66

beth, so far as they related to Protestants dissenting from the church of England, this act requires them to take the oath of allegiance, to declare their abhorrence of the pretended power of the pope to depose princes, and to subscribe the articles of religion, except the thirty-fourth, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, and these words in the twentieth :-" The Church hath power to decree rites or ceremonies, and authority in controversies of faith." The baptists are exempted from subscribing part of the twenty-seventh article, respecting infant baptism; and the quakers are required to declare their fidelity to King William and Queen Mary, their abhorrence of the pretended papal power, their firm belief of the doctrine of the trinity, and that the holy scriptures are of divine inspiration. Under these conditions, dissenters from the church of England, having their places of assembly registered, are allowed and protected in the public worship of Almighty God; but all Roman Catholics, and all who deny the doctrine of the Trinity as declared in the articles of the church of England, are excluded from the least share in the benefits of the act.*

Such are the provisions of this celebrated statute. Although so palpably imperfect, the dissenters of that day received it as a great boon, and for many generations it was considered the most liberal act on the. statute book in respect to matters ecclesiastical. The London ministers of all denominations put themselves immediately under its protection, by signing the doctrinal articles of the church, and returned devout thanksgivings for the great privileges they now enjoyed.

* The entire Act will be found in Bogue and Bennett's History of the Dissenters, 1. 187-198.

In consequence of the agitations of party, the selfish intrigues of Whigs and Tories, and the continual attempts of the abdicated king to effect his own restoration, the reign of William the Third was to a great degree unsettled. In 1692 and 1696, plots to assassinate the king were discovered, which, but for an over-ruling Providence, might have brought about a counter-revolution.

William was true to his promises to the dissenters, so far as the state of parties would admit. He regarded them as his best friends. Through his intimacy with Howe and Matthew Mead, before the revolution, he became better acquainted with the party than is often the case with monarchs: nor was the comparison which he made between the dissenters and the church of England, to the disparagement of the former. They were ever loyal and peaceable, although earnest in seeking the advancement of their liberties; and he could repose quite as much confidence in them as in those who preached up the divine right of kings, but frequently illustrated their doctrine in so remarkable a manner.

Some changes took place during this period in the relative position of the Independents and presbyterians. Before the Restoration, a considerable movement, although of a gradual character, had been made, towards an union, if not an amalgamation, of the two bodies. In Lancashire, Yorkshire, Worcestershire, and several other counties, associated meetings had been held, as the result of the persevering endeavours of Baxter and Howe. Immediately after the Revolution, the leading ministers of the two denominations in London united on a common platform of faith and order. A document, entitled "The heads of agree

66

ment assented to by the united ministers, formerly called presbyterian and congregational," was drawn up in 1691, from which it would appear that the presbyterians were quite another race of men from those who composed the majority of the Westminster Assembly. As Neal observes, they had "abandoned their servile doctrines, and appeared in defence of the civil and religious liberties of mankind, upon the most solid and general principles." They gave up their 'rigid" views respecting synodical power, and admitted that "every congregation is to be governed by itself;" that none should be admitted as members of particular churches, but such persons as are sound in the fundamental doctrines of the christian religion, and "credibly professing cordial subjection to Jesus Christ." In one of the articles of agreement, it is affirmed, "that each particular church hath a right to choose their own officers; and being furnished with such as are duly qualified and ordained according to the gospel rule, hath authority from Christ for exercising government, and of enjoying all the ordinances of worship, within itself."

Thus the presbyterians had given up the most essential feature of their system, as a kind of necessary result of the character of their fellowship and worship during the persecutions of the Restoration period, when they were compelled by circumstances to act in a congregational manner. At the same time it is apparent from the same heads of agreement, that the two denominations, although now more closely united than before, retained their peculiarities on some minor points. In one of the articles, for example, we find the following words: :-"In the administration of church power, it belongs to the pastors and

other elders of every particular church, if such there be, to rule and govern, and to the brotherhood to consent, according to the rule of the gospel." And in another we find the following: "Whereas divers are of opinion, that there is also the office of ruling elders, who labour not in word and doctrine, and others think otherwise, we agree that this difference makes no breach among us." By this time, the congregationalists generally had changed their opinion respecting the distinction between the pastor and teacher; and, with few exceptions, had come to regard the pastor and elder as one and the same person. As early as 1652, Mr. Woodall, of Woodbridge, had objected to being appointed teacher in distinction from pastor, on the ground that he could not see any precedent for the distinction in the word of God; and a little later, Drs. Owen and Goodwin, in their letters to the church at Norwich, through Mr. Asty, gave it as their opinion, that the distinction was nominal rather than essential. A particular account of the various views entertained on these subjects in the eastern counties will be found in the miscellaneous works of the late Rev. T. Harmer.

On the death of William, March the 8th, 1702, Queen Anne, the favourite daughter of James the Second, ascended the throne. It is difficult to describe her character, since there was so little worthy of notice. Some have affirmed that she had none, while others have described her as a good sort of woman." Still, notwithstanding her high-church zeal, she is said to have disliked punishment; and although her reign of twelve years was "radiant with the lustre of arms" and statesmanship, her domestic * Mackintosh's History of England, Ix. 149.

government was bloodless.* In a literary point of view, her reign was one of the most illustrious. It was the age of Somers, and Addison, Bolingbroke, Swift, and Pope. At the same time, it was the age of re-action, if not of counter-revolution. Although the Jacobites remained quiet during her reign, the highchurch party were very determined in their attempts to discountenance and persecute the dissenters.

In 1702, a bill, called the Occasional Conformity Bill, was introduced to parliament, the professed object of which was to prevent hypocrisy in religion, and danger to the church; but the real object of which was to nullify the Toleration Act, and give the church of England a more stringent monopoly. It passed the House of Commons; but was so much opposed and altered in the House of Lords, that it was allowed for the present to drop through.

Although defeated on this occasion, an attempt was made, in 1705, to revive the measure. The cry of "The church in danger" had been previously raised by the Tory party, and, on the sixth of December, a debate on the ecclesiastical position of the country occurred in the House of Lords, in which Lord Rochester, accepting the challenge of Lord Halifax, endeavoured to prove the perilous condition of the church. He referred in evidence to the establishment of presbytery in Scotland, and the absence of an act against occasional conformity in England. Sharpe, Archbishop of York, and the Duke of Leeds, took the same side; the former asking for the strong arm of the state to put down the seminaries maintained by dissenters, and the latter declaring that the queen had expressed her

* James the Second died at St. Germains, in 1701, and his son James succeeded him in his pretensions to the British crown.