The publication of “Ecclesia,” a volume by Dissenters, about the same time that another volume appeared written by Churchmen, was the means of bringing the editors and writers of the two works together at the house of a common friend, the Rev. H. S. Toms of Enfield. The Rev. W. D. Maclagan, editor of “The Church and the Age”—incumbent of a neighbouring parish (afterwards Vicar of Kensington, then Bishop of Lichfield [176a])—and Dr. Reynolds, of Cheshunt College, were present. Each editor proposed success to his brother editor on the other side.
This was an instance of mutual recognition and charity, worthy of being known; standing out, as it does, in pleasant contrast with bitter ways in which ecclesiastical controversies have been too often waged. Nor did that single interview end the intercourse thus begun, as I have had a few opportunities since of kindly intercourse with Dr. Maclagan, both as Kensington Vicar, and as a distinguished Bishop, earnestly doing his Episcopal work.
Another event occurred about the same time, in favour of union. The question of Bible Revision ripened to a practical issue in 1870. [176b] A committee was formed by Convocation to carry out the project, and I had the privilege of being present during a part of the discussion. I heard the Dean of Canterbury, Dr. Alford, make an eloquent speech in favour of the design he had done so much to initiate, and for the accomplishment of which he laboured to the last. That speech was pronounced by some members as the most effective he ever delivered. In the evening of the same day, I came across Archdeacon Denison, at a clerical meeting, to which I was invited by an old Kensington neighbour, the Rev. J. E. Kempe, Rector of St. James’, Piccadilly. There is nothing like private chat with men of pronounced opinions, who in public are accustomed to speak with vehemence. Judging from newspapers, one regards them as repulsive, whereas a little tête-à-tête in a quiet corner, makes a marvellously different impression. It was so in this instance, and the fiery Archdeacon, as I had thought him, proved a genial, humorous old clergyman, joking me on misconceptions of character formed by reading outside critics.
I must say, after all his antecedents, I found him a thoroughly hearty and kindly disposed Englishman and Christian. “The Revision,” had a powerful and permanent effect in the relations of several distinguished Churchmen and Nonconformists. Some of my scholarly brethren, I need scarcely say, were chosen on the committee, and nothing could be more harmonious than their co-operation on both sides. Having enjoyed the friendship of some, and the acquaintance of more, I can testify to their mutual regard and affection. Some High Churchmen—as I know from having seen notes in their handwriting—expressed thankfulness to Almighty God for having brought them into this new relationship. It evidently removed prejudices, and inspired a feeling of religious oneness, where there had been before estrangement, if not alienation. At the same time Dissenting scholarship rose in estimation; and I found from conversation, that Churchmen held their fellow-revisers in high respect as critical students of the sacred volume. Some betrayed their possession of an idea, that Nonconformist learning in our day had risen far above what it was of old; an idea I endeavoured to correct, by maintaining that, whilst there has been a wider diffusion of knowledge amongst our ministers, it may be questioned whether the attainments of living men amongst us have not been exceeded by those of a past generation. Distinguished Hebrew scholars, such as Drs. Boothroyd, Pye-Smith, and Henderson, famous in the early years of the century, are dropping out of notice in the present day.
Social intercourse went on between the revisers and their friends. Reunions were held at New College, and Regent’s Park College, and also in private residences.
An attempt on a bolder line to promote Christian union, came into prominence about the time now under review. I allude to a proposal for what has been called an “interchange of pulpits,”—more properly an interchange of preaching officers. A hundred years ago it was not altogether uncommon for Incumbents of the Establishment to preach in Dissenting chapels, especially those of the Countess of Huntingdon’s Connexion; in a few instances a Nonconformist occupied a parish church pulpit. Such irregularities died out early in this century. But twenty years since there appeared a willingness on the part of several clergymen to revive the practice. Conferences were held with reference to the subject, and discussions occurred as to what measures should be taken to secure legally, what seemed desirable to many. The Right Honourable Cowper Temple, afterwards Lord Mount Temple (now deceased), took an interest in the matter, and prepared a Bill to remove legal impediments out of the way. He sent me the following note:—
“My desire is to give power to the Bishop and Incumbent to allow any minister of any denomination, or any layman, to preach occasional sermons without requiring the person who preaches to do any of the things required of a Priest or Deacon.
“I shall not touch the Act of Uniformity, but provide for a case which is not included in its provisions—that of preaching sermons which are not part of the daily Church Service, though they may be delivered at the same time. All that is wanted is the admission that preaching in a church belonging to the Establishment is not exclusively a function of the Established Church.”
I insert a copy of the Bill which he sent me.
“A Bill
“To enable Incumbents of Parishes, with the approval and consent of the Archbishop or Bishop of the Diocese, to admit to the Pulpits of their Parish Churches persons not in Holy Orders of the Church of England, for the purpose of delivering occasional Sermons or Lectures.
“Whereas it is expedient that facilities should be given for the occasional delivery of Sermons in Churches of the Church of England by persons not in Holy Orders of the Church of England.
“May it therefore please Your Majesty,
“That it may be enacted, by the Queen’s Most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows (that is to say):—
“1. It shall be lawful for the Bishop of any Diocese in England, on the application of the Incumbent or Officiating Minister of any Church or Chapel belonging to the Church of England within his Diocese, or for the Ordinary of any Collegiate Church or Chapel, to grant, if he shall think fit, permission under his hand to any person, although he is not in Holy Orders and has not made or subscribed a Declaration of Assent in the terms set forth in ‘The Clerical Subscription Act, 1865,’ to preach occasional Sermons or Lectures in such Church or Chapel; and thereupon it shall be lawful for the person mentioned in such permission, on the invitation of the Incumbent or Officiating Minister, to preach an occasional Sermon or Lecture in such Church or Chapel without making any subscription or declaration before preaching.
“2. The preaching of an occasional Sermon or Lecture, in pursuance of this Act, may take place in any Church or Chapel either, after any of the Services in the Book of Common Prayer, or at a time when no Service is used, as may seem best to the Incumbent or Officiating Minister of such Church or Chapel.”
This Bill did not propose liberty for an Episcopalian incumbent to preach in a Nonconformist edifice—that object could be sought afterwards—and the limited freedom contemplated by the proposed measure failed to receive parliamentary support. The fact was, Members of Parliament, who were Dissenters, did not take up the question with any zeal, and some were decidedly against the proposal. They felt no more desire to see Nonconformists in Church pulpits than the Established clergy and laity did; though, of course, they took a different ground of objection. Lines of division remained strongly marked, and those who aimed at Disestablishment were bent on a more sweeping change. The time had not become ripe even for so small an alteration, and as there seemed no great willingness in any party to promote the proposal, it came to an unfortunate end. All kinds of means for promoting union have been suggested, and I have supported some very earnestly; but, in my old age, I am persuaded there is truth in the remark: “The more we grow in knowledge and advance in love, the more we should strive to preserve that simplicity, which is so peculiarly the characteristic of the Gospel, and the more we should guard against the uncharitableness of supposing that every other view, except our own, must be useless or erroneous.” [183]