in convocation that neither he nor any of those present accepted the creed in its literal sense. A long controversy ensued, which was terminated abruptly by the threat of Dr. Pusey and Dr. Liddon to withdraw from the ministry of the church if the damnatory clauses were omitted or if, after the example set in America and in Ireland, the creed were placed in an appendix. After a great meeting of bishops and clergy at Lambeth in December 1872, a synodal declaration was adopted stating that the creed did not make any addition to the doctrine contained in scripture, and that its warnings were to be taken in a general sense, like similar passages in holy writ.
In reference to ritual questions, which continued to be pressed on his notice, Tait took a tolerant position, and concurred with Archbishop Thomson in replying to a petition presented to them by Lord Shaftesbury on 3 May 1873, that they were willing to enforce the law when the offence was clear, but not on every trivial complaint. In 1869 a resolution had been passed by convocation in favour of legislation ‘for facilitating, expediting, and cheapening proceedings for enforcing clergy discipline.’ Thus the ground was prepared for the Public Worship Regulation Act of 1874. The original draft of this measure, as agreed to by the whole episcopate, aimed at the revival of the forum domesticum of the bishop, and at giving legal effect to the sentence in the preface to the prayer-book which requires those who doubt about the ‘use and practice’ of its directions to resort to the bishop, who is to ‘take order’ for the resolution of these doubts. Legal and constitutional difficulties, however, presented themselves, and Tait found it impossible to carry through the original design. There was a demand out of doors for legislation of a more stringent character; the bill was considerably modified; and finally in the committee stage in the House of Lords clauses were inserted by Lord Shaftesbury providing for the determination of cases a single court, the judge of which should be appointed by the two archbishops with the consent of the crown. These amendments were supported by the representatives of the church party, only two bishops voting against them. It was impossible for the archbishop to go back without losing all control over the measure. He therefore accepted the changes under protest, but obtained the insertion of a clause giving the bishop an absolute veto upon all proceedings under the act. The feeling of the country was strongly in favour of the measure, and the archbishop became the object of popular ovations on several public occasions.
Many results followed the passing of the bill through parliament on 3 Aug. 1874. The bishops in 1875 issued a pastoral explaining the situation and deprecating alarm. The archbishop, in a long pamphlet addressed to Mr. Carter of Clewer, described the actual relation of the church system to the government and the regular process of legislation. In the ritual cases brought before him he adopted the plan of holding a personal interview with the accused clergyman, in order to see whether it was desirable for him to place his veto on the proceedings. He maintained to the last that, though the act was quite different from what he had intended, yet, if only some other mode for enforcing it could be devised, it was a just and beneficial measure.
The archbishop’s remaining years were passed in comparative peace. The second Lambeth conference passed quietly in 1878. The question of ritualism was fully discussed, and a petition from Père Hyacinthe was favourably entertained. In 1880 the burial question was solved. It had been long before the country, and Tait had consistently, amid much obloquy, advocated the rights of non-conformists to burial with their own service in the churchyards. He used all his influence to give the bill a form which rendered it a measure of relief to the consciences of the clergy. At the time they generally viewed it with dislike and apprehension, and many strongly opposed the archbishop’s course. But in no case were his courage and foresight more signally vindicated. Hardly any of the predicted evils occurred.
Two royal commissions were issued in 1880, both due to Tait’s initiation—the cathedrals commission and the ecclesiastical courts commission—and in the deliberations of both he took a prominent part. He had given, as far back as 1855, in the ‘Edinburgh Review’ his opinions as to the way in which cathedrals could be made useful in the general church system, and he hoped that his plans might now be carried into effect. By the commission on ecclesiastical courts he hoped that the simplification of proceedings in disputed cases, which had been very partially realised by the Public Worship Act, might be effected. The work of these commissions was his main public occupation in his two remaining years. Their sittings were constant, and he attended nearly all of them, the reports being drawn up, the one just before, the other just after, his death.
The great objects of the pastoral ministry
