In the laws respecting oaths at the period of the Revolution, certain
changes took place, which from their religions aspect demand our notice.
The new Oath of Allegiance prescribed by the Declaration of Rights
differed from the old Oaths of Allegiance imposed by statute law.
To make this change perfectly constitutional, and to secure entire
uniformity in the expression of loyal obedience, it was necessary to
pass an Act abolishing ancient forms, and determining the circumstances
under which a new one should be enforced. Leave having been granted
in the House of Commons upon the 25th of February to bring in such
a measure, upon the 16th of March the Solicitor-General reported
amendments made in the Bill, and upon the 18th of the same month the
Bill passed the House. Being sent up to the Lords, it was read by them
a second time only, attention becoming absorbed by another Bill for the
same purpose, originating in their own House, and on the 25th sent down
to the Commons, by whom it was immediately read, and committed on the
28th. The Journals of the two Houses for the month of April abound in
notices of debates, amendments, protests, reports, and conferences in
reference to this question. Its religious bearings were twofold.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Bill first provided that the new oaths should be taken by
all persons holding office in the Church of England and the two
Universities. No one could sit on the Prelates’ bench, or perform
the duties of a Diocesan; no one could enjoy a benefice, or minister
in a parish church; no one could be the head of a House, or possess
a fellowship at Oxford or Cambridge, who did not “sincerely promise
and swear to bear true allegiance to their Majesties King William
and Queen Mary.” Looking at the baronial and legislative character
of Bishops; at the dependence of many Ecclesiastical preferments
on the Crown; at the national character of the Universities; and
at the relation of the whole body of the Established Clergy to the
Government, there appears the same reason for enacting a declaration
of loyalty from them as from officers in the army and navy. To have
excepted the Church from the obligations of the oath, would have been
to make an invidious distinction between classes of the community
bound by manifold political ties, and it would have been liable to the
interpretation that the Government, conscious of weakness, felt afraid
of the Clergy. Besides, if there be any binding form in oaths--if
they afford any security at all for the stability of a throne, they
certainly needed, in a pre-eminent degree at that time, to be enforced
upon all Ecclesiastical persons, when so many of them were known to be
disaffected to the reigning Sovereigns. The difficulty expressed by
disaffected Clergymen in reference to the new oaths rested mainly on
two grounds. Those of them who had already sworn allegiance to King
James could not reconcile it with their consciences to put aside those
vows, and to adopt opposite ones. In this respect, however, their
case was no worse than that of civilians and military men, though no
appeals for their relief were ever urged. An officer of the Customs,
or the captain of a regiment, might very well feel the same scruples
as troubled the Rector of a parish, or the Dean of a cathedral; and
if exceptions of this sort were once begun, where were they to end?
What could not at the time fail to be noticed, and now must strike
every reader, is, that the men who showed so much sensitiveness with
respect to their former oaths, were, many of them, the very same
persons, and all of them belonged to the same class, as those who had
treated with contempt or indifference like difficulties on the part of
Presbyterians at the time of the Restoration. Yet what was required now
cannot be made to appear so harsh as what had been required before. An
Episcopalian Clergyman had only to promise allegiance to the persons
who occupied the throne, without expressing any abstract opinion on the
subject; whereas, a Presbyterian Clergyman had not only been required
to swear allegiance to Charles II., which he was willing to do, but
had been also required to swear that his previous oath was unlawful;
and to declare, moreover, that the doctrine of resisting a despotic
king is a position to be held in abhorrence. An express denunciation
of former oaths had been required at the Restoration; only a practical
relinquishment of former oaths was required at the Revolution. The
law of 1662 had told the Presbyterian he must denounce the doctrine
of resistance--the law of 1689 did not tell the Episcopalian he must
denounce the doctrine of the Divine right of Kings. At the earlier era
a political dogma had been imposed as a requisite for clerical office;
at the later era no political dogma was imposed at all. Conscience is
sacred; yet whilst I give credit to Clergymen who scrupled to swear
allegiance to the new dynasty, I cannot discover the reasonableness of
their scruples. If any of them did not hold the Divine right of Kings,
it is hard to discern any plausible ground for refusing to transfer
allegiance according to the terms of the new oath; if they did hold the
Divine right of Kings--and therefore preferred a Regency to a change in
the succession, as was the case with Sancroft--still it appears that
they might, consistently with their abstract principle, have sworn
to obey a _de facto_ potentate. At any rate, their difficulties
were less than the difficulties of their Nonconforming brethren
seven-and-twenty years before. Then High Churchmen treated mountains as
molehills,--now they magnified molehills into mountains.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
The second source of clerical resistance is found in the sacredness of
clerical character, and the indelibility of clerical orders. Adherence
to the supposed rights of the King in exile rarely existed, except in
the case of High Churchmen. A belief of the Divine rights of princes
entwined itself round a belief in the Divine right of priests. A notion
that Monarchs should be independent of Parliaments, associated itself
with a notion that Ministers of religion should be independent of human
law.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Sovereigns could not be made and unmade by subjects, neither could
Clergymen be made or unmade by States, therefore such a law as that now
enacted became, in a spiritual point of view, futile, impertinent, even
impious. A strange confusion of truth and error obtained throughout
this reasoning of the Nonjurors. No doubt the Church, as a Divine
community, is independent of human governments. The pastors and
teachers are not the creatures of the Civil power, they are in the
hands of Him who walks amidst the golden candlesticks. Of spiritual
office and character the Civil power is not competent to denude any
servant of Christ. But when chief Ministers of the Church are amongst
chief officers of State, when Bishops are Peers, and Clergymen have
legally-vested rights, the case is different. Church temporalities
are from first to last the creations of secular government; and the
authority which gives can take away. Parliament had no business to
alter the religious position of Ministers, but it had a right to
impose conditions, for its own safety, upon those who added to the
character of Ministers that of political legislators and officers of
a nationally-endowed Church. Erastianism had been predominant under
Charles II. It had lingered under James II. It was to be revived and
to be manifested, in some respects more distinctly than ever, under
William III.; but, at the Revolution, many who had been Erastian
enough through the previous quarter of a century, began to be restless
and to sigh for emancipation. Circumstances made them voluntaries in
practice, although circumstances did not make them voluntaries in
principle. As time rolled on, the doctrine of the Church’s independence
came more distinctly within view, notwithstanding their blindness to
its consequences; and the assertion of that independency increased in
earnestness after the rupture, of which I shall have much to say.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
A further religious complication of the measure under review arose
in connection with its first appearance in the House of Commons,
and was renewed in the course of its progress through the House of
Lords. It requires attention. Upon the 25th of February, the day when
leave was given to bring in the Bill for changing the oath, leave was
also given to bring in a Bill for repealing the Corporation Act. The
Corporation Act, the reader will remember, enjoined the repudiation of
the doctrine of resistance, the renunciation of the Solemn League and
Covenant, and the receiving of the Lord’s Supper, as a qualification
for municipal office. It had been a blow aimed at Nonconformists; now
that the justice of affording them some relief was acknowledged by
the Whig party, it seemed only consistent that this statute should be
extinguished. In a debate which arose at the time when the two Bills
originated, one member maintained that the Corporation Act “had as much
intrinsic iniquity as any Act whatsoever,” and that it profaned the
Sacrament; another--who said he had been educated for the Church, and
would live and die in it--advocated the repeal of the Act; but a third
contended for the continuance of conformity as essential to the holding
of a public trust, and proposed that the oath of non-resistance,
instead of being taken away, should be explained. All this ended in
nothing. Soon after the Bill was brought in, it was, through party
complications, set aside on a question of adjournment;[117] and the
inconsistency arose of a Government, plainly based upon Revolution,
and therefore upon resistance, being left to enforce a principle
destructive of its own authority; the inconsistency, moreover, was
associated with injustice and ingratitude towards a party zealous
in its support. High Church Tories of course wished to preserve the
Corporation Act, and contributed to its preservation; Low Church
Whigs, though willing to relieve Nonconformists, still wished to keep
Nonconformity in check, and manifested no zeal for the removal of an
engine of intolerance, which lasted down even to our own times.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
Efforts in favour of Nonconformists having thus failed in the Lower
House, like movements were uselessly made in the Upper. The King, in
a speech delivered on the 16th of March, emphatically recommended
Parliament to provide against Papists, so as to “leave room for the
admission of all Protestants that are willing and able to serve.”[118]
In these words he showed his desire for the alteration of the Test Act.
The Test Act had been passed to exclude Papists from holding civil
office; and, zealous for the accomplishment of that end, Nonconformists
had supported it at the sacrifice of their own interests. There were
members in the House of Lords prepared to carry out the King’s wishes.
They desired to render all Protestant citizens eligible to serve the
State; during the progress of the Allegiance Bill, they supported
the introduction of a clause for abolishing the sacramental test.
But the Tory Lords were too numerous to allow of its being passed;
and some Whig Peers, including the puritan Lord Wharton, recorded a
protest against the rejection of the clause. They protested for these
reasons--Because a hearty alliance amongst Protestants was a greater
security than any test: because the obligation to receive the Sacrament
operated against Protestants rather than Papists: because it prevented
a thorough Protestant union: and because, what was not required of
members of Parliament, ought not to be required of candidates for
office. Not discouraged by defeat, one of the Lords proposed another
clause, the object of which was to render the celebration of the Lord’s
Supper in a Nonconformist place of worship legally equivalent to its
celebration in a parish church. This, like the former attempt, failed;
and again we find a protest recorded in the Journals, Lord Wharton
being again among the protesters. In this protest they amplify what
they had said before, and introduce this additional reason--that His
Majesty had expressed an earnest desire for the liberty of all his
Protestant subjects, and that divers Bishops had professed the same.
The majority of the Lords, in the rejection of clauses for the partial
repeal of the Test Act, proceeded on the same line with the majority of
the Commons, in getting rid of the repeal of the Corporation Act.[119]
But another wish rose in the King’s mind, which received support from
a majority in the Upper House. It is very well known that he desired
to treat the Clergy in general with great lenience, and to make as
much allowance as possible for nonjuring scruples. By conceding so
much to the High Church party, he aimed at reconciling them to those
concessions which, on the other side, he longed to see granted to
Nonconformists. He could not secure the latter concessions, but he
easily secured the former. The policy of the Lords, both Whig and Tory,
both Low Church and High Church, was to discountenance Nonconformity,
and to maintain the Episcopalian Establishment; the policy of the High
Church Peers was to support those Clergymen with whom they sympathized
in Ecclesiastical views, and to relieve them from the pressure of
the new oaths; and the policy of the Whig Low Church Peers was to
conciliate the same party as much as possible. Even Burnet, just
exalted to the Bench, took part in a debate before his consecration,
advocating a mild arrangement of the matter in reference to his
scrupulous brethren.[120] It followed that the Bill left the Lords with
a provision allowing every beneficed divine to continue in his benefice
without taking the oath, unless the Government saw reason for putting
his loyalty to the test. Upon this point the temper of the Lower House
differed from that of the Upper. They inserted in the Bill a clause
rendering it absolutely incumbent on every one holding preferment to
take the oath by the 1st of August, 1689, under pain of immediate
suspension--by the end of six months afterwards, upon pain of final
deprivation.[121] With that claim embodied in it, the Bill went back
to the Lords. They fought for their own gentler method. Conferences
were held between the Houses: compromises were suggested: reports were
made: debates were renewed; but the Lords could not stand against the
Commons, and the stringent method insisted upon by the latter became
the law of the land.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Whig majority in the House of Commons were as zealous as the Tory
majority in the House of Lords in maintaining the Church of England,
but they were utterly averse to the secular and ecclesiastical politics
of that party, which the project of William, supported by the Peers,
sought to win over by conciliation. They could not forget the support
that party had rendered to the Stuart despotism, their opposition
to the Exclusion Bill, their intolerant despotism, and their steady
opposition to the Whig Commons. They could not favour High Church
views, they had no notion of the Church being independent of the
State. If the Clergy received honours and emoluments from the Civil
power, then to the Civil power they must, like other subjects, yield
obedience. The spirit of the House was Erastian; and no doubt passion
mingled with principle--resentment with the maintenance of supremacy.
[Sidenote: OATH OF ALLEGIANCE.]
The Oaths of Allegiance had at an early period been readily taken by
the Commons, only two of them refusing to swear. In the other House
a vast majority of the lay and spiritual Lords had complied with the
law, but certain Bishops had been incapacitated, or were reluctant in
compliance; others altogether refused to submit to authority. In the
Journal of the Lords for the 18th of March, amongst notices of absence,
we find the Bishop of Coventry and Lichfield described as “ill of the
strangury and the stone;” the Bishop of Worcester as “weak in body,”
and very aged; and the Bishop of St. David’s as writing a letter of
excuse, not at all satisfactory. This last Prelate, who had for some
time been mistrusted by his brethren, consulted Sir John Reresby, who
told him to fall back on his own conscience. The next day the Bishop
took the oath.[122] But the Primate Sancroft, Lake of Chichester,
Turner of Ely, Lloyd of Norwich, Ken of Bath and Wells, Frampton of
Gloucester, White of Peterborough, and Thomas of Worcester, steadily
refused, and came forward as vanguard to that body of which we shall
have more to say hereafter.
The oath was taken by the Clergy in various ways. Some, who objected
to its being imposed, felt they could adopt it conscientiously. Some
questioned the lawfulness of it, and did not blame the Nonjurors, but
themselves took the benefit of the doubt. Some swore with a certain
reserve, expressing the sense in which they explained the obligation
with “an implicit relaxation” of the meaning of the words. Others, at
a loss to determine the point, yielded to the opinions of lawyers and
divines.[123]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The Coronation Oath came under consideration at the same time as the
Oath of Allegiance, and, like it, occasioned great discussion. The oath
pledged the Sovereign to preserve the Church “as it is now established
by law;” and the Commons were thereby led to inquire into the exact
meaning of the words, whether they affected in any way the question
of introducing changes, such as many most earnestly desired. Some,
who longed for an alteration in the formularies, were anxious that,
instead of the words “Church as it is now established by law,” should
be the words, “Church as it is, or _shall be_, established by
law,” thus expressly providing for new arrangements. It was contended
that the Church doors ought to be made wider, that it might be easily
done, and that in anticipation of this, the proposed alteration in
the oath should be accomplished. Before--some argued--it did not much
matter how the Coronation Oath ran, but it did now that a King occupied
the throne, who might say, “I do not understand what is meant by law.”
They urged no wish for any change in doctrines, but only for change in
ceremonies, and they felt unwilling that the Coronation Oath should
preclude the latter. Moreover, they desired to prevent any taunt from
foreign Protestants of the following kind--“Your Parliament has limited
you to a Church unalterable, and will let in nobody.” Some of those
who objected to the additional words replied, that their omission
would not be any bar to reform; that Parliament had power to alter
laws; that, consistently with the maintenance of Protestant doctrine,
there might be the relaxation of certain forms; that essentials being
preserved, non-essentials could be removed; and that tender consciences
could be brought in at a door without pulling down the rafters to let
them through the roof. Though a rider to the effect, that no clause in
the Act should prevent the Sovereign from giving assent to a Bill for
Church Reform was not formally adopted, yet it was at length clearly
understood that the oath did not fetter the Sovereign in any act of
legislative concurrence, but only bound him in his executive capacity;
the original words therefore were sanctioned by a majority of 188
against 149.[124]
[Sidenote: CORONATION.]
The Coronation, for which this oath prepared, took place on the 11th of
April, when both political parties in unequal proportions participated
in the solemnities. Tory and Jacobite Lords, who had voted for a
Regency, increased the magnificence--one carrying the crown of the
King, another the crown of the Queen, and a third the sword of Justice;
whilst a fourth rode up the middle of Westminster Hall, as champion
for William and Mary against all comers. Noble damsels of both classes
appeared in large numbers and dazzling splendour to swell the retinue,
or to watch the movements of the Regnant Queen; and amongst them walked
the pretty little Lady Henrietta, daughter of the Earl of Rochester,
who had persistently opposed the idea that the throne was vacated by
the departure of James. The nonjuring Prelates would take no part in
the ceremonies; the absence of the Primate was a serious circumstance,
but, by a clause in the Coronation Act, the King had authority to chose
some other Bishop for the principal ceremony of the day. Accordingly he
chose Compton, Bishop of London, to place the crown upon his head. This
Low Churchman and staunch Revolutionist was accompanied by Prelates of
different characters: Lloyd of St. Asaph, one of the seven who had been
sent to the Tower, walked on the one hand, holding the paten; Sprat
of Rochester, who had been a member of the High Commission, walked
on the other, carrying the chalice; and Burnet of Salisbury ascended
the pulpit to deliver a sermon, of which the peroration, imploring
the blessing of Heaven on the King and Queen in this life, and the
bestowment upon them in the life to come of crowns more enduring than
those on the altar, excited a hum of applause from the Commons, who
were seated behind it. For the first time the Coronation occurred
neither on a Sunday nor a holiday; and for the first time really in
accordance with a precedent set at Cromwell’s installation, a Bible
was presented to the Sovereigns as “the most valuable thing that this
world contains;” and it would appear that the identical volume still
exists, for one of the treasures of the Royal Library at the Hague is a
Bible, inscribed with these words: “This Book was given the King and I
at our Coronation. Marie R.” The event was celebrated in the provinces;
garlands adorned with oranges were carried about the streets of country
towns, amidst the beating of drums, the pealing of bells, and the
huzzas of the people, followed at night by the blazing of bonfires.[125]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
As the great Revolution under William I. was perfected by the
Coronation at Westminster on Christmas-day, 1066, so the great
Revolution under William III. was perfected by the Coronation in
the same place on the 11th of April, 1689. In both cases certain
religious rites were necessary to the completeness of the new Monarch’s
inauguration, but in both cases they were celebrated only as a solemn
ratification of a choice made by the national voice. It is curious to
notice, that in addition to the coincidence of names in the case of
the authors of the two most momentous revolutionary successions to the
English crown, there is a further coincidence: each arrived on the
southern shores of England as an invader, and then became the choice of
the people; and neither of them rested on the right of conquest as the
basis of power.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
At the time when the Allegiance and Coronation Oaths were under
discussion, two other important subjects, immediately connected with
Ecclesiastical History, occupied Parliamentary attention. The one was
the widening of admission into the Church, the other was the concession
to Dissenters of liberty to worship according to conviction: both
measures had been repeatedly taken up and repeatedly laid down during
the reign of Charles II.
The steps in reference to Comprehension may be conveniently considered
first.
The Primate Sancroft, it is alleged,[126] looked favourably in that
direction, amidst the excitement to liberal feeling, which sprung up on
the eve of the Revolution: certainly at the beginning of the year 1689,
Lloyd, the Bishop of St. Asaph, Tillotson, Dean of Canterbury, Sharp,
Dean of Norwich, and Dr. Tenison, met at the house of Stillingfleet,
Dean of St. Paul’s, as we are informed by Patrick, Prebendary of
Westminster--who was present on the occasion--to consult about such
concessions as might bring in Dissenters to communion, “for which,”
Patrick says, “the Bishop of St. Asaph told us, he had the Archbishop
of Canterbury’s leave. We agreed that a Bill should be prepared, to
be offered by the Bishops, and we drew up the matter of it in ten or
eleven heads.”[127] Coincident with the time when such proposals were
sufficiently matured to be laid before Parliament, but not coincident
with the particular purpose and method which these and other Divines
had in view, was the publication of a draft, by some irresponsible
person, for the universal accommodation of Dissenters, and the bringing
of all parties into communion with the Established Church. This scheme,
which bore the title of an amicable reconciliation, soon dropped into
the limbo of quixotic plans, but it made some noise at the time, and
is sufficiently curious to be worth a few words.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Amidst existing religious differences the principle is laid down that
as there is one Catholic Church under Christ, so there must be many
local Churches framed after some type of political organization. The
Church of England is of the latter kind, placed under the government
of King and Bishops. This Church requires a change. It wants
comprehensiveness. Now, a distinction exists between tolerable and
intolerable religions. Intolerable religions are set aside, but all
tolerable religions, it is affirmed, ought not only to be legalized,
but incorporated in the Establishment. Bishops should be King’s
officers, to act _circa sacra_; and those now called Dissenters
should be eligible for such an office, with power to supervise all
parties, in order to the keeping of them in harmony with their own
principles, so as not to disturb the peace of others.[128] This scheme
included a provision that Ecclesiastical laws should be enacted by a
Convocation, including non-episcopal members, or by the two Houses of
Parliament.
A Bill “for uniting their Majesties’ Protestant subjects” was
introduced in the House of Lords by the Earl of Nottingham on the 11th
of March, and that day received its first reading. Upon the 14th it was
read a second time and committed; and at the same sitting there was
introduced by the same nobleman, and entrusted to the same Committee,
another Bill, entitled “An Act for exempting their Majesties’
Protestant subjects, dissenting from the Church of England, from the
penalties of certain laws.” Two measures, intimately connected with
each other, and embodying opinions and wishes long cherished, were thus
launched side by side, destined to meet different fates. Debated by the
Lords with considerable sharpness, the Bill for uniting Protestants
was narrowly watched by people outside, of different sentiments; and
when no regular system existed for reporting speeches, fragments of
senatorial oratory were casually picked up and preserved from oblivion
by diarists and others; a person who looked at the subject from a
dissenting point of view thus recorded what he learnt:
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The Bill was thought by some not “large enough to comprehend the sober
sort of Dissenters, for it did not grant to them some of the great
points they had always and still did insist upon; and if it were
thought the true interest of the Church and State to comprehend them,
they must enlarge that Bill.”
The Bishop of Lincoln considered ordination by Presbyters to be good
and sufficient, and in order to the taking of them in, it was not
necessary there should be the imposition of Episcopal hands.
The Marquis of Winchester, fervent for Comprehension, as conducive to
the interest of the Church, was unconcerned for the Bill of Indulgence,
since “that would but nourish Church snakes and vipers in the bosom of
the Church.”[129]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
Early in the month of April we find the Lords busy with the
Comprehension Bill. Upon the 4th, they were engaged upon the question,
“Whether to agree with the Committee in leaving out the clause about
the indifferency of the posture at the receiving the Sacrament?” The
votes being equal, the Journal records, “Then, according to the ancient
rule in the like case, _semper præsumitur pro negante_,” that
is to say, the question as to leaving out the clause was decided in
the negative, and therefore the clause remained. “There was a proviso
likewise in the Bill for dispensing with kneeling at the Sacrament and
being baptized with the sign of the cross, to such as, after conference
on those heads, should solemnly protest they were not satisfied as to
the lawfulness of them. That concerning kneeling occasioned a vehement
debate; for the posture being the chief exception that the Dissenters
had, the giving up this was thought to be the opening a way for them to
come into employments. Yet it was carried in the House of Lords, and
I declared myself zealous for it. For since it was acknowledged that
the posture was not essential in itself, and that scruples, how ill
grounded soever, were raised upon it, it seemed reasonable to leave the
matter as indifferent in its practice, as it was in its nature.”[130]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
On the next day another debate rose on an important point. It was
proposed that a Commission should be appointed, including laymen
as well as clergymen, to prepare some plan for healing divisions,
correcting errors, and supplying defects in the constitution of the
Church. Burnet, adopting the questionable policy of striving to please
opponents, and bring them to adopt a comprehensive scheme by humouring
their prejudice--a policy of which he afterwards repented--argued
against the proposed Commission, and upon the question being put,
strangely enough, there was again an equality of votes. The same rule
as before was followed, and a negative being put on the proposition,
the Marquis of Winchester and the Lords Mordaunt and Lovelace entered
their protest against it as contrary to the constitution, inconsistent
with Protestantism, inexpedient as to the end proposed, likely to
create jealousies, to raise objections, and to countenance the
dangerous position that the laity were not a part of the Church. The
Earl of Stamford added a distinct protest, on the further ground, that
to refuse laymen a place in such a Commission was opposed to statutes
of Parliament in the reigns of Henry VIII. and Edward VI., which
empowered a mixed Commission to revise the Canon law.
The Comprehension Bill, with these modifications, passed the House
of Lords on the 8th of April, and was sent down to the House of
Commons.[131]
Strange again--the fact has been overlooked by our principal modern
historians--before the Lords’ Bill reached the Commons, the Commons
were engaged upon a Comprehension Bill of their own, and upon a
Toleration Bill likewise. The day which saw the Lords reading the
former of these for the third time, saw the Commons also reading a
similar one of their own for the first time, and granting leave to
bring in another Bill, as the phrase went, for “easing of Protestant
Dissenters.”
[Sidenote: 1689.]
But the party in the Commons earnest for Comprehension, had to row
against wind and tide. One member desired the new Bill might be
adjourned for a fortnight; another wished to put it off till Domesday.
Old Colonel Birch impugned the motives of those who opposed the measure
by mentioning the names of two members in the last Long Parliament, who
had objected to a similar proposal, and who proved afterwards to be
Papists in disguise.[132]
Whilst the two Bills for Comprehension lay upon the Commons’ table,
the Commons concurred with the House of Lords in an address expressing
gratitude for His Majesty’s repeated assurances to maintain the Church
of England, and praying that he would continue his care for the
preservation of the same; and that, according to ancient practice, he
would issue writs as soon as convenient for calling a Convocation of
the Clergy, to be advised with in Ecclesiastical matters. “It is our
intention,” they add, “forthwith to proceed to the consideration of
giving ease to Protestant Dissenters.”[133] The reference here is to
what is called the Toleration Bill.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
By the Parliamentary address to the King, requesting him to summon
Convocation for advice in Ecclesiastical matters, the Lords and Commons
foreclosed the possibility of doing any more at present in reference to
Comprehension. The two Bills on the subject were shelved, and debates
on the point dropped in both Houses.[134]
At whose door lay the responsibility of defeating this particular
attempt at the solution of a long-agitated question? The responsibility
must be divided. It is difficult to get at a thorough knowledge of
the views and aims of different parties interested in the subject.
The spirit of intrigue, a habit of insincerity, and an employment
of double-dealing, which cast such thick clouds around what was in
many respects a “glorious Revolution,” influenced the minds of those
who took part in the proceedings. Credit may be given to such men as
Compton, Burnet, and others, for an honest intention to promote union;
but I am at a loss to understand the Earl of Nottingham,[135] who
introduced the Bill to the Lords, and who, being a High Churchman,
must, one would suppose, have been inimical to at least some of its
provisions. Still more difficult is it to understand the conduct of
certain nonjuring Bishops, who, before they withdrew from the House,
moved in favour of a comprehension, as well as the connivance of
Sancroft, in allowing his name to be mentioned in connection with it.
Reresby says some of the Prelates who supported the Bill did so more
from fear than inclination;[136] and Burnet declares, “those who had
moved for this Bill, and afterwards brought it into the House, acted a
very disingenuous part; for while they studied to recommend themselves
by this show of moderation, they set on their friends to oppose it; and
such as were very sincerely and cordially for it, were represented as
the enemies of the Church, who intended to subvert it.”[137]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
As to the Nonjurors, it was believed at the time that they would
not have been dissatisfied if any innovation upon forms, or any
encroachment on clerical authority, had furnished a pretext for
dividing the Church. But this belief was indignantly denounced
afterwards as utterly false by one of the Nonjurors.[138] The whole
atmosphere seems to have been laden with duplicity; and when the
measure came down to the Lower House, with the apparent sanction of
the Upper, there is reason to believe that if not the parents, yet the
nurses and sponsors of the Bill had no objection to have the child
perish in its cradle. Some, charged with this kind of infidelity,
excused themselves on the ground of what they called the manifest
partiality shown by certain of the Court Lords to the Dissenters.[139]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
The objections offered by some of the Lords related to the details, not
to the principle of the Bill, and no formal opposition seems to have
been made to it by the Commons. They had appeared at first friendly
enough to the general measure, and when they abandoned it, they did
so under cover of desiring a meeting of Convocation, which might
efficiently deal with the subject. The hapless infant died, not from
violence, but neglect; not through blows dealt by an open enemy, but
from want of nursing on the part of those pledged to cherish it.
The treachery, or apathy, of the Commons can be accounted for when we
remember the character of the House and the circumstances of the times:
as we have seen, but few Nonconformists--not more than twenty or thirty
Presbyterians--could be counted among the members. The vast majority
were Churchmen--some, Tory Churchmen, looking with a sinister eye upon
the whole affair; some, Whig Churchmen, liberal in a limited degree,
but opposed to the principle of Dissent: they cared much more for the
Episcopalian Establishment than for what was called the Protestant
Religion; they had little or no sympathy with the religious sentiments
of the Nonconformists; they were unable to enter into their scruples;
they were afraid that concession might endanger their own community;
and they looked with apprehension upon the nonjuring movement. Much
mischief was foreboded from that quarter, should such alterations
be made as would countenance the idea that the Establishment under
William and Mary was giving up its Episcopalian distinctions. Such an
idea would strengthen the counter schism; for the Nonjurors might be
expected to make capital out of the circumstance, and claim no small
honour for maintaining Episcopalianism in its integrity. Another
circumstance doubtless contributed to the turn affairs took in the
Lower House.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
Dissenters were not of one mind. Philip Henry earnestly desired
Comprehension, “for never,” says his son, “was any more averse to
that which looked like a separation than he was, if he could possibly
have helped it--_salvâ conscientiâ_. His prayers were constant,
and his endeavours, as he had opportunity, that there might be some
healing methods found out and agreed upon.”[140] It would also have
delighted Richard Baxter in his last days to see the door opened as
wide as he had long before desired it should be. Bates would have
been much pleased. The same may be said of Howe. But many were of a
different mind.[141] The Nonconformist advocates of Comprehension
belonged chiefly to the Presbyterian Church. Almost all Independents
and Baptists felt it impossible for any alterations to be made such as
could allow of their becoming parochial incumbents. More than a few had
long been voluntaries, numbers were beginning to look in a direction
opposite to that of an Establishment.[142] Selfishness has been
assigned as a motive. “Some few pastors of wealthy congregations might
be tempted to desire a continuance of the distance between Dissenters
and Churchmen.” Yet Churchmen entertained “more charitable thoughts
of sincere Dissenters.” The balance of temporal advantages certainly
inclined on the side of a nationally-endowed Church, rich in tithes
and other revenues, richer still in rank and prestige. However, it is
unfair to suppose that, except in very rare instances indeed, an eye to
income retained men in Nonconformist positions. Beyond all doubt, had
Dissenting ministers been generally zealous in supporting the measure,
they would have been charged by their neighbours with looking after the
loaves and fishes. Where, however, no love of this world influenced the
decision, the decision might be influenced by prejudice and suspicion;
for persons must have been more or less than human, who, after such
treatment as they had received for thirty years, could be free from
all passionate emotion in estimating the conduct of those who had
been either bitter persecutors or unconcerned witnesses of wrong. The
motives of Churchmen at the Revolution would not always be fairly
weighed by Dissenters. Suspicion, where it could not be justified, may
still be condoned, looking at the antecedents of the case; and where
there was not sufficient ground for imputing dishonourable motives to
Churchmen, there might be enough to lead Nonconformists to suspect,
that no warm welcome would be afforded them within the Establishment,
even should the iron gates unfold. When reports of Comprehension were
rife at an earlier period, an old story had been told to this effect:
Sancho the Third, King of Spain, put aside his brother’s children that
he might ascend the throne. A lady who was the representative and heir
of the dispossessed line of Princes married the Duke of Medina Celi,
who assumed the rights of his wife. He and his descendants accordingly
presented a petition to the Sovereign that he would restore the
crown--a petition to which he gave the reply, “_No es lugar_,”
“There is no room.” This story had been applied by Presbyterians to the
abeyance in which their claims to Church readmission had been held for
more than a quarter of a century. “So our just liberty is talked of,”
says Newcome, of Manchester, “by fits in course; and in course doft off
with _No es lugar_, There is no room.”[143] It was thought the
story remained as applicable after the Revolution as before.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
This fact should be remembered. Comprehension became to all parties
more and more difficult, and to some parties less and less desirable,
as time rolled on. However hard it might be to effect a reconciliation,
looking at the temper of Churchmen in 1662, it became harder in 1689,
looking at the position of Dissenters. They had increased in numbers,
had formed themselves into distinct Churches, had obtained their own
ordained ministers, and had begun to create an ecclesiastical history,
and to cherish in their separate capacity something of an _esprit de
corps_. The opportunity of reclaiming the wanderers, once possessed
by the Church party, had slipped away beyond recall. Overtures, which
would have been eagerly grasped before, were coldly looked at now.[144]
The history of the measures for _easing_ or _indulging_ Dissenters
presents a marked contrast to the history of the measure for uniting
them to the Establishment. The Bill ordered on the 8th of April by the
House of Commons to be drawn up for the former purpose, was read on the
15th. The Bill from the Lords’ House, where it had smoothly passed, was
received on the 18th, and first read on the 20th of the same month.
Both Bills were committed on the 15th of May. What little of the
debate has been preserved shows it to have been brief, desultory, and
superficial--not dealing with any great principles, but only discussing
details, with an outburst now and then of ill-temper. One speaker would
not give indulgence to Quakers, because they would not take an oath.
Another identified them with Penn, and looked upon them as Papists in
disguise. Yet all the speakers supported more or less the principle of
the Bill, although some were of opinion that it should be adopted as an
experiment for seven years.[145] It speedily passed without any such
limitation, and received the Royal assent on the 24th of May.[146]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
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]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: TOLERATION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
“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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
“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]
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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]
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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.”
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.”
[Sidenote: COMPREHENSION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
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.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
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]
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
After the Royal Commission--a commission which spoke of rites and
ceremonies as “indifferent and alterable”--authorizing the Convocation
to proceed to business had been read, and after the delivery of a
Royal message full of gracious expressions, conveyed by the Earl of
Nottingham, the Bishops prepared an address. In this address they
thanked His Majesty for the zeal he had shown “for the Protestant
religion in general, and the Church of England in particular.”[163] To
these words a strong objection was taken by the Lower House. First,
they claimed a right to present an address of their own, which being
disallowed, they claimed a right to offer amendments. They wished the
address to be confined to what concerned the Church of England, and no
mention to be made of the Protestant religion in general. An amendment
being carried to that effect, there followed a conference between the
two Houses--Burnet representing the Upper, Jane the Lower. The Lower
House desired the words “Established Church” to be employed, which led
to a dispute between the Bishop and the Prolocutor. The Bishop argued,
that the Church of England as established was only distinguished from
other Churches by its hierarchy and revenues, and that if Popery were
restored there would still be an Established Church of England. The
Prolocutor replied, that the Church was distinguished by its Articles,
Liturgy, and Homilies.
[Sidenote: 1689.]
The discussion between these two Divines resembled that between the
two knights who could not agree about the device on a shield, because
the first looked at it on one side and the second on the other. The
fact is, that the disputants were thinking of different things. Burnet
was thinking only of the circumstance of an Establishment--of that
which is a mere incident to any Church connected with the State; so
considering the question, no doubt he was right. Jane, on the other
hand, was thinking of the Church itself, and not the establishment
of it. Consequently he was wrong in saying what he did of the Church
as established, though he would have been right had Burnet used the
disputed words in the sense in which Jane was employing them. The
logomachy terminated in a compromise; and the two Houses concurred in
thanking William for the zeal he had expressed concerning the honour,
peace, advantage, and establishment of the English Church, whereby they
doubted not the interest of the Protestant religion, which in all
other Protestant Churches was dear to them, would be the better secured.
[Sidenote: CONVOCATION.]
The King, in reply, assured the Bishops, that they might depend on his
former promises, and he gave a new assurance that he would improve all
occasions and opportunities for serving the Church of England. There
also occurred in this Convocation, debates about proxies, complaints
respecting the custody of Convocation records, and charges brought
against the publication of books on the Athanasian Creed, contrary
to the Canons. We are informed that a reverend person made a useless
speech on behalf of the Bishops under suspension, wishing that
something could be done to qualify them for sitting in Convocation
without endangering the constitution of the Assembly; and Burnet tells
us that the majority in Convocation refused to consider any compromise
with the Dissenters, one argument being that it was derogatory to the
Church to make overtures to them until they expressed a desire for
reconciliation, and either offered proposals themselves, or showed a
willingness to consider proposals made by others.[164]
Committee meetings were held in Dr. Busby’s chamber, and in Dr.
Tenison’s library there was an inspection of old books belonging to
Convocation, but nothing important was effected in any way. Convocation
adjourned on the 16th of December through successive prorogations, and
remained inoperative for ten years.