tolerate much disorder and indecency 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." As we have already seen, the Prayer Book was restored to use in the Chapel Royal immediately after the King's return. On July 6, 1660, five weeks afterwards, there was a debate in Parliament respecting the settlement of religion. Some suggested that the restoration of the "old religion" was the only settlement required; but in the end it was agreed to pray the King that he would call an assembly of Divines for the purpose of considering the subject. The King, however, issued a "Declaration" on October 25, 1660, in which he refers to his letter from Breda, promising toleration to all opinions, and to the visit of the Presbyterian preachers; and complains of the intolerant spirit which is shewn towards himself by the Presbyterians in wishing to deprive him of the services in the Chapel Royal, and in much misrepresenting his words, acts, and motives. He states that it had been his intention to call a Synod at once to consider the affairs of the Church, but that personal feeling is so strong as to make such a step unwise for the present. Throughout this Declaration the King assumes that the Church is restored in its integrity; but promises that he will call an assembly of "learned Divines, of both persuasions," to review the "Liturgy of the Church of England, contained in the Book of Common Prayer, and by law established;" again exhorting those who cannot conscientiously use the whole of it, to use such portions as they do not object to.2 It was in fulfilment of this promise that a Royal Commission was addressed on March 25, 1661, to the following Divines, who constituted what is known as the " Savoy Conference," from its place of meeting, in the Master's lodgings at the Savoy Palace or Hospital in the Strand, the Master at that time being the Bishop of London : On the Church side Accepted Frewen, Archbishop of York. Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, afterwards Archbishop of Canterbury. John Cosin, Bishop of Durham. John Warner, Bishop of Rochester. Henry King, Bishop of Chichester. On the Presbyterian side. Edward Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich. Anthony Tuckney, D.D., Master of St. John's, John Conant, D.D., Reg. Prof. Div., Oxford. John Wallis, D.D., Sav. Prof. Geom., Oxford Humphry Henchman, Bishop of Salisbury, after- Thomas Manton, D.D. [offered Deanery of Rowards of London. chester.] George Morley, Bishop of Worcester, afterwards Edmund Calamy [offered Bishopric of Lichfield]. of Winchester. Robert Sanderson, Bishop of Lincoln. Richard Baxter [offered Bishopric of Hereford]. Benjamin Laney, Bishop of Peterborough, after- Arthur Jackson. wards of Lincoln and Ely. Brian Walton, Bishop of Chester. Thomas Case. Richard Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, afterwards Samuel Clarke. Archbishop of York. John Gauden, Bishop of Exeter, afterwards of Matthew Newcomen. Coadjutors. John Earle, Dean of Westminster, afterwards Thomas Horton, D.D. chester and Ely. Thomas Jacomb, D.D. John Pearson, D.D.,3 afterwards Bishop of Chester. John Lightfoot, D.D. CLARENDON, History of the Great Rebellion, iii. 990. "And was after by Synod commissioned to review the Common Prayer Book" [FOTHERGILL'S MS. York Minster Thomas Pierce, D.D. John Collings, D.D. Anthony Sparrow, D.D., afterwards Bishop of Benjamin Woodbridge, D.D. Exeter and Norwich. Herbert Thorndike, D.D. William Drake. As this Conference was the last official attempt to reconcile what was afterwards called the "Low Church party" and Dissenters to the cordial use of the Catholic offices of the Church, it will be desirable to give a short account of its proceedings. The Letters Patent authorized the Commissioners "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 times within the space of four calendar months now next ensuing, in the Master's lodgings 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 considerations the several directions, rules, and forms of prayer, and things in the said Book of Common Prayer contained, and to advise and consult upon and about the same, and the 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 Archbishop, Bishops, Doctors, and persons hereby required and authorized to meet and advise as aforesaid, shall be agreed upon to be needful or expedient for the giving satisfaction unto 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 alterations of the forms and liturgy wherewith the people are already acquainted, and have so long received in the Church of England."1 This Commission met at the Savoy in the Strand on April 15th, and its sittings ended on July 24, 1661 the Session of Parliament and Convocation commencing on May 8th of the same year. "The points debated," writes Izaak Walton, "were, I think, many; some affirmed to be truth and reason, some denied to be either; and these debates being then in words, proved to be so loose and perplexed as satisfied neither party. For some time that which had been affirmed was immediately forgot or denied, and so no satisfaction given to either party. But that the Debate might become more useful, it was therefore resolved that the day following the desires and reasons of the Nonconformists should be given in writing, and they in writing receive answers from the conforming party." [WALTON's Life of Sanderson, sign. 1.] The "several objections and exceptions" raised against the Prayer Book were thus presented to the Bishops in writing, and they are all on record in two or three contemporary reports of the Conference, of which one is referred to in the footnote, being also printed at length in CARDWELL'S Conferences on the Book of Common Prayer. Some of these "exceptions" were of importance, one requiring that the whole of the responsive system of the Prayer Book should be abolished, even the Litany being to be made into one long prayer, and nothing said in Divine Service by any one except the Minister, unless it were Amen. Another required the abolition of Lent and Saints' Days. But most of the exceptions were of a frivolous kind, and the remarks which accompanied them were singularly bitter and uncharitable, as well as diffuse and unbusiness-like. It seems almost incredible that grave Divines should make a great point of "The Epistle is written in" being an untrue statement of the case when a portion of a prophecy was read and technically called an "Epistle;" or that they should still look upon it as a serious grievance when the alteration conceded went no further than "For the Epistle:" or again, that they should spend their time in writing a long complaint about the possibility of their taking cold by saying the Burial Service at the grave. Yet sheets after sheets of their papers were filled with objections of this kind, and with long bitter criticisms of the principles of the Prayer Book. The Bishops replied to them in the tone in which Sanderson's Preface to the Prayer Book is written, but they seem to have keenly felt what Sanderson himself expressed-mild and gentle as he was when he long afterwards said of his chief opponent at the Savoy, "that he had never met with a man of more pertinacious confidence, and less abilities, in all his conversation." 1 CARDWELL's Conf. 257-368. "Grand Debate between the most Reverend the Bishops and the Presbyterian Divines. The most perfect copy." 1661. See also HEYWOOD'S Documents relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 1662, published in 1862. 2 Walton writes, Bishop Pearson "told me very lately that one of the Dissenters (which I could, but forbear to, name) appeared to Dr. Sanderson to be so bold, so troublesome, and so illogical in the dispute as forced patient Dr. Sanderson, who was then Bishop of Lincoln and a Moderator with other Bishops, to say with an unusual earnestness, that he had never met with a man of more pertinacious confidence, and less abilities, in all his conversation." [WALTON'S Life of Sanderson, sign. 1 3.] Perhaps too they were reminded of Lord Bacon's saying respecting his friends, the Nonconformists of an earlier day, that they lacked two principal things, the one learning, and the other love. The Conference was limited by the Letters Patent to four months' duration, but when that time had drawn to an end little had been done towards a reconciliation of the objectors to the use of the Prayer Book. Baxter had composed a substitute for it, occupying, as he states in his Life and Times, “a fortnight's time" in its composition; but even his friends would not accept it as such, and probably Baxter's Prayer Book never won its way into any congregation of Dissenters in his lifetime or afterwards. In Queen Elizabeth's time Lord Burleigh had challenged the Dissenters to bring him a Prayer Book made to fit in with their own principles; but when this had been done by one party of Dissenters, another party of them offered six hundred objections to it, which were more than they offered to the old Prayer Book. The same spirit appears to have been shewn at the Savoy Conference; and the principle of unity was so entirely confined to unity in opposition, that it was impossible for any solid reconciliation of the Dissenters to the Church to have been made by any concessions that could have been offered. After all the "exceptions" had been considered and replied to by the Bishops' side (replies again replied to by the untiring controversial pens of the opposite party), the result of the Commission was exhibited in the following list of changes to which the Bishops were willing to assent :— The Concessions offered by the Bishops at the Savoy Conference. § 1. We are willing that all the epistles and gospels be used according to the last translation. § 2. That when any thing is read for an epistle which is not in the epistles, the superscription shall be "For the epistle." § 3. That the Psalms be collated with the former translation, mentioned in rubr., and printed according to it. § 4. That the words "this day," both in the collects and prefaces, be used only upon the day itself; and for the following days it be said, "as about this time." § 5. That a longer time be required for signification of the names of the communicants; and the words of the rubric be changed into these, "at least some time the day before." § 6. That the power of keeping scandalous sinners from the communion may be expressed in the rubr. according to the xxvith and xxviith canons; so the minister be obliged to give an account of the same immediately after to the ordinary. § 7. That the whole preface be prefixed to the commandments. § 8. That the second exhortation be read some Sunday or Holy Day before the celebration of the communion, at the discretion of the minister. § 9. That the general confession at the communion be pronounced by one of the ministers, the people saying after him, all kneeling humbly upon their knees. § 10. That the manner of consecrating the elements be made more explicit and express, and to that purpose these words be put into the rubr., "Then shall he put his hand upon the bread and break it," "then shall he put his hand unto the cup." § 11. That if the font be so placed as the congregation cannot hear, it may be referred to the ordinary to place it more conveniently. § 12. That these words, "yes, they do perform these," etc., may be altered thus: "Because they promise them both by their sureties," etc. § 13. That the words of the last rubr. before the Catechism may be thus altered, "that children being baptized have all things necessary for their salvation, and dying before they commit any actual sins, be undoubtedly saved, though they be not confirmed." §14. That to the rubr. after confirmation these words may be added, "or be ready and desirous to be confirmed." § 15. That these words, "with my body I thee worship," may be altered thus, "with my body I thee honour." § 16. That these words, "till death us depart," be thus altered, "till death us do part." § 17. That the words sure and certain" may be left out. The Conference being ended, and with so little practical result, the work of Revision was committed to the Convocations of the two Provinces of Canterbury and York. On June 10, 1661, a Licence from the Crown had been issued to the Archbishop of Canterbury [Juxon], empowering the Convoca tion of his Province to "debate and agree upon such points as were committed to their charge."1 Another was issued to the Archbishop of York [Frewen], of a similar tenor, on July 10th [or 23rd]. But little was likely to be done while the Savoy Conference was sitting, beyond preparation for future action. A fresh Licence was issued on October 10th, by which the Convocation of Canterbury was definitely directed to review the Book of Common Prayer and the Ordinal, under the authority of the Commission sent to them on the 10th of June:3 and on November 22nd a similar letter was sent to the Archbishop of York. This letter enjoined the Convocations to review the Prayer Book, and then to present it to "us for our further consideration, allowance, or confirmation.” It is probable that much consideration had been given to the subject during the five months that elapsed between the issue of the first Licence and that of the second, as a Form for the 29th of May had been agreed upon, and also the Office for Adult Baptism. When, however, the Convocation of Canterbury met on November 21, 1661, "the King's letters were read," and the revision of the Prayer Book was immediately entered upon with vigour and decision. The Upper House appointed a Committee, consisting of the following The last named had been invited (with the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Carlisle and Chester) to be present and assist at the previous session of the Southern Convocation; and was now appointed on the Committee as the most learned ritualist among the Bishops. Wren, Warner, and Skinner had been Bishops in the Convocation of 1640.6 It was necessary that the co-operation of the York Lower House of Convocation should be secured: the Archbishop and three Bishops of that Province, the Bishops of Durham, Carlisle, and Chester, therefore wrote to Dr. Neile, the Prolocutor of York Convocation, saying that they sat in consultation with the Bishops of the Province of Canterbury, and adding that as the time was very short for the work in hand, it would much facilitate its progress if some Clergy were appointed to act in the Southern Convocation as Proxies for the Northern. Eight such proxies were appointed, three of whom were members of the Lower House of Canterbury Province. the Prolocutor and the Deans of St. Paul's and Westminster, and five of the Lower House of York.7 The Committee of Bishops met at Ely House; and Sancroft, at this time Rector of Houghton-leSpring, Prebendary of Durham, and Chaplain to Cosin, acted as their Secretary. Bishop Cosin had prepared a folio Prayer Book of 1619, in which he had written down in the margin such alterations as he considered desirable: and this volume, which is preserved in the Cosin Library, Durham [D. III. 5], has been thoroughly examined for the present work, all the alterations so made being either referred to or printed in the Notes. This volume was evidently used as the basis of their work by the Bishops, although (as will be seen) they did not adopt all the changes proposed by Cosin, and introduced others which are not found in his Prayer Book. They were thus enabled to proceed rapidly with the work of revision, and on November 23rd sent a portion of their labours down to the Lower House, which returned it on the 27th. The whole Prayer Book was completed by December 20, 1661, and a form so had about twenty members of the Lower House of 1661. 7 KENNETT'S Register, pp. 563-56 8 A fair copy of this volume, written by Sancroft in a Prayer Book of 1634, is preserved in the Bodleian Library [Arch. Bodl. D. 28], and has been collated with the original for the present work. Cosin had also written three sets of Notes on the Prayer Book; and had prepared a fourth, suggesting amendments which he considered to be necessary, several years before. These are collected in the fifth volume of his Works, published in the Library of Anglo-Catholic Theology. Some MS. Notes on the Prayer Book, Harl. MS. 7311, are also said to be his. [See p. 36, note.] of Subscription was then agreed upon, of which a copy in Bishop Cosin's handwriting is inserted in his Durham Book, and which is also to be found, with all the names attached, in the Manuscript volume originally annexed to the Act of Uniformity. Meanwhile Parliament was busily engaged in elaborating a new "Act for the Uniformity of Publick Prayers and Administration of Sacraments and other Rites and Ceremonies and for establishing the Form of Making, Ordaining, and Consecrating Bishops, Priests, and Deacons in the Church of England" [14 Car. II. c. 4], to which it was necessary to annex a Prayer Book, as in the case of preceding Acts of Uniformity, as the Book to which the Act referred and which was incorporated with it. There is thus not only an Ecclesiastical but a Parliamentary history of the Prayer Book, extending from June 25, 1661, to May 19, 1662; and it is very worthy of remark that the desire for the statutory restoration of the Church system of Divine Service was so great as to cause considerable impatience on the part of the Commons at the delay which occurred through the Savoy Conference and through the careful deliberation with which Convocation carried on the work of revision. This Parliamentary history of the Prayer Book is, however, of so much interest and importance that the details of it, as they appear on the Journals of the two Houses, must be referred to at some length. On June 25, 1661, the House of Commons ordered, "That a Committee be 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." The Bill was brought in on June 29th, and read a second time on July 3rd, a Prayer Book of 1604 being temporarily annexed to it. When the Bill was committed on the latter day an instruction was given to the Committee, a very large one, that "if the original Book of Common Prayer cannot be found, then to report the said printed book, and their opinion touching the same; and to send for persons, papers, and records." The search for the original Prayer Book proved fruitless, and when the Bill was read a third time on July 9th, "a Book of Common Prayer, intituled 'The Book of Common Prayer, and Administration of the Sacraments, and other rites and ceremonies of the Church of England,' which was imprinted at London in the year 1604, was, at the clerk's table, annexed to the said Bill, part of the two prayers, inserted therein before the reading psalms being first taken out, and the other part thereof obliterated." On the following day the Bill with the Book annexed was sent up to the House of Lords, and was not again sent back to the House of Commons until April 10, 1662, the delay being caused by the proceedings of the Savoy Conference and of the Convocation. The Bill was read a first time in the House of Lords as long afterwards as January 14, 1662; and on the 17th it was read a second time and committed. A message was brought from the House of Commons on the 28th urging the Lords to expedition, but on February 13, 1662, the Earl of Dorset reported, "That the Committee for the Bill for Uniformity of Worship have met oftentimes, and expected a book of Uniformity to be brought in; but, that not being done, their Lordships have made no progress therein; therefore the Committee desires to know the pleasure of the House, whether they shall proceed upon the Book brought from the House of Commons, or stay until the other Book be brought in. Upon this, the Bishop of London signified to the House, 'That the Book will very shortly be brought in.'" In the Letters Patent, under the authority of which the Convocations were acting, the latter were directed, when they had revised the Prayer Book, to present it to the King "for our further consideration, allowance, or confirmation." The revision had been completed on December 20, 1661, and the direction given in the Letters Patent was complied with by sending to the King the fairly written Manuscript copy of the new Prayer Book as it had been subscribed by the two Houses of Convocation. on that day. It was not to be expected, however, that the King and his Council should collate every page of this volume with the Prayer Book formerly in use, and therefore a folio black-letter Prayer Book of 1636 was also sent, in which the changes were carefully entered by Sancroft. Two tables had also been made, on a separate paper, the one of " Alterations" and the other of " Additions," in which the "Old" text and the "New" text were put in parallel columns: at the end of the first table this note being added, "These are all ye materiall Alterations, ye rest are onely verball or ye changeing of some Rubricks for ye better performing of ye Service or ye new moulding some of ye Collects."2 A Privy Council was then summoned, at which four Bishops were ordered to be present. This met on 1 A photozincographed facsimile of this volume was "published for the Royal Commission on Ritual, by authority of the Lord Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury," in the C |