The Bill received the Royal assent upon the 19th of May. Perhaps the
reader will not be wearied with an account of the ceremony, and of the
speeches delivered at the time.
His Majesty occupied the throne in Royal magnificence. The Lord
Chancellor took his place on the woolsack. On the right side, below the
throne, sat the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of Durham, the Bishop of
Bath and Wells, and other prelates, including Reynolds of Norwich, who
could scarcely, with comfort, have witnessed the proceedings of that
day. Neither Sheldon nor Morley was present. On the left side, at the
upper end of the Chamber, were the Lord Treasurer, the Lord Privy Seal,
and three Dukes--Buckingham, Richmond, and Albemarle. The Marquis of
Winchester sat by Albemarle's side, and below came twenty-six Earls,
one Viscount, and thirty-six Barons. The Commons appeared at the bar,
with the Speaker of the House, who delivered a highly rhetorical speech.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The King, after giving his assent, delivered a curious homily upon the
extravagant habits of the people, without saying one word about the
Act of Uniformity--after which Clarendon pronounced a long oration, in
the course of which he observed, "the execution of these sharp laws
depends upon the wisdom of the most discerning, generous, and merciful
Prince, who, having had more experience of the nature and humour of
mankind than any Prince living, can best distinguish between the
tenderness of conscience and the pride of conscience, between the real
effects of conscience and the wicked pretences to conscience--a Prince
of so excellent a nature and tender a conscience himself, that he hath
the highest compassion for all errors of that kind, and will never
suffer the weak to undergo the punishment ordained for the wicked."[338]
This was an extraordinary speech to an English Parliament. It can
bear no construction but that of being a plea for a dispensing power.
The Houses having framed a law, Clarendon would have it left to the
Royal wisdom to temper its administration, and to distinguish between
the _tenderness_ and the _pride_ of conscience,--as if the power of
discerning spirits were a gift to kings. What, in the lips of any
English senator would be inconsistent, appears doubly so in the present
instance, for Clarendon afterwards opposed the exercise of the power
which he now claimed on his master's behalf.
It is necessary here to pause, and inquire what change this famous Act
made in the Establishment of England. The insisting upon Episcopal
ordination, in every case, as essential to the conducting of public
service, and to the preaching of the Gospel, certainly cut off the
English Church, more completely than before, from fellowship with other
reformed Churches;[339] and, in consequence of another provision for
a certain period, the pastoral office became dependent on the taking of
a political oath, to which some, approving of her doctrine and of her
discipline, might conscientiously object. The Church also stood pledged
to the maintenance of civil despotism. Under pretence of reprobating
the course pursued under the Commonwealth, a dogma was imposed upon the
ministers of religion, which, if believed, would effectually prevent
any resistance to the designs of an arbitrary monarch, even if he
should lend himself to the overthrow of the Church itself. Besides,
persons might be found not unfriendly to moderate Episcopacy, who,
nevertheless felt it wrong to use respecting the League and Covenant
the terms which this Act prescribed.
[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]
The Act of Uniformity added the requirement of "unfeigned assent
and consent" to everything contained in the Prayer Book. By such
alterations the Church of England became increasingly exclusive and
Erastian in its principles, and less Protestant and liberal in its
spirit.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
In carrying a great measure, responsibility must be divided. It rarely
happens that a number of persons combining together to effect any
change are influenced by the same views; and in this instance of united
action different degrees of responsibility, and different kinds of
motives, are discoverable, when we look a little below the surface.
I. Convocation must be held responsible for the changes made in the
Prayer Book, its revision being exclusively the work of that assembly;
but, at the same time, it should be remembered, that assembly formed
only a small body, and represented but in part the sentiments of the
clergy. Many of the members felt a strong zeal for order and union;
the feeling assumed different aspects in different instances. Some
in the Upper House, as Cosin, Sanderson, Hacket, Ward, Morley; some
in the Lower, especially Thorndike, sympathized in the sentiments of
Cyprian, as expressed in his _Liber de Unitate Ecclesiæ_, confounding
unity with uniformity, and allegiance to Christ with submission to
Bishops. They, like him, might suppose that in their zeal for Episcopal
order, they were working out an answer to our Lord's intercessory
prayer. Such a conception of ecclesiastical oneness had been, by the
Nicene and Mediæval Churches, handed down to the Church of the English
Reformation; and it must be admitted, that desires for uniformity
by means of Episcopal order, were in many cases so interlinked with
submission to Christ, as, even in the estimation of those who differ
from Anglo-Catholics, to have their errors, in a measure, redeemed by
the devoutness of their affections. Desires for uniformity, however, as
they wrought in some, both of the superior and inferior clergy, at the
period of the Restoration, had nothing whatever of nobleness in them.
The Bishops shared in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Parliament, as well as in the responsibility of the Upper House of
Convocation. Sheldon,--to whom must be attributed much influence over
the latter, and also much over the former, so far as the Bishops were
concerned; and who also, from his prominent position and great activity
at the Restoration, could not fail to share in Clarendon's counsels,
respecting the Bill,--was not a man of religious zeal, but a man of
worldly principles; and it is not uncharitable to regard others on
the Bench, and in the Lower House, as closely resembling him in this
respect. Reynolds belonged to a class which, when a crisis arrives,
will always bend to the force of stronger minds, and be carried along
by the current of authority.
[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]
Between the Bishops at the Restoration and the Bishops at the
Reformation, a considerable difference appears. The theology of the
Anglican prelates at the Restoration was not imbued with those elements
of thought, which the early Reformers held in common with Puritan
Divines; hence, in part, arose the dislike which the Fathers of the
re-established Church cherished towards Nonconformists. Sheldon, as
will appear when we fully examine his character, differed from the
ecclesiastical leaders in Queen Elizabeth's time, such as Parker and
Jewel,[340] who had strong religious affections, and were earnestly
bent upon building up Protestantism in England as the great bulwark
of her prosperity; moreover, the Caroline restorers and revisers of
the Prayer Book were utterly deficient in comprehensive policy. The
Elizabethan Divines did avoid, as much as possible, giving offence to
such of the old Roman Catholic party, just dispossessed of power, as
felt at all disposed to join them; but the ecclesiastical leaders of
Charles' day, threw every obstacle they could in the path of those
Nonconformists who showed any disposition to adopt a modified system of
Episcopacy.[341]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
II. In the House of Commons there existed a mad Royalist party,
influenced by strong personal resentment, who identified the Church
with the Throne, who could not forget what they had suffered under the
Commonwealth, and who especially had a keen recollection of estates
sequestered, and of fines imposed. They were bent upon punishing their
foes, and therefore made the Act as rigid as possible. Its severest
provisions are to be ascribed not to any clerical body, nor to the
Lords, nor to the Prelates, but to the Commons. The Commons were more
intolerant and fierce than any of the Bishops, than any of the clergy.
"Every man, according to his passion, thought of adding somewhat" to
the Bill which "might make it more grievous to somebody whom he did
not love."[342] Liberal amendments in the Upper House were resisted in
the Lower; and to the unjust and ungenerous provisions added by the
Lords, were others more unjust and ungenerous added by the Commons. The
Commons, in comparison with the Lords, appear to have been what the
young men, whom Rehoboam consulted and followed, were in comparison
with the old men, who stood before Solomon his father; and the scourge
of whips became a scourge of scorpions.[343] Bad as was the Bill from
the first, it was worse in the end than in the beginning.
III. Clarendon ought to bear a large share of responsibility. His
attachment to an Episcopalian establishment has been repeatedly
noticed. He regarded it as the bulwark of Protestantism, the main
stay of the nation's weal. Burnet reckons him more a friend of the
Bishops than of the Church; certainly he showed anxiety to please them,
and their good opinion and support were of importance to him in many
ways. What induced him to court the Bishops would, in a still stronger
degree, induce him to gratify the Commons. Consequently, supposing
that his better nature, or his wiser judgment, inclined him--which is
probable--towards a more moderate course, other considerations induced
him to adopt the severe line of policy which had been chalked out by
some, and filled up by others.[344] Clarendon, as leader of the Upper
House, does not appear to have used his influence for the purpose of
removing from the Bill any of the most rigorous parts of it; to their
abatement perhaps he might contribute, although this does not appear.
The liberal amendments proposed by certain Peers seem to have been
abandoned without a struggle; and for this surrender surely Clarendon
is mainly answerable.
[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]
IV. Another party concurred in the Act from entirely different motives.
The Roman Catholics had been on the increase since the Restoration.
Somerset House, the residence of the Queen Mother, was the place of
resort for the leaders of the party. There, and at the mansion of
the Earl of Bristol, they consulted upon the interests of their own
Church. Of course, they had no idea of seeking comprehension in the
Establishment: their policy was to procure toleration; with that for
the present they would be satisfied, whatever might be their ulterior
aims. Nothing promised so much advantage to them as the passing of
a stringent measure, which would cast out of the English Church as
many Protestants as possible. Whilst they were aware of the terror
which they inspired in the minds of Nonconformists, they hoped that
fellowship in suffering might soften antipathy, and dispose their
enemies, for their own sakes, to advocate some general indulgence: they
considered that the fact, of a large number of Protestants suffering
from persecuting laws, would at least strengthen the argument in its
favour. It was, I apprehend, on this principle, that the Duke of York
and the Catholic Peers united in supporting all the provisions for
uniformity.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
At the head of this Roman Catholic party the King himself is to be
placed. When he had reluctantly made up his mind to consent to the
measure, it was in accordance with the circuitous policy I have now
pointed out. Besides, he was fond of a dispensing power, liking Royal
Declarations better than Acts of Parliament; almost any statute would
be tolerable to him, if it gave him the prospect of affording relief
to his subjects in the form of sovereign concession. Clarendon,
who subsequently opposed the exercise of this power, now virtually
recognized it, as a prerogative of the King, in the speech just quoted,
and plainly pointed to the Royal intention of employing that assumed
prerogative for mitigating the severities of the present statute.
Policy and passion were stamped upon the face of the measure. It
would be the bitterest of all satires to say that the men principally
concerned in it were influenced by religious conviction--that
conscientiously and in the sight of God, they performed an act which,
though they saw it to be rigorous, they felt to be righteous. Amidst
keenly excited feelings on the side of an exclusive policy, perhaps
there was no impulse of greater force than the very common one of party
feeling.
When we recollect that it was not to the clergy then expressing itself
in Convocation, or in any other way, but to Parliament, that the
Church of England owed the clauses which required the repudiation of
the Covenant, and of the doctrine of non-resistance--clauses which so
galled the Puritans--the Act, to a large extent, appears, not so much
an ecclesiastical measure, as a work executed by a political faction,
bent upon crushing opponents, under pretence of their being unpatriotic
and disloyal. Of the bad spirit in which Parliament framed and passed
this act there remains not the shadow of a doubt; and it is impossible
that any one acquainted with the circumstance, however he may admire
the Church so re-established at the Restoration, can think of the mode
of its re-establishment without shame and sorrow.
[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]
It is very remarkable that the Act omitted to provide for uniformity
in certain important particulars; and it has failed to produce the
uniformity intended in others.[345] Nothing was done in relation to
psalmody; forms of prayer and praise in prose were rigidly set down,
but forms of prayer and praise in verse were left to be composed or
adopted at the pleasure of any one, subject only to the doubtful
authority of the Bishop or Ordinary. The formularies of the Prayer Book
relating to baptism have long received from Episcopalians contradictory
interpretations; and, of late years, liberty in this respect has been
legally conceded, as not inconsistent with the Act of Uniformity. The
obscurity of the rubric on the subject of ornaments renders a decision
of the controversy by ecclesiastical lawyers a difficult matter, and
consequently places Bishops in perplexity as to what is the law, and
how they are to proceed. We are struck with the _unequal pressure_ of
the Act. It made clerical practice in some respects very strict, and
in others very lax: whilst, as to prominent points then in dispute
between Episcopalians and Presbyterians, the law is precise; as to
other points, far from unimportant, the same law, through intention
or neglect, opened, or left open, a wide field for difference and for
controversy.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The experience of a hundred years was thrown away upon the authors of
the measure. The first Act of Uniformity under Elizabeth had proved
a failure--the subsequent history of her reign had shown, that this
contrivance to repress the spirit of religious liberty, produced no
more effect than did the green withs which bound Samson. The troubles
of James' reign, the overthrow of Laud's policy, together with his
sufferings and death, illustrated the mischievous consequences of
confounding unity with uniformity, and of seeking the first by means
of the second. Grindal and other prelates had been sick at heart,
through fruitless endeavours made to secure spiritual obedience by
physical force. Lord Bacon had pointed out the difference between unity
and uniformity, and had reproved the persecutor, by saying, that the
silencing of ministers was a punishment that lighteth upon the people,
as well as upon the party;[346] others of humbler name had still more
clearly explained, and still more directly enforced, the lessons of
toleration. But all in vain; the teaching of a whole century had been
wasted on the contrivers and supporters of the second Act of Uniformity.
The Act did not merely eject all Incumbents who scrupled to comply
with its requirement, but it silenced throughout the land all the
preachers of Christianity who were not Conformists.
[Sidenote: ACT OF UNIFORMITY.]
All Nonconformist ministers were prohibited from officiating in the
pulpits of the Episcopalian Church established by law; few other places
of worship were in existence, and the operation of the Act, especially
by citing and recognizing the Act of Uniformity under Elizabeth, would
be to prevent Nonconformists from preaching anywhere.
Two classes then were affected: Incumbents, whom the Act ejected; and
ministers, not Incumbents, whom it silenced. Plausible arguments might
be adduced for the uniformity of an establishment; strong reasons
might be urged against a coalition of Episcopacy with Presbyterianism.
The government of Bishops, and the use of a Liturgy, being adopted
in the Church, it may be said that it is only consistent, that there
should be the maintenance of order in the ministry, and of regularity
in the worship. But the Act went much further, and proceeded upon
the theory of one ecclesiastical incorporation of the entire State,
without recognizing outside the existence of any religion whatever. To
Nonconformists there was an utter denial of any spiritual rights. For
them there was to be neither comprehension nor toleration. The germs of
the Conventicle and Five Mile Acts were in the bosom of the Uniformity
Bill.