תמונות בעמוד
PDF
ePub

religion and charity could be without effect upon the party to whom they were addressed. And it will be presently shown that there is reason to believe that they were not fruitless.

Before passing on, we may contrast the spirit of the Ritual Commission of 1868, as exhibited in their Reports, with that of the Savoy Conference. One instance may suffice to show this difference. The Commissioners have come to an unanimous agreement upon one of the main points of dispute—namely, the use of vestments; and that unanimous decision includes the recognition of the principle, that no practices should be introduced into public worship which “are by none regarded as essential, and give grave offence to many,”-a principle for which the Presbyterian party pleaded earnestly, but not one voice from the Episcopal side responded to their appeal !

The Action of the Parliament. While the Savoy Conference was sitting, the new Parliament assembled early in May, 1661; and the Lord Chancellor Hyde, in his opening speech, described the political dangers which threatened the nation from fanatical teachers and sectarians in religion, alluding especially to a late fatal émeute of a band of Fifth-Monarchy men. Hence he urged upon the House of Commons the necessity for a new coercive law to suppress nonconformity. July 9, the House of Commons passed a Bill for Uniformity, and sent it to the House of Lords, attaching to it an edition of the Prayer-book of 1604. The House of Lords thought it better to wait for a revised Prayer-book. After the failure of the Savoy Conference, it was determined to commit the revision of the Liturgy to the Convocation, which was then sitting; and so the Bill of Uniformity was postponed for several months. When the Convocation had completed their revision, the Bill was submitted to their consideration ; but as it had already passed into its last stage in Parliament,' no alterations appear to have been suggested, and it received the Royal assent, May, 1662. It was the Act of Uniformity, and not the revised Prayer-book, which excluded the 2000 who were then ejected from the Church. The Act contained the requirement of assent and consent to all and everything contained in the Book of Common Prayer,-a stringency of subscription which we have happily seen abrogated by the late recommendation of the Commission on Clerical Subscription. The Act contained the clauses which coerced lecturers; which interdicted nonepiscopal ministers; and which fixed so early a day as St. Bartholomew's, before the diosatisfied ministers had time fully to consider their case, or, in many instances, even to get a sight of the revised book; and, above all, the fixing that day, before the great tithes became due, thereby depriving the ejected minis.

ters of their past year's income. The cruel saying of Bishop Sheldon, that if they had anticipated so small a secession as 2000, they would have made the terms more stringent, identifies bim with the Act of Uniformity; and doubtless, in his position as the virtual Primate of the Church,—for Archbishop Juxon was superannuated,-he is mainly responsible for this harsh measure.

Nevertheless, the ejection of the Puritan and Presbyterian ministers in 1662 was rather a political than an ecclesiastical measure. The Parliament, especially the House of Commons, was alarmed by the reports of republican plots on the part of the sectarists, and thought the safety of the restored monarchy depended upon coercing the whole population to submit to the power and instruction of the Church of England. It is necessary to bear in mind the wide distinction between the action of Convocation in 1661 and the action of the Parliament in 1662. The alterations of the Prayer-book were the work of the Convocation; the Act of Uniformity was the work of Government and Parliament. The revision of the Prayer-book, as far as it went, was in the spirit of conciliation; the Act of Uniformity was a measure flagrantly unjust and tyrannical.

The Action of the Convocation of 1661. A Royal Commission was issued both to the Southern and Northern Convocation (November 21, 1661) to revise the Book of Common Prayer, and to make such alterations as might seem necessary and expedient. The bishops of the Northern Convocation sat with the bishops of the Southern, and the Northern Convocation appointed also four of their members as deputies, who, together with three members of the Southern Convocation, were to act as proxies in discussion, and to give the consent of the Northern to the acts of the united Convocation.

It has been too often asserted that the spirit of the dominant party in the Savoy Conference pervaded the Convocation, and made the revision of the Prayer-book offensive to the Presbyterians. Even the accurate and candid Dr. Hallam writes, that the changes made in the Liturgy were “more likely to disgust than to conciliate.” “ The Puritans having always objected to the number of saints' days, the bishops added a few more; and the former having given very plausible reasons against the Apocryphal lessons in the daily service, the other inserted the legend of Bel and the Dragon, for no other pur. pose but to show a contempt of their scruples." (Hallam's Constitutional History, vol. 2, p.235.) The two cases referred to by Dr. Hallam do not substantiate his statement. In the one case, no addition was made to the number of saints' days. Two of the number, which, like all the red-letter days, had Collects, Gospels, and Epistles provided for them, had by some mistake been printed in the Calendar in black letters, and had been omitted in the list of feasts :—this mistake was, in 1661, rectified by making those two days red-letter days. With respect to the Apocrypha, the number of Apocryphal lessons was not increased, though some changes were made in the selection of chapters to be read.

So general, however, is the notion that the revision of the Prayer-book in Convocation was conducted in a spirit hostile to the Puritan and Presbyterian party, that it may be well to give the testimonies of two contemporary authors well qualified to form a judgment.

Isaac Walton, in his Life of Bishop Sanderson, writes :“Though the debate at the Savoy was ended without any great satisfaction to either party, yet both knew the desires and understood the abilities of the other much better than before it; and the late distressed clergy, that were now restored to their former rights and powers, did, at their next meeting in Convocation, continue to give the dissenting party satisfaction by alteration, explanation, and addition to some part both of the rubric and common prayers, as also by adding some new necessary collects, and a particular Collect of Thanksgiving.”

Another testimony to the same effect was borne by Archbishop Tennison, who, in his sermon respecting the Ecclesiastical Commission of 1689, thus speaks of the settlement of 1662, and of the secret influence of the court in favour of Popery :

“Our Constitution was reviewed in 1661, and yet, notwithstanding that review, is capable of another; the Commissioners of that time did not add the last hand to the work, so as to render it incapable ever after of being corrected and improved. Some who have well considered all the alterations and additions then made by them (which amount to the number of about 600) are sufficiently convinced, that if they had reason for those changes, there is equal if not greater reason for some further improvements. If they had foreseen what has since come to pass, I charitably believe they would not have done all they did, and just so much and no more. And yet I also believe that if they had offered to move much further, a stone would have been laid under their wheel by a secret but powerful hand. The mystery of Popery did even then work, and a Romanist has very frankly informed us of the expectations raised in that party in the beginning of the summer of 1661. They had some hopes cherished in then of liberty of conscience, &c.” (Kennet's Life of Charles II., p. 252. Note.)

We are prepared now to examine the alterations actually made in the Prayer-book in the Convocation of 1661. We take a list of them made ready to our hand in the Register of Bishop Kennet, an author of the next generation, himself a

high Churchman, and a bitter censurer of Richard Baxter. The list is styled by him “ Concessions and alterations that were now made for reforming the Book of Common Prayer.”—

(1.) There was a Rubric, that in such places where they do sing there shall the lessons be sung in a plain tune, and likewise the Epistle and Gospel. This the Presbyterian divines excepted against, and conceived that the distinct reading of them with an audible voice, would tend more to the edification of the Church ; that Rubric was accordingly omitted.

(2.) The Presbyterian divines proposed, that many of the Collects for several Sundays and holydays might be altered, and several new Collects were substituted in room of the old.

(3.) In the order for the administration of the Lord's Supper the Rubric directed, that so many as intend to be partakers of the Holy Communion shall signify their names to the curate overnight, or else in the morning, before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after. Exception was taken, that the time here assigned for notice to be given to the minister was not sufficient, and therefore it was changed into at least some time the day before.

(4.) It was desired by the Presbyterian divines that the preface prefixed by God Himself to the ten commandments may be restored : and these words were accordingly inserted, God spake these words and said, I am the Lord thy God.

(5.) The exhortations to the Holy Communion were excepted against and suitably amended.

(6.) The general confession before the Communion was introduced by a Rubric, appointing it to be made in the name of all those that are minded to receive the Holy Communion, either by one of them or else by one of the ministers, or by the priest himself. The Presbyterian commissioners desired it may be made by the minister only: and it was so directed to be made by one of the ministers.

(7.) The proper preface upon Christmas day had, thine only Son to be born as this day for us, which upon exception was altered, as at this time for us. So on Whit Sunday, this day was changed into as at this time.

(8.) In the Prayer of Consecration, they objected that the minister's breaking of the bread is not so much as mentioned: and therefore a note directed the priest here to break the bread.

(9.) They desired that a Rubric in the Common Prayer-book, in 5 & 6 Edw. VI., for the vindicating of our Church in the matter of kneeling at the Sacrament, without adoration, &c., might be restored, and it was so.

(10.) They desired that Baptism may not be administered in a private place at any time, unless by a lawful minister. And accordingly, in the ministration of private baptism, the Rubric orders that the people, without great cause and necessity, procure not their children to be baptized at home in their houses ; and then to be done by the minister of the parish, or, in his absence, by any other lawful minister.

Vol. 63.- No. 374.

(11.) A question in the Catechism runs thus: “Why then are infants baptized, when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them ?” The answer was, Yes : they do perform by their sureties, who promise and vow them both in their names. Upon objection made to this answer, it was thus amended, Because they promise them both by their sureties ; which promise, when they come to age, themselves are bound to perform.

(12.) In the last Rubric before the Catechism, they desire that these words may be expunged, and that no man shall think that any detriment shall come to children by deferring of their Confirmation, gc., and they were accordingly expunged.

(13.) They desire that none may be confirmed, but according to His Majesty's Declaration ; viz., that Confirmation be rightly and solemnly performed by the information and by the consent of the minister of the place. Accordingly it was directed that the curate of every parish shall either bring or send in writing, with his hand subscribed thereto, the names of all such persons within his parish, as he shall think fit to be presented to the bishop to be confirmed.

(14.) They object to the last Rubric after Confirmation, None shall be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he can say the Catechism and be confirmed; as making Confirmation necessary to the Holy Communion. For which reason it was thus softened, And there shall none be admitted to the Holy Communion until such time as he be confirmed, or be ready and desirous to be confirmed.

(15.) In the Form of Solemnization of Matrimony, they object against the phrase, till death us depart, which with little variation was made, till death us do part.

(16.) They objected against two other Rubrics after the form of Matrimony ;-1. Then shall begin the Communion, and after the Gospel shall be said a sermon, &c. 2. The new married persons the same day of their marriage must receive the Holy Communion. The first therefore was thus altered, after which if there be no sermon declaring the duties of man and wife, the minister shall read as followeth : and instead of the second Rubric, it was only advised to be convenient that the new married persons should receive the Holy Communion at the time of their marriage, or at the first opportunity after their marriage.

(17.) In the Order for the Visitation of the Sick, they excepted to the Rubric before Absolution : Here shall the sick person make a special confession, 80., after which confession the priest shall absolve him after this sort : and it was amended thus, Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled with any weighty matter. After which confession the priest shall absolve him (if he humbly and heartily desire it) after this sort.

(18.) In the Communion of the Sick they propose, that the minister be not enjoined to administer the Sacrament to every sick person that shall desire it, but only as he shall judge expedient: and a Rubric was prefixed to that effect.

(19.) In the order for the Burial of the Dead, they objected to the Rubric, the minister meeting the corpse at the church stile, shall

« הקודםהמשך »