party in a very different position from that of the foreign Latitudinarians, who threw down all the barriers of orthodoxy, and opened the doors of the Church to Unitarians. D’Huisseau, a distinguished professor and pastor at Saumur, proposed the reunion of Christendom on the broadest doctrinal basis, and received support from several Calvinistic Divines of considerable note. The English Episcopalians, who moved in the matter as just described, rather resembled Jurieu, an eminent French theologian, ordained by an Anglican Bishop, yet officiating as a Presbyterian clergyman in France and in Holland. He advocated Comprehension on an orthodox basis, and treated Church organization and forms of worship as of minor importance.

The sittings of the Commission ended on November the 18th. Convocation had assembled on the 6th of the same month.

The labour of the Commissioners was labour in vain. It came to nothing. All that remains of it is a royal octavo pamphlet in blue paper covers, published some years ago by order of the House of Commons.

History records many a lost opportunity, which students of the past, looking at events, each from his own point of view, must needs lament. To the Catholic—the old Catholic of the Döllinger type—the Reformation appears a lost opportunity for removing abuses and uniting European Christendom. It comes before him as a crisis, which, if the Catholic party had been wise, they would have used for the purpose of purifying the Church and conciliating opponents, and so retaining them within the same fold. By the Puritan, freeing himself from party bias, I should think, the era of the Long Parliament and the Commonwealth must be regarded as a lost opportunity for treating Episcopalians (their inveterate persecutors) in the spirit of Christian justice and charity, by granting admirers of the Prayer-Book a freedom of worship which admirers of the Prayer-Book had never granted to the Puritans; thus returning good for evil, and so reading with emphasis a priceless lesson to the whole world. In like manner, surely, the liberal Churchman of the present day, whatever he may think of Tillotson’s Commission, must mourn over the Revolution as a lost opportunity for enlarging the boundaries of her communion, of recovering Dissenters—not to the extent Calamy supposed, yet in considerable numbers—and of removing from the Church of England many incumbrances, which have ever since been points of attack and sources of weakness.

Much excitement had been manifested during the clerical elections in the year 1661, but there was far greater excitement during the election of 1689. Canvassing for members of Parliament was an old custom, but canvassing for members of Convocation was a new one, and at the time it was noticed as a sign of party spirit then so rife. The fact is remarkable, that whilst the official members of the Lower House included many distinguished men, nobody of any mark was elected, except Dr. John Mill, the eminent Greek scholar, who edited a new version of the text of the New Testament.[161] By far the majority was composed of persons who had long been Tories in politics, and now showed themselves to be High Churchmen in religion; but the Upper House,—thinned, by refusal to attend, of those nonjuring Prelates who still survived, two of them having died,—contained decidedly liberal politicians and divines in the persons of Compton, Lloyd, Burnet, and Patrick, the last of whom had in September been raised to the Bishopric of Chichester. These Bishops took the lead in the proceedings of that assembly, and imparted to them a liberal spirit. The difference between the temper of the two Houses soon appeared.

Convocation had formerly met first at St. Paul’s, and afterwards at Westminster. Now that the new Cathedral of London, though nearly completed, had not been consecrated, Convocation assembled at once within the walls of Henry VII.’s Chapel, when a Latin sermon was preached by Beveridge.

As soon as the Lower House proceeded to business, the choice of a Prolocutor was the first step. On the 21st of November, Sharp—who had in the Deanery of Canterbury succeeded Tillotson, now made Dean of St. Paul’s—proposed as Prolocutor his distinguished predecessor, who was a friend of the King, a favourite at Court, a man of prudence and moderation, and a promoter of the scheme of Comprehension. But Tillotson was rejected by two to one in favour of Jane. Nobody could mistake the significancy of the choice. It would appear that personal feeling had some influence in it. The Earls of Clarendon and Rochester are accused of having intrigued against Tillotson from resentment towards his patrons, the King and Queen—the latter of them, although their near relative, not having raised them to any high employments in the State. Moreover, it had become known, that Tillotson was intended by William to be Sancroft’s successor, as soon as Sancroft’s deposition could be legally accomplished. This circumstance stung the mind of Compton, who, on account of his former relation to the Queen as her tutor, and the signal service he had rendered at the Revolution, not to mention his noble rank, considered he had a claim superior to that of the Dean. Unworthy motives are often attributed to men upon insufficient grounds, and I am unable to discover the reasons for Tillotson’s unfavourable opinion of Compton; but as Tillotson was not likely to have adopted suspicions without reason, it is probable that Compton had something to do with the rejection of Tillotson as a candidate for the Prolocutorship. Knowing what human nature is, one does not wonder that Compton was annoyed at Tillotson being preferred to him; yet it should be remembered that if Compton was mortified by the Royal preference for Tillotson, it did not at present induce him to abandon the Liberal party. When Jane the Prolocutor was presented to Compton as President of the Upper Chamber, in the room of the absent Primate, he finished a speech upon the perfection of the Church, and the mischief of any change in it, with the words, “Nolumus leges Angliæ mutari,” in allusion, it is inferred, to Compton’s having adopted that motto for the colours of his regiment, when he had played the part of a colonel. The Bishop, in his answer, indicated his adherence to the opinions and measures he had before proposed, by saying to the Clergy, that “they ought to endeavour a temper in those things that are not essential in religion, thereby to open the door of salvation to a multitude of straying Christians; that it must needs be their duty to show the same indulgence and charity to the Dissenters under King William, which some of the Bishops and Clergy had promised to them in their addresses to King James.”[162]