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
Whilst jealous of any interference with their own privileges, the
Commons had no regard for the interests or feelings of the Puritan
clergy; since they accepted the harsh amendments of the Peers, and
added others of their own, so as to render the Bill more intolerable
than it had been before. This circumstance has commonly been
overlooked, and therefore requires particular attention.
The Lords had introduced a reference to "the tenderness of some men's
consciences;" the Commons struck out the words.[327]
When the Lords' substitution of "Bartholomew" for "Michael the
Archangel," a substitution which aggravated the severity of the
measure, came to the vote, there were 87 for the Angel's day, and 96
for the Saint's.[328] The amendments and alterations respecting
ordination, subscription, and the Covenant, all of which had been
conceived in the same spirit of severity, were adopted without division.
[Sidenote: 1662.]
At the same time the Commons extended the operation of the measure so
as to bring within the meshes of their net not only the clergy, but all
who held offices in the Universities, and every kind of teacher down
to the village schoolmaster, and the tutor in a private family. All
such persons, as well as Deans, Canons, and Prebendaries, who had been
mentioned in the original Bill, were obliged, through the amendments of
the Commons, to subscribe the declaration of non-resistance; to conform
to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as now by law established;
to deny that any obligation had been incurred by taking the Covenant;
and to repudiate that oath as altogether unlawful. The addition of a
penalty of three months' imprisonment to meet the case of those men who
had no livings to lose, affords another instance of the harsh spirit
of the Lower House. Likewise these legislators drew within the reach
of the Bill, the case of those who held benefices without cures--for
the reason that the House did not "think fit to leave sinecures to
Nonconformists," nor permit a Nonconformist to hold a Curate's or a
Lecturer's place.[329] An attempt being made in a different direction
to confine preferment to those who should receive Episcopal ordination
"according to the form of the Church of England,"--a restriction which
would have excluded such as were in Romish orders,--the attempt met
with a different fate. It entirely failed.[330] The Lords' tolerant
proviso for dispensing with the cross and surplice was by the Commons
negatived at once;[331] and after an adjourned debate upon the
allowance of a fifth part of the income to ejected Incumbents, the
considerate amendment of the Peers was thrown out by a majority of
seven.[332]
[Sidenote: UNIFORMITY BILL.]
[Sidenote: 1662.]
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