Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2] — John Shaqi
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]Stoughton, John
History
Ecclesiastical History of England, Volume 4—The Church of the Restoration [part 2]
Stoughton, John
Great Britain -- Church history
constitutional principles, and has always loved to stand as long as
possible “in the old ways.” The conflict which opened in 1643 had been
put off until it could be put off no longer: and the men of the second
half of the seventeenth century were, as it regarded an unwillingness
to come to extremities, just like their fathers of the first. What
really followed the departure from the scheme of Exclusion justified
some of the worst fears of its supporters. The Duke was restored to his
former position, and carried things with a high hand.[51]
[Sidenote: KING’S DECLARATION.]
After the dissolution of Parliament at Oxford, the King, by the advice
of Halifax, published a Declaration, explaining the reasons which
induced him to take that critical step. He charged the Commons with
arbitrary orders; with bringing forward accusations on mere suspicion;
with unconstitutional votes, especially in support of resolutions
condemning the persecution of Dissenters, according to law; with
obstinacy in the matter of the Exclusion Bill; with a design of
changing the government of the realm; and with a determination to set
and keep at variance the two Houses of Legislature.[52] In short, he
managed, as his father had done, only with more dexterity, to cover and
defend his own unconstitutional purposes, by throwing all blame on the
Houses of Parliament.
Immediately afterwards, Archbishop Sancroft received a Royal command
to require the public reading of the Declaration in all and every the
churches and chapels within the province of Canterbury, at the time of
Divine service, upon some Lord’s Day, with all convenient speed. If we
may here believe Burnet, Sancroft, at a meeting of Council, moved that
this order should be given; remembering the habits of the Historian
of his _Own Times_, I can scarcely trust his statement, without
confirmation from some other quarter. Yet, if Sancroft did not suggest,
he certainly did not resist the publication of this document--as he
did the publication of another at a later period; and, because he
received the order for its publication, and the publication followed
accordingly, he must bear the responsibility of having sanctioned a
procedure, which really made the Church an approving herald to the
nation, of the King’s despotic policy.[53]
[Sidenote: 1681.]
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.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account