Another alteration which has been ascribed to the archbishop in later times, but does not seem to have been made matter of accusation in his own, was the substitution of the word "priest" for "minister" in the 5 rubric prefixed to the Absolution or remission of sins. It is not easy to discover how this charge originated; for on an examination of the editions of the Common Prayer belonging to that period, it is found that the words were used as if no distinct meanings were To assigned to them. The editions of 1607 and 1627 have "minister." The form of prayer for the fast in 1625 and the Prayer-books of 1632 and 1633 have priest." But the editions of 1634 and 1639 again have the word "minister," and are therefore sufficient 15 evidence, that if the alleged alteration were made clandestinely, the blame cannot reasonably be imputed to archbishop Laud.

66

His speech delivered in the Star-chamber on the 14th of June, 1637, when Bastwick, Burton, and 20 Pryn, received sentence for the libels they had published, appears to have liberated him altogether from the imputation of corrupting the Book of Common Prayer; but the alterations made in the two services for the public fast and the 5th of November, 25 alterations, which, with much appearance of reason, were ascribed to his influence, were kept in remembrance, and were brought forward at his trial in the year 1644, with the view of proving by their constructive evidence the designs which he was said to have 30 conceived in favour of the Church of Rome.

CHAPTER VI.

The proceedings of the Conference at the Savoy.

IN the dark interval that now elapsed between the

commencement of the rebellion and the restoration of the monarchy, when it is difficult to fix upon any 5 measure, though promoted by the friends of the Church, which was not turned by the strong current of the times into an adverse channel, there are several facts to be especially noticed, as connected with the subsequent condition of the Book of Common Prayer. 10 They evidently made a great impression on the character of the times, and though the results that followed, like all results at periods of great excitement, did not fulfil the expectations that had been formed of them, we can trace their operation, whether 15 for good or for evil, in the proceedings of the Savoy Conference, and the history of the Act of Uniformity.

On the 1st of March, 1641, the house of lords appointed a committee consisting of ten earls, ten bishops, and ten lay-barons, to "take into consideration 20 all innovations in the Church respecting religion." On the 10th of the same month, they were empowered to associate with them as many learned Divines as they

pleased, and archbishop Usher, and Drs. Prideaux, Warde, Twisse, and Hacket, are particularly mentioned as selected for the purpose. But the object for which they were professedly appointed gives little information 5 as to the extensive powers they possessed. It would appear to have been the intention of the house that they should consider and report upon the minute regulations adopted by archbishop Laud and other bishops in their respective dioceses, regulations which 10 had been made the subject of constant complaint, not merely by all the avowed opponents of the Church, but also by great numbers of its members. These were the innovations which the committee were required to examine; but with an understanding on 15 all sides that they were to carry their inquiries into the whole field of doctrine and discipline, and suggest such measures as might tend to allay the great and general feeling of discontent. Bishop Williams, at

this time dean of Westminster and bishop of Lincoln, 20 presided over the committee, as well as over the sub

committee, that was appointed soon afterwards, and proceeded without delay to enter upon its important duties.

A meeting consisting of such persons as bishops 25 Williams, Moreton (of Durham), and Montague (of Norwich), archbishop Usher, and the following Divines, Warde, Prideaux, Sanderson, Featley, Brownrigg, Holdsworth, Hacket, Twisse, Burgess, White, Marshall, Calamy, Hill, many of whom were eminent

30

a Of these Divines Warde was one of the translators of the Bible in 1611, and held the Lady Margaret's professorship at Cambridge, in which he was succeeded by Holdsworth; and Prideaux, Sanderson, Brownrigg, and Hacket, were afterwards bishops of Worcester, Lincoln, Exeter, and Lichfield, respectively.

for their learning and their attachment to the national Church, could not fail to attract general notice, and to give much weight and sanction to the measures they recommended. It is probable that the greater number of them entered upon their task with views derived 5 altogether from the strange necessities of the times, rather than in compliance with their own deliberate judgment. They were aware that the torch was already uplifted for the destruction of the sacred edifice, and they were willing to remove those outworks which, 10 though employed formerly in its defence, would be now most likely to fall into the hands of the assailant. Doubtless they were justified in the opinions of many sober and moderate men; but their measures were fruitless in the way of relaxation at the time, and pro- 15 bably contributed, in the subsequent combinations of events, to results directly opposite. In the ensuing month of May they found that motions were entertained in the house of commons, which left no further doubt as to the impending ruin of the established 20 Church, and their undertaking was then abandoned.

But it was already known that they had agreed upon many important changes in the Book of Common Prayer, some of them likely to be granted, but others destined to meet with the greatest opposition. They 25 advised that the psalms, sentences, epistles, and gospels, should be printed according to the new translation; that fewer lessons should be taken from the apocrypha; that the words, "with my body I thee worship," should be made more intelligible; that the 30 immersion of the infant at the time of baptism should not be required in case of extremity; that some saints, which they called legendaries, should be excluded from the calendar: that the " benedicite" should be omitted;

6

that the words, "which only workest great marvels," should be omitted; that "deadly sins," as used in the litany, should be altered to "grievous sins;" that the words, "sanctify the flood Jordan," and "in sure and cer5 tain hope of resurrection," in the two forms of baptism and burial, should be altered to," sanctify the element of water," and "knowing assuredly that the dead shall rise again." To these and other changes of a like nature they added the following more difficult concessions : 10" that the rubric with regard to vestments should be altered; that a rubric be added to explain that the kneeling at the communion was solely in reference to the prayer contained in the words preserve thy body and soul;' that the cross in baptism should be explained or dis15 continued; that the words in the form of confirmation, declaring that infants baptized are undoubtedly saved, should be omitted; and that the form of absolution provided for the sick should be made declaratory, instead of being authoritative." These concessions, sur20 rendering by implication some of the most solemn convictions of a great portion of the clergy, on the authority of the Church, the nature of the two sacraments, and the sanctity of the priesthood, would meet with the most strenuous opposition, and tend to increase the 25 causes of discontent, instead of abating them.

30

Such were the alterations approved by the committee of Divines; and their decision, though unavailing with reference to its immediate object, became a record to be quoted as authority by future non-con

b For instance, the non-conformists, in the preface to their " Exceptions," given in at the Savoy Conference, reproached the bishops "for not yielding to that which several bishops voluntarily offered twenty years before." Afterwards, in their rejoinder to the bishops at the same conference, they observed, The primate of Ireland,

R