Wales & the World
Robert Pope's Address to the Meeting of the National Synod of Wales
'You are the body of Christ and individually members of it' (1 Cor. 12:27) says Paul in this most challenging passage of his first letter to the Corinthians. It is a passage which offers us two important principles; first, there should be unity and not division in the church for all are one body in Christ and, second, that the body of Christ is made up of diverse people each of whom has a place within it. There is unity, but there is not uniformity. How wonderful that might seem. How easy it might appear to be to practice. How great has been the church's failure down through the centuries to allow such great principles to govern its life and witness.
Last month (15 February), you may have seen a report of a speech made by the queen at Lambeth Palace. She commented that: 'The concept of our Established Church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly under-appreciated. Its role is not to defend Anglicanism to the exclusion of other religions. Instead, the Church has a duty to protect the free practice of all faiths in this country.' She went on to say, 'gently and assuredly, the Church of England has created an environment for other faith communities and indeed people of no faith to live freely.'
I doubt very much that any of us would wish to question the sentiment expressed here, though I for one would question its historical accuracy. In this year when we celebrate 350 years since the Great Ejection of 1662, it is worth saying that even if what the queen said does reflect the contemporary Established Church of England, it certainly was not ever thus. Indeed, the establishment of the Church of England – especially in the mid seventeenth century – specifically sought to outlaw dissent and ensure not that people be free to live according to their faith, but that they be forced to express religion according to the way dictated by parliament. If we are to celebrate the freedom of people to live by faith, then we must celebrate the contribution of the Dissenters and the Nonconformists and the Free Churches (unsurprisingly absent from Her Majesty's speech). For without the witness of those prepared to stand up and refuse to conform, such a concept might well never have emerged in the religious history of these nations. For that reason alone, it is worth us remembering – and taking pride in – the refusal of our spiritual forebears to conform.
The events of 1662 and those that led to them are complex. They involve political and strategic considerations alongside the strictly religious (bearing in mind that it was not so easy in the seventeenth century to make a distinction between politics and religion as it is today). They also involve the basest of human characteristics, including 'personal ambition, disregard for the public good, the inability of different parties to agree on a common policy ... a sad lack of vision,' suspicion, hatred and even the burning desire for revenge.
We have no time to go into details, but there are several important points to note:
• the 'Dissenters' themselves were not wholly devoid of blame; Presbyterians and the Congregationalists could not agree with each other leading to deepening suspicion and a rift which opened the way for a return of Episcopalianism;
• power had shifted since the death of Oliver Cromwell in 1658 and the restoration of the Monarchy in 1660 with the Presbyterians and Congregationalists losing their public influence and political clout;
• the new king (Charles II) was a closet Roman Catholic and supported the Episcopalians, partly in the hope that toleration could be achieved for Catholic practice and partly in the hope that an Episcopal church could, perhaps, (in the fullness of time) restore the link with Rome;
• and there was a general nervousness at the radicalism of the Puritans who had been audacious enough to execute the new king's father, something unlikely to have endeared them to him!
Old scores were to be settled and a unity imposed on nation and church by demanding uniformity and loyalty to the sovereign.
The Bill for Uniformity went to the House of Lords in July 1661 and received Royal Assent on 19 May 1662 as the 'Act for the Uniformity of Public Prayers, and Administration of the Sacraments'. It required ministers to conform to the newly-revised Book of Common Prayer (despite the fact that it would not, at that point, have been widely distributed), as well as to sign a declaration that it was unlawful to take up arms against the king, by 24 August – just over two months later – on the feast of St Bartholomew. Those who refused were simply deprived of their livings.
It has been calculated that between 1660 and 1662 a total of 1,760 ministers and 149 university and school teachers were ejected from their livings because they refused to accept the Book of Common Prayer, or they refused to swear the oath of allegiance to the monarch, or simply because they upheld Presbyterian or Congregational ideals and rejected episcopacy. It is true that some later conformed, though it seems that this was probably as low as 10% of them. Others remained resolute and they were left to face the wrath of the political machine that made them not only second class citizens by excluding them from public office but outlaws who faced persecution from an establishment which sought to root out and eradicate any dissent. Those who continued to preach after their ejection faced three months imprisonment.
What is most significant about 1662, however, is that unlike previous ejections (and ministers were ejected during the reign of Queen Mary, Queen Elizabeth and King James I as well as during the Commonwealth period) this one had small but significant lay support. There were those who wished to continue to worship in the way they believed to be right who now found themselves dissenting from what the government of the day was trying to impose.
As such 1662 remains important to us; it could almost be said that it is iconic. Apart from being the historical moment in which the URC's antecedents were formed – rooting our tradition as much in Dissent as in the Continental Reformation – it also serves to remind us of a vital historical witness:
• It stands to remind us that toleration of religion is the better course even when we might find ourselves in profound disagreement with others;
• It serves to remind us that the right to freedom of conscience in religion was won only at a great cost, simultaneously warning us that we should remain vigilant lest we lose it because we take it for granted;
• It upholds the principle of the diversity of the body of Christ, celebrating unity but rejecting uniformity, especially when imposed by an authority demonstrating the all too human tendency for partiality;
• And it demonstrates the importance of maintaining a due distance between church and state where the state does not interfere in matters spiritual but all are free to know and to worship God – 'the free practice of faith' – in the way that seems good to their spirit.
It is true that the Dissenters of the seventeenth century are a world away from us – maybe even many worlds away. Their battles are not strictly our battles, while the Establishment then was very different to the Establishment today. Nonconformist denominations were transformed beyond recognition during the nineteenth century, and there is in any case no Established Church in Wales to which one might choose not to conform. It is true, also, that the issues which face us today, particularly those of militant religious extremism might cause us to pause before we uphold the right to everyone to the free practice of her or his faith without wishing to make some kind of qualification.
But in as much as we believe that Christian faith is a lived faith and that it inevitably leads us to support some things and to oppose others, sometimes to go with the flow and sometimes to stand up and be counted, then even if separated by an expanse of time, we find something profoundly in common with those who suffered on Black Bartholomew's Day 1662, we do right to honour their memory and, when appropriate, to follow their example.