The Savoy Conference, 1661
2
The Savoy Conference, 1661
I. Introduction
The Savoy Conferences called by the King, met for the first time on April 15, 1661 “in the Master’s lodging” in the Savoy. It was a conference between bishops and Episcopalian divines on the one hand and persons of Presbyterian views on the other, who were to undertake a revision of the Prayer Book “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 right from the outset the Anglican bishops made it perfectly clear that they did not intend to co-operate, and after four months, during which the Presbyterian delegates were bullied and shouted down, the Conference ended amid mutual recriminations. Nothing was accomplished. Had the Conference been a secular affair between politicians and business men, it would have been deplorable. Between two different parties in the church of Christ such an incident becomes inexcusable.
Now we may well ask why this was. The King had returned amid universal rejoicings. So far as the Anglicans were concerned (and the King for that matter), they were lucky to be back after twenty years in which, largely as a result of Archbishop Land’s policies, the Church of England had been in the wilderness. And surely, since they were not yet certain of the extent of the reaction in their favour, they would have been wise to have proceeded cautiously.
It was not to be. A little group of High Churchmen right at the centre of the Laudian tradition rendered this impossible. During the years of exile, both at home and abroad, this little group had worked and plotted with untiring perseverance and ruthless determination. Their achievement was that they became identified in people’s minds with the authentic voice of Anglicanism and with the Royalist cause. When the Restoration came they were ready. Their goal was to recapture the establishment without any conditions or concessions, and in the event they were brilliantly successful. Within a year of the King’s return they occupied every position they had sought to win.
But if that is true, they were considerably assisted by the gross mistake of the Presbyterians in England in inviting the King to resume the throne unfettered by any conditions regarding the ecclesiastical settlement. The Presbyterians had a strong bargaining position with the King; was it not a Presbyterian Parliament that invited him to return? Yet Monk insisted on inviting him back unconditionally, and Presbyterian ministers waited on him at the exile’s court, not as equal parties negotiating a settlement, but as suppliants. All that had been won at the cost of bloodshed and misery was abandoned. It was a colossal mistake.
There is still a third thread running through this narrative and that relates to the difficulties in which moderate men and parties found themselves. In the case of denominations the two extremes, having no basis for agreement with one another, were the Independents and the extreme Presbyterians on the one hand, and the Laudians on the other. But there were also moderate Presbyterians holding the intermediate position and regarded by the extreme Presbyterians as traitors, while—and this is vital to an understanding of the matter—the Anglicans loathed the Presbyterians with a hatred which seems at times, as we read their letters, almost hysterical. It was likewise a difficult time for such moderate men as Baxter and Manton among the Presbyterians and bishops like Reynolds, who were actually on the same side at Savoy, but who, as the full tide of Laudianism swept in, were forced to take sides.
The tragedy was that at the Restoration the Presbyterians treated with the Anglicans for comprehension within the National Church, and the watchword was comprehension, not tolerance. Baxter and his friends considered they had a case for such comprehension. After all the two essential characteristics of the Church of England are that it is governed by bishops and has a Prayer Book, and the moderate Presbyterians believed in both, subject to modifications. They desired that bishops should be of the old, primitive mould, ruling with the consent of presbyters, and that the Prayer Book should be revised so as to be more scriptural. These views they put forward in a series of discussions with the bishops at the Restoration. But they met the High Church Laudian school at the height of its power, and it is difficult to resist the feeling that revenge played no small part in the behaviour of the latter. The Savoy Conference was bound to fail.
II. The Resurgence of the Laudians
During the Interregnum
The following reasons are suggested for the fact that fifteen years after Archbishop Laud’s execution, his party was dictating the course of the Reformation settlement.
Firstly, there was Cromwell’s tolerant religious policy. It is an interesting historical fact that persecuted people begin their agitation for freedom, not when the persecution is at its height but when it begins to abate. So it was here. Cromwell’s policy aimed at securing the widest possible toleration within the national church consisting with the safety and security of the state. Reorganising his church on the plan which John Owen had presented to Parliament in 1654, Cromwell appointed commissioners to examine all candidates for livings as to their being fit and able persons to preach the gospel. But the church was comprehensive, including Presbyterians, Independents, and Baptists among those holding livings, while although the Liturgy had been prohibited in 1645, many Anglicans remained in their livings and sometimes used portions of it from memory. Outside the national church liberty was offered, under Cromwell, to “all such as do profess faith to God and Jesus Christ,” only Popery and Anglicanism being excepted as idolatrous and politically dangerous. But, in fact, Sir Charles Firth says that “congregations of Royalists continued to meet in London throughout the Protectorate, and the Government winked at their use of Anglican services and ceremonies.” This toleration, while relieving the pressure on Anglicans, confronted them with a problem as to their own policy and, since Cromwell’s liberality did not stir them up to united hatred, they split into three groups.
First, there were those who, though preferring the old ways, loyally supported the Cromwellian establishment. Second, there were those who, while conforming outwardly, put up as much passive resistance as possible. Third, there were the Laudians who, having no dispensation from their bishops to refrain from using the Prayer Book, would have nothing to do with the new order at all, and it is they who, assuming leadership of the scattered Church of England, became identified in people’s minds with the Royalist and Anglican causes. Ably led by Henry Hammond and Gilbert Sheldon, their work within the sphere of Cromwellian tolerance is the second reason for the Laudian revival.
The third reason lies in the fact that they were indefatigable in propagating their cause, producing a remarkable number of theological writings asserting the High Church position, and successfully spreading their doctrine among the landed gentry.
But perhaps the most important factor in the resurgence of Laudianism is that the Laudians in exile captured the hearts of the King and of his chief adviser, Edward Hyde, later Earl of Clarendon. Not only were the King’s ecclesiastical advisers all men of the Laudian stamp, but his political advisers were High Churchmen of similar views. Most significant of all they abhorred the Presbyterians against whom they made it their business to secure the King, though at the same time keeping him from the advances of the Roman Catholics who were offering their support.
Then Cromwell died and Independency as a political force died also. Monk marched on the capital and recalled the Convention Parliament. Negotiations opened with the King, who issued the worthless Declaration of Breda. What followed was vague and academic, and when in 1660 the King returned to the acclamation of the multitude, he was unhampered by any conditions.
III. The Recapture of the Establishment
Immediately Prior to Savoy
Dr. R. S. Bosher (The Making of the Restoration Settlement, 1951) points out that two courses were open to Hyde. One, which was strictly legal, was to argue that all that had happened during the Commonwealth and Protectorate was illegal, and that since the Church of England had previously been established by law as the national church, it had only to resume the privileges which had never been legally taken from it.
The other possibility was to acknowledge that the last twenty years could not so easily be forgotten, and that it was right to negotiate with the Presbyterians regarding the church settlement. In view of Charles’ promises at Breda, one might assume that he had adopted this view and abandoned the first.
In point of fact, Hyde did not dare act on the first view, and Baxter gives the reason perfectly, saying, “When they came in, it was necessary that they should proceed safely and feel whether the ground was solid under them before they proceeded to their structure . . . Therefore, it was necessary that moderate things should be proposed and promised.” The first thing they did was to attempt to win over those of the old Presbyterians, both laymen and ministers, who were held in high esteem in the state. Among others, Baxter was offered and refused the See of Hereford, while such men as he, Calamy, and Manton were appointed chaplains to the King. Moreover, the King not only made a proclamation against the expulsion of present incumbents, but opened negotiations with the Presbyterian leaders for a comprehensive church settlement. After consulting with their friends, Baxter and the other leaders proposed a modified form of Episcopacy and a more scriptural Prayer Book.
But all this time the King had been filling the church with Laudians, and suddenly the Presbyterians in Parliament awoke to the danger, with the result that the Anglicans suffered a major defeat in the passing of the Bill for Settling Ministers. This caused the King and Hyde to take fright. Parliament was adjourned for two months, and in order to keep the Presbyterians quiet the King issued his famous Declaration to compose religions differences—though at the same time appointing now Laudian bishops.
Although the Puritans and Anglicans were largely agreed on the terms of the Declaration, the former were by now becoming suspicious and endeavoured to give it legal force by transforming it into a Bill. This forced the Anglicans into the open and in the ensuing Commons debate they opposed it tooth and nail, defeating the Presbyterians. After this, the attack on the Puritans proceeded apace and to plead the Declaration was useless. But then, on March 19, 1661, a popular outburst against bishops at the Guildhall in London and the election of four Presbyterians to office caused the government to take fright again. Six days later the King issued his warrant summoning representatives of the Anglican and Presbyterian parties to meet at the Savoy. But by the time they did meet, it had become clear that the Guildhall election had only been an isolated political freak. The Anglicans accordingly went into the Conference in a spirit of uncompromising truculence which foredoomed it to failure.
IV. The Conference Itself
The King’s warrant appointed twelve bishops and twelve Presbyterians, with nine other divines on each side as assistants, to supply the place of any that were unavoidably absent. Among the Episcopal divines we note the names of Gilbert Sheldon, Bishop of London, George Morley, Bishop of Worcester, and John Cosin, Bishop of Durham, while among the nine coadjutors were Dr. Earle, Dr. Barwick (the King’s Messenger when in exile) and Dr. Peter Gunning. It was a Laudian array. The Presbyterian divines included Edward Reynolds, Bishop of Norwich, Calamy, Manton, and Baxter; and among the coadjutors, were Dr. Jacombe and Dr. Bates. The terms of reference were precisely stated.
1. “They were to advise upon and review the Book of Common Prayer.
2. They were to compare the Prayer Book with the most ancient Liturgies used in the church in the primitive and present times.
3. They were to take into grave and serious consideration the various forms and rubrics in the Book, and the objections and exceptions raised against it, and they were to advise and consult upon the same.
4. They were to make such reasonable and necessary alterations, corrections and amendments as should be agreed to be necessary or expedient for the satisfaction of tender consciences and restoring and continuing the peace and unity of the church, with the proviso that they were to avoid all unnecessary abbreviations or alterations.”
As soon as the Conference had met, Sheldon insisted that nothing could be done until the Presbyterians brought in their exceptions to the Prayer Book and their suggested additions and alterations in writing. He used the flagrantly untrue argument that the Presbyterians had sought the Conference, while in fact the King had offered it. Much put out by this maneuver, the Presbyterians urged the King’s Commission requiring them all “to meet together, advise and consult.” But Sheldon was immovable, and Baxter persuaded his brethren to consent, feeling it would be wise for them to agree beforehand on their exceptions lest they should disagree among themselves in the course of the talks. He also thought that unless they put their cause into writing they might be misunderstood by the people, posterity, or foreigners. Events proved him to be right.
In dividing their work, the Presbyterian brethren undertook to formulate exceptions to the Book of Common Prayer, while Baxter went off on his own to draw up the Additions or New Forms. He completed the work in a fortnight and admits he did not have the time to give the matter the accuracy he desired. We cannot here consider Baxter’s exceptions, but he regarded “the faults of the Common Prayer to be chiefly disorder and defectiveness, and so that it was a true worship, though imperfect.”
When Baxter returned to his brethren he found them just beginning on their work of exceptions, and his attitude to this is vital in view of subsequent charges against him of combativeness. He says of one brother’s enumerations of corruptions in the Liturgy: “it was refused because we would be as little querulous as possible, lest it should hinder our direct accommodation and what passages soever seemed to make the Common Prayer Book odious, or saver of spleen and passion, they did reject, whoever offered them.”
We shall consider the brethren’s exceptions, then the debates which ensued, and finally some Anglican excuses for the failure of the Conference.
1. Exceptions. The brethren’s exceptions fall into two parts, general and particular. We can only very briefly touch on the general exceptions.
They pointed out that it was a hundred years since the Liturgy had first been completed, and there was reason to amend it now so as to satisfy scrupulous consciences. They proposed the following:
(i) The prayers and the Liturgy must contain nothing doubtful that would lead to separation.
(ii) The first Liturgy having been drawn up to embrace as many Papists as possible, it should now be composed as to gain upon the judgments and affections of the truly Protestant.
(iii) Repetitions and responses between desk and people, and responsive reading of Hymns and Psalms should be omitted.
(iv) The Litany should be made into one solemn prayer.
(v) There should be deleted from the Liturgy all observation of Lent and Saints’ Days.
(vi) Nothing in the liturgy should exclude the gift of extempore prayer in Public Worship; since this was a special qualification for the work of the ministry bestowed by Christ for the edification of His church.
(vii) Even little blemishes—these were men of principle worshipping the God of Order—should be rectified. The Prayer Book should contain new translations of the Bible.
(viii) As the Scriptures alone contained everything necessary to make a man wise unto salvation, the Apocrypha should not be read at services.
(ix) No phrase should be used in any of the offices which presumed all present to be regenerated or converted, or in an advanced state of grace.
(x) The term “Minister” and not “Priest” should be used.
(xi) They objected to short prayers and proposed one long methodical prayer in place of the separate Collects.
(xii) They regarded the Liturgy as defective in forms of praise and thanksgiving.
(xiii) They criticised the Catechism for its omissions. On this Baxter wrote, “In the Catechism there are omitted some of the Essential Attributes of God without which He cannot be rightly known. There is also omitted the Doctrines of the Law made to Adam, and of Man’s Fall and the Doctrine of our Misery is insufficiently touched. The Person, Office and Properties of the Redeemer are so insufficiently opened as that we should think the essentials of Christianity are omitted, were it not that they are generally expressed in the Creed itself, which is more full than the explication of it. There is no mention of the Holy Scriptures in it, and the Doctrine of the Covenant of Grace is very defectively expressed, and so is the Doctrine of Sanctification and other parts of the Work of the Holy Ghost, and the whole Doctrine of God’s Judgment and Execution, and that of Man’s duty and even the nature and use of the Sacraments, in which it is fullest: as will appear with a true comparing it with what we offer.”
(xiv) The Surplice, the Cross in Baptism, and kneeling at the Lord’s Supper were brought forward as the usual instances of ceremonies judged unwarrantable by learned and pious men, and exposing many orthodox, peaceable, and pious ministers to the displeasure of their superiors. The brethren argued that by the imposition of such ceremonies people had been forced to forsake the churches or to worship otherwise than their consciences dictated, while ministers had been compelled to leave their livings. Was all this worth the cost of such impositions? It was a moving and irresistible plea.
The particular exceptions included the following:
(i) With regard to the Communion Service the brethren considered that intending communicants should give their names to the curate on the day before, and not on the night before or on the Sunday morning, and that the minister should have power to admit or expel communicants. They also emphasised the manual elements, i.e. breaking of bread, and that the minister should, when distributing the wine and bread, use the Saviour’s words and not repeat them to each communicant
(ii) They specially objected to the Baptismal office, and refused to agree that Christ would accept any child presented in Baptism by the church. They desired that it should be unlawful for ministers to baptise children whose parents were atheists, infidels, heretics, unbaptised, or notorious sinners. They did not like sponsors, but declared that the parents were the right persons to dedicate a child to God.
(iii) With regard to Confirmation, they argued that it was not sufficient qualification for children to recite from memory the Creed, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and to answer the questions of the Catechism. They also objected to the imposition of hands by the bishop, as seeming to put a higher value on Confirmation than upon the Sacraments.
(iv) In the Marriage Service they considered the ring indifferent, and had certain observations on the order for the Visitation of the Sick. With regard to the order for the Burial of the Dead, they desired the insertion of a rubric declaring that the prayers and exhortations were not for the benefit of the dead but of the living.
2. The debates. To read in Baxter’s Reliquiae what happened when the Presbyterians presented their exceptions is a sorry story. They met the Laudian bishops at the height of their aggressiveness, and Baxter says, “they would not by any importunity be interested at all to debate as in the King’s Commission, nor give any of their opinions about those papers.”
Baxter mentions two incidents typical of the bishops’ attitude. Dr. Sterne, Bishop of Carlisle, attacked him for using the term “in the nation” rather than “in the Kingdom,” and Bishop Cosin complained that Baxter threatened the bishops with numbers when he begged them to have compassion for the consciences of so many of his brethren! When the bishops talked of the antiquity of Liturgies, Baxter asked them to name any Prince who had ever imposed one form of prayer or Liturgy for uniformity on all the churches in his dominions, and proved to them from the instances of Basil and the church of New Caesarea and others that every bishop chose what forms he pleased for his own church—which they could not deny.
Baxter says he perceived less compassion in these men, and less regard to the scruples and tenderness of godly people afraid of sinning, than he would have thought possible among Protestants. For their part the bishops became increasingly angry, particularly with the fact that though always courteous Baxter treated them with a disconcerting frankness of utterance. They accused him of representing them as persecutors, though in point of fact he was only telling them what he, and they, knew they intended to do. The Conference ended with nothing achieved.
3. The Anglicans endeavoured to place the blame for the failure of the Conference on the shoulders of Richard Baxter. Dr. Ferne in particular criticised him for his part in the debates, conducted in syllogistic form, as to whether kneeling at the Communion was sinful and scoffed at his “strange syllogisms.” He also declared that at the Conference Baxter seemed “to show more boldness and ignorance than reason, for the most part,” while Dr. Sanderson said that he had never met “a man of more pertinacious confidence and less ability in all his conversation.”
We must examine these charges. Allowing for all Baxter’s love of dispute, the evidence seems to show the Laudian party were the combative party at the Conference. Moreover, ignorance is a strange charge to level against the author of the “Reformed Pastor” and “The Saints’ Everlasting Rest,” while, if it were true, why had he but recently been offered the See of Hereford? It is noteworthy that the bishops did not seem fully to answer Baxter’s “strange syllogisms.” No; what the bishops did not like—and Dr. Ferne’s own language betrays this—was that Baxter could not be bullied and that he treated them as equals. We have seen at the beginning of this section how anxious he was, when the exceptions were being prepared, to avoid points of dispute; but he refused, for the sake of his own and that of his brethren, to come as a suppliant.
V. The Results of the Savoy Conference
Although Savoy achieved nothing, the astonishing thing is that in 1661 the Prayer Book was revised and that the Book which was issued in 1662, when the Laudian Party was in full control, is the Book which is with us today. Why were the cherished desires of the High Church Party rejected, and why did the Book contain some of the minor proposals put forward by the Puritans? The answer is that it was watched by the laity of Parliament who, though anti-Puritan, were equally anti-Papist and had no sympathy with Laudianism. We can say, in the final assessment, that the Book preserved the balance so dear to Anglican hearts of not erring too much either on the side of Rome or of Geneva. But the evangelical will say that in 1661 a great opportunity was lost to comprehend moderate Presbyterians within the Established Church.
With regard to these Presbyterians, they soon came under the full blast of the Clarendon Code. But in the wise providence of God it has been, especially since the final ban was lifted in the last century, the tension between Churchman and Dissenter, each representing a vital and integral part of the nation’s life, which has contributed so largely to the greatness of England. Who knoweth the mind of the Lord or who shall be His Counsellor? “For of Him, and through Him and to Him are all things: to Whom be Glory for ever. Amen.”
Discussion after the paper centred on these three questions.
1. How far is comprehension a justifiable ideal in a gospel church?
2. How are evangelicals to bear their witness and seek to exert influence in the affairs of larger ecclesiastical organisations, not consistently evangelical?—by staying in to fight, or by going out? What principles could justify either course?
3. How are we to avoid the danger of the ecclesiastical mentality, which habitually opts for comprehension at the cost of compromise in preference to clear-cut formulations of truth and applications of principle, just because the latter, by their very definiteness, create a risk of division? It was pointed out that this is an acute problem in all the churches today.