64 ed; who executed their commissions with so The Rev. Mr. Thomas Case, Clerk, Rector of St. Giles. Mr. Samuel Clarke, Clerk, of St. Bene't Fink. much rigour, that the corporations had not one Mr. Matthew Newcomen, Clerk, of Dedham. member left who was not entirely devoted to Their Assistants. the king and the Church. CHAPTER VI. Rev. Thomas Horton, D.D. "Thomas Jacomb, D.D. "William Bates, D.D. "William Cooper, D.D. "John Lightfoot, D.D. Rev. John Collins, D.D. "Benj. Woodbridge, R.D "Mr. John Rawlinson, Clerk. "Mr. Wm. Drake, Clerk. When the commissioners were assembled FROM THE CONFERENCE AT THE SAVOY TO THE the first time, April 15, the Archbishop of York 1661. ACT OF UNIFORMITY. ACCORDING to his majesty's declaration of October 25, 1660, concerning ecclesiastical affairs, twelve bishops* and nine assistants were appointed on the part of the Episcopal Church of England, and as many ministers on the side of the Presbyterians, to assemble at the Bishop of London's lodgings at the Savoy, "to review the Book of Common Prayer, comparing it with the most ancient and purest liturgies; and to take into their serious and grave considerations the several directions and rules, forms of prayer, and things in the said Book of Common Prayer contained, and to advise and consult upon 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, as shall be agreed upon to be needful and expedient for giving satisfaction to tender consciences, and the restoring and continuance of peace and unity in the churches under his majesty's government and direction." They were to continue four months from the 25th of March, 1661, and then present the result of their conferences to his majesty under their several hands. The names of the Episcopal divines on the side of the Establishment at the Savoy Confer stood up and said, he knew 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 anything 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 For this purpose, Bishop additions at another. 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 outery against them, 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 a union followed, it might be easier to obtain others afterward. 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 everything 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 "Though the Baptists in England were at this time very numerous, and as famous men among them for learning and piety as most in the commission, yet no regard was had to their case, nor any one of that persuasion appointed to have any share in it. They did not design to reform so far; for if they could but bring the Presbyterian party in, which was sufficient to secure their power; though, by the conthe most numerous of the Dissenters, that might be sequence of this proceeding, it seems probable there was no design of reformation, but only to quiet the minds of the people till they could gain time."Crosby, vol. ii., p. 84, 85.-ED. + Baxter's Life, part ii., p. 305. Ibid., p. 306. § P. 262. - "This," observes a late writer, "was precisely what the advocates for persecution desired: they could say that the king had taken every step which the best policy and the tenderest concern for the happiness of all his subjects could suggest to gain over and compose the jarring sects into a system of perfect harmony, but that all his wise and benevolent endeavours were defeated by the wilful obstinacy and perverseness of the Nonconformists; and that he must therefore now pursue such measures as the safety both of the Church and State required."-Se various motives and arguments, sufficient, in my judgment, to influence all who had any concern for the honour of God and the salvation of souls. The bishops gave a particular answer to these exceptions; to which the Presbyterians made such a reply as, in the opinion of their adversaries, showed them to be men of learning, and well versed in the practice of the ancient Church; however, the bishops would indulge nothing to their prejudices; upon which they sent them a large expostulatory letter, wherein, after having repeated their objections, they lay the wounds of the Church at their door. The term for the treaty being almost spun out in a paper controversy,* about ten days before the commission expired, a disputation was agreed on to argue the necessity of alterations in the present liturgy. Three of each party were chosen to manage the argument: Dr. Pearson, Ganning, and Sparrow, on one side; and Dr. Bates, Jacomb, and Mr. Baxter, on the other. The rest were at liberty to withdraw if they pleased. Mr. Baxter was opponent, and began to prove the sinfulness of impositions; but, through want of order, frequent interruptions, and personal reflections, the dispute issued in nothing; a number of young divines interrupting the Presbyterian ministers, and laughing them to scorn. At length Bishop Cosins produced a paper‡ containing an expedient to shorten the debate, which was, to put the min when they were put in mind that the king's com-ed without a diocesan bishop, nor upon the surmission gave them no power to alter the gov-plice, the cross in baptism, and other indifferent ernment of the Church, nor to insist upon Arch- ceremonies; for this purpose they make use of bishop Usher's model, nor so much as to claim the concessions of his majesty's late declaration, they were quite heartless; for they were now convinced that all they were to expect was a few amendments in the liturgy and Common Prayer Book. This was concluded beforehand at court, and nothing more intended than to drop the Presbyterians with a show of decency. The ministers were under this farther hardship, that they were to transact for a body of men from whom they had no power, and therefore could not be obliged to abide by their decisions; they told the king and the prime minister that they should be glad to consult their absent brethren, and receive from them a commission in form, but this was denied, and they were required to give in their own sense of things, to which they consented, provided the bishops, at the same time, would bring in their concessions; but these being content to abide by the liturgy as it then stood, had nothing to offer, nor would they admit of any alterations but what the Presbyterians should make appear to be necessary. With this dark and melancholy prospect the conference was opened.* It would interrupt the course of this history too much to insert all the exceptions of the Presbyterians to the present liturgy, and the papers which passed between the commissioners, with the letter of the Pres byterian ministers to the archbishop and bishops, and the report they made of the whole to the king. I shall only take notice in this place,isters on distinguishing between those things that, instead of drawing up a few supplemental forms, and making some amendments to the old liturgy, Mr. Baxter composed an entire new one in the language of Scripture, which he called the Reformed Liturgy; not with a design entirely to set aside the old one, but to give men liberty to use either as they approved. It was drawn up in a short compass of time, and after it had been examined, and approved by his brethren, was presented to the bishops in the conference, together with their exceptions to the old liturgy. This gave great offence, as presuming that a liturgy drawn up by a single hand in fourteen days was to be preferred, or stand in competition with one which had been received in the Church for a whole century. Besides, it was inconsistent with the commission and the bishops' declaration of varying no 5. That ministers be obliged to deliver the farther from the old standard than should ap-sacrament of the body and blood of Christ to pear to be necessary; and therefore the Reformed Liturgy, as it was called, was rejected at once, without being examined. When the Presbyterians brought in their exceptions to the liturgy, they presented at the same time a petition for peace, beseeching the bishops to yield to their amendments; to free them from the subscriptions and oaths in his majesty's late declaration, and not to insist upon the reordination of those who had been ordaincret History of the Court and Reign of Charles II., vol. i., p. 349, 350.-ED. N.B. All the papers relating to the conference at the Savoy are collected in a book, entitled The History of the Nonconformity," as it was argued and stated by commissioners on both sides appointed by his majesty King Charles II. in the year 1661. tavo, second edit., 1708.-See, also, Sylvester's Life of Baxter, folio.-C. Oc which they charged as sinful, and those which were only inexpedient. The three disputants on the ministers' side were desired to draw up an answer to this paper, which they did, and charged the rubric and injunctions of the Church with eight things flatly sinful, and contrary to the Word of God. 1. That no minister be admitted to baptize without using the sign of the cross 2. That no minister be admitted to officiate without wearing a surplice. 3. That none be admitted to the Lord's Supper without he receive it kneeling. 4. That ministers be obliged to pronounce all baptized persons regenerated by the Holy Ghost, whether they be the children of Christians or not. the unfit both in health and sickness, and that, by personal application, putting it into their hands, even those who are forced to receive it against their wills, through consciousness of their impenitency. * In the course of this controversy, many points connected with the doctrine and manner of baptism came into discussion: such as, the right of the children of heathens, or of the excommunicated, to baptism; the efficacy of children's baptism; the qualifications of this ordinance; the use of godfathers and godmothers, and of the sign of the cross, and other questions; the debate on which, it is said, contributed much to encourage and promote what was called Anabaptism.—Crosby's History of the Baptists, vol. ii., p. 85, 86.--ED. + Baxter's Life. part ii., p. 337. 6. That ministers are obliged to absolve the unfit, and that in absolute expressions. 7. That ministers are forced to give thanks for all whom they bury, as brethren whom God has taken to himself. 8. That none may be preachers who do not subscribe that there is nothing in the Common Prayer Book, Book of Ordination, and the Thirty-nine Articles, contrary to the Word of God. After a great deal of loose discourse, it was agreed to debate the third article, of denying the communion to such as could not kneel. The ministers proved their assertion thus, that it was denying the sacrament to such whom the Holy Ghost commanded us to receive, Rom., xiv., 1-3: "Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations: one believes he may eat all things; another, that is weak, eateth herbs: let not him that eateth, despise him that eateth not; and let not him that eateth not, judge him that eateth, for God has received him." The Episcopal divines would not understand this of the communion. They also distinguished between things lawful in themselves, and things both lawful in themselves and required by lawful authority. In the former case they admit a liberty, but the latter being enjoined by authority, become necessary. The ministers replied, that things about which there is to be a forbearance ought not to be enjoined by authority, and made necessary; and for governors to reject men by this rule is to defeat the apostle's reasoning, and so contradict the law of God. But when Dr. Gunning had read certain citations* and authorities for the other side of the question, Bishop Cosins, the moderator, called out to the rest of the bishops and doctors, and put the question, "All you that think Dr. Gunning has proved that Romans xiv. speaketh not of receiving the sacrament, say Ay." Upon which there was a general cry among the hearers, Ay, ay, the Episcopal divines having great numbers of their party in the hall; whereas the ministers had not above two or three gentlemen and scholars who had the courage to appear with them. Nevertheless, they maintained their point, and, as Bishop Burnet observes, insisted upon it, that a " law which excludes all from the sacrament who dare not kneel, was unlawful, as it was a limitation in point of communion put upon the laws of Christ, which ought to be the only condition of those that have a right to it." At length, the Episcopal divines became opponents upon the same question, and argued thus: "That command which enjoins only an act in itself lawful is not sinful." Which Mr. Baxter denied. They then added, "That command which enjoins only an act in itself lawful, and no other act or circumstance unlawful, is not sinful." This, also, Mr. Baxter denied. They then advanced farther. "That command which enjoins only an act in itself lawful, and no other act whereby an unjust penalty is enjoined, or any circumstance whence directly or per accidens any sin is consequent which the commander ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the lawfulness of a command, and particularly cannot be charged with * Kennet's Chron., p. 506. enjoining an act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an act under an unjust penalty." This also was denied, because, though it does not command that which is sinful, it may restrain from that which is lawful, and it may be applied to undue subjects. Other reasons were assigned ;* but the dispute broke off with noise and confusion, and high reflections upon Mr. Baxter's dark and cloudy imagination, and his perplexed, scholastic, metaphysical manner of distinguishing, which tended rather to confound than to clear up that which was doubtful; and Bishop Saunderson being then in the chair, pronounced that Dr. Gunning had the better of the argument. Bishop Morley said that Mr. Baxter's denying that plain proposition was destructive of all authority human and Divine; that it struck the Church out of all its claims for making canons, and for settling order and discipline; nay, that it took away all legislative power from the king and Parliament, and even from God himself; for no act can be so good in itself, but may lead to a sin by accident; and if to command such an act be a sin, then every command must be a sin. Bishop Burnet adds,t" that Baxter and Gunning spent several days in logical arguing, to the diversion of the town, who looked upon them as a couple of fencers engaged in a dispute that could not be brought to any end. The bishops insisted upon the laws being still in force; to which they would admit of no exception, unless it was proved that the matter of them was sinful. They charged the Presbyterians with making a schism for that which they could not prove to be sinful. They said there was no reason to gratify such men; that one demand granted would draw on many more ; that all authority in Church and State was struck at by the position they had insisted on, namely, that it was not lawful to impose things indifferent, since these seemed to be the only matters in which authority could interfere." Thus ended the disputation. From arguments the ministers descended to entreaties, and prayed the bishops to have compassion on scrupulous minds, and not despise their weaker brethren. If the Nonconformists should be ejected, they urged that there would not be clergymen enough to fill the vacant pulpits; they put them in mind of their peaceable behaviour in the late times; what they had suffered for the royal cause, and the great share they had in restoring the king; they pleaded his majesty's late declaration, and the design of the present conference. To all which the bishops replied, that they were only commissioned to make such alterations in the liturgy as should be necessary, and such as should be agreed upon. The ministers replied, that the word necessary must refer to the satisfying tender consciences; but the bishops insisted that they saw no alterations necessary, and, therefore, were not obliged to make any till they could prove them so. The ministers prayed them to consider the ill consequence that might follow upon a separation. But all was to no purpose; their lordships were in the saddle, and, if we may believe Mr. Baxter, would not abate the smallest ceremony, nor correct the grossest Kennet's Chron., p. 505. + Vol. i., p. 264. error, for the peace of the Church. Thus the king's commission expired July 25, and the conferences ended without any prospect of accommodation. It was agreed, at the conclusion, that each party might represent to his majesty that they were all agreed upon the ends of the conference, which were the Church's welfare, unity, and peace, but still disagreed as to the means of procuring them. The bishops thought they had no occasion to represent their case in writing; but the Presbyterian commissioners met by themselves, and drew up an account of their proceedings, with a petition for that relief which they could not obtain from the bishops.* They presented it to the king by Bishop Reynolds, Dr. Bates, Dr. Manton, and Mr. Baxter ; but received no answer. speaker; his manner was vehement, and he was against all abatements. He frequently interrupted Mr. Baxter ;* and when Dr. Bates said, "Pray, my lord, give him leave to speak," he could not obtain it. Bishop Cosins was there constantly, and . though he was inclined to moderate measures, said some very severe things. When the ministers prayed the bishops to have some compassion on their brethren, and not cast such great numbers unnecessarily out of the ministry, he replied, "What, do you threaten us with numbers? For my part, I think the king would do well to make you name them all." Again, when the members complained that, after so many years' calamity, the bishops would not yield to that which their predecessors offered them before the war, Bishop Cosins replied. Do you threaten us, then, with a new war! It is time for the king to look to you," Before we leave this famous conference at the Savoy, it will not be amiss to remark the behaviour of the commissioners on both sides, Bishop Gauden often took part with the some of whom seldom or never appeared, as, Presbyterian divines, and was the only moderDr. King, bishop of Chichester. Dr. Heylin, ator among the bishops, except Bishop ReyBarwick, and Earle ; Sheldon, bishop of Lon-nolds, who spoke much the first day for abatedon, came but seldom, though he, with Hench-ments and moderation; but afterward, sitting man and Morley, had the chief management of among the bishops, he only spoke now and affairs; others who were present, but did not then a qualifying word, though he was heartily much concern themselves in the debate, as, Dr. grieved for the fruitless issue of the conference. Frewen, archbishop of York; Lucy, of St. David's; Warner, of Rochester; Saunderson, of Lincoln; Laney, of Peterborough; Walton, of Chester; Sterne, of Carlisle; Dr. Hacket and Dr. Sparrow. On the side of the Presbyterians, Dr. Horton never appeared, nor Dr. Drake, because of a misnomer in the commission; Dr. Lightfoot, Tuckney, and Mr. Woodbridge were present only once or twice. Among the bishops, Dr. Morely was the chief * Mr. Crosby says, "he had been informed, that when the Presbyterians were pleading hard for such concessions from his majesty as they thought would At Of the disputants, it is said Dr. Pearson, afterward Bishop of Chester, disputed accurately, soberly, and calmly. The Presbyterian ministers had a great regard for him, and believed, that if he had been an umpire in the controversy, his concessions would have greatly relieved them. Dr. Gunning was the most forward speaker, and stuck at nothing. Bishop Burnet sayst that all the arts of sophistry were used by him in as confident a manner as if they had been sound reasoning; that he was unweariedly active to very little purpose, and being very fond of the popish rituals and ceremonies, he was very much set upon reconciling the Church of England to Rome. On the side of the Presbyterians, Dr. Bates and Manton behaved with great modesty: the most active disputant was Mr. Baxter, who had a very metaphysical head and fertile invention, and was one of the most ready men of his time for an argument, but too eager and tenacious of his own opinions. Next to him was Mr. Calamy, who had a great interest among the Presbyterian ministers in city and country, and for his age and gravity was respected as their father. bring about a union, the lord-chancellor told them his majesty had received petitions from the Anabaptists, who desired nothing more than to have liberty to worship God according to their consciences. which they were all struck dumb, and remained in a long silence." Mr. Baxter places this matter in another light that petitions having been received from the Independents and Anabaptists, the chancellor proposed to add a clause to the king's declaration, permitting others besides the Presbyterians to meet, if they did it peaceably, for religious worship, secure from molestation by any civil officer. On this the bishops and the Presbyterians, seeing it would operate in favour of the papists, were silent: till Mr. Baxter, judging that consenting to it would bring on them the charge of speaking for the tolera Among the auditors, Mr. Baxter observes, tion of papists and sectaries, and that opposing it would draw on them the resentment of all sects and there was with the bishops a crowd of young parties as the causes of their sufferings, said, "that divines, who behaved indecently; but mentions as they humbly thanked his majesty for his indul-only two or three scholars and laymen who, as gence to themselves, so they must distinguish the auditors, came in with the Presbyterians, as tolerable parties from the intolerable: that for the Mr. Miles, Mr. Tillotson, &c. former they craved favour and lenity; but that they could not request the toleration of the latter, such as the papists and Socinians, whom Dr. Gunning, speaking against the sects, had then named." To this his majesty said, "that there were laws enough against the papists." Mr. Baxter replied, "They understood the question to be, whether those laws should be executed on them or not." And so his majesty broke up the meeting of that day.-Crosby's History of the Baptists, vol. ii., p. 87-89. Baxter's Life, part ii., p. 277.--ED. + Baxter's Life, part ii., p. 366. Kennet's Chronicle, p. 507. Ibid., p. 307. This Mr. Tillotson was afterward the most Baxter's Life, part ii., p 363. † Page 263, 264. the strictness of life to which he was bred, and retained a just value and a due tenderness for men of that persuasion. He was admitted student of Clare Hall, in Cambridge, under the tuition of Mr. David Clarkson, in the year 1647. He was bachelor of arts 1650, and within the compass of a year was elected fellow. He had then a sweetness of temper which he retained as long as he lived; and in those early years was respected as a person of very great parts and prudence.* In the year 1661 he continued a Nonconformist, and has a sermon in the morning exercises on Matt., vii., 12. He appeared with the Presbyterians at the Savoy disputation; and though he conformed upon the Act of Uniformity in 1662, he was always inclined to the Puritans, never fond of the ceremonies of the Church, but would dispense sometimes with those who could not conscientiously submit to them. He owned the Dissenters had some plausible objections against the Common Prayer; and, in the opinion of some, persuaded men rather to bear with the Church, than be zealous for it. In the year 1663 he was preferred to the Rectory of Keddington, in Suffolk, vacant by the nonsubscription of Mr. Samuel Fairclough. Next year he was chosen preacher to Lincoln's Inn, and lecturer of St. Lawrence's Church, in London, where his excellent sermons, delivered in a most graceful manner, drew the attention of great numbers of the quality, and most of the divines and gentlemen in the city. In 1669 he was made canon of Christ Church, in Canterbury; and, in 1672, dean of that church, and residentiary; but rose no higher till the revolution of King William and Queen Mary, when he was first made clerk of the closet, and then advanced at once to the Archbishopric of Canterbury, in the room of Dr. Sancroft, a nonjuror. He was a divine of moderate principles to the last, and always disposed to promote a toleration, and, if possible, a comprehension of the Dissenters within the Church. Upon the whole, he was a second Cranmer, and one of the most valuable prelates that this, or it may be any other, church ever produced. should be able to keep his living. They did not desire, but rather fear, their compliance."* Nay, so unacceptable was the publishing the papers relating to the conference, that Bishop Saunderson and some of his brethren cautioned their clergy against reading them. From this time the Presbyterians were out of the question, and the settlement of the Church referred entirely to the Convocation and Parliament. It had been debated in council whether there should be a convocation while the conference at the Savoy was depending; but, at the intercession of Dr. Heylin and others, the court was prevailed with to consent that there should; and such care was taken in the choice of members, as Bishop Burnet observes, that everything went among them as was directed by Bishop Sheldon and Morley. If a convocation had been holden with the convention Parliament, the majority would have been against the hierarchy; but it is not to be wondered they were otherwise now, when some hundreds of the Presbyterian clergy, who were in possession of sequestered livings, had been dispossessed; and the necessity of ordination by a bishop being urged upon those who had been ordained by presbyters only, great numbers were denied their votes in elections. Nevertheless, the Presbyterian interest carried it in London for Mr. Baxter and Calamy by three voices; but the Bishop of London, having a power of choosing two out of four, or four out of six, within a certain circuit, left them both out; by which means the city of London had no clerks in the Convocation. The author of the Conformists' Pleat says, "That to frame a convocation to their mind, great care and pains were used to keep out, and to get men in, by very undue proceedings; and that protestations were made against all incumbents not ordained by bishops." The Savoy Conference having ended without success, the king sent a letter to the Convocation, November 20, commanding them to review the Book of Common Prayer, and make such additions and amendments‡ as they thought neces When the lord-chamberlain, Manchester, told the king (while the Act of Uniformity was under debate) that he was afraid the terms were so hard that many of the late ministers could not comply with them, Bishop Sheldon, being present, replied, I am afraid they will.'"-Dr. Bates's Funeral Sermon for Mr. Baxter. "Hence it is plain the design of the bishops was to shut them out of the Church, and then to reproach and punish them for not coming in. It is evident, also, that the ministers were honester men than the bishops feared they were."-Prot. Dis† Page 35. senters' Catechism, p. 15.--C. should be exhibited and presented for his majesty's It was required "that all proposed alterations farther allowance and confirmation: this was accord Various censures were passed within doors upon the Savoy Conference; the Independents were disgusted, because none of them were consulted, though it does not appear to me what concern they could have in it, their views being only to a toleration, not a comprehension. Some blamed their brethren for yielding too much, and others thought they might have yielded more; but when they saw the fruitless end of the treaty, and the papers that were published, most of them were satisfied. Bishop Burnet sayst the conference did rather hurt than good; it heightened the sharpness which was already on people's minds to such a degree, that it need-ingly done. He was finally to pronounce on the proed no addition to raise it higher. Mr. Robinson says, "It was notorious that the business of the Episcopal party was not to consult the interest of religion, but to cover a political design. which was too bad to appear at first; nor did they mean to heal the Church's wounds, so much as to revenge their own. When they knew what the Presbyterians scrupled, they said, now they knew their minds they would have matters so fixed that not one of that sort * Athen. Oxon., p. 968. priety and truth of the proposed alterations. All the debates, investigations, and decisions of the clergy and bishops, had no efficacy without the sanction of the king. They might be mistaken, but he could not. There is an absurdity in ascribing infallibility to any human being, necessarily liable to imperfect views, to prejudices, and to error. 'But, if possible, the absurdity is greater in attributing it to the sceptred, rather than to the mitred sovereign. The former is not educated to a religious profession; and his time, from the moment he fills the throne, that is, from the moment he becomes infallible, must be constantly employed in civil concerns: but yet, as the head of the Church, to him all truth is known'; to |