The Hampton Court Conference

The Hampton Court Conference

THE HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE

Bancroft's first major success came in the aftermath of James's hasty promise to the Puritans to abolish “impropriate tithes.” In the event, after somewhat strained consultations with his bishops, James decided not to implement his somewhat precipitate decision to end the tithing practice. Nevertheless, his concern for religious peace and stability led him to propose a conference at which Anglican and Puritan representatives could set out their concerns, with a view to achieving a resolution of religious tensions—tensions that were far worse than James had previously realized. Prudence seemed to him to dictate a conciliatory attitude toward the Puritans.

On October 24, 1603, James issued a proclamation stating that he had convened a conference to be attended by himself, the Privy Council, and various “bishops and other learned men” to deal with these issues at the palace of Hampton Court in January of the following year. This conference was to prove of decisive importance in bringing the King James Bible into being.

Yet it was unquestionably a tactical blunder, one that alarmed his bishops and created false hopes within the Puritan faction. Nothing ferments rebellion more than frustrated hopes. James's incautious decision must be seen as having created a serious tension between what the Puritans anticipated, and what they actually got. Puritan hopes for the Hampton Court Conference were high. James had agreed to consider their complaints—something that Elizabeth had resolutely refused to do.

The bishops of the Church of England were now seriously alarmed. James I seemed to be both sympathetic to Puritanism and politically naive. There was every possibility that he might give the Puritans the confidence and sense of direction they had so desperately lacked under Elizabeth. The future of the English national church—not to mention their own rather comfortable and lucrative positions—seemed under threat. The English Parliament was now dominated by Puritans, which gave them a major influence over English public life. What could be done?

On Thursday January 12, 1604, James summoned ten of his senior bishops to explain to them what he proposed. The Hampton Court Conference would be convened “for the reformation of some things amiss in ecclesiastical matters.”

The conference was heavily weighted toward the established church. The archbishop of Canterbury was joined by the bishops of Carlisle, Chichester, Durham, London, Peterborough, St. David's, Winchester, and Worcester. The six cathedral deans presented included the deans of Westminster Abbey and St. Paul's Cathedral. When the king's Privy Council is taken into account, there were nineteen representatives of the establishment; only four Puritans were invited to attend.

It is important to note that the Puritans were not allowed to nominate their own representatives. Perhaps fearing the identity and militancy of the preferred Puritan nominees, James and his advisers carefully selected more compliant members of the Puritan constituency. John Reynolds (or “Rainolds”) was president of Corpus Christi College, Oxford; Laurence Chadderton was master of Emmanuel College, Cambridge, at that time known for its Puritan sympathies. These were joined by John Knewstubs, fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, and Thomas Sparke, minister of Bletchley in Buckinghamshire.

The conference opened on Saturday January 14 with what one observer termed “a very admirable speech of an hour long, at least,” in which James made it clear that he saw himself, as king, as having a decisive role in the affairs of the church. He regarded this to be well established by historical precedent.

It is no novel device, but according to the example of all Christian princes, for Kings to take the first course for the establishing of the Church both in doctrine and policy. To this the very heathen related in their proverb a Jove principium. Particularly in this land, King Henry VIII towards to the end of his reign altered much, King Edward VI more, Queen Mary reversed all, and lastly Queen Elizabeth (of famous memory) settled religion as it now standeth. Herein I am happier than they, because they were fain to alter all things they found established, whereas I see yet no such cause to change as confirm what I find settled already.

The cautious note sounded in these words indicated James's diplomatic approach to the difficult questions facing the conference—specifically, the concerns expressed in the Millennary Petition. James noted the substantial achievement of Elizabeth in settling the religious profile of England, and hinted that he had no particular concern to change matters unnecessarily. There would be no radical revision of the stability that Elizabeth had achieved; James wished to “confirm” what he felt “settled already.”

Yet a reform agenda was clearly called for, and James was perfectly prepared to take on the issues that had engendered such discontent. Signaling his concern to promote peace, James affirmed his intention to make changes where these were appropriate.

I assure you we have not called this assembly for any innovation, for we acknowledge the government ecclesiastical as it now is, to have been approved by manifold blessings from God himself, both for the increase of the Gospel, and with a most happy and glorious peace. Yet because nothing can be so absolutely ordered, but something may be added thereunto, and corruption in any state (as in the body of man) will insensibly grow, either through time or persons, and because we have received many complaints, since our first entrance into this kingdom, of many disorders, and much disobedience to the laws, with a great falling away to popery; our purpose therefore is, like a good physician, to examine and try the complaints, and fully to remove the occasions thereof, if scandalous; cure them, if dangerous

The topics to be discussed were grouped together under three general headings, as follows:

First, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, and divine service used in this church.

Second, excommunication in the ecclesiastical courts.

Third, the providing of fit and able ministers for Ireland.

It is important to note that no mention is made of any proposal for a new translation of the Bible.

The opening debates focused on sections of the Prayer Book, especially those stipulating practices that the Puritans regarded as little more than popery by another name. James proved to be a winsome and skillful negotiator. One particularly illuminating exchange concerned Puritan objections to a phrase in the Prayer Book marriage service, in which John Reynolds—the acknowledged leader of the Puritan faction—instanced the words spoken by the husband to his wife: “with my body, I thee worship.” Only God, he argued, should be worshiped; these words ought, therefore, to be changed.

James responded by agreeing that, at least at first sight, this indeed seemed an unusual, if not improper, practice. However, since his arrival in England, he had discovered that the English were in the habit of using the term in a variety of contexts. For example, he had heard the phrase “a gentleman of worship” used as a term of commendation, without any unacceptable theological implications. He then turned to Reynolds, and added, with a smile: “If you had a good wife yourself, you would think all the honour and worship you would do her were well bestowed.” After examining all the Puritan objections to certain passages in the Prayer Book, he declared them to be without adequate foundation, and suggested they move on to other topics.

The Puritans soon found that they were at something of a disadvantage. They had perhaps taken it for granted that, since their religious views were so close to the Scottish Presbyterianism that James had known and endorsed as James VI of Scotland, he would be sympathetic to their concerns. This, however, overlooked the rhetorical strategy of Richard Bancroft, the wily bishop of London. Although nominally only a bishop, the poor health of the archbishop of Canterbury had allowed Bancroft virtually to take over many of his functions by this stage. In a series of quite remarkable speeches, Bancroft linked his Puritan opponents with popery on the one hand, and Presbyterianism on the other. Bancroft suggested that, if the Puritans had their way, the king would be constantly harassed by aggressive presbyteries that would fail to respect his royal authority.

Bancroft's barbs clearly found their mark; James had been both offended and wounded by his encounters with some Scottish presbyteries, especially the bruising encounter with Melville in 1596, which had challenged his authority. James was outraged. A Scottish presbytery went with a king as well as God went with the devil, he declared. Yet this outburst seems to have been a temporary moment of anger; James soon recovered his bonhomie, and the conference proceeded. Yet none could fail to note James's subsequent lack of enthusiasm for the religious structures proposed by the Puritan delegates. Bancroft had scored a major debating point.

On the second day of the conference—Monday January 16 (the Sunday being regarded as a day of rest), John Reynolds set out four Puritan demands, as follows:

It was clear that the basic Puritan demand was for either the abolition of the Prayer Book, or at least a significant relaxation of what they regarded as its more unbiblical demands. Contemporary religious writings give no reasons to suppose that there was any great demand within Puritanism for a new English translation of the Bible. The Puritan agenda on the matter of English Bibles was limited to a hope that the Geneva Bible might be authorized for use in churches and public worship, thus reversing the prohibitions introduced by Archbishop Whitgift.

James was not inclined to view any of these proposals with much sympathy. The abolition or radical modification of the Prayer Book would lead to a new period of religious infighting within his realm, at a time when he wished to foster a sense of unity. There were only too many lessons to be learned from the events of earlier years, and James had little enthusiasm for the baleful history of religious controversy to replay itself. The Puritan demands would have to be resisted at this point.

Nor was James in the least enthusiastic about authorizing the Geneva Bible. He knew this work from his time in Scotland, in that it had become the mainstay of Scottish Protestant church life. As his comments at the conference make clear, James regarded it as the “worst of all” the English versions. To authorize this version for use in the public worship of the church would have been unthinkable.

This left James in a somewhat unpromising position. Wanting to be seen to be conciliatory and pacific, he was finding himself unable to offer any sops to his Puritan subjects. Everything pointed to his ending up endorsing something remarkably close to the status quo ante, which would please the bishops and alienate the Puritans. A gesture was clearly needed, unless the conference was to be perceived as totally one-sided. The Puritans needed to propose something to which he could readily assent. Given that the bishops seemed to oppose virtually everything the Puritans were requesting, he would find himself in conflict with the Church of England in doing so. Yet being a king was about give and take. He had defended the Prayer Book; he could give way on something else.

↑ Back to top