sions; however, in those four sessions there were determined the point of re-ordination, the alterations in the ordinal itself, and time was found for a discussion concerning testimonials.

That the other sessions exhibit a strange misappreciation of the real wants of the Church, or a lamentable inability to grapple with great questions, will scarcely be denied, when the wearisome minuteness of alteration of rubrics and collects is compared with the greatness of the subjects commended to the Commissioners.

Suspicion will ever attach to the Church measures of William, and the suspicion crosses one's mind that the terms of the Commission were a mere blind, that the Commissioners knew what work they were expected to do, and did it; that they purposely avoided the matters of deeper moment by this activity in trifles. If it were so, still the Commission stands on record as a testimony to the real wants of the Church, a confession from those who desired a puritan revision of the Liturgy, that the best or only chance of success was to propose it amidst a real reformation of the Church. Such a suspicion, however, it is safer and more charitable to dismiss, neither indeed is it just to the Commissioners to regard them as willing agents in such a fraud. Tillotson certainly contemplated wider measures, the work of freer hands. For in his paper sent to the Earl of Portland, dated September 13, 1689, he names as his fourth concession,1 "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;" and as his fifth concession, "That there be an effectual regulation of Ecclesiastical Courts, particularly, that the

power of excommunication be taken out of the hands of lay officers and placed in the Bishop." The only singular thing is that he should style these proposals "concessions," which no one knew better than himself to be among the great desiderata of the Church for the completing her Reformation.

It was perhaps natural, though most unwise, that the Commissioners should commence with the revision of the Liturgy, a topic which was then canvassed far more commonly than the topic of a real reform; just as at the present day there are ten readers of a tract on revision, even Mr. Davis' or Mr. Hildyard's, for one reader of Dr. Wordsworth's "Appendix to the Sermon on Evangelical Repentance." Probably, the Commissioners as they went on found themselves weakened by the early secession of some of their members; there was not sufficient unanimity, perhaps even too much personal altercation,3 to encourage them to proceed to weightier

1 Birch's Life of Tillotson. 2nd Edit., p. 169.

2" Commissioners that never sat, six, viz., York, Carlisle, Exeter, Beaumont, Mountague, Battley. Bishop of Rochester was only twice, and came not after Nor Dr. Jane, Aldridge, Meggot, after Sess. 3, October 18."

Sess. 2, October 16.
-Alterations, p. 108.

3 See Alterations, pp. 97, 100.

matters; they therefore satisfied themselves with this otiose activity in trifles. "Men who feel themselves unequal to great questions may commonly be observed to fly at the smaller ones which lie in any way within their province, and satisfy themselves that they are fulfilling their duties." To show the extreme weakness of these commissioners, from whatever cause it proceeded, it may be noticed that in the department they did undertake, they effected next to nothing in that branch which one of themselves, during their meetings, declared to be the most important branch. Tenison wrote,2 "I am in part of the opinion of the quærist, that the prayers cannot be altered for the better by any mere human composition. This seems to be true of the Confessions at the beginning of the Service, and at the Communion, and of many other forms; but it ought not to be said of every Collect. But the great business, as to the Liturgy, is the adding to some offices and preparing new ones which are wanting, and the amending of rubrics."

The achievements of the commissioners in this "great business" are limited to some additions to the Catechism and Confirmation Service, and to a new Collect, Epistle, and Gospel for Rogation Sunday.

Such was the work of this memorable commission. And a more seasonable or more instructive publication there could not have been than the book of its proposals. There it stands, in its utter weakness, a demonstration that the men who would have virtually surrendered Episcopacy would not, even at the invitation of the crown, attempt a reform of our discipline-that they dared not add to our Prayer Book Services which they acknowledged to be wanting that the true excellence of those which we have they could not appreciate.

It is not to men of this stamp that the revision of the Prayer Book can be entrusted.3

But, as before, we are to deal with our Church as a whole: and it cannot but cause deep sorrow and shame, that such a proposal by the crown should not have been met in a better spirit: that the commissioners should have entered solely upon those topics which were most controverted, to the neglect of the higher topics in which there would have been substantial agreement: that the Convocation which set itself so firmly against undue concessions should not with equal firmness have claimed to proceed to the higher business 4 that a Synod, summoned at the request of Par

1 H. Taylor, Statesman, p. 84.

2 Tenison "On the Ecclesiastical Commission." Reprint, by Wodehouse, p. 18. 3 It will be remarked that from this time the demand for a Puritan revision of the Liturgy separates itself from the demand for discipline,

4 The schedule of grievances of 1703 embraces many important matters of discipline, but the spirit of polemics was too strong to allow of the right presentation or the due reception of such a document, a hearty union of the two houses for such a work had become impossible.

liament, instead of consulting how to promote true godliness, should have spent years in bickerings about schedules of prorogation, and deputy prolocutors.

How different an aspect our Church might have now worn, had the higher course been pursued?

We will proceed then to show, that such a view as we have taken of these events was taken by the best men of that time a very few years afterwards; and that the Church gave plain proofs that she felt the want of this restoration of discipline.

Searching for the thoughts of the best men of that day upon this topic there meets us, first of all, the well known speech of Wake, at Sacheverell's trial; a speech of the utmost importance, not only on account of Wake's own authority, which is far from inconsiderable, but principally on account of the reference it makes to Sancroft, and the connection thus established with the pre-revolution divines. The mention made of Sancroft, as the author of a scheme for comprehension, has been a perplexity to Sancroft's admirers, at least to those who fancied that comprehension was to be attained only by undue concession. Surely the perplexity is most unreasonable. For no worthier object could an English Primate propose to himself than to re-unite the Christian men of England, upon Catholic principles, and by Catholic means; surely, also, Sancroft's principles are too well known, his character too well established, to allow for a moment the thought that he would have yielded to such terms as the commissioners proposed. The truth appears to us to be that Wake views a comprehension as possible only by means of a broad and real reformation of the Church, principally as regards her discipline, that he (no doubt with good reason) attributes such a design to Sancroft, neglecting as no essential part of the design, and easily separable from it, the objectionable proposals of the commissioners. That these proposals have come to be considered as the foundation and essence of the design, has arisen from the want of detailed information as to Sancroft's measures, and from the ill-judged proceedings of the commissioners in addressing themselves to one portion only of the task assigned them.

Wake said,

"He who first concerted the comprehension was the late Abp. Sancroft, towards the end of K. James's reign That wise prelate, foreseeing such a revolution as afterwards happened, began to consider how unprepared we had been at the Restoration, to settle many things to the advantage of the Church; and what a happy opportunity had been lost for want of a previous care, as he wished would now be taken for its more perfect establishment. The several parts of the scheme were by the direction of the Archbishop committed to such divines as were thought most proper; he took one part himself, another was committed to Dr. Patrick, afterwards Bishop of Ely; the reviewing the

Liturgy and Communion Book was referred to a select number, two of whom are now in our bench, viz. the Archbishop of York, and Bishop of Ely, who will witness the truth of my relation."

There were then two parts in the scheme, besides the revision of the Liturgy and the part which Sancroft took to himself was not that of revision. From his regulations about granting testimonials,1 the articles for the regulation of ordinations and institutions,2 and the instructions to the bishop regarding the clergy,3 we may perhaps infer what was the part he took to himself.

Wake proceeds,

4

"The design was to improve and enforce our discipline, to review and enlarge the Liturgy, correct some things and add others, to be legally considered first in Convocation, then in Parliament; and to leave some few ceremonies confessed to be indifferent in their natures, indifferent in their usage, so as not to be necessarily observed by those who scrupled them."

He then read an extract from a tract5 dated 1689, to prove that the doctrine, government, and worship of the Church were to remain entire in all the substantial parts; and reviewing the whole design insists on the

"Desirableness of enforcing the Canons, and making new ones, for the reformation of manners, for the punishing notorious offenders, and making our discipline more strict."

Regarding the Revision of the Liturgy he speaks of making doubtful expressions clearer, and qualifying harsh ones, naming several new offices that are wanting.

"These are some of the main things then designed, and no favour to dissenters, that I know of intended, but what had been entirely consistent with our constitution."

Considering then Wake's character and learning, with the judgment he displayed in some trying Church matters, as e.g. in the correspondence with Du Pin, regarding an union with the Gallican Church, considering also that this description of Sancroft's design was given in defence of the design of 1689 against the attack of Sacheverell, we conceive that we are justified in asserting that he overlooked the objectionable proposals of the commissioners as things separable from that latter design, and in truth inconsistent

We quote from "High Church Displayed, being a complete History of the affair of Dr. Sacheverell. London, 1711."-P. 269.

5 A Letter from a Divine to a Member of Parliament, in defence of the Bill for the uniting of Protestants. In State Tracts of the reign of K. William III., p. 71.

with it, that he had in view a real reformation in discipline, while he was willing to revise and perfect the Liturgy, as a part of the general scheme.

We have no further information regarding Sancroft's purposes,1 but Wake's account is sufficient to show that there was nothing in them inconsistent with the hope and rule he had long before expressed.2

"We see our holy Mother the Church, standing up from the dust and ruins in which she sat so long, taking beauty again for ashes, and the garments of praise for the spirit of heaviness; remounting the episcopal throne, bearing the keys of the kingdom of heaven with her, and armed (we hope) with the rod of discipline; her hands spread abroad to bless and to ordain, to confirm the weak, and to reconcile the penitent; her breasts flowing with the sincere milk of the word; and girt with a golden girdle under the paps, tying up all by a meek limitation and restriction to primitive patterns and prescripts apostolical."

Kennett to the same purpose, five years before Sacheverell's trial,

had declared the wants of the Church :4

"May we not wish for some little suppletory offices to our excellent Liturgy; especially for our admitting converts, and reconciling penitents to our faith and communion? May we not desire a reformation of the ecclesiastical laws, in some such method as the wisdom of the Legislature more than once directed? And may we not desire that the admission of clerks to the cure of souls were left somewhat more to the conscience of the bishop? And that suspension and deprivation in notorious causes, might have their due process and effect without the multiplicity of prohibitions and appeals? That the censures and absolutions of the Church may be restored to the cognizance of the bishop; that penance, with the commutations of it, may be under his direction; and that in some cases, contumacy might be punished without the last resort to excommunication? That the power of suppressing vice and immorality could regain its proper seat, the discipline of the Church; and so encourage the worthy endeavours for a reformation of manners? That the repairing of churches and chapels might be more effectually enjoined by the ordinary without vexatious interruption? That the exemption of some places from episcopal jurisdic

1 There is, perhaps, a brief intimation of his views at second-hand, in a sermon of Needham's, (Visitation Sermon at Petersfield,) quoted in "Free and Candid Disquisitions," p. 291; for we suppose this preacher to be the same with the Archbishop's Chaplain, who was rector of Alresford, Hants.: "I will freely own that our discipline is defective, our Canons not so well chosen, nor our Liturgy so perfect as it ought to be."

D'Oyley states that this account of Wake's is the only account which we possess. 2 Sermon at the consecration of Cosin. D'Oyley's Life, App. ii., p. 346.

3 Non ubera solum, sed verbera. S. Bernard.

Sermon at Wake's Consecration, "The Office and good Work of a Bishop," 1705. Of this sermon Chief Justice Holt is reported to have said, "it had more in it to the purpose of the legal and Christian constitution of this Church than any volume of discourses." Life of Kennett, p. 28.