Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 5—The Church of the Revolution

by John Stoughton

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.

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.

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.

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.