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
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.
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