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
A Broad Church polemic held
that the Articles were drawn up so that both parties might subscribe,
and that Convocation was a mixed assembly of "both persuasions;" no
canon, he said, enjoined bowing at the altar, and Bishop Morton left
people to use their own liberty as to that practice; this gentleman
was against Conventicles. A more prudent debater wished to veil the
infirmities of his mother rather than proclaim them in Gath and
Askelon; he advocated comprehension, and thought an end would be put to
Nonconformity by making two or three Presbyterians Bishops. These brief
notices of the debate will afford an idea of the diversity of opinion
which was expressed on this occasion.[548]
[Sidenote: 1668.]
[Sidenote: NEW CONVENTICLE BILL.]
Instead of the Bill described by Barlow, or any measure of a similar
kind for comprehension and toleration, a Bill for reviving the
Conventicle Act was submitted to the Commons. The Conventicle Act of
1664 had been limited in its operation to the end of the next session
of Parliament after the expiration of three years, and therefore it
remained no longer in force. Leave was now given to bring in a Bill for
the continuance of it.
The High Church party, by a majority of 176 against 70, negatived the
proposal that His Majesty be desired to send for such persons as he
might think fit, in order to the uniting of his Protestant subjects:
the first instance, as Hallam says, "of a triumph obtained by the
Church over the Crown in the House of Commons."[549] Upon the 28th of
April, the Bill for revising the Conventicle Act was carried by 144
against 78. The new Conventicle Bill, sent up to the Lords, was by them
read a first time on the 29th of April; but it does not appear to have
reached a second reading, as the House, on the 9th of May, adjourned
until August, then again to November, and then again to the following
March, 1669, when Parliament was prorogued. Consequently the Bill fell
through; and the law with regard to Conventicles underwent a change,
through the expiration of the Act of 1664.
CHAPTER XX.
[Sidenote: MANTON AND BAXTER.]
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