Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T08:11:01.508Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comprehension in the Later Seventeenth Century: A Postscript*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 July 2009

H. G. Horwitz
H. G. Horwitz
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor of History, University of Iowa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Within the last decade, the history of the often obscure efforts made to reach some modus vivendi between the Established Church and the Protestant Nonconformists after 1662 has attracted renewed scholarly attention.1 Recent works have stressed that during the generation dividing the Stuart Restoration from the “Glorious” Revolution, proposals for both comprehension and toleration were repeatedly mooted—sometimes in combination, and at other times in opposition to one another. But it was a scheme of limited toleration which was enacted by the “Convention” Parliament of 1689, while plans for comprehension were shelved by the Houses. Thereafter, as the late Dean of Winchester put it, “Comprehension…faded out of the realm of practical politics with the Non-juror schism and the consequent inaction of Convocation in 1689.”2

Type
Research Article
Information
Church History , Volume 34 , Issue 3 , September 1965 , pp. 342 - 348
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1965

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

* The completion of the necessary research for this paper was made possible through a grant by the Folger Shakespeare Library of a fellowship to the Library's post-doctoral seminar in Tudor and Stuart civilization. I wish to thank Mr. R. Thomas of Dr. Williams' library for his advice and help in the preparation of this paper.

1. See Sykes, N., From Sheldon to Secker (Cambridge, 1959) Ch. IIIGoogle Scholar; Thomas, R., “Comprehension and Indulgence,” in From Uniformity to Unity 1662–1962, ed. Nuttall, G. F. and Chadwick, O. (London, 1962), PP. 191–253Google Scholar; Simon, W. G., “Comprehension in the age of Charles II,” in Church History, XXXI (1962), pp. 440–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Horwitz, H. G., “Protestant Reconciliation in the Exclusion Crisis,” Journal of Ecclesiastical History, XV (1964), pp. 201–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

2. N. Sykes, op. cit., p. 89.

3. Burnet, G., History Of His Own Times (6 vols., Oxford, 1833) IV, 392.Google Scholar

4. For Humfrey's attempts to induce the Earl of Nottingham, Lord Sidney, and Archbishop Sharp to lay bills of comprehension before Parliament, see Bodleian Tanner MSS., 26 f. 38, J. Humfrey to [Bishop Moore], [!Feb. 1692]; and Lloyd-Baker MSS. (Gloucestershire R. O.), Box 4, Bundle L, No. 54, Archbishop Tenison to Archbishop Sharp, 10 Sept. 1696. A good example of his publications of the 1690's in favor of comprehension is Union Pursued,…(London, 1691), especially pp. 13 and 22.Google Scholar

5. See, for example, his comments in the preface to of National Churches… (London, 1691).Google Scholar

6. “Some Account of the Life of Dr. Williams,” in Williams, D., Practical Discourses…, ed. Harris, W. (2 vols., London, 1738), I, xxviii.Google Scholar

7. E.g., A Brief History of Presbytery and Independency,… (London, 1691), p. 29Google Scholar; Free Thoughts Occasioned by the Heads of Agreement… (1691), p. 26.Google Scholar

8. Thomas, R., “The Breakup of Nonconformity,” in The Beginnings of Nonconformity (The Hibbert Lectures for 1962, London, 1964)Google Scholar by G. F. Nuttall, et. al., p. 51, and passim for a general analysis of the Union's f allure.

9. Ibid., pp. 51–5.

10. Ibid., pp. 56–8.

11. Taylor, R., A History of the Union… (2nd edn., 1698), p. 3.Google Scholar

12. Bodleiau Additional MSS., D23, ff. 242–4. Interestingly enough, this document was printed over a century ago by Cardwell, Edward in A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings…. (3rd ed., Oxford, 1849), pp. 456–8,Google Scholar but his transcription also seems to have escaped the attention of more recent scholars. (All citations to this draft hereafter are take from the original manuscript).

13. There are three key clues: the references in the draft to statutes passed in 1689; the fact that mention is made only of “his Majesty” in the enabling clauses; and the statemeit made in the final section that the ecclesiastical commission (of 1689) should be “filled up,” rather than being renewed.

14. This is the case with respect to the preamble itself and the clauses for granting concessions in the use of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism, the provision of godparents, and kneeling at Communion. For this and subsequent references to the 1689 measure, see Hist. MSS. Comm., House of Lords MSS., 1689–1690, pp. 49–52.Google Scholar

15. It should be remembered that the bill of 1689, as finally approved by the Lords, omitted any provision for reordination. Ibid.

16. Bodleian Ballard MSS., 12, f. 70. It was at this time, too, that Humfrey was trying to persuade Lords Sidney and Nottingham to lay a bill of comprehension before the Houses. Supra, note 4.

17. Transcript of a report by F. Bonnet (the Brandenburg Regident in London) to the Elector, 8/18 October. 1697, at British Museum Additional MSS., 30000A, f. 354.

18. Bodleian Ballard MSS., 11, no. 76. See also supra, note 4.

19. Bodleian Rawlinson Letters, 91, f. 391. See also Ibid., 99, f. 21.

20. British Museum Additional MSS., 30000A, f. 354, and see also f. 371.

21. R. Thomas, “The Breakup of Nonconformity,” in op. cit., p. 47.

22. Ferguson, R., A View of an Ecciesiastick in his Socks and Buskins,… (Lond, 1698), p. 51Google Scholar; The Life of John Milton,… (London, 1699), p. 78.Google Scholar But cf. Remarks on the Life of Mr. Milton, As Publish'd by J. T. (London, 1699), p. 40.Google Scholar

23. Ibid.

24. Foiling, K., A. History of the Tory Party 1640–1714 (Oxford, 1924) p. 322Google Scholar and passim. See also Kenyon, J., Robert Spencer Earl of Band erland 1641–1702 (London, 1958), pp. 281–300Google Scholar; Walcott, R., English Politics in the Early Eighteenth Century (Oxford, 1956), pp. 85–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

25. K. Feiling, op. cit., pp. 329–40; R. Walcott, op. cit., pp. 86–8.

26. Hist. MSS. Comm., Finch MSS., II, 194; Oldmixon, J., The History of England during the Reigns of king William. and queen Mary,… (London, 1735), p. 30.Google Scholar

27. Life of Humphrey Prideauz (London, 1748), pp. 64–5.Google Scholar

28. Prideaux's anonymous biographer does, however, tell us that Tenison (at the time of his talk with the Dean mentioned above) had stated that there were then some thoughts of calling a Convocation. Ibid. For a rumor that Convocation would be allowed to sit in the winter of 1695–1696, see Folger Shakespeare Library, Newdigate Newsletters, No. 2947, 16 Nov. 1695.

29. The summoning of Convocation in 1701 apparently was one of the terms on which the Earl of Rochester accepted office in December 1700. Bennett, G. V., White Kennett 1660–1728 (London, 1957), pp. 37–8.Google Scholar