This argument called forth replies from other members—most likely from some of the Bishops—to the following effect:—"That the Church of England judged none but her own children, nor did not determine that other Protestant Churches were without ordination. It is a thing without their cognizance; and most of the learned men of those Churches had made necessity the chief pillar to support that ordination of theirs. That necessity cannot be pleaded here, where ordination is given according to the unquestionable practice of the Church of Christ; if they who pretend foreign ordination are His Majesty's subjects, they have no excuse of necessity, for they might in all times have received Episcopal ordination; and so they did upon the matter renounce their own Church; if they are strangers, and pretend to preferment in this Church, they ought to conform, and to be subject to the laws of the kingdom, which concern only those who desire to live under the protection [thereof.] For the argument of reordination, there is no such thing required. Rebaptization is not allowed in or by any Church; yet in all Churches where it is doubted, as it may be often with very good reason, whether the person hath been baptized or no, or if it hath been baptized by a midwife or lay person; without determining the validity or invalidity of such baptism, there is an hypothetical form—'If thou hast not been already baptized, I do baptize,' &c. So, in this case of ordination, the form may be the same—'If thou hast not been already ordained, then I do ordain,' &c. If his former ordination were good, this is void; if the other was invalid or defective, he hath reason to be glad that it be thus supplied."[318] Such a mode of silencing the scruples of ministers on whom the ceremonies of reordination was imposed, came extensively into fashion after the passing of the Act.
UNIFORMITY BILL.
II. When the House resumed their discussions,[319] the point in consideration was "the clause of ministers declaring against the Covenant."[320] A form of abjuring both the doctrine of resistance, and the obligations of the Covenant, had been required by the Corporation Act. Upon comparing the words in that Act with the words in the Bill of Uniformity, it will be found that the latter are the same as the former, with the addition of two short clauses,—first, "that I will conform to the Liturgy of the Church of England, as it is now by law established;" and, secondly, that the Covenant entailed no obligation "to endeavour any change or alteration of government in Church or State." As this form of renouncing the Covenant was only of temporary use, and was to be abolished in twenty years, it ceased afterwards to receive much attention; but, at first, it constituted a chief point of interest both to the upholders and opponents of the Bill, even beyond the importance attached to the form of subscription and declaration respecting the Prayer Book. Many of the Peers, who had taken the Covenant, were not so much concerned that the clergy should be obliged to make this declaration, as that, when such a clause should be passed and sanctioned, it might be inserted in other Acts relating to the functions of other offices, so that, in a short time, what was now only required of the clergy might be required of themselves.[321]
1662.
The Puritan Peers warmly opposed the clause as unnecessary, and as widening the breach instead of closing up the wounds which had been made. Many men would believe or fear that this clause might prove a breach of the Act of Indemnity, which had not only provided against indictments and suits at law and penalties, but against reproaches for what was past. As for conformity to the Liturgy, it was provided for fully in the former subscription prescribed by the Bill. The Covenant contained many good things, as defending the King's person, and maintaining the Protestant religion: and to say that it entailed no obligation would neither be for the service of the King, or the interest of the Church; especially since it was well known, it had wrought upon the conscience of many in the late revolution. At any rate, it was now dead; all were absolved from taking it. If it had at any time produced any good, that was an excuse for its irregularity: it could do no mischief for the future; and therefore it was time to bury it in oblivion.[322]
UNIFORMITY BILL.
The Court party, Clarendon says, made themselves very merry with the allegation, that the King's safety and the interest of the Church were provided for by the Covenant, since it had been entered into, in order to fight the King and destroy the Church. It contradicted itself; and, if it were not so, the obligation to loyalty was better provided for by some other oaths. The Bill was no breach of the Act of Indemnity, the new Declaration was absolutely necessary, for the safety of the King's person, and the peace of the kingdom; the Covenant was still the idol to which the Presbyterians sacrificed: and there must always be a jealousy of those who had taken it, until they had declared that it did not bind them. The clergy, of all men, ought to be glad of the opportunity which was offered, to vindicate their loyalty and obedience.[323]
1662.
The Bill being now in its last stage, the Lords appointed certain of their number to draw up a clause empowering the King to make such provision for any of the deprived clergy as he should see fit.[324] As this clause—like the proviso respecting the cross in baptism—opened the door for Royal interference—so, probably, like that, it originated in a Royal suggestion. At all events, these two amendments in contrast with others which increased the severity of the Bill, indicated the existence of kindliness towards tender consciences, and impoverished clergymen,—a disposition which Charles entertained, and in which certain Lords, including some not puritanically inclined, concurred with him.