The Act of Uniformity
As frequent reference must be made in these pages to
this infamous Act, it is desirable that some little account
should be given of it.
At the death of Cromwell on the 3rd September, 1658,
the future king of England (Charles II) was an exile at
Breda, in Holland, and seizing a favourable opportunity to
return as king he, on April 14th, 1660, issued a declaration
which was purposely drawn up to catch the unwary.
Amongst other things he stated although "the passion
and uncharitableness of the times have produced several
opinions in religion" he did "declare a liberty to tender
consciences; and that no more shall be disquieted or
called in question for differences of opinion in matters of
religion which do not disturb the peace of the kingdom,
and that we shall be ready to consent to such an Act of Parliament as upon mature deliberation shall be offered
to us for the full granting that indulgence." Much joy
was caused in England by this apparently frank statement,
for after the dreadful persecutions of the past the
people were particularly anxious as to their religious
liberty. So satisfied were the Puritans that several of
them made special journey to Breda to return thanks to
Charles and also to make clear some other points. The
false Prince (one writer has stated that Charles "superseded the reign of saints by the reign of strumpets: who was crowned in his youth with the Covenant in his hand and died with the Host sticking in his throat.") received them graciously, and strove with
much success to impress upon his visitors a sense of his
godliness. One of the chief things mentioned was the
fact that the Book of Common Prayer was so very little
used that in many parts the people had never seen or
heard it; "and therefore they besought him that he would
not use it so entirely and formally, and have some parts
only of it read, with mixture of other prayers which the
Chaplains might use." This point was also insisted upon
after the Restoration at a Conference with the King in
London, where they presented a document which had been
drawn up at the invitation of Charles himself. Some of the
bishops made reply, and whilst a controversy was proceeding
the monarch issued another declaration dated the 25th October, 1660, in which he clearly and definitely promised
many reforms. The year passed away without
anything being accomplished, but on January 10th, 1661,
a most disheartening declaration was published! (See footnote below). This was a prohibition of conventicle services, and several sects were definitely mentioned with a view to suppression.
The only places where services could be held were "in
some parochial church or chapel in this realm or in
private houses by the persons there inhabiting." The
value of the reference to "tender consciences" and the
promises so lavishly made were now seen in measure, but
very few seemed to apprehend the real dangers which
were ahead. There were naturally many disputations,
and Charles appears to have been weary of it all, and, in
order to bring the matter to a conclusion, issued a
warrant dated March 25th, 1661, convening the Savoy
Conference. On each side were to be twelve men - the
Establishment sending one archbishop and eleven bishops;
whilst Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich, appeared on the
other side with eleven Puritan divines. The instructions
of Charles were to the effect that the Prayer Book was
to be considered, and whilst as few alterations as possible
were to be made, due notice should be taken of real
objections. The first session was held on April 15th,
1661, but it was soon evident that the Conference would
be utterly fruitless as the Bishops absolutely refused to
make even the slightest concession. In vain did Baxter, Reynolds and the others plead for relaxation on eight
several points, viz., using the sign of the cross in baptism,
the compulsory wearing of a surplice, the forcing of
people to receive the bread and wine kneeling, the
obligation to pronounce all baptized persons regenerated
by the Holy Spirit, the admitting of evil persons to the
table, the absolution in definite expressions of unfit
persons, the giving of thanks to God for all whom they
buried, and the solemn declaration "that there is nothing
in the Common Prayer Book, Book of Ordination and
the Thirty-nine Articles, contrary to the Word of God."
The arguments of the Puritans were unanswerable, but the Bishops were determined not to give way, and the Conference broke up on July 25th, without arriving at any agreement. It is true that a revision of the Prayer Book shortly afterwards took place, but although the alterations were numerous they were of comparatively small importance, and everything to which the Puritans objected was carefully retained. Following this the Act of Uniformity was passed, and on the 19th May, 1662, the Royal Assent was given. The object was to force every beneficed clergyman to use and to declare his "unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled The Book of Common Prayer !" The day appointed was Michaelmas, but it was altered to St. Bartholomew's, August 24th. Why this change ? In giving an answer it is impossible to avoid charging the officials of the Establishment with a particularly mean and cruel action. On Michaelmas Day the tithes became due, and it was then that the clergy paid their accounts for the year and generally straightened out their financial matters. By altering the date to August 24th, the non-conforming ministers would be compelled to leave their benefices without means to discharge their debts and without any money to help them through a very trying period. But such refined cruelty could after all only be expected from such men, and they certainly were not disappointed at the result of their eiforts. It was generally known that an Act of Uniformity had been passed, but as this was by no means the first, the terrible results were not expected. When, however, the terms of the Act were made public there was great consternation, for it was clear that there was no middle course, but that it was either conforming or non-conforming. A study of this period and of the correspondence between the Puritans is most instructive and touching. The ill-fated day drew on apace. In the reign of Elizabeth it had been celebrated by the French King and priests in a great massacre of unresisting and innocent Huguenots, and now England under the guidance of Charles the false, and godless bishops, was to sin against light and knowledge. There was little, if any, drawing back amongst the Puritans, and a most noble spirit was manifested. One clergyman, Mr. Lawrence of Baschurch, alluding to his wife and ten children said, "I have eleven arguments for conformity, but Christ has said, 'Whoso loveth wife or children more than Me is not worthy of Me.'" Old Richard Baxter wrote:
"Must I be driven from my books?
From house, and goods, and dearest friends?
One of Thy sweet and gracious smiles,
For more than this will make amends:
My Lord hath taught me how to want
A place wherein to lay my head;
While He is mine I'll be content
To beg or lack my daily bread."
Some two thousand noble men, with brave wives and children, left their dear homesteads, and "took cheerfully the spoiling of their goods " that they might "keep a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man." Was there ever an occasion quite like this, or a fact equal to this fact? Think of it! Two thousand godly, educated, tender, intelligent men severed friendships, cast aside all hope of earthly prosperity, gave up their homes, their daily bread, their treasured libraries, with all their comforts, and w^ent forth into the wilderness - many to perish of want and privation, some to be harried like hares, others to die in prison, and all because they could not sully their consciences by making a false oath and by declaring their agreement with doctrines and ritual which they believed were contrary to the Word of the living God. Well might the Act of Uniformity be called the Act of Ejection! In roaming through Bunhill Fields it is not easyto avoid a contemplation of this subject, and without some knowledge of the facts here briefly recorded, it is quite impossible to understand the reason why so many men who believed in Episcopacy, in set forms of worship, and who had no objection to a State church, are resting in a Nonconformists' burying ground.
A study of the Corporation Act by means of which all persons who refused on principle to conform to the Episcopal Church were expelled and excluded from the magistracy and from all public ofi&ces, and the other persecuting Acts passed in the early days of the reign of Charles II., is most instructive. By the statute against the Quakers more than 4,000 persons were cast into prison, whilst the Conventicle Act decreed that all persons who refused to attend the public services of the Established Church should for the first and second offence be imprisoned and fined, whilst for the third offence transportation .was the sentence, and if the sufferer ever returned to the homeland death was the penalty. This abominable Act was passed in 1664, but it in measure broke down during the great Plague when after the Clergy had through fear left their churches and flocks the non-conforming divines returned to the metropolis, which was virtually a death trap, and preached to their old congregations once again. The King and Court were safely housed at Oxford, but a new penal law was passed to deal with the case, and in 1670 the Conventicle was a prohibition of conventicle services, and several sects vrere definitely mentioned with a view to suppression. The only places where services could be held were "in some parochial church or chapel in this realm or in private houses by the persons there inhabiting." The value of the reference to " tender consciences " and the promises so lavishly made were now seen in measure, but very few seemed to apprehend the real dangers which were ahead. There were naturally many disputations, and Charles appears to have been weary of it all, and, in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, issued a warrant dated March 25th, 1661, convening the Savoy Conference. On each side were to be twelve men—the Establishment sending one archbishop and eleven bishops ; whilst Keynolds, Bishop of Norwich, appeared on the other side with eleven Puritan divines. The instructions of Charles were to the effect that the Prayer Book was to be considered, and whilst as few alterations as possible were to be made, due notice should be taken of real objections. The first session was held on April 15th, 1661, but it was soon evident that the Conference would be utterly fruitless as the Bishops absolutely refused to make even the slightest concession. In vain did Baxter, Eeynolds and the others plead for relaxation on eight several points, viz., using the sign of the cross in baptism, the compulsory wearing of a surplice, the forcing of people to receive the bread and wine kneeling, the obligation to pronounce all baptized persons regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the admitting of evil persons to the table, the absolution in definite expressions of unfit persons, the giving of thanks to God for all whom they buried, and the solemn declaration "that there is nothing in the Common Prayer Book, Book of Ordination and the Thirty-nine Articles, contrary to the Word of God." Act was enforced with even harsher terms. No trial by jury of these godly men could now take place, their persons could be seized on any and every occasion, whilst no exception could be taken to the warrants even though these were irregularly and incorrectly drawn. It has been recorded that one notable ecclesiastic, the Bishop of Peterborough, declared that, " It hath done its business against all fanatics except the Quakers ! but when the Parliament sits again, a stronger law will bo made, not only to take away their lands and goods, but also to sell them for bond slaves." What a kind and good shepherd!
The arguments of the Puritans were unanswerable, but the Bishops were determined not to give way, and the Conference broke up on July 25th, without arriving at any agreement. It is true that a revision of the Prayer Book shortly afterwards took place, but although the alterations were numerous they were of comparatively small importance, and everything to which the Puritans objected was carefully retained. Following this the Act of Uniformity was passed, and on the 19th May, 1662, the Royal Assent was given. The object was to force every beneficed clergyman to use and to declare his "unfeigned assent and consent to all and everything contained and prescribed in and by the book intituled The Book of Common Prayer !" The day appointed was Michaelmas, but it was altered to St. Bartholomew's, August 24th. Why this change ? In giving an answer it is impossible to avoid charging the officials of the Establishment with a particularly mean and cruel action. On Michaelmas Day the tithes became due, and it was then that the clergy paid their accounts for the year and generally straightened out their financial matters. By altering the date to August 24th, the non-conforming ministers would be compelled to leave their benefices without means to discharge their debts and without any money to help them through a very trying period. But such refined cruelty could after all only be expected from such men, and they certainly were not disappointed at the result of their eiforts. It was generally known that an Act of Uniformity had been passed, but as this was by no means the first, the terrible results were not expected. When, however, the terms of the Act were made public there was great consternation, for it was clear that there was no middle course, but that it was either conforming or non-conforming. A study of this period and of the correspondence between the Puritans is most instructive and touching. The ill-fated day drew on apace. In the reign of Elizabeth it had been celebrated by the French King and priests in a great massacre of unresisting and innocent Huguenots, and now England under the guidance of Charles the false, and godless bishops, was to sin against light and knowledge. There was little, if any, drawing back amongst the Puritans, and a most noble spirit was manifested. One clergyman, Mr. Lawrence of Baschurch, alluding to his wife and ten children said, "I have eleven arguments for conformity, but Christ has said, 'Whoso loveth wife or children more than Me is not worthy of Me.'" Old Richard Baxter wrote:
"Must I be driven from my books?
From house, and goods, and dearest friends?
One of Thy sweet and gracious smiles,
For more than this will make amends:
My Lord hath taught me how to want
A place wherein to lay my head;
While He is mine I'll be content
To beg or lack my daily bread."
Some two thousand noble men, with brave wives and children, left their dear homesteads, and "took cheerfully the spoiling of their goods " that they might "keep a conscience void of offence towards God and towards man." Was there ever an occasion quite like this, or a fact equal to this fact? Think of it! Two thousand godly, educated, tender, intelligent men severed friendships, cast aside all hope of earthly prosperity, gave up their homes, their daily bread, their treasured libraries, with all their comforts, and w^ent forth into the wilderness - many to perish of want and privation, some to be harried like hares, others to die in prison, and all because they could not sully their consciences by making a false oath and by declaring their agreement with doctrines and ritual which they believed were contrary to the Word of the living God. Well might the Act of Uniformity be called the Act of Ejection! In roaming through Bunhill Fields it is not easyto avoid a contemplation of this subject, and without some knowledge of the facts here briefly recorded, it is quite impossible to understand the reason why so many men who believed in Episcopacy, in set forms of worship, and who had no objection to a State church, are resting in a Nonconformists' burying ground.
A study of the Corporation Act by means of which all persons who refused on principle to conform to the Episcopal Church were expelled and excluded from the magistracy and from all public ofi&ces, and the other persecuting Acts passed in the early days of the reign of Charles II., is most instructive. By the statute against the Quakers more than 4,000 persons were cast into prison, whilst the Conventicle Act decreed that all persons who refused to attend the public services of the Established Church should for the first and second offence be imprisoned and fined, whilst for the third offence transportation .was the sentence, and if the sufferer ever returned to the homeland death was the penalty. This abominable Act was passed in 1664, but it in measure broke down during the great Plague when after the Clergy had through fear left their churches and flocks the non-conforming divines returned to the metropolis, which was virtually a death trap, and preached to their old congregations once again. The King and Court were safely housed at Oxford, but a new penal law was passed to deal with the case, and in 1670 the Conventicle was a prohibition of conventicle services, and several sects vrere definitely mentioned with a view to suppression. The only places where services could be held were "in some parochial church or chapel in this realm or in private houses by the persons there inhabiting." The value of the reference to " tender consciences " and the promises so lavishly made were now seen in measure, but very few seemed to apprehend the real dangers which were ahead. There were naturally many disputations, and Charles appears to have been weary of it all, and, in order to bring the matter to a conclusion, issued a warrant dated March 25th, 1661, convening the Savoy Conference. On each side were to be twelve men—the Establishment sending one archbishop and eleven bishops ; whilst Keynolds, Bishop of Norwich, appeared on the other side with eleven Puritan divines. The instructions of Charles were to the effect that the Prayer Book was to be considered, and whilst as few alterations as possible were to be made, due notice should be taken of real objections. The first session was held on April 15th, 1661, but it was soon evident that the Conference would be utterly fruitless as the Bishops absolutely refused to make even the slightest concession. In vain did Baxter, Eeynolds and the others plead for relaxation on eight several points, viz., using the sign of the cross in baptism, the compulsory wearing of a surplice, the forcing of people to receive the bread and wine kneeling, the obligation to pronounce all baptized persons regenerated by the Holy Spirit, the admitting of evil persons to the table, the absolution in definite expressions of unfit persons, the giving of thanks to God for all whom they buried, and the solemn declaration "that there is nothing in the Common Prayer Book, Book of Ordination and the Thirty-nine Articles, contrary to the Word of God." Act was enforced with even harsher terms. No trial by jury of these godly men could now take place, their persons could be seized on any and every occasion, whilst no exception could be taken to the warrants even though these were irregularly and incorrectly drawn. It has been recorded that one notable ecclesiastic, the Bishop of Peterborough, declared that, " It hath done its business against all fanatics except the Quakers ! but when the Parliament sits again, a stronger law will bo made, not only to take away their lands and goods, but also to sell them for bond slaves." What a kind and good shepherd!
.jpg/220px-Thomas_Watson_(Puritan).jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment