The Acts of Uniformity 3

The Acts of Uniformity 3

The alterations are said to be "appointed by this

statute." I call attention to these points, because

they seem to show that Elizabeth and her Parliament

assumed the function of amending the Book, and

claimed for it a purely statutory authority. Such an

assumption is strangely inconsistent with the subsequent

actions of the Queen, and we are the more

struck by the contrast if we reflect that the Act was

introduced in the House of Commons. In 1571, when

the Commons began to stir matters of the same kind,

Elizabeth sent them more than one sharp message

forbidding them to meddle with such concerns. The

speed, moreover, with which the Bill passed the

Commons leaves little room for doubt that all was

fully prepared beforehand, the revision of the Book

completed, and the enforcement of its use alone

made matter of parliamentary debate. In the

Lords there was considerable discussion, and the

Book was roughly handled by the opposing bishops;

but the debate proceeded on the Book as a whole,

and there is no trace of any legislative action dealing

with its details. At the same time it is right to observe

that the power of Parliament to impose the Book was

challenged, and no other sanction appears to have

been contemplated. [20] The only possible conclusion

seems to be that the Book was revised by the committee

of which I have spoken, and that as very few

changes were made, no fair copy of the whole Book

was submitted to Parliament, but the alterations were,

for the purpose of reference, mentioned in the Act.

Even this was done without much precision. The

wording of the alterations is not specified. More

remarkable still is the fact that in all the printed

copies of the Book yet other alterations were imported,

by what authority is not known. It would seem that

no copy of the Prayer-book ever existed which

answered exactly to the description given in the Act

of 1559. [21] It is impossible, therefore, to say that the

form of the Book was precisely determined by authority

of Parliament. The purport of the Act was to enforce

the use of the Book in a form otherwise determined.

That form was settled, with some measure of ecclesiastical

sanction, in the time of Edward VI. What

sanction there was for the trifling changes now made

is not very clear, and possibly men were not meant

to inquire too closely.

 

The obscurity which veils the proceedings of 1559

does not reappear on the occasion of the next revision.

In 1660, on the restoration of the monarchy, the use of

the Book of Common Prayer, which had been forbidden

under severe penalties during the rule of the Long

Parliament and of Cromwell, revived as a matter of

course. The Ordinances of the previous eighteen

years were void in law. Indeed, the Elizabethan Act

of Uniformity remained theoretically in force. Charles,

however, in the Declaration of Breda, had intimated

in some ambiguous words that no attempt should be

made to compel conformity. [22] The presbyterian divines,

Reynolds, Calamy and others, who waited upon him

in Holland, begged him not to insist on the use of the

Prayer-book, even in his own chapel. He refused

their request, replying that

 

though he was bound for the present to tolerate much

disorder and undecency in the exercise of God's worship,

he would never in the least degree, by his own practice,

discountenance the good old Order of the Church, in

which he had been bred. [23]

 

The discussions that followed the Restoration

turned chiefly on the question of church-government,

with which I am not concerned, except so

far as to point out that until the powers of the

bishops were thoroughly re-established they were

practically unable to enforce, by spiritual censures,

the use of the prescript order of divine worship. Still

it remained as prescribed, and was gradually returning

to general use.

 

In October, 1660, the divines of the presbyterian

party once more approached the King with suggestions

for a settlement of uniform practice. In regard to the

Liturgy, they had no objection to a fixed form imposed

by law, provided it was not too rigorously

insisted upon; but to the forms contained in the Prayer-book

they were rootedly opposed. The King seized

the opportunity, and in his declaration of October 25

undertook to appoint a committee of divines of both

persuasions to review the Book; in the mean while,

he wrote---

 

Our will and pleasure is, that none be punished or

troubled for not using it, until it be reviewed, and

effectually reformed. [24]

 

On the 25th of March following were issued Letters

Patent for the committee thus promised. The conferences

held at the Savoy were, however, practically

fruitless, and the committee was dissolved by lapse of

time on the 24th of July. In the mean time, however,

the Convocation of the province of Canterbury had

been busy. Meeting on the 8th of May, 1661, the

Synod drew up a form of prayer for the 29th of May,

the anniversary of the Restoration, and also an office

for the baptism of adults, which was approved on the

31st of May. [25] In another group of sessions beginning

on the 21st of November, the Synod, in accordance with

letters of business received from the Crown, took in

hand an exhaustive revision of the Prayer-book. This

was completed on the 20th of December, when a fair

copy of the Book as revised was subscribed by the

whole Synod. [26]

 

All this was done without the consent or concurrence

of Parliament. The Commons became suspicious.

Action under the statute of Elizabeth was

suspended by royal command, and the Convocations

were proceeding as if it were no longer in force. On

June 25, 1661, a committee of the House of Commons

was appointed

 

to view the several laws for confirming the Liturgy of

the Church of England, and to make search, whether

the original Book of the Liturgy annexed to the Act

passed in the fifth and sixth years of the reign of King

Edward the Sixth, be yet extant; and to bring in a

compendious Bill to supply any defect in the former

laws, and to provide for an effectual conformity to the

Liturgy of the Church, for the time to come. [27]

 

This resolution begins the history of the fourth and

last Act of Uniformity, which deserves a detailed

examination. A Bill was introduced on June 29, and

since the original Book could not be found, a printed

copy of the year 1604 was annexed. It was read a

third time on July 9, and sent up to the Lords. [28]

Nothing more was heard of it for several months.

The object of the Commons was simply to enforce

with greater efficacy the existing law. But this would

have rendered futile the labours of Convocation in

revising the Prayer-book. The use of the revised

Book would be forbidden under penalty. The Lords

therefore held their hand. The Bill sent up from the

Commons was at length read the first time on January

14, 1662. Three days later it was read a second time

and committed. [29] The committee met several times

and adjourned, waiting until they might see the revised

Book prepared by Convocation. [30] At length, on

February 24, this Book, certified under the Great

Seal, was sent by the King to the House of Lords.

On March 13 the committee reported the Bill with

several amendments and additions. Before these were

considered, the alterations in the Book were read over

to the House, but not in any way discussed, and a vote

of thanks to the Convocation for the pains taken in

the matter was adopted. [31] On April 9 the Bill passed

the third reading, with the revised Book annexed in

place of the former printed copy, and so was returned

to the Commons. [32]

 

Meanwhile the Convocation had, on March 5,

commissioned three bishops to watch any alterations

which might be imported into the Book by either

House of Parliament. [33] On April 15 the Commons

appointed a committee to compare the revised Book

with the copy of 1604, and on the following day, upon

the report of the committee, resolved by a narrow

majority not to allow any debate on the alterations

made. They reserved, however, the right to do so

had they wished. [34] The clauses of the Bill were carefully

gone through; a proviso inserted by the Lords,

that no man should be deprived for not using the

surplice or the Cross in Baptism, was thrown out; [35]

several amendments were carried, and a conference of

the two Houses was held for their consideration. [36]

 

On this occasion occurred two most significant

incidents. The first arose out of the wish of the

Commons to insert a proviso for

 

reverend and uniform gestures and demeanours to be

enjoined at the time of divine service.

 

It was agreed in Conference that this matter was more

proper for Convocation than for Parliament, and, therefore,

by a vote of the House of Lords, Convocation

was requested

 

to prepare some canon or rule for that purpose, to be

humbly presented unto his majesty for his assent. [37]

 

The other incident arose from the discovery of the

Commons' committee that in one of the rubrics of the

revised Book the word _persons_ appeared to be written

by mistake for _children_. On this

 

the Lord Bishop of Durham acquainted the House that

himself, and the Lord Bishop of St. Asaph, and the

Lord Bishop of Carlisle, had authority from the Convocation

to mend the said word, averring it was only a mistake

of the scribe, and accordingly they came to the

clerk's table, and amended the same. [38]

 

In fact, on April 21, the bishops in Convocation had

heard from the Chancellor of the mistake, and had

taken measures accordingly, adding Cosin of Durham

to their committee of March 5 appointed for such

an emergency. [39]

 

The Act received the royal assent on May 19.

I have dealt so fully with its course through Parliament

because of the character of the incidents. In

itself it does not contain much that is new as regards

my subject. The preamble recites the statute of

Elizabeth, and relates the fact of its non-observance,

and the neglect of the Book of Common Prayer during

the late troublous times; takes note of the King's

commission for the review of the Book and its subsequent

revision by Convocation; and records the

message in which the King recommended to Parliament

that the Book so revised should "be the Book"

appointed to be used everywhere in the kingdom.

This accordingly is enacted, and in the twenty-fourth

section all the existing laws on the subject, including

of course the statute of Elizabeth, are confirmed as

referring to the revised Book and none other. The

revised Book, as in 1552, is thus put in exactly the

same legal position as the original, and the authentic

copy, as on that occasion, is, for the purpose of reference, annexed and joined to the Act.