Two or three days previous to Lady Augusta’s funeral, I breakfasted at Lambeth, when Archbishop Tait, amongst other things, spoke of his desire for some union with Protestant Dissenters as far as it was possible; and this led to proceedings which, as they have not been reported in any fulness, may be recorded here.
It was a delicate question who should first move in the matter. The Archbishop wished to invite brethren to Lambeth, but what reason was to be assigned for taking such a step? At length it was arranged that some communication should be made to him, indicative of a disposition on the part of Nonconformists to confer with Episcopalian brethren. On such a ground the Archbishop considered he might bring together bishops, ready to join in a conference. I undertook to prepare a letter and get it signed, so that Dr. Tait might feel he had sure footing for what might follow. It was based on a recognition of pleasure felt by Nonconformists, in consequence of passages in his recent charges touching religious union. The letter went on to express willingness to meet brethren for consultation respecting co-operation in religious service so far as it might be possible and wise. It was signed by well-known ministers, and was acknowledged by the Archbishop under the term of “memorial,” an expression which, if I remember rightly, had not been employed by us.
Four Nonconformist ministers accordingly went down to Lambeth to converse on the subject. Previous to this interview, it was my conviction that to discuss the subject of union by itself was by no means desirable, as it might raise questions which would defeat the end in view. In harmony with this, the following opinion was expressed by a friendly prelate:—“Such a neutral subject as the progress of irreligious thought, would do well as a basis for a friendly meeting.”
In a note received from the Archbishop before we met, he said, “I beg leave to assure you that all the bishops whom I have consulted agree in the extreme importance of this movement, and in an earnest desire that by proper preliminary arrangements your proposal for a conference may be brought to a satisfactory result.” The proposal for a conference, I think, did not originate with me, though I quite approved of it, and was glad the Archbishop had kindly arranged for its being held.
I subjoin the following record, received from Lambeth, respecting a conference which the ministers named held with the Archbishop beforehand:—
“May 24th, 1876: The Archbishop of Canterbury saw the Rev. Dr. Stoughton, the Rev. Dr. Angus, the Rev. Newman Hall, and the Rev. Dr. Aveling.
“The gentlemen present having heard from the Archbishop what had passed with the bishops who met at the Ecclesiastical Commission, it was the opinion of those present that there was ample room for united efforts to stem growing infidelity and ungodliness.
“1. Therefore that a united conference as to the best means of attempting to spread the knowledge of the answers to materialistic and atheistic sophistries might be attended with very beneficial results.
“2. That such a conference might with great advantage consider the lamentable ignorance and indifference as to religion which prevails amongst masses of the community, and the best modes of meeting these evils.
“3. That such a conference might also with advantage consider what efforts are needed to rouse the classes above the artisan class to a greater appreciation of the realities of religion.
“4. That it would be desirable that at such a conference those present should come prepared to state their experience as to the difficulties to be met, and the proposed remedies. It was agreed that a day after the first week in July would be suitable for such a conference.
“The result of this was reported by the Archbishop to an informal meeting of certain bishops at the Room of the House of Lords: present, the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, St. Asaph, Llandaff, Gloucester and Bristol, and Carlisle; and Monday, July 4th, at twelve noon, was fixed for our gathering.”
We assembled accordingly on July 4th, and there were present besides the Primate, the Bishops of London, Winchester, Peterborough, Gloucester, Bath and Wells, Drs. Allon, Raleigh, Punshon, Rigg, Aveling, Angus, Cumming, Robertson of Edinburgh (an old schoolmate of Dr. Tait); the Revs. J. C. Harrison, Newman Hall, Josiah Viney, and several others whom I cannot call to mind as, unfortunately, I have not kept a list.
The Archbishop presided, read the Scriptures, and offered prayer. He opened the proceedings by an appropriate address, and then requested me to give some account of the steps which had led to our meeting together. I could not help referring to some remarkable gatherings in the Jerusalem Chamber, March 1640–1, convened by Dr. Williams, at that time Bishop of Lincoln, and also Dean of Westminster, when several other dignitaries met certain Presbyterian divines. “This,” I remarked, “was done by order of the House of Lords, with a view to settling points of difference between ecclesiastical parties of that day. A scheme of comprehension was contemplated. It came to nothing, though the intercourse seems to have been pleasant, and they were hospitably entertained by the convener.” “This was the last course of all public Episcopal treatments,” said the witty Thomas Fuller, who added: “The guests may now soon put up their knives, seeing, soon after, the voider was called for, which took away all bishops’ lands.” I emphasised the fact that we had assembled for a very different purpose, not to discuss any plan of comprehension, but to see how parties, remaining ecclesiastically as we were, could, notwithstanding, unite in defence of our common faith against those who opposed it.
“We have a common cause,” it was added; “and let us aim at extending the influence of our common Christianity—this would bring us into spiritual and practical fellowship, the most enduring of all bonds.” The Bishop of Bath and Wells followed and spoke on the specific point—how we should meet doubts and difficulties in reference to religion. The Bishop of Peterborough discussed the subject generally, with great eloquence and force. The Bishops of London and Winchester made practical suggestions as to guarding Christians against scepticism, and rousing people at large from indifference and neglect. Drs. Rigg, Angus, and others, combatted infidel objections and enforced attention to the subject before us. A spirit of harmony pervaded the meeting.
We broke up the morning conference at two o’clock, and then lunched together; reassembling at three o’clock, when the Bishop of Gloucester, Dr. Punshon, and several besides, resumed the conversation. No representatives of the press were present, and no report, that I am aware of, was taken and preserved. We wished to prevent the controversial treatment of what took place. Two of those who were there, together with myself, received and complied with a request to prepare some brief statement for The Times, on the character and purpose of our meeting. Of course, the whole matter was criticised afterwards, chiefly however in private. I do not remember that it was taken up controversially in religious periodicals. To correct some misapprehensions—expressed in a Dissenting newspaper—I, at the request of an esteemed brother, wrote a short letter of explanation.