The Acts of Uniformity.
by T.A. Lacey.
NOTE
The following paper, read at Oxford before certain members of the University, in November, 1899, is published at the request of some who heard it.
THE ACTS OF UNIFORMITY
The Acts of Uniformity are incidents in a great movement. They are far from being the most important of its incidents. Their importance has perhaps been exaggerated, and their purport is commonly misunderstood. My object is to place them in their true relation to other incidents. It is useless to study them apart; they cannot be understood except as details of a connected history. I shall confine myself, however, to a narrow, question: a.s.suming the general history, I shall ask how the several Acts of Uniformity come into it, with what purpose and with what ultimate effect. To study immediate effects would be to engage in too wide an inquiry.
We owe thanks to the men who drafted the statutes of the sixteenth century for their long argumentative preambles. These are invaluable as showing the occasion and purpose of the Acts. We shall not go to them for an uncoloured record of facts--their unsupported a.s.sertions will hardly, indeed, be taken as evidence for facts at all; but they tell us to what facts the legislator wished to call attention, and in what light he would have them regarded. The preamble of the first Act of Uniformity is among the most illuminating, and with its help we can a.s.semble the facts in relation to which the purport of the Act must be determined.
We are in the year 1548. Important changes in matters of religion had taken place; greater changes were in prospect. The processions before High Ma.s.s on Sundays and Festivals, conspicuous and popular ceremonies, had been stopped on rather flimsy grounds, and a Litany in English subst.i.tuted--the "English Procession," as it was called. Many images in the churches had been destroyed, as superst.i.tious; the censing of those remaining had ceased. The peculiar ceremonies of Candlemas, Ash Wednesday, and Palm Sunday had been omitted in many places. A chapter of the Bible in English was being read after the lessons at Mattins, and at Evensong after _Magnificat_.
It was not very clear by what authority these innovations had been made. There had been royal proclamations and injunctions; episcopal injunctions and orders on visitation. There was another change, perhaps the most striking of all, in which Parliament had intervened. The first Act of the first Parliament of Edward VI. required the administration of the Holy Sacrament of the Altar in both kinds. No penalties were annexed, though elsewhere in the same statute severe penalties were appointed for depravers of the Sacrament. Convocation had concurred, adopting on December 2, 1547, a resolution of some sort in favour of communion in both kinds. [1] The records are too scanty to show exactly what was done. An _Order of the Communion_ with English prayers, to be inserted in the usual order of the Ma.s.s, was afterwards published, and brought into general use, on the command apparently of the King and his Council. Nothing was said in the Act of Parliament about the mode of giving communion, and therefore,
lest every man phantasing and devising a sundry way by himself, in the use of this most blessed Sacrament of unity, there might thereby arise any unseemly and unG.o.dly diversity,
the King put forth this Order to be exclusively followed. [2] A letter from the Council to the bishops of the realm explains the source of the Order. It was drawn up at the King"s desire, by
sundry of his majesty"s most grave and well learned prelates, and other learned men in the scripture. [3]
This, then, was commanded by public authority. But there were other innovations of more doubtful origin.
On May 12, 1548, at the commemoration of Henry VII. in Westminster Abbey, Wriothesley tells us of
the ma.s.se song all in English, with the consecration of the sacrament also spoken in English,
the priest afterwards "ministering the communion after the Kinges booke." In September, at the consecration of Fernir by Cranmer, Holbeach and Ridley, something of the same kind was done. The account in Cranmer"s Register is confused, but it says distinctly that the Holy Eucharist was _consecrata in lingua vernacula_.
The churchwardens of St. Michael"s, Cornhill, this same year paid five shillings
to the Scolle Mr of Polles, for wrytyng of the ma.s.se in Englysh & ye benedicites;
doubtless for use in church. [4] In May, again, according to Wriothesley,
Poules quire and dyvers other parishes in London song all the service in English, both mattens, ma.s.se, and evensonge.
At St. Michael"s, "viii Sawtters in Englyshe" were bought. [5] In September, Somerset, as Chancellor, wrote to the Vice-Chancellor of Cambridge that in all the Colleges they should
use one uniform order, rite, and ceremonies in the ma.s.s, mattins and evensong, and all divine service in the same to be said or sung, such as is presently used in the king"s Majesty"s chapel, and none other. [6]
There is nothing to show what was specially intended here, but a copy of the order in question was sent with the letter for more information.
Meanwhile steps were being taken for a thorough reform of the customary services. A committee of Convocation had been appointed for "examining, reforming, and publishing the divine service." In November, 1547, the clergy of the lower house of Convocation pet.i.tioned to have the result submitted to them, with what success is not known. [7] The _Order of Communion_ was not improbably the work of this committee.
During the year 1548 we know that several divines--probably the same committee still continuing [8]--were engaged in the task of drawing up an order of service, which at a meeting of the bishops held in October or November was subscribed by all, with the single exception of Day of Chichester. This was the order afterwards brought into use, apparently with some verbal alterations, as the Book of Common Prayer. [9]
Here we see things in great confusion. The cause of the confusion is not far to seek. The services of the Church were regulated by custom, and custom was crumbling to pieces. Uniform in the main, the services in different places had varied in detail. The tradition of each place had been maintained partly by conservative instinct, partly by the pressure of ecclesiastical discipline. The conservative instinct was now giving-way to a temper of innovation; ecclesiastical discipline was paralyzed by the interference of the Crown. Men could see no reason why they should not innovate, and the authorities of the Church were powerless to restrain them. England was threatened with the state of things prevailing in Germany, where the clergy and magistrates of every free town took it upon themselves to revise the order of divine service; where the bishop of Stra.s.sburg, for example, even in his own city and his own cathedral, could not prevent the introduction of a strange and novel ritual. [10]
Into this environment the first Act of Uniformity was projected. In the preamble of the Act we find the state of things not unfairly described, with a discreet avoidance, however, of all reference to the causes of confusion. Mention is made of the old diversity of use, and then of the new and far greater diversity that was coming in. The G.o.dly care of the King, the Protector and the Council, in setting the bishops and divines to work at reforming the service of the Church, is gratefully acknowledged. This work was now concluded "by the aid of the Holy Ghost, with one uniform agreement." The t.i.tle of the book so prepared is recited: _The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other Rites and Ceremonies of the Church, after the Use of the Church of England_. The enactment then proceeds:
"All and singular ministers in any Cathedral or Parish Church, or other place within this realm of England, Wales, Calice, and Marches of the same, or other the King"s dominions, shall from and after the Feast of Pentecost next coming, be bounden to say and use the Mattins, Evensong, celebration of the Lord"s Supper, commonly called the Ma.s.s, and administration of each the Sacraments, and all their common and open prayer, in such order and form as is mentioned in the same Book, and none other, or otherwise."
Then follow the penalties. Any minister refusing to use the Book, or using any other, or speaking in derogation of the Book, for the first offence is to forfeit to the King one year"s profits of some one of his spiritual promotions, if he have any, and to suffer six months" imprisonment. For a second offence he is to lose all his promotions and suffer one year"s imprisonment. For a third offence the penalty is imprisonment for life. If he have no promotion, he is for the first offence to suffer six months" imprisonment; and for a second, imprisonment for life. There are penalties for laymen also.
Any person speaking in derogation of the Book, or interrupting its use, or causing a minister to use any other form, is for the first offence to forfeit ten pounds, for a second offence twenty pounds; on a third occasion he is to forfeit all his goods and chattels and suffer imprisonment for life. These penalties are to be enforced by judges of a.s.size, proceeding in the manner customary on indictment for trespa.s.s.
What have we here? A purely penal statute, imposing the crushing penalties usual at the time.
My purpose is to show the relation of the statute to the Book of Common Prayer. I observe, then, that the Book did not originate with the Act. It was already in existence, the fruit of the work of certain divines, which is spoken of in the preamble as concluded.
The book was not authorized or brought into use by the Act. It was already in use, though by no means in general use. This fact is ill.u.s.trated by the t.i.tle of the Book itself, which sets forth the contents with some audacity as being _After the Use of the Church of England_. I am not here concerned with the question--the very difficult question--of the authority by which the Book came into existence and into use. I am only concerned to show that the authority in question was not the authority of Parliament.
The Act of Uniformity did not authorize the use of the forms contained in the Prayer-book, for that was needless; it forbade the use of any other forms. It did not bring the Book into use, for that was already done; it brought it into exclusive use, which is not the same thing. It was not an enabling Act, but a prohibitory Act. It did not propose or command a reform; it found the reform already made. It did not purport to set forth an order of divine service; it found an order already in existence, and forbade the use of any other. It was frankly a persecuting law, and as such may fairly be compared with the statute of the Six Articles. In that case the doctrinal articles, as in this case the forms of worship, were not invented or introduced by authority of Parliament; the statute in each case merely imposed a penalty on all who impugned or refused them. The purpose of the Act was to secure by temporal penalties an uniformity which the ecclesiastical authorities of the time were unable to compa.s.s, and which it is possible they did not greatly desire.
I shall not deal with the fortunes of the Prayerbook under the Act, or with the violent changes effected apart from the Act during the two or three years that followed. One incident, however, calls for notice. There were in London at this time numerous refugees of the reformed persuasion, chiefly from the Belgic provinces. These men organized themselves into a congregation, worshipping after their own rites. The King granted them the disused church of the Austin Friars. Here they came under the notice of the Lord Mayor, and of Ridley, the bishop of London, who attempted to enforce the Act of Uniformity against them. The matter was debated with much acrimony, and the Council intervened with a royal letter forbidding any interference with the congregation. So far as I know, this was the only act of toleration perpetrated during the reign of Edward VI. [11]
The second Act of Uniformity need not detain us. The Prayer-book had been elaborately revised, still without the initiative or concurrence of Parliament.
The statute of 1549, however, hindered the use of the revised Book; to use it was a penal offence. It was therefore necessary to put the revised Book in the legal position occupied by the unrevised Book. This was done by the Act of the fifth and sixth of Edward VI., in which opportunity was taken to add some pious reflections, which may breathe the spirit of Northumberland and the Council, and some further penalties, which may seem to us more in accordance with the spirit of the time. There was a clause cautiously relaxing the bonds in which the ecclesiastical jurisdiction was held, in order that it might come to the a.s.sistance of the champions of Uniformity.
The only other point of interest is the statement that the revised Book was "annexed and joined" to the statute, a precedent which was followed in 1662.
In the second session of Mary"s first Parliament the Acts of Uniformity were repealed. But the appet.i.te for legislation was aroused. Mary, too, had ideas about legal uniformity. She had no handy and comprehensive service-book, the use of which could be enforced; but the vague standard of what was customary at a certain date was set up:
All such Divine Service and Administration of Sacraments, as were most commonly used in the Realm of England in the last year of the reign of our late Sovereign Lord King Henry the Eight,
were alone to be used. Strangely enough, no penalties were appointed for the disobedient. [12]
Elizabeth, immediately upon her accession, began to take measures quietly and cautiously for returning to the Edwardian position. She revived the use of the English Litany in her chapel, and encouraged it elsewhere. So far nothing was done seriously contrary to the statute of Mary, for the Litany as now used varied but little from that used under Henry VIII. Others, however, went further. The returning exiles, and those who had secretly sympathized with them, began to use the Edwardian Prayer-book. [13]
There were no statutory penalties to restrain them, and the bishops looked on helpless, or acquiescent.
Even in the Queen"s chapel, it is said, the English service was used on Easter Day. [14] Long before the Prayer-book was restored to its legal position. Parkhurst was able to write to Bullinger, perhaps with some exaggeration, that it was again in general use: _Nunc iterum per totam Angliam in usu pa.s.sim est_. [15]
It was the Prayer-book as used in the last year of King Edward which was thus revived. But meanwhile a committee of divines was at work revising it.
Little is known of their proceedings, or of the authority under which they acted, nor am I concerned with this question. [16] There is in the Record Office a paper which roundly a.s.serts that Convocation went over the Book and approved the alterations before it was brought into Parliament. The doc.u.ment is undated, but the calendar a.s.signs it to the year 1559. It is, however, certainly not of this date, and though interesting from another point of view, it cannot be taken to have any value as evidence of fact. [17] The statement cannot be reconciled with what we know of the proceedings of Convocation at the time.
Parliament met on the 23rd of January, 1559, and after some abortive attempts at legislation a Bill for Uniformity was brought into the House of Commons on April 18, and pa.s.sed within two days; in the House of Lords it was keenly debated, but pa.s.sed without amendment on April 28, [18] all the bishops present dissenting. By this third Act of Uniformity all the provisions of the former statutes were revived.
The same penalties were enacted, with one addition--a fine of one shilling for absence from church on Sundays or holy days, to be levied by the churchwardens of each parish. The Prayer-book is not said to be annexed to the Act, [19] but is identified by reference to the statute of the fifth and sixth of Edward VI., by which it is said to have been "authorized." Certain changes to be made in the Book so identified are specified: it is to be used
with one alteration, or addition of certain Lessons to be used on every Sunday in the year, and the form of the Litany altered and corrected, and two sentences only added in the delivery of the Sacrament to the communicants.
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 a.s.sumed the function of amending the Book, and claimed for it a purely statutory authority. Such an a.s.sumption 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 pa.s.sed 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 G.o.d"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]