Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 3—The Church of the Restoration [part 1]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 3—The Church of the Restoration [part 1]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
II. When the House resumed their discussions,[319] the point in
consideration was "the clause of ministers declaring against the
Covenant."[320] A form of abjuring both the doctrine of resistance, and
the obligations of the Covenant, had been required by the Corporation
Act. Upon comparing the words in that Act with the words in the Bill
of Uniformity, it will be found that the latter are the same as the
former, with the addition of two short clauses,--first, "that I will
conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law
established;" and, secondly, that the Covenant entailed no obligation
"to endeavour any change or alteration of government in Church or
State." As this form of renouncing the Covenant was only of temporary
use, and was to be abolished in twenty years, it ceased afterwards to
receive much attention; but, at first, it constituted a chief point of
interest both to the upholders and opponents of the Bill, even beyond
the importance attached to the form of subscription and declaration
respecting the Prayer Book. Many of the Peers, who had taken the
Covenant, were not so much concerned that the clergy should be obliged
to make this declaration, as that, when such a clause should be passed
and sanctioned, it might be inserted in other Acts relating to the
functions of other offices, so that, in a short time, what was now only
required of the clergy might be required of themselves.[321]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
The Puritan Peers warmly opposed the clause as unnecessary, and as
widening the breach instead of closing up the wounds which had been
made. Many men would believe or fear that this clause might prove a
breach of the Act of Indemnity, which had not only provided against
indictments and suits at law and penalties, but against reproaches
for what was past. As for conformity to the Liturgy, it was provided
for fully in the former subscription prescribed by the Bill. The
Covenant contained many good things, as defending the King's person,
and maintaining the Protestant religion: and to say that it entailed
no obligation would neither be for the service of the King, or the
interest of the Church; especially since it was well known, it had
wrought upon the conscience of many in the late revolution. At any
rate, it was now dead; all were absolved from taking it. If it had at
any time produced any good, that was an excuse for its irregularity:
it could do no mischief for the future; and therefore it was time to
bury it in oblivion.[322]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account