The COMMISSION for the CONFERENCE of the SAVOY.

"Charles the second by the grace of God, King of England, Scotland, France and Ireland, Detender of the Faith, &c. To our trusty and well-beloved the most reverend father in God Accepted, archbishop of York, the right reveread fathers in God, Gilbert bishop of London, John bishop of Durham, John bishop of Ro- | chester, Humphrey bishop of Sarum, George bishop of Worcester, Robert bishop of Lincoln, Benjamm bishop of Peterborough, Brian bishop of Chester, Richard bishop of Carlisle, John bishop of Exeter, Edward bishop of Norwich: and to our trusty and well beloved, the reve rend Anthony Tuckney, D. D. Johu Conant, D. D. William Spurstow, D. D. John Wallis, D. D. Tho. Manton, D. D. Edmund Calamy, D. D. Richard Baxter Clerk, Arthur Jackson, Tho. Case, Samuel Clerk, Matthew Newcomen Clerks; and to our trusty and well beloved Dr. Earles, dean of Westminster, Peter Heylin, D. D. John Hacket, D. D. John Berwick, D. D. Peter Gunning, D. D. John Pearson, D. D. Tho. Pierce, D. D. Anthony Sparrow, Herbert Thorndike, D. D. Thomas Hortar, D. D. Thomas Jacomb, D. D. William Bate, John Rawlinson, Clerks, William Cooper, Clerk, Dr. John Lightfoot, Dr. John Collings, Dr. Benjamin Woodbridge, and William Drake clerk, greeting. Whereas by our Declaration of the 25th of October last, concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs, we did (amongst other things) express our esteem of the liturgy of the church of England, contained in the book of Common-Praver; and yet since we find exceptions made against several things therein, we did by our said Declaration declare we would appoint an equal number of learned divines, of both persuasions, to review the same: We therefore in accomplishment of our said will and intent, and of our continued and constant care and study for the peace and unity of the churches within our dominious; and for the removal of all exceptions and differences, and the occasion of such differences and exceptions from among our good subjects; for or concerning the said book of Common-Prayer, or any thing therein contained, do by these our Letters Patents require, authorize, constitute and appoint you the said, &c. to advise upon, and review the said book of Common-Prayer; comparing the same with the most ancient liturgies which have been used in the church in the primitive and purest times. And to that end, to assemble and meet together, from time to time, and at such time within the space of four calender months now next ensuing, in the Masters lodging in the Savoy in the Strand, in the county of Middlesex, or in such other place or places as to you shall be thought fit and convenient; to take into your serious and grave Consideration the several directions and rules, forms of prayer, and things in the said book of Common-Prayer contained, and to advise, consult upon and about the same, and several objections and exceptions which shall now be

raised against the same; and, (if occasion be) to make such reasonable and necessary alterations, corrections and amendments therein, as by and between you the said archbishops, bishops, doctors, and persons hereby required and authorized to meet and advise aforesaid, shall be agreed upon to be needful and expedient,. for the giving satisfaction to tender consciences, and the restoring and continuance of peace' and unity in the churches under our protection and government; but avoiding (as much as may be) all unnecessary abbreviations of the forms and liturgy, wherewith the people are altogether acquainted, and have so long received in the church of England. And our will and pleasure is, that when you the said archbishop, bishops, doctors and persons authorized and appointed by these our Letters Patents to meet,, advise and consult upon, and about the premises as aforesaid, shall have drawn your consultations to any resolution, and determination which you shall agree upon as needful or expedient to be done for the altering, diminishing, or enlarging the said book of Common Prayer, or any part thereof. That then forthwith you certify and present to us in writing under your several hands, the matters and things whereupon you shall so determine for our approbation; and to the end the same, or so much thereof, as shall be approved by us, may be established; and forasmuch as the said archbishop and bishops have several great charges to attend, which we would not dispense with, or that the same should be neglected upon any great occasion whatsoever some of them being of great age and infirmi ties, may not be able constantly to attend the execution of the service and authority hereby given and required by us, in the meeting and consultation aforesaid; We will therefore, and hereby require you the said Dr. Earles, &c. to supply the place and places of such of the archbishops and bishops (other than the said Edward bishop of Norwich) as shall by age, sickness, infirinity, or other occasions be hindered from attending the said meeting or consultation (that is to say) that one of you the said Dr. Earles, &c. shall from time to time supply the place of each one of them the said archbishop and bishops (other than the said Edward bishop of Norwich) which shall happen to be hindered or to be absent from the said meetings or consultations; and shall and may advise consult and determine; and also certify and execute all and singular the powers and authorities before mentioned, in and about the

and

premises, as fully and absolutely as such archbishops and bishops which shall so happen to be absent, should or might do by virtue of these our Letters Patents, or any thing herein contained, in case he or they were personally present. And whereas in regard of the distance of some, the infirmity of others, the multitude of constant employment and other incidental impediments; some of you the said Edward bishop of Norwich, &c. may be hindered from the constant attendance in the execution of the service

aforesaid; We therefore will, and do hereby require and authorize you the said Thomas Horton, &c. to supply the place or places of such the commissioners last above mentioned, as shall by the means aforesaid, or any other occasion be hindered from the said meeting and consultations, that one of you the said Thomas Horton, doctor, shall from time to time supply the places of each one of the said commissioners last mentioned, which shall happen to be hindered or absent from the said meeting and consultations; and shall and may advise, consult and determine, and also certify and execute all and singular the powers and authorities before mentioned, in and about the premises, as fully and absolutely as such of the said last mentioned commissioners, which shall so happen to be absent, should or might do by virtue of these our Letters Patents, or any thing therein contained, in case he or they were personally present: in witness whereof we have caused these our Letters to be made Patents: Witness Ourself at Westininster, the 25th of March, in the thirteenth year of our reign. (Per ipsum Regem.) BARKER."

The bishop of London's lodgings in the Savoy was appointed for the place of meeting; when the parties appeared, the bishop of London acquainted the Presbyterian ministers, that themselves and not the bishops, had requested the Conference for making alterations in the Liturgy: That therefore nothing was to be done till they had delivered their Exceptions in writing, together with the additional forms and alterations which they desired.*

The Exceptions were accordingly drawn up

"When the commissioners were assembled the first time, April 15, the Archbishop of York stood up and said, he knew but little of the business they were met about, and therefore referred it to Dr. Sheldon, Bishop of London, who gave it as his opinion, that the Presbyterians having desired this conference, they, the Bishops, should neither say nor do any thing till the others had brought in all their exceptions and complaints against the Liturgy in writing with their additional forms and amendments. The Presbyterians humbly moved for a Conference according to the words of the commission, but the Bishop of London insisting peremptorily upon his own method, the others consented to bring in their Exceptions at one time and their Additions at another. For this purpose Bishop Reynolds, Dr. Wallis, and the rest of the Presbyterian party, met from day to day to collect their Exceptions; but the Additions or drawing up a new Form, was intrusted with Mr. Baxter alone. Bishop Sheldon saw well ' enough,' says Burnet, what the effect would 'be of obliging them to make all their demands at once, that the number would raise a mighty outcry against then as a people that could 'never be satisfied.' On the other hand the Presbyterians were divided in their sentiments; some were for insisting only on a few important

things, reckoning that if they were gained, and by Dr. Renolds, Dr. Wallis, Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, Mr. Calamy, Mr. Newcomen, Mr. Clerk, and others.

In this Paper laid before the bishops," they move, that the prayers and other materials of the liturgy,might not be clogged with any thing that was doubtful or questioned among pious, learned and orthodox persons.

"1. That the imposing things of doubtful disputation as terms of coinmunion, had in all ages been the ground of schism and separation: and for this they cite the authority of Mr. Hales.

66

2. That as the English reformers at first out of their great wisdom, formed the liturgy in such a manner as was most likely to gain upon the Papists, by varying as little as might be from the offices anciently received; so according to the same rule of prudence, and charity, they desired the liturgy might be so com posed as might best reconcile it to those Protestants who are agreed in the substantial points of religion.

"3. To proceed, they would have the repetitions and responsals of the parish-clerk and people, and the alternate reading of the psalms and hymns, omitted. They pretend this custom raised a confused noise in the congregation, and made what was read, less intelligible. They argue farther, that the minister ought to be the people's mouth in all public services : and that by the Holy Scriptures, the people's part is only to attend with reverential silence, and declare their cousent in the close, by saying Amen.

"4. For this reason they would have the an Union followed, it might be easier to obtain other things afterwards. But the majority, by the influence of Mr. Baxter, were for extending their desires to the utmost, and thought themselves bound by the words of the commission to offer every thing they thought might conduce to the peace of the church, without considering what an aspect this would have with the world, or what influence their numerous demands might have upon the minds of those who were now their superiors in numbers and strength; but when they were put in mind that the king's commission gave them no power to alter the government of the church, nor to insist upon Archbishop Usher's model, nor so much as to claim the concessions of his majesty's late Declaration, they were quite heartless; for they now saw that all they were to expect was a few amendments in the Liturgy and CommonPrayer Book. This was concluded before-hand at court, and nothing more intended than to drop the Presbyterians with some plausible decency." 4 Neal, 271.

"N. B. All the Papers relating to the Conference at the Savoy are collected in a Book intituled, The History of Non-Conformity, as it was argued and stated by commissioners on both sides appointed by his majesty king Charles 2, in 1661.' 8vo. edit. 2d. 17Q3.

divided petitions in the litany thrown into one salema prayer, to be pronounced by the mini

sters.

5. That nothing might remain in the liturgy, which seems to countenance the observation of Lent, as a religious fast: That the example of our Saviour's fasting forty days and forty nights, was above human strength, and never designed for imitation. To corroborate this reasoning, they take notice, that by an act of parliament made the 5th of Elizabeth, abence from flesh is prohibited, upon the score of religion, and only recommended for politic considerations.

"6. That the religious observation of Saintsdays, together with their Vigils, may be laid aside. And that if any of them are continued, they may be called Festivals, and not Holydays, that they may not be made equal with the Lord's-day, nor have any peculiar service appointed, nor the people obliged wholly to forbear working: and that such names in the Calender which are not inserted in the first and second books of king Edward the 6th, may be left out.

"7. That the gift of prayer being one special qualification for the ministry, they desire the liturgy may not be so strictly imposed, as totally to exclude the exercise of that faculty in any part of public worship: and that in consequence of this, it may be left to the discretion of the minister to omit part of the stated service, as occasion shall require. And this liberty, they pretend, was allowed by the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the sixth.

"8. That in regard of the many defects observed in the Version of the Scriptures, used in the liturgy, they move these mis-performances may be struck out, and the new translation allowed by authority, substituted instead of the former. That the Version in the liturgy is either obsolete in language, or mistaken in sense, they endeavour to prove from the following instances. In the epistle for the first Sunday after Epiphany, Rom. 12. 1, it is read, Be ye changed in your shape: and the epistle for the Sunday next before Easter, Phil. 2. 5. Our Saviour is said to be found in his apparel as a man and in the epistle for the fourth Sunday in Lent, Galat. 4. the old Version runs, Mount Sinai is Agar in Arabia, and borders upon the city, which is now called Jerusalem: the epistle for St. Matthew's day, 2 Cor. 4. they translate, We go not out of kind. The gospel for the second Sunday after Epiphany, John 2. it is translated, When men be drunk. The gospel for the first Sunday in Lent, taken out of the 11th of St. Luke, it is turned, One house does fall upon another. And lastly, the gospel for the Annunciation, taken out of the 1st of St. Luke. This is the first month which is called barren.

9. That the canonical scriptures containing all things necessary to salvation, they desire the Apocryphal books may not be read: these writings having no unquestionable authority for recommending matters either of belief, or practice.

"10. That the minister may not be enjoined to read any part of the liturgy at the communion table, excepting such portions which properly belong to the Lord's Supper: And at such times only, when the Holy Sacrament is administered.

"11. That whereas the word minister, and not priest or curate, stands in the rubric for the absolution, and divers other places: It is requested this usage may be continued through the whole book: And that the Lord's Day may be inserted instead of Sunday.

12. And in regard singing of psalms is a considerable part of public worship; they de sire the version set forth and allowed to be sung in churches, may be mended; or that they may have leave to make use of a more correct translation.

"13. That all obsolete terms and expressions in language worn out, may be altered to words of common use. This is repeating part of their Eighth Objection. Their instances are 'Aread' used in the gospel for Monday and Wednesday before Easter. And then opened he their wits,' in the gospel for Easter Tuesday.

"14. That no portions of the Old Testament, or of the Acts of the Apostles, be called epistles, and read as such.

15. That the phrase in several offices which presumes all persons within the communion of the church, regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of grace, may be reformed: For considering the want of ecclesiastical discipline, confessed in the Cominination, such a supposition is more than the utmost charity can admit.

"16. That the petitions in the prayers might have a more orderly connection, and the forms carried on to a more competent length: That this method would be more to edification, and gain farther upon the people's esteem.

"Under this head, they are somewhat more particular:

"And first, They charge the collects with being generally too short, many of them consisting but of one, or at most, but of two sen tences of petition. That they are generally prefaced with a repeated mention of the name and attributes of God, and presently concluded with the name and merits of Christ. That by this disposition of the service, many unneces sary breaks are occasioned: And that when many petitions are to be offered at the same time, these interruptions are neither agreeable to scriptural examples, nor suited to the gravity of that holy duty.

"Secondly, They object the prefaces of many collects have no clear and direct reference to the following petitions. That the petitions are put together without due order or natural connection, and falling short, instead of being suitable to the occasions for which they are used, seem to have been the effect of chance and inadvertency. It is therefore de sired, that instead of those discontinued collects there may be one methodical and entire form of prayer composed out of many of them.

"17. They observe the public liturgy of a church ought to comprehend the sum of all such sins as are ordinarily to be confessed in prayer: And take in such petitions and thanksgivings as are commonly to be put up by the church: And that the Catechisms, or public systems of doctrine, should contain a brief abstract of all such doctrines as are necessary to be believed: And the points should be set down in a clear, explicit manner. And here they pretend the liturgy is defective as to all

these matters.

"1. Say they, there is no preparatory prayer, in the beginning of the service, for God's assistance and acceptance; and yet many collects in the middle of the worship, have little or nothing else.

"2. The Confession, as these ministers continue, is very defective: Original sin is not clearly expressed, nor the number of actual sins with their aggravations sufficiently enlarged on. That the form goes too much upon generals: Whereas confession being an exercise of repentance, ought to be more particular. "S. They complain of a great defect in the forms of public thanksgiving. And,

"4. They object the whole body of the Common Prayer is too much wrapt up in generals: As, To be kept from all evil, from all 'enemies, from all adversity, that we may do "God's will,' &c. without dilating upon the particulars included.

"5. They pretend the Catechism is defective in many necessary doctrines, and that some of the essentials of Christianity are not mentioned, unless in the creed.

"18. They alledge the Liturgy enjoins the use of several ceremonies, which from the time of the first reformation have been judged unwarrantable by divers learned and pious men. "The impositions complained of are, First, The enjoining the use of the surplice. Secondly, That none may baptise or be baptised, without the transient image of the cross, which has at least, they say, the appearance of a sacrament of human institution. Thirdly, The enjoining the posture of kneeling at receiving the Lord's Supper. And here they cite the authority of our Saviour and his Apostles for a different gesture: And that the Church of England contradicts the practice of the Catholic Church for several ages, and runs counter to the canons of the most venerable synods. And lastly, that the weight of these impositions are still made more burthensome by the canons requiring the clergy to subscribe their lawfulness."

To these Exceptions the Commissioners who represented the Church of England returned an Answer; part of which shall be laid before the reader.

"1. The Presbyterian ministers objected the Liturgy bad all along given dissatisfaction to several persons of piety and learning; to this the episcopal divines returned, That the passages complained of in the Liturgy ought to be

evidently proved unlawful, before any altera tions can be demanded. That it is no argument to say a great many pious persons scruple the use of it, unless it can clearly be made out the Liturgy has given just ground for such scruples. For otherwise, if the bare pretence of scruples is a sufficient plea to discharge us from obedience, all law and order can signify nothing. To this they add, that if the Liturgy should be altered as the Ministers' Paper requires, the generality of the soberest and best members of the Church of England, would have just cause of disgust. For that such an alteration would imply a concession, that this Liturgy was an intolerable burthen upon tender consciences, and a usage plainly superstitious: For these are the pretences suggested for an alteration. Now the granting all this, must infer the justifying those who have separated from it, and the condemning all those who have adhered to it, with the hazard and loss of lives and fortunes. After this introduction, they proceed to give an answer to the first general proposal, and affirm, that the English reformers had been careful to put nothing into the Litur gy, but what is either evidently the word of God, or has been generally received by the Catholic Church. To the next proposal they answer, that great care must be taken to suppress private conception of prayer, both before and after sermon: That otherwise private opinions will be brought into pulpit-prayers. For what else can be expected, if private persons may have the liberty of making public devotions?

"To that part of the proposal that prayers may consist of nothing doubtful or questioned by pious, learned, and orthodox persons: The episcopal divines reply, That since it is not defined and ascertained who those orthodox persons are, they must either take all those for orthodox persons who have the assurance to afirm themselves such: And if so, the demand is unreasonable. For some who deny the divinity of the Son of God, will stile themselves orthodox, and yet there is no reason we should part with an article of our creed for their satisfaction. Besides, the proposal requires an impossibility. For there never was, nor ever will be, any prayers couched in such a manner, as not to be questioned by some people who call themselves pious, learned and orthodox. But if by orthodox is meant only those who adhere to scripture, and the Catholic consent of antiquity, they are not of opinion that any part of the English Liturgy has been questioned by such.

"To the general objection of the English service being loaded with church-pomp, imagery, many superfluities, and reviving obsolete customs: To this they answer, That if these generals are intended to be applied to the Liturgy, they are gross calumnies, and a contradiction to the confession of these very Ministers in the latter part of their Exceptions. But if no application is intended, they are foreign to the purpose, and therefore it had been more

prudence and candour not to have mentioned them."

To go on with the Church Commissioners, who need not be mentioned at every Article. "It was the wisdom of our Reformers, say tney, to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanists nor Protestants could justly except against: And therefore, as the first never charged it with any positive errors, but only with the want of something they conceived necessary, so was it never found fault with by those properly distinguished by the name of Protestants; that is, those of the Augustan Confession. And as for others who have brought the church service into dislike with some people; this practice of their's has been their fault and their sin: So that to urge the present state of affairs as an argument why the book should be altered, is by no means reasonable. To do this would be to gratify these men in an error, and make their own unwarrantable conduct an advantage to them.

"The third and fourth Proposals may go together; the demand in both being against responsals and alternate readings in hymns, psalms, &c. And that upon such a motive as really rather proves the necessity of continuing them in their present condition. They would take these usages away, because they do not edify: Now for this very reason, they ought to be kept on. For that they do edify, is plain, if not by informing our understandings, (the prayers and hymus being never made for a Catechism) yet by quickening, keeping up, and uniting our devotion, which is apt to sleep or grow languid, in a long continued prayer. Our edification therefore is best consulted by being called on and awakened by frequent Amens: by being excited by mutual exultations, petitions and holy emulations, which of us shall go farthest in shewing his own zeal for the glory of God, or contribute most to that of others. For this purpose alternate reading, repetitions and responses, are far more serviceable than a long tedious prayer. Nor is this our opinion only, but the judgment of former ages, as appears by the practice of the Jewish and ancient Christian churches.

fast: This is requested as an expedient for peace, and is in effect to desire our church may shew herself contentious for the sake of peace, and divide from the Catholic Church, that we may correspond the closer at home, and live at unity among ourselves. But, St. Paul reckons those contentious, who oppose the custom of the churches of God. Now that the religious observation of Lent was a custom of the churches of God, appears by the testimonies of the Fathers. This demand therefore has no tendency to peace, but dissention. And here the fasting forty days may be practised in imitation of our Saviour, notwithstanding what is objected to the contrary. For though we cannot reach up to his divinity, follow him passibus æquis, and abstain wholly from meat for so long a time, yet we may fast forty days together, either as Cornelius did, till three o'clock in the afternoon, or till noon, as St. Peter did, or at least we may come up to Daniel's fast, and forbear entertaining our pa late: And thus far, without question, it is possible for us to imitate our Lord. Nor does the act of parliament, 5 Eliz. forbid fasting in this manner, or upon the view abovementioned: We dare not suppose the parliament had any intention to prohibit a custom commanded by the Church of Christ. Neither does the act determine any thing about a Lenten fast, but only provides for the increase of the navy, and encouraging the fishery upon that score. Besides, we must not interpret one statute so as to make it clash with another. Now the 1st of Eliz. cap. 2, still in force, confirms the whole Liturgy, and by consequence the religious keeping of Lent: and this with a severe penalty upon all those who speak in deroga tion of any part of the Common-Prayer. And therefore that other act of 5 Eliz. cap. 5, must not be interpreted to a counter sense, and as if it prohibited the religious keeping of Lent.

"But these Demandants object, this custom clashes with the Scripture: That these inspired writings declare the minister's being appointed for the congregation in public prayers: That the people's part is only to attend with silence, and signify their assent by saying Amen. Now if these gentlemen mean, that the people in public services must only say the word Amen, they have no text to prove their assertion. Besides, they themselves practise the direct contrary in one of their principal parts of worship: We mean their singing of psalms, where the people have as great a part as the minister. Now if this may be done in Hopkins's, why not in David's Psalms? If in metre, why not in prose? If in a Psalm, why not in a Litany?

Farther, it is desired that nothing should be in the Liturgy which so much as seems to countenance the observation of Lent, as a religious

VOL. VJ.

"The observing Saints-Days is not enjoined as of divine, but of ecclesiastical institution: that therefore it is not necessary they should have any particular appointment in Scripture: their being useful for the promoting piety, and serviceable to the general end recommended in holy writ, is sufficient for this purpose. That the observation of these solemnities was a primitive custom, appears by the Rituals and Liturgies, by the consentient testimony of antiquity, and by the ancient Translations of the Bible: for instance, by the Syriac and Ethiopic versions, where the lessons appointed for holy days, are particularly marked. Now the former of these Translations comes near the apostolic age. Farther, our Saviour himself kept the feast of the Dedication, which was a solemnity of the church's institution. And the chief business of these days, being not for feasting, not for entertainment and diversion, bnt the exercise of holy duties, they are more properly called holy days than festivals: and though they are all of a resembling nature, it cannot be inferred they all require an equal regard. As for the people, they may be in

D