The Savoy Conference Revisited: The Proceedings Taken from the Grand Debate of 1661 and the Works of Richard Baxter 9781607244035, 1607244039

Citation preview

T h e Savoy Conference Revisited

Gorgias Liturgical Studies

52

This series is intended to provide a venue for studies about liturgies as well as books containing various liturgies. Making liturgical studies available to those who wish to learn more about their own worship and practice or about the traditions of other religious groups, this series includes works on service music, the daily offices, services for special occasions, and the sacraments.

The Savoy Conference Revisited

The proceedings taken from the Grand Debate of 1661 and the works of Richard Baxter

Edited with an Introduction by

Colin Buchanan

gorgias press 2010

Gorgias Press LLC, 180 Centennial Ave., Piscataway, NJ, 08854, USA www.gorgiaspress.com Copyright © 2010 by Gorgias Press LLC Originally published in All rights reserved under International and Pan-American Copyright Conventions. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, scanning or otherwise without the prior written permission of Gorgias Press LLC. 2010

1

ISBN 978-1-60724-403-5

ISSN 1937-3252

Published first in the U.K. by Grove Books, 2002.

Printed in the United States of America

The Savoy Conference Revisited: the proceedings taken from the Grand Debate of 1661 and the works of Richard Baxter

edited with introduction and notes by

Colin Buchanan Bishop of Woolwich

Contents 1

Historical Introduction

3

2

The Documents

12

3

The Prefaces and General Exceptions

15

4

The Particular Exceptions

36

5

The Conclusion of the Presbyterians' Exceptions

76

6

The Concessions of the Bishops

77

Appendixes: 1 The Ornaments Rubric

79

2 Eucharistie Consecration

79

FOREWORD For nearly forty years I have been deeply engaged in liturgical revision in the Church of England, and have written frequently about it. I have also edited the eucharistic liturgies of Edward VI and written at length on them. 1662 has been even more on my agenda (the sole syllabus in my ordination exams, the sole rites in my curacy, and the sole syllabus again when I first taught liturgy), but this is my first detailed work on the processes which led to its authorization. I would have loved to have done a more definitive Study, but have been limited by space, time, and personal shortcomings; and I have had a curious awareness of the scholarly and judicious Geoffrey Cuming editing The Durham Book, which provides a kind of parallel to this. I have greatly missed Geoffrey's wisdom while engaged on this task. Would that I could match his learning, care and judgment. C O B All Saints Day 2002

THE COVER PICTURE is a photo reduced to half size of part of Vol. 2 page 325 from the copy of the first edition of Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696) in the Library of Spurgeon's College, South Norwood, and is printed by kind permission of Ms Judy Powles, the Librarian.

SHORT TITLES USED 1549,1552,1559,1604,1637 (the Scottish Book),1662—The respective Books of Common Prayer of those dates. Gl-19, Pl-83, CI -17—General Exceptions, Particular Exceptions, and Concessions (each numbered as in chapters 3,4 and 6 respectively below) Grand Debate (1661)—The source for the Answers (and the Replies), sometimes called 'GD': see page 12 Sylvester—Reliquiae Baxterianae (1696): The source for the Exceptions; see page 12 Cardwell—Cardwell's Conferences (its popular title)(1841): see page 13 Gould—Gould's Documents (short title)(1862): see page 13 DB—Geoffrey Cuming's The Durham Book (1961): see footnote 24, p 9

1

Historical

Introduction

The years 1660-1662 When envoys went from Parliament in Spring 1660 to negotiate with King Charles II in exile, different resources, different hopes, and different preparations marked the various parties. It is the liturgical matters that concern this Study, though they cannot be divorced from their political context, for theological struggle was itself deeply meshed with the political struggles. If this Study concentrates on disputes about the text of the Book of Common Prayer, yet a struggle for the future of Christianity in England and for the future of England itself underlay those disputes, and was pursued with the utmost seriousness by all involved. The struggle lasted for a two-year period in which the Savoy Conference came exactly in the middle, thus: Spring 1660—3 April, The Declaration from Breda: 29 May, The Restoration in London Spring 1661—March-April, election of a 'Cavalier' House of Commons: AprilJuly, convening of the Savoy Conference Spring 1662—Parliament receives the amended Book of Common Prayer from the Convocations, and passes a rigorous Act of Uniformity to enforce it. Of the three Calendar years listed, each had its own characteristics as follows: In 1660 the Presbyterians were still in the ascendant.1 They had brought the king back, and he was not ungrateful. They dominated Parliament, and had negotiated with the king from a strong position. They began from the Declaration from Breda, in which the king had declared 'A Liberty to tender Consciences, and that no man should be disquieted or called in question for differences of Opinion in Matters of Religion, which do not disturb the Peace of the K i n g d o m . . . ' They pitched in in June 1660 with their The first Address and Proposals of the Ministers, in which they accepted the principle of a set liturgy, and, although for T h e Bishop's Answer... we received nothing but this Contradiction'2, they had a further massive 'Reply' ready in early September. The Act for Settling Ministers was passed by Parliament on 4 September, and this has been described as 'a Presbyterian measure making certain concessions to Anglicans, rather than vice versa.'3 The Worcester House Declaration came on 25 October, when Charles stated: '[The BCP is] the best we have seen . . . yet since we find some exceptions made against several things there, we will appoint an equal number of 1

2 3

It is necessary always to refer to them as 'Presbyterians', for the term 'Puritans' (which sounds more apt) includes Independents as well as Presbyterians (which was the uneasy alliance which had agreed the Directory in 1645). But only the Presbyterians would treat with the Episcopal party at all; the Independents could not accept a set liturgy of any sort, so that a Larger 'Puritan' grouping did not exist, and could not while the Presbyterians hoped to be part of a national church with the Episcopal party. Baxter says they neither called themselves Presbyterians, nor advocated 'presby/ery'. Sylvester, Vol. 2, p 242 Robert S.Bosher, The Making of the Restoration Settlement (Dacre Press, 1957) p 179.

3

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

learned divines of both persuasions, to review the same, and to make such alterations as shall be thought most necessary, and some additional forms (in the scripture phrase as near as may be) suited unto the nature of the several parts of worship, and that it be left to the minister's choice to use one or other at his discretion. '[with regard to kneeling etc] We shall leave all decisions and determinations of that kind, if they shall be thought necessary for a perfect unity and uniformity throughout the nation, to the advice of a national synod, which shall be duly called after a little time, and a mutual conversation between persons of different persuasions hath mollified those distempers, abated those sharpnesses, and extinguished those jealousies, which make men unfit for those consultations: and upon such advice, we shall use our best endeavour, that such laws may be established, as may best provide for the peace of the Church and state/ The Declaration gave, inter alia, status to the Lord's Day, liberty to those who did not wish to wear the surplice or kneel for communion, and hope, in the promise of the commission, for a fair hearing in respect of the liturgy for both parties. It represents the high point of Presbyterian hopes. There were, however, dark clouds on the horizon for the ascendant Presbyterians. The king had been filling the vacant sees with new bishops from September onwards; the tone of episcopal utterances suggested a return to 1604 without change; and in the last weeks of the year the Presbyterians failed to carry the Commons for a Bill 'for making the King's Declaration touching Ecclesiastical Affairs effectual'. The motion for a second reading was lost by 157 votes to 183, and it is possible that the votes of marginalized Independents helped give the Episcopal party victory. The Declaration remained a Declaration—and its longer-term implementation was in trouble. In 1661 everything swung against them. They lost the election in March and April 1661, and a strong 'Cavalier' majority was then entrenched in the Commons. They were largely wrong-footed in the Savoy Conference itself. They had little say in the revision of the Prayer Book in Convocation in November and December. They began to steel themselves for departure or ejectment. In 1662 their fate was sealed, only in part by the text of the Book which Parliament annexed to the Act of Uniformity, but rather more by the provisions in the Act itself that all ministers must be episcopally ordained, and all must abjure the Solemn League and Covenant. The Savoy Conference itself In the middle year of the three, on 25 March 1661, in fulfilment of the Worcester House Declaration, the king issued his warrant for the conference to convene 'in the Masters lodging in the Savoy in the Strand'4 and to operate in whatever ways would be helpful 'within the space of four months next ensuing.'5 The 4 5

This was the old residence of the Bishops of London, near to where the Savoy Hotel now is, and apparently its last remains were destroyed in the building of the first Waterloo Bridge after 1815. The full warrant is published inCardwell pp 298-302 and in Gould pp 107-111.

4

HISTORICAL

INTRODUCTION

king named in his warrant the twelve Bishops and twelve Presbyterians (and these included Edward Reynolds, who was already Bishop of Norwich), and also named alternates.6 He did not make entirely clear the process to be followed, though several lines suggested that 1604 was to be the starting point: '[In the Worcester House Declaration] we d i d . . . express an esteem of the Liturgy of the Church of England.' '[The divines are] to advise upon and review the said Book of Common Prayer.' '[and they are] to make such reasonable and necessary alterations, corrections and amendments [as shall be agreed] . . . ; but avoiding, as much as may be, all unnecessary alterations of the forms and Liturgy wherewith people are already acquainted, and have so long received in the Church of England' On the completion of their work, they were to present it in certified form to the king. The two sides met on 15 April, and Sheldon, the Bishop of London, who led for the Bishops, made it clear that 1604 was on the table, and it was up to the other side to express their 'Exceptions'.7 The Presbyterians appear to have been thrown by this, perhaps having hoped to meet around a blank sheet of paper. Baxter, however, persuaded them to follow Sheldon's proposed procedure, though they also commissioned Baxter himself to produce a complete alternative liturgy.8 Three others drew up the Exceptions, though they were picketed with a lengthy draft by Baxter which he slipped into their hands even while he was writing the alternative liturgy.9 It is the Exceptions which are our subject matter here. The Presbyterians were well resourced. All the previous Prayer Books back to 1549, and including the short-lived 1637, were available in Hamon L'Estrange's book, The Alliance of the Divine Offices, published in 1659. They must have had an accurate account of the Hampton Court Conference. They naturally had copies of not only 1604 itself, but also the 1604 Canons (and the 1640 aborted ones). They knew the proceedings of the House of Lords Committee of 1641, in which, against a background of political polarization of king and Parliament, a cross-party set of divines had agreed a list of unlawful, or at least doubtful, Laudian innovations in doctrine and discipline, from which the Church of England needed to be recovered. Calamy one of the Presbyterians at the Savoy, had been a member of that Committee.10 They 6 7

8 9

10

W h e n 'Bishops' is spelled with a capital hereafter it means the bishops at the Savoy Conference. The names of both sides are listed at the foot of page 14 below. 'Exceptions' was a term running back to Elizabeth's reign, hallowed by the H a m p t o n Court Conference, and actually used in the king's warrant. The very term prejudges the process—there are only 'Exceptions' w h e n some other norm has already been assumed. Interestingly, Baxter, perhaps in his innate (but realistic) pessimism expecting defeat, thought that this route gave the Presbyterians the best chance of being on record in order to be accountable to posterity. ' M r C a l a m y drew up most with Dr Reynolds; Dr Reynolds and Dr Worth drew up that which is against Ceremonies; 1 only prevailed with them to premise the four first Particulars, for the countenancing Godliness, the Ministry, Personal Profession, and the Lord's Day: They were backward because they were not the points in Controversy; but yielded at last on the Reasons offered them.' (Sylvester Vol 2 p 232) The text of these lists is printed in Cardwell pp 270-277. O n the Bishops' side, Sanderson had been a m e m b e r of that Committee also. It is likely that the reconciling force in the C o m m i t t e e w a s Usher, Archbishop of Dublin.

5

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

were also well aware of the processes by which the Directory had been produced in 1645, and knew its contents well. In their own submissions in 1660 they had worked over much of the ground very closely; and above all, the Worcester House Declaration itself, on which they pinned great hopes, appeared to give footholds for a varying of any terms of prospective straitjacketed Uniformity'. The basis for the involvement of the Presbyterians was that in principle they would accept a set liturgy. However, their desiderata (which frequently appear in the documents) may be summarized as follows: (a) A ministerial monopoly in the uttering of all liturgical prayer, with a corresponding passive receptive silence by the congregation; (b) The 'Gift' of Prayer, which, as an extemporary exercise, characterized ministers alone as capable of leading in prayer, was distinctive of their calling, and needed to be exercised; (c) The non-negotiable centrality and importance of preaching; (d) Considerable local discretion in relation to texts; (e) A high concern for the 'Lord's Day' and doubt re the church year;" (f) A deep antipathy to the imposition of ceremonies without scriptural command behind them—of which the requirement of kneeling at communion was the most loathed;12 (g) A firm rejection of the Apocrypha, as being not comparable to Scripture; (h) A strong preference for the 1611 ('King James') Bible over previous versions; (j) Adislike of having liturgical actions, other than communion, located at or near at the Holy Table. The Bishops functioned with a set of principles in total contrast to the above, viz: (a) Unless absolutely driven from it, to defend 1604 as authorized, known, loved and widely used—and as a mark of Royalist loyalism;13 (b) To insist on uniformity, with virtually no discretion given for local flexibility or choice; (c) In particular to restrain extemporary praying;14 (d) To locate all authority in the centre, for top-down implementation, with much talk about the powers of 'superiours'. (e) To appeal to antiquity, to 'consensus' of tradition, and even to General Councils (with a perhaps somewhat romanticized notion of early church history). 11

12

13

14

'There is no Day commanded in Scripture to be kept holy under the Gospell, but the Lord's Day, which is the Christian Sabbath.' (Appendix to A Directory for the Publique Worship of God, see The Westminster Directory (Grove Liturgical Study no 2 1 , 1 9 8 0 ) p 32). There were many memories of the Book of Sports (reissued in 1633, burnt by order of Parliament in 1643) which permitted and even encouraged Sunday sporting activities, such as archery. This was the imposition which most touched lay people—and touched them regularly (though the surplice in principle did that also)—for the implication of the requirement was the excommunication of all who would not kneel. I have not seen this discussed by any authors, but one presumes that the bishops were using 1604 on a daily and weekly basis, and had either been doing so throughout the Commonwealth, or had been longing to do so: equally, the Presbyterians were not using the Book (see the Preface to the Answers on page 15 below), had viewed its enforced demise in 1645 as a deliverance, and were now watching it gain ground round the country, and were in fear of its reimposition. They would also have liked to restrain Presbyterian preaching, but that restraint could hardly be turned into rubrics, so they had to content themselves with mere grumbling about over-long sermons.

6

HISTORICAL

INTRODUCTION

Simply to inspect these two lists is to see the difficulties there were going to be in finding accord, even if both sides had been striving for it. In the event, the Bishops were not striving very hard, and the Presbyterians, with a deep sense of being outmanouevred, had great difficulty in sustaining a constructive stance. The process was as follows: On 15 April the participants first met; and the procedure of the Presbyterians putting in 'Exceptions' was agreed. On 4 May the Exceptions were presented. These are reproduced in chapters 3 and 4 below as the main substance of this Study. In chapter 4, where the 'Particular Exceptions' are listed, the 1604 text to which Exception is taken is printed first, then the Exception in parallel column beside it.15 There are no Exceptions against anything in the Ordinal, perhaps because, as the Ordinal was strictly a separate Book from the Book of Common Prayer, there was a hesitation as to whether the King's warrant included it.16 On 22 May Baxter delivered his 'Reformed Liturgy' to his Presbyterian colleagues. They asked him to change a few words, and then passed it to the Bishops also.17 In June the Bishops gave their Answers. These are reproduced in chapters 3 and 4 below in parallel column with the Exceptions; in previous publications these were always printed separately from the Exceptions, and were therefore the harder to relate to them. There is an air of dismissive superiority in the whole tone of the Answers. At the end of them came a series of seventeen Concessions, usually viewed as minimal in what they concede. They form chapter 6 below. The two sides reveal some points in common that latter-day Anglicans might not have expected, not least their shared Protestant conviction that there are but two sacraments, and confirmation and matrimony (the notable examples) are not to be counted as sacraments. They did not encounter a need to discuss petitions for the dead. The Bishops showed some restraint about an ex opere operato view of sacramental efficacy. Both sides also agreed that in the eucharist an objective 'consecration' of the elements, and breaking of the bread, was needed.18 But the lack of a constructive mood led both sides into absurdities where one wonders whether they even considered how they would sound to their opponents. The Presbyterians had been determined to include every pernickety point they could muster, and went to the length of excepting against parts of the Prayer Book where it seemed they had no argument to present, but simply that various 'pious and learned men' had been 15 16 17

18

This is how the text and Exceptions are presented in the Grand Debate, Sylvester, Cardwell and Gould. The D B is a 1619 printing of 1604 without the ordinal included, and this may well indicate the normal presentation of the actual printed editions. T h e production of this was perhaps justifiable in terms of the Worcester House Declaration. The text of this is found in full in Peter Hall (ed.), Reliquiae Lihirgieae Vol. IV (1847). Hall entitles it The Savoy Liturgy, but the title page in his edition reads The REFORMATION of the LITURGY as it was presented to the Right Reverend BISHOPS by ¡he DIVINES Appointed by his Majesties C o m m i s s i o n to treat with them about the alteration of it. If occupies 164 pages in Hall (which is pocket-size—half A5—in its format). It is distinguished by the thorough scriptural referencing d o w n the margins throughout (also in line with the Worcester House Declaration text), and the relatively 'high' sacramental doctrine in it. See Appendix 2 on pp 79-80 below. See Appendix 2 on pp 79-80 below.

7

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

known to doubt them (see Gl, and passim). On occasion they asked for changes without saying what was wrong (as, eg, in P16). In other places they cobbled together arguments of ludicrous thinness, as, eg, that some people are in danger, if they have to kneel, of using the Ten Commandments as a prayer (P19), or that the words I n the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit' at a marriage would make people think the rite was a sacrament (P64). The Bishops did hardly better in their attempts to present a case that the apostles knelt at the Last Supper (Answer to P33). Both sides resorted to heavy sarcasm, though at one point the Bishops allowed themselves an actual laugh, suggesting that at a burial in the rain in a churchyard a cap would probably benefit their opponents better than a rubric (Answer to P75). In June the Presbyterians, sensing from the Answers that at most points their cause was lost, compiled an elephantine set of 'Replies' to the Answers.115 These are not reproduced here, not only because of their excessive length, but also because of an evident mood in them of having missed the bus, and therefore having only verbal defiance (with even more sarcasm) to offer from a distance as the bus disappeared from view.20 Nevertheless, at points it has been appropriate in this Study to illustrate some element in the Exceptions and Answers from the thrust subsequently made in the Replies. In July, as time was beginning to run out (for the warrant would expire on 25 July), at the Presbyterians' instigation actual disputation was joined for the first time. This, by all accounts, was not lacking in heat or close engagement, but was without any ongoing effects. So the Conference closed, leaving Exceptions, Answers, Concessions and Replies on record. It is unclear whether any actual certificate went to the king to tell him of agreements registered. Parallel Developments While the Savoy Conference was in session, political and ecclesiastical events ran on fast alongside it. On 23 April 1661 the King was crowned with fully episcopal ceremony, and with oaths to uphold the episcopate. By July there were bishops in virtually every see, the use of the Prayer Book in an ever-growing number of parishes, and, it would seem, a nationwide set of assumptions that the old order was being restored, even if that might yet allow some room for variations or for conscience clauses. This atmospheric change was greatly enhanced by the General Election held in March and April. An overwhelmingly 'Cavalier' House of Commons—ie one in favour of the monarchy episcopacy and the Prayer Book—was elected. Parliament was opened on 8 May; and, without visible reference to the Conference at the Savoy, the Commons made its position clear. The Solemn League and Covenant was publicly burned on 17 May. The eucharist was celebrated for the members of the Commons with the 1604 rite on 26 May. Then on 29 June, there 19

20

'a g o o d while after, they sent us such a Paper as they did before, of their Reasoning against our Exceptions, without any Abatements or Alterations at all, that are worth the Naming. Our Brethren . . . did think best to write them a plain Answer to their Paper . . . This Task also they imposed on me, and I went out of T o w n . . . where in eight Days time I d r e w up a Reply to their A n s w e r to our Exceptions.' (Baxter in Sylvester p 234) T h e y occupy (with the Answers) 145 pages in Gould.

8

HISTORICAL

INTRODUCTION

was introduced to the House a Bill for restoring the Prayer Book, and on 9 July the Commons passed a Bill of Uniformity to restore 1604 without amendment, and sent the Bill next day to the Lords. While the Lords delayed and postponed any action upon the Bill (and were in recession from 30 July till 20 November), the very existence of the Bill not only indicated the mind of the Commons but also put a further pressure upon the Presbyterians.21 In the wake of the ordering of a general election, writs were also issued on 10 April 1661 to summons the Convocations of York and Canterbury. While the Convocations did not immediately address Prayer Book revision, yet it was reasonably clear that, unless they were upstaged by a pre-emptive Parliamentary reinstatement of 1604, they were the body which would work through any official amending or changing of that Book.22 Once again, in the clergy elections of May 1661, royalist episcopal clergy triumphed, and to the Presbyterians the Convocations also therefore represented a threat in the offing, sitting over any outcome of the Savoy Conference.23 This was indeed to become the reality in November that year. There was yet another potential influence upon Prayer Book revision at work in the Summer of 1661. Matthew Wren, while in prison during the Commonwealth, had been writing annotations (dubbed by Cuming the Advices) on 1604, and on release made them available to John Cosin, who was on the way to being appointed Bishop of Durham. Cosin drew upon them and upon his own notes (dubbed by Cuming the Particulars) and upon 1549,1637 and other sources to write into his own copy of 1604 (a 1619 printing) his own pro posáis for change. In the course of history this volume has become known as The ¡Durham Book'.24 Cosin included a radical, 1549-type, reshaping of the Trayer of Consecration', which appears to pre-date the Savoy Conference, in which Cosin was one of the twelve bishops. It would be interesting to know whether either his own team or his opponents knew of the drafting he had been doing. At any rate, at the end of the Conference, he departed to Durham and left the Book in London in the hands of Sancroft, his chaplain, who incorporated the episcopal Concessions from Savoy. Sancroft engaged in further editorial work, then (facing a multi-palimpsested original) copied out the final results into what Cuming calls Sancroff s Tair Copy7. In the process he quietly removed the 1549-type rearrangement of the prayer of consecration to a separate Taper B', and in the main text wrote that the 1604 text and the Paper B draft 'are both left to censure'. The Fair Copy was to hand when Cosin went to the Convocations in November that year. 21

22 23

24

Interestingly, this Bill, while stringent in what it enforced, did not require the abjuration of the Solemn League and Covenant, and did not mention a requirement of episcopal ordination (other than as contained in the undeterminative 1604 Preface to the Ordinal—see Bosher, op.cit. p 224). T h e Canterbury Convocation did in fact work at new services—for 30 January and 29 May and the baptism 'of those of riper y e a r s ' — i n May 1661. But they did not then address existing services. It appears that the Presbyterian clergy took little part in the process, save that in London they elected Baxter and Calamy. Here Sheldon dug out an old rule that allowed him to rule out any two of the four elected, and thus these two were 'excused' (to use Baxter's understated expression). The original resides in the Cosin Library in Durham, and it was edited for publication first by J.Parker in An Introduction to Successive Revisions of the Book of Common Prayer (Oxford, 1877), and then definitively in Geoffrey Cuming (ed.) The Durham Book. Being the First Draft of Revision of the B.C.P. in 1661 (Oxford, 1961), here dubbed simply 'DB'. Cuming's sub-title has a clearly vaticinium ex eventu look to it—had the Presbyterians prevailed, their Exceptions would have been the 'First Draft'!

9

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

The Upshot When the Convocations addressed the revision of the Prayer Book in November and December 1661, they were well aware that the Bill to reimpose 1604 was waiting in the wings, for the Lords to debate and pass if they were unhappy with the handling of the revision. On the other hand, by processes which lie beyond the scope of this Study, they revised the book with minute attention to detail, and not without reference to the Savoy evidence. Laudian though they may have been, they stepped back from the more radical changes proposed in DB, and Sancroft wrote on the page where the proposals for altering the Prayer of Consecration were entered M y Lards the Bishops at Ely House ordered all in the old method'.25 Above six hundred small amendments were made, and new services (such as that for the baptism of those 'Of Riper Years') added.26 The Book went to Parliament, which, after some comings and goings (and at one point an almost equally split vote in the Commons), devised a draconian Act of Uniformity to which the Book was then 'annexed' ? The Act received the Royal Assent on 17 May, and enforced the use of the Book from 24 August 1662. It has not been part of the task of this Study to trace the particular steps by which in Convocation in November and December 1661 a particular amendment to the 1604 Book was proposed and made. But the editorial notes added below the General Exceptions and in the right-hand column of the four-column presentation of the Particular Exceptions describe the final outcome in the finished Book of each Exception. These were somewhat more conciliatory than expected. It is a matter of history that upwards of a thousand ministers (Presbyterian and Independent) were 'ejected' by the Act of Uniformity. The requirements of renunciation of the Solemn League and Covenant and of undergoing episcopal ordination were in all probability the major factors, at least for the Presbyterians, leading to that exodus. It remains a matter of speculation how far the mere imposition of 1662 without these factors would have had the same effect; but it is clear that 1662 was nowhere near what they had sought when Charles was restored to his throne, and the Savoy Conference is the well-documented witness to the reduction of those hopes towards vanishing point.28

25

26 27 28

Geoffrey Cuming, who clearly had sympathy with the Presbyterians, wrote of this: 'The Prayer Book had been held up at the Savoy Conference as so unsusceptible of improvement that it was now difficult to bring forward the very numerous changes of DB without an appearance of considerable inconsistency.' (DB, p xxi) An interesting reminder that they were revising, not inventing, lies in the perseverance into the 1662 text of the 1559 Act, presumably simply because it was already in the Book, so that, paradoxically, it is legally part of 1662, which the 1662 Act itself is not. The definitive manuscript copy of the Book is called 'The Annexed Book', as annexed to the Act. 'But the bishops and their party knew that the Presbyterians were possessed of most of the greatest benefices in the C h u r c h . . . and that some of them still retained their old leaven and confirmed animosity against the Church; and therefore, to divest them of their livings, as well as preclude them from any claim of merit or power of doing ill, they thought it advisable, instead of using any methods to bring them in, to apply the most effectual ones to keep them out of the bosom of the Church, and accordingly prevailed with the King to fix the terms of conformity on what they had been before the war, without making the least abatement or alteration.' (Gilbert Burnet, History of my own Times (19th century, 'Student's Edition') p.42)

10

HISTORICAL

INTRODUCTION

The longer-term impact Cuming records of Cosin's DB both that 'the rejection of the most important changes must have been a severe disappointment', and also that the later impact of the drafting ran on into the present day.29 So we ask what in Baxter's and his colleagues' work had any later impact, when so much of what they sought had been rejected out of hand. Their principles naturally stayed alive in non-conformist circles, and traces of them remain in the spiritual descendants of the ejected ministers and their companions. But there are three easily detectable traces of a later Anglican awareness of the materials here republished, and of a drawing upon them. Firstly, there was the attempt at a 'Liturgy of Comprehension' in 1689. This was of course attempted while there were still live memories of the Restoration, and a continuing airing of the same Presbyterian Exceptions; and thus the projected 'comprehension' involved, inter alia, making the surplice and the sign of the cross omissible, and changing the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick.30 Secondly, there was the dependence of John Wesley upon the 'Exceptions' when drawing up his variants on the BCP in the 1750s. Wesley was the grandson of a prominent ejected minister, Samuel Annesley, and a student of Baxter's works.31 Whether he was discriminating in his rejection in his baptism rite of ' s e e i n g . . . this child is regenerated' and of the sign of the cross, it is clear where his precedents were to be found. And possibly in our day, when lauding the urcatholicism of the Wesleys his become de rigueur, it is well to recall also his grateful interaction with his own Puritan spiritual (and physical) ancestry. Thirdly, Anglican liturgy in another corner of the Lord's vineyard took on two outstanding 'Exceptions' in 1789, surely not by coincidence? The first Book of Common Prayer of the Protestant Episcopal Church of the USA, authorized at the second General Convention in 1789, took out the absolution in the Visitation of the Sick and replaced it with the form from the Communion service, and made the sign of the cross optional in baptism. There is an extant claim that these Revisers had access to the comprehension proposals.32 A less exact, and almost entirely independent, mirroring of some of the Exceptions has passed into Anglican worship generally in the last four decades. How gladly the Presbyterians at the Savoy would have greeted many of the changes of the late twentieth century—whether in terms of updating language, of alternatives and options in many parts of the liturgy, of opportunity for unchecked extemporary prayer uttered by the minister, and, wonder of wonders, of freedom not to kneel at communion. It would be difficult, however, to assert any causal connection between Savoy and such latter-day developments, and those Savoy commissioners might themselves have been somewhat less keen on albs and wafers, congregational responses, the greeting of peace, and weekly communion. As to 1661—one can only say, how extraordinary are the might-have-beens. 29

30 31 32

DB, p xxvi. O n the same page he quotes Isaac Basire's text as preacher at Cosin's funeral—Heb.11.4 'By it, he, being dead, yet speaketh'. (Without having then seen that quotation, I took the same text myself as preacher at Geoffrey Cuming's o w n memorial service in 1988 . . . ) S e e Timothy Fawcett, The Liturgy of Comprehension 1689 ( A l c u i n / M a y h e w - M c C r i m m o n , 1973) passim. S e e A.E.Peaston, The Prayer Book Tradition in the Free Churches (James Clarke, ]964) p 52. Marion Hatchett, The Making of the First American Book of Common Prayer (Seabury, New York, 1982) p 16.

11

2

The Documents The primary sources of information about the Conference, with the provision of the texts which are edited here, are twofold: First in terms of time is a paper, British Library no BL 3475 b.381-3, entitled THE GRAND DEBATE BETWEEN The most Reverend the BISHOPS AND The PRESBYTERIAN Divines Appointed by His Sacred MAJESTY, As COMMISSIONERS FOR The Review and Alteration OF THE BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER, &c BEING An Exact Account of their whole Proceedings.The most perfect Copy London, Printed 1661' This (hereafter called 'Grand Debate' or 'GD') contains the fullest record, and was published that same year, 1661. The Exceptions are listed first, and then, under the heading 'Rejoynder of the Ministers to the Answer of the Bishops' there appear the Answers of the Bishops, each one followed by the further 'Replies' of the Presbyterians. The Grand Debate, and a comparable publication called 'An Accompt', are the only source for both Answers and Replies, and Baxter himself complains that this publication of 1661 was badly compiled, at points misrepresented what was said, and in some places is incomprehensible. There are certainly evidences of carelessness, presumably through lack of rigorous concern for accuracy on the one hand, and a need for speed (eg to get it published before the Convocation debates) on the other.33 The second source, British Library no. BL 1505/305 203.1.9, is: Reliquiae Baxterianae: or Mr Richard Baxter's Narrative of The most Memorable Passages of his Life and Times. Faithfully Publish'd from his own Original Manuscript by Matthew Sylvester. (Technically this is three volumes in one book.) This book (hereafter called 'Sylvester') was published after Baxter's death in 1696, and its sources are not available to us. It gives much background to the Savoy Conference, told from Richard Baxter's own standpoint. It has to be treated as the primary source for the actual Exceptions, and in the Particular Exceptions it prints the relevant 1604 text in the left-hand column of a two-column presentation and prints the Exception to it beside it (as on the front cover here). 33

The full title of 'An Accompt' in the British Library copy no BL 9512 bb.l is 'An Accompt of all the PROCEEDINGS Of the COMMISSIONERS of both PERSWASIONS, Appointed by his Sacred MAJESTY, ACCORDING to letters patents. For the Reveiw of the BOOK of COMMON PRAYER, be.' Cardwell (pp 2623) explicitly draws upon An Accompt and quotes Baxter's complaint about the inaccuracies, while Gould (p 201) draws upon Grand Debate. The wording of Grand Debate and A n Accompt seems to be almost identical, but the page sizes and numbering differ, and spelling, punctuation and capitalization also differ slightly. It is impossible here to produce an edited text with apparatus, so, without other than minimal internal evidence to indicate which is more accurate, or which printed account Baxter had in view, I have simply satisfied myself that the printings do differ and have chosen to follow Grand Debate.

12

THE

DOCUMENTS

D o c u m e n t s w h i c h h a v e d r a w n u p o n G r a n d D e b a t e (or A n A c c o m p t ) a n d S y l v e s t e r a n d a r e q u o t e d b e l o w are: E d w a r d C a r d w e l l , A History of Conferences and Other Proceedings connected with the Revision of the Book of Common Prayer from the Year 1558 to the Year 1690 ( O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y Press, 2 n d ed. 1841: the 3rd e d i t i o n o f 1 8 4 9 w a s r e p r i n t e d b y straight p h o t o g r a p h i c r e p r o d u c t i o n b y G r e g g P r e s s , N e w Jersey, U S A , 1966) T h i s b o o k (hereafter called ' C a r d w e l l ' ) is a n i n v a l u a b l e collection o f d o c u m e n t s , a n d includes Cardwell's o w n presentation of the Exceptions, d r a w n from Sylvester, f o l l o w e d b y the A n s w e r s , d r a w n f r o m the A c c o m p t . T h i s q u i c k l y b e c a m e t h e s t a n d a r d s o u r c e - b o o k for t h e d o c u m e n t s , a n d h a s r e m a i n e d s o , a s the A m e r i c a n reprinting i n d i c a t e s . G . G o u l d , Documents relating to the Settlement of the Church of England by the Act of Uniformity of 7662 ( L o n d o n , 1862). T h i s b o o k (hereafter called ' G o u l d ' ) , a l o n g w i t h the reprinting o f v a r i o u s o t h e r c o n t e m p o r a r y d o c u m e n t s , p r i n t s E x c e p t i o n s , A n s w e r s a n d Replies, a n d is (to the b e s t o f m y k n o w l e d g e ) the o n l y r e p r i n t i n g o f the Replies s i n c e 1 6 6 1 . It is itself not k n o w n or u s e d like C a r d w e l l , a n d thus the sheer existence o f the R e p l i e s is easily o v e r l o o k e d in m o d e r n a c c o u n t s o f the S a v o y C o n f e r e n c e . Footnote on Presentation: In general I have endeavoured to present the spelling, capitalization, punctuation and italicization of my primary sources—Sylvester for the 1559/1604 text and Exceptions, Grand Debate for the Answers. Cardwell and Gould both do some inconsistent updating of spelling and capitalization, and 1 have preferred to render the seventeenth century in its own format. Inverted commas are only found in two cases, and there they are opened at the beginning of each line; in all other cases quotations and citations are represented in the original by changes from roman to italic, or from italic to roman. I have employed a different typeface for each of the columns, which reach a maximum of four columns (spread across two pages) in chapter 4. Chapter 3 (The Prefaces and General Exceptions): The numbering of the Exceptions is as shown in Sylvester with Arabic numerals ( T , '2', etc), not the Roman ones, which are found in An Accompt and were preferred editorially by Cardwell (and in neither edition is there a no. 1, but the text simply reads 'Firstly'). This means that in numbers 15 and 16, where sub-divisions also with Arabic numerals are shown, care must be taken in the reading. There are sub-divisions numbered similarly in the Answers inGrand Debate; but these have no relationship to any numbering in the Exceptions, but arise from the structuring of the Answers themselves in Grand Debate. There in some cases Answers have been dismembered and the resultant paragraphs separated for the sake of interspersing the Replies; thus, individual Answers do not read end to end with themselves in Grand Debate as it is printed, and the paragraph numbering shown there and reproduced here is the cue to that structuring. Cardwell also introduces Roman numerals for the chapter numbers in biblical references, but these are not in the original, and there too the Arabic numerals are used here. In the Answers of the Bishops all initial cross-referencing to the Exceptions, which was necessary in all previous printings of 13

THE SAVOY CONFERENCE

REVISITED

them, has been omitted here as unnecessary, for the relationship is shown simply by the lateral alignment of the first line of the Answer to the first line of the relevant Exception. Chapter 4 (The Particular Exceptions): The columns on the left-hand pages are as in Sylvester, though there the quotations from 1604 are mostly rendered in a Gothic script (see front cover here). For the sake of clarity, modern conventions have been used in citations from 1604, in rendering rubric in italic, and spoken text in Roman; but in the Exceptions, Sylvester has been followed as consistently as possible, rendering the main argument in Roman, and names, quotations etc in italic. In presentation of the columns, Cardwell spreads the Exceptions to the left to cover both columns wherever they run below the limit of the BCP quotations, but this is unusual in Sylvester, and not attempted here. The cross-headings here are as in Sylvester (they are in small capitals in Cardwell). The numbering of the Exceptions is editorial (and shown in square brackets in the lefthand (1604) column). The quotations from 1604 have been checked as far as possible against the reprint of 1559 in the Parker volumes, and quotations from 1549 and 1552 similarly. The texts provided by L'Estrange, which were undoubtedly under the noses of the Savoy participants and may have been the primary source for quotation, have also been checked. Not all citations of 1604 are exact and the variants have been noted. The basis for the conventional count of 78 'Particular Exceptions' is unclear. At each point where a cross-heading comes in Sylvester and Cardwell, a number is included here, but in addition at other points a number has been inserted here for clarity, where the Exception does not have a cross-heading, or does not have a particular text identified to which it is related, or where two Exceptions are raised from one passage cited, or even where an Answer of the Bishops is made without a particular Exception being in view. In the Answers of the Bishops, the text is taken from Grand Debate. In Grand Debate itself the Answers are presented in italic as interspersed between the further Replies of the Presbyterians, and this leads to reverse idiom (ie italic is normal use and roman text is used for quotations etc.). Here, where the further Reply has been omitted, the presentation is reversed back again to conform to the style of the Exceptions, using roman text as normal and italic for proper names, quotations, etc. Characteristic features of the presentation in both Grand Debate and Sylvester are: capitals for most nouns, a lack of apostrophes for Genitives, strongly inconsistent punctuation, and slightly inconsistent spelling (both within each publication and as between the two). These are faithfully reproduced here, from the relevant primary sources.

F o o t n o t e o f Participants' N a m e s The Bishops Accepted Frewen (York) Gilbert Sheldon (London) John Cosin (Durham) John Warner (Rochester) Humphrey Henchman (Sarum) George Morley (Worcester) Robert Sanderson (Lincoln) Benjamin Lane (Peterborough) Bryan Walton (Chester) Richard Stone (Carlisle) John Gauden (Exeter)

The Presbyterians Edward Reynolds Alternates Alternates (not Anthony Tuckney Thomas Horton bishops) Jon Conant Thomas Jacomb John Earle William Spurstow William Bates Peter Heylin John Wallis John Rawlinson John Hacket Thomas Manton William Cooper John Barwick Edmund Calamy John Lightfoot Peter Gunning Richard Baxter John Collins John Pearson Arthur Jackson Benjamin Woodbridge Thomas Pierce William Drake Anthony Sparrow Thomas Case Herbert Thomdike Samuel Clark Matthew Newcomen 14

3

The Prefaces and General Exceptions Preface t o t h e Exceptions

Preface t o t h e B i s h o p s ' A n s w e r s

Acknowledging with all humility and thankfulness, his Majesty's most Princely Condescention and Indulgence, to very many of his Loyal Subjects, as well in his Majesty's most gracious Declaration, a s particularly in this present Commission, issued forth in pursuance thereof; we doubt not but the nght Reverend Bishops; and all the rest of his Majesty's Commissioners intrusted in this Work, will, in imitation of his Majesty's most prudent and Christian Moderation and Clemency, judge it their Duty (what we find to b e the Apostles own Practice) in a special manner to b e tender of the Churches Peace, to b e a r with the Infirmities of the weak, and not to p l e a s e themselves, nor to measure the C o n s c i e n c e s of other Men by the Light and Latitude of their own, but seriously and readily to consider and advise of such Expedients, a s may most conduce to the healing of our Breaches, and uniting those that differ.1 And albeit we have an high and honourable e s t e e m of those godly and learned Bishops, and others, who were the first Compilers of the publick Liturgy, and do look upon it a s an excellent and worthy Work, for that time, when the Church of England made her first step out of such a Mist of Popish Ignorance and Superstition wherein it formerly was involved; Yet

§1 .Before we come to the Proposals, it will be perhaps necessary to say a w o r d or t w o to the Preface, wherein they begin w i t h a thankfull acknowledgement of his Majesties most Princely condescenyion, to w h i c h w e shall only say, that we conceive the most real expression of their thankfulness had been a hearty compliance with his Majesties earnest and passionate request for the use of the present Liturgy, at least so much of it as they acknowledge by these Papers to be lawful: h o w far they have in this expressed their thankfulness, the w o r l d sees, w e need not say.2 §2.It can be no just cause of offence to minde them of their duty as they d o us of ours, telling us, it is our duty to imitate the Apostles practise in a special manner, to be tender of the Churches peace, and to advise of such expedients, as may conduce to the healing of breaches, and uniting those that differ; For preserving of the Churches peace w e k n o w no better nor more efficatious way than our set Liturgy; there being no such way to keep us from Schism as to speak all the same thing, according to the Apostle. §3.This experience of former and latter times hath taught us, w h e n the Liturgy was duly observed, w e lived in peace, since that was layd aside there hath been as many modes and fashions of publick Worship, as fancies, w e have had continual dissention, which variety of Services must needs produce, whilest every one naturally desires, and endeavours not only to maintain, but to prefer his o w n way before all others; whence w e conceive there is no such

1

way to the preservation of peace, as for all to

T h e citing of Rom.15.1 and the plea on behalf of finding ways to meet the 'weak brother' (1 Cor 8.713) b e c o m e as characteristic of the Presbyterians as 'decency and o r d e r ' (1 Cor 14.40) and 'all saying the s a m e thing' (1 Cor. 1.10) characterize the Bishops. The Worcester H o u s e Declaration had called for the use of the Book, except so far as conscientious dissent applied to particular parts (as, eg, the 'excepted ceremonies'). The Presbyterians relied heavily upon the Declaration (see, eg, P18 and P55 below), but here the Bishops turn it on them, for their public services in many cases (and probably in the case of those present) had little relationship to the Prayer Book. T h e Reply stated they were waiting for the outcome.

15

THE

SAVOY

Preface t o t h e E x c e p t i o n s considering that all human works do gradually arrive at their Maturity and Perfection; and this in particular being a Work of that Nature, hath already admitted several Emendations since the first compiling thereof. It cannot be thought any Disparagement or Derogation to the Work it self, or to the Compilers of it, or to those who have hitherto used it, if after more than an hundred Years, since its first composure, such further Emendations be now made therein, as may be judged necessary for satisfying the Scruples of a multitude of sober Persons, who cannot at all (or very hardly) comply with the use of it, as now it is, and may best sute with the present times after so long an Enjoyment of the glorious light of the Gospel, and so happy a Reformation. Especially considering that many Godly and learned Men, have from the beginning all along earnestly desired the Alteration of many things therein, and very many of his Majesty's pious, peaceable, and loyal Subjects, after so long a discontinuance of it, are more averse from it than heretofore.3 The satisfying of whom (as far as may be) will very much conduce to that Fteace and Unity which is so much desired by all good Men, and so much endeavoured by his most excellent Majesty And therefore in pursuance of this his Majesty's most gracious Commission for the satisfaction of tender Consciences, and the procuring of Peace and Unity amongst our selves, we judge meet to propose,

3

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

Preface t o t h e B i s h o p s ' A n s w e r s return to the strict use and practise of the form. §4.And the best expedients to unite us to that again, and so to peace, are, besides our prayers to the God of Peace, to make us all of one mind in an house, to labour to get true humility, which would make us think our Guides wiser, and fitter to order us than we our selves, and Christian Charity, which would teach us to think no evil of our superiors, but to judge them rather carefull Guides, and Fathers to us, which being obtained, nothing can be imagined justly to hinder us from a ready complyance to this method of Service appointed by them, and so live in unity. §5.If it be objected, That the liturgy is in any way sinful and unlawful for us to joyn with; it is but reason that this be first proved evidently, before any thing be altered: it is no Argument to say that multitudes of sober pious persons scruple the use of it, unless it be made to appear by evident reasons, that the Liturgy gave the just grounds to make such scruples. For if the bare pretence of scruples be sufficient to exempt us from Obedience, all Law and Order is gone. §6.On the contrary we judge, that if the Liturgy should be altered as is there required, not only a multitude but the generality of the soberest and most loyal Children of the Church of England would justly be offended, since such an alteration would be a virtual Confession that this Liturgy were an intollerable burden to tender Consciences, a direct cause of Schism a superstitious usage (upon which pretences it is here desired to be altered) which would at once both justifie all those which have so obstinately separated from it, as the only pious tender conscienced men, and condemn all those that have adhered to that, in conscience of their duty and loyalty, with their loss or hazard of estates, lives, and fortunes, as men superstitious, schismatical, and void of Religion and Conscience. For this reason and those that follow, we cannot consent to such an alteration as is desired, till these pretences be proved, which we conceive in no wise to be done in these papers, and shall give reasons for this our Judgment.

Citing the 'discontinuance' as relevant was hardly calculated to elicit s y m p a t h y from the Bishops.

16

THE

PREFACES

AND

GENERAL

EXCEPTIONS

General Exception

T h e A n s w e r of t h e Bishops

First, that all the Prayers, and other Materials of the Liturgy may consist of nothing doubtful or questioned amongst pious, learned, and orthodox Persons, inasmuch as the professed end of composing them is for the declaring of the unity and consent of all who join in the publick Worship; it being too evident that the limiting of Church-Communion to things of doubtful Disputation, hath been in all Ages the ground of Schism and Separation, according to the saying of a learned Person*.

§1To the first general Proposal we answer, That as to that part of it which requires, that, the matter of the Liturgie may not be private opinion or fancy, that being the way to perpetuate Schism; the Church hath been caret'ull to put nothing into the Liturgie, but that which is evidently the Word of God, or what hath been generally received in the Catholick Church, neither of which can be called private opinion: and it' the contrary can be proved, we wish it out of the Liturgie. §2.We heartily desire that, according to this Proposal, great care may be taken to suppress those private Conceptions of Prayers before and after Sermon, lest private opinions be made the matter of Prayer in publick, as hath, and will be, if private persons take liberty to make publick Prayers."

"Ib load our publick Forms, with the 'private Fancies upon which we differ, 'is the most sovereign way to 'perpetuate Schism to the World's End. 'Prayer, Confession, Thanksgiving, 'reading of the Scriptures, and 'administration of the Sacraments in the 'plainest, and simplest manner, were 'matter enough to furnish out a 'sufficient Liturgy though nothing either 'of private Opinion, or of Church-pomp, 'of Garments, or prescribed Gestures, 'of Imagery, of Musick, of matter 'concerning the Dead, of many 'Superfluities which creep into the 'Church under the name of Order and 'Decency, did interpose it self.4 l b 'charge Churches and Liturgies with 'things unnecessary, was the first 'beginning of all Superstition, and when 'Scruple of Conscience began to be 'made or pretended, then Schism 'began to break in. If the special 'Guides and Fathers of the Church

§3.To that part of the Proposal, that the Prayers may consist of nothing doubtful, or questioned by pious, learned, and orthodox Persons; they not determining who be those orthodox Persons, we must either take all them for orthodox Persons, who shall confidently affirm themselves to be such, and then we say; First, The Demand is unreasonable, for some such as call themselves orthodox, have questioned the prime Article of our Creed, even the Divinity of the Son of God, and yet there is no reason we should part with our Creed for that. Besides, the Proposal requires impossibility, for there never was, nor is, nor can be such Prayers made, as have not been, nor will be questioned by some who call themselves pious, learned, and orthodox: if by orthodox be meant those who adhere to Scripture, and the Catholick Consent of Antiquity, we do not yet know that any part of our Liturgy hath been questioned by such.

" fin margin] Mr. Hales 4 5

'Order' and 'decemcy' are seen by (he Presbyterians as theme songs of the Praver Book, as the controlling rubric for the whole Book is in the quotation from 1 Cor.14.40 at thé heart of the preface 'Of Ceremonies'; and the themes do recur regularly. This is a heavy attempt to turn the Presbyterians' Exception against themselves. Prayer before the sermon was ordered bv Canon 55 of 1604, which gave liberty to the preacher to pray in whatever terms he chose; and the provision was obviously exploited by those with 'the gift'. 'Private persons' suggests some recognition and use of lay preachers who manifested 'the gift'.

17

THE General

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

T h e A n s w e r of the B i s h o p s

Exception

'would b e a little sparing of 'incumbering Churches with 'Superfluities, or not over-rigid, either in 'reviving obsolete Customs, or 'imposing new, there would b e far less 'Cause of Schism, or Superstition; and 'all the Inconveniences were likely to 'ensue, would b e but this, they should 'in so doing yield a little to the 'imbecillity of their Inferiors; a thing 'StPaul would never have refused to 'do: M e a n while, wheresoever false or 'suspected Opinions are made a p i e c e 'of Church-Liturgy; h e that separates is 'not the Schismatick; for it is alike 'unlawful to make profession of known, 'or suspected Falsehood, a s to put in 'practice unlawful or suspected Action.

§4. To those Generals, loading Publick Form with Ch. pomp, garm, Imagery, and many Superfluities that creep into the Church under the name of Order and Decency, incumbring Churches with Superfluities, over ridgid reviving of obsolete Customes, &c. We say, that if these Generals be intended as applyable to our Liturgy in particular, they are gross and foul Slanders, contrary to their Profession, page ult. and so either that or this contrary to their Conscience, if not, they signifie nothing to the present business, and so might with more prudence and candor have been omitted.

2 .Rirther, we humbly desire that it may be seriously considered, that as our first Reformers out of their great Wisdom, did at that time so compose the Liturgy, as to win upon the F&pists, and to draw them into their Church-Communion, by varying as little as they well could, from the Romish Forms before in use; so whether in the present Constitution, and State of Things amongst us, we should not according to the same rule of Prudence and Charity; have our Liturgy so composed, as to gam upon the Judgments and Affection of all those who in the Substantial of the Protestant Religion are of the same Persuasion with our selves: Inasmuch as a more firm Union and Consent of all such, as well in Worship, as in Doctrine, would greatly strengthen the Protestant Interest against all those Dangers and "temptations which our intestine Divisions and Animosities do expose us unto, from the commonAdversary.

§5.* It was the wisdome of our Reformers to draw up such a Liturgy as neither Romanist, nor Protestant could justly except against, and therefore as the first never charged it with any positive errors, but only the want of something they conceived necessary6: so it was never found fault with by those to whom the name of Protestants most properly belongs, those that profess the Augustine Confession7: and for those who unlawfully and sinfully brought it into dislike with some people to urge the present State of Affaires, as an Argument why the Booke should be altered, to give them satisfaction, and so that they should take advantage by their own unwarrantable Acts, is not reasonable.

6 7

*IThis is labelled '§5' in the Grand Debate, as though belonging with G1, but is in fact in content and context the Answer to G2.l

The Reply is outraged at this, citing many points where Rome could not accept the Prayer Book—and, for good measure, charging that, if Rome had no complaint, there must be very serious faults in the Book. This, the Augsburg Confession, is rendered in Cardwell and Gould as 'the Augustan confession', but in the Grand Debate as above - and the Reply states, inter alia, 'Calvin and Bucer subscribed the Augustine Confession, and so have others that have found fault with our Liturgie'.

18

THE

PREFACES

AND

GENERAL

EXCEPTIONS

General Exception

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

3. That the Repetitions, and Responsals of the Clerk and People, and the alternate reading of the Psalms and Hymns which cause a confused Murmur in the Congregation, whereby what is read is less intelligible, and therefore unedifying, may b e omitted: The Minister being appointed for the People in all publick Services appertaining unto God and the Holy Scriptures, both of the Old and New testament, intimating the Peoples Part in publick Prayer to b e only with Silence and Reverence to attend thereunto, and to declare their Consent in the Close, by saying Amen:3

The third and fourth Proposals may go together, the demand in both being against Responsals, and alternate Readings, in Hymns and Psalmes, and Letany, &c. And that upon such Reason as doth in truth enforce the necessity of continuing them as they are, namely, for edification. They would take these away, because they do not edifie, and upon that very reason they should continue, because they do edifie: If not by informing of our reasons and understandings, (the Prayers and Hymns were never made for a Catechism) yet by quickening, continuing, and uniting our devotion, which is apt to freeze, or sleep, or flat® in a long continued Prayer, or form; it is necessary therefore for the edifying of us therein, to be often called upon and awakened by frequent Amens, to be excited and stirred by mutual exhortations, provocations, petitions, holy contentions and strivings, which shall most shew his own, and stir up others zeal to the glory of God. For this purpose alternate Reading, Repetitions and Responsals, are far better than a long tedious Prayer: Nor is this our opinion only, but the Judgement of former Ages, as appears by the practice of ancient Christian Churches, and of the Jewes also.* But it seems they say to be against the Scripture, wherein the Minister is appointed for the People in publick Prayers, the peoples part being to attend with silence, and to declare their assent in the cloze, by saying Amen; if they mean that the people in publick Services must only say this word Amen, as they can no more prove it in Scriptures, so it doth certainly seem to them, thai it cannot be proved; for they directly practise the contrary in one of their principal parts of Worship, singing of Psalms, where the people bear as great a part as the Minister. If this may be done in Hopkin's, why not in David's Psalms? if in Meetre, why not in Prose? if in a Psalm, why not in a Letany?

4. That in regard the Litany (though otherwise containing in it many holy Petitions) is so framed, that the Petitions for a great part are uttered only by the People, which we think not to be so consonant to Scripture, which makes the Minister the Mouth of the People to God in Prayer, the Particulars thereof may b e composed into one solemnn Prayer to b e offered by the Minister unto God for the People.

*lln margin] Socrat.l.6.cap.8.Theodor.1.2.c.24. 2 Chron.7.1,4 Ezra 3.11. This absolute insistence that only the minister s h o u l d articulate the w o r d s of w o r s h i p w a s f o u n d , eg, in C a r t w r i g h t a n d o p p o s e d by Hooker; it d o e s not figure in the f e w e r 'Exceptions' at H a m p t o n Court, but b e c a m e a point of great principle d u r i n g the seventeenth century. It is not o b v i o u s o n w h a t scripture the Presbyterians f o u n d e d their insistence. The Answer a p p e a r s to b e m o r e prudential t h a n theological. T h i s d e l i g h t f u l i n t r a n s i t i v e v e r b a p p e a r s to be a p e r i o d piece a s English u s a g e , for all t h a t it d e s c r i b e s a p e r s i s t e n t condition.

19

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

General Exception

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

5.That there be nothing in the Liturgy which may seem to countenance the Observation of Lentw as a Religious Fast; the Example of Christ's fasting Forty Days and Nights being, no more imitable, nor intended for the Imitation of a Christian, than any other of his Miraculous Works were, or than Moses his forty Days Fast was for the Jews: and the Act of Parliament, 5 Eliz. forbidding abstinence from Flesh to be observed upon any other than a Politick Consideration, and punishing all those who by Preaching, "teaching, Writing, or open Speeches, shall notifie that the forbearing of Flesh, is of any necessity for the saving of the Soul, or that it is the Service of God, otherwise than as other politick Laws are.

§1 It is desired that nothing should be in the Liturgy, which so much as seems to countenance the observation of Lent as a religious Fast, and this is an expedient to Peace, which is in effect to desire, that this our Church may be contentious for Peace sake, and to divide from the Church Catholick, that we may live at unity among our selves: For Saint Paul reckons them amongst the lovers of Contention, who shall oppose themselves against the Customs of the Churches of Cod; that the religious observation of Lent was a Custome of the Churches of Cod, appeares by the Testimonies following, Chrysost. Ser. 11. in Heb.10. Cyrill. Catec. myst. 5.St.August Ep. 119. ut 40 dies ante Pascha observetur*, Ecclesiae consuetudo roboravit: and StHierom ad Marcell saies, it was secundum traditionem Apostolorum; This Demand then tends not to Peace, but Dissention. The fasting Forty daies may be in imitation of our Saviour, for all that is here said to the contrary; for though we cannot arrive to his perfection, abstaining from wholly meat for so long, yet we may fast forty daies together, either Cornelius his Fast, till three of the Clock afternoon, or Saint Peter's fast till noon, or at least Daniel's fast, abstaining from Meats and Drinks of delight, and thus far imitate our Lord. §2 Nor does the Act of Parliament 5 Elizab. forbid it, we dare not think a Parliament did intend to forbid that which Cod his Church hath commanded; Nor does the Act determine any *[Misprint—Cardwell has 'observentur

10

1

The Second B o o k of Homilies has two 'Sermons on Fasting', which m a k e it very clear that prescribed fasting was s e e n in Elizabeth's reign as a 'good w o r k ' which had an exterior g o o d look, but was in itself barren of spiritual value. T h e second S e r m o n might well have b e e n q u o t e d h e r e (but perhaps the Presbyterians did not k n o w the Homilies well (see P20 below)), as it sets out the n e e d to encourage fisheating, to k e e p the fishing industry alive, with a view to having s e a m e n at h a n d for the navy in case o f invasion. This is the 'Politick Consideration' cited here from 5 Elizabeth. T h e Presbyterians were not opposed to a call to fasting, but, to take The Directory as a n example, it anticipates that the call will c o m e as there is need, not as a prescribed season of the year (or d a y of the week). T h e A n s w e r looks very weak, as 1 Elizabeth is simply the Act of Uniformity which imposed 1559. T h e Act d o e s not mention fasts; and the 1 5 5 9 / 1 6 0 4 B o o k only mentions fasting within the Epistles and G o s p e l s and the collect of I^ent 1. However, as an o u t c o m e the 1662 B o o k provided for the first time 'A table of the Vigils, Fasts, and Days of Abstinence to be observed in the Year' and also inserted reference to T h e First D a y of Lent' into the heading to the C o m m i n a t i o n Service. T h e A n s w e r is also w e a k in that it is f r a m e d adversarially, but in fact virtually c o n c e d e s that no specific prescribed fasting is involved. It is likely that, w h e n the Bishops w r o t e that they must not 'divide from the C h u r c h Catholick', they had a notion o f the universal church through all the centuries, rather than any sense of obligation towards R o m e as it then was.

20

THE PREFACES AND GENERAL E X C E P T I O N S The A n s w e r of the Bishops

General Exception

thing a b o u t Lent Fast, b u t only p r o v i d e for the maintenance o f the Navy, a n d of Fishing in o r d e r thereunto, as is plain b y the Act. Besides w e conceive that w e m u s t n o t so interpret, o n e Act, as to contradict another, being still in force a n d unrepealed. N o w t h e A c t o f 1 Eliz. confirms the w h o l e Liturgy, a n d in t h a t the religious k e e p i n g of Lent, w i t h a severe penalty u p o n all those, w h o shall by o p e n w o r d s speak a n y t h i n g in derogation of any part thereof, a n d therefore that other A c t of 5 Elizab. must n o t be interpreted t o f o r b i d the religious k e e p i n g o f Lent.

6. That the religious observation of Saints-days appointed to be kept as Holy-days, and the Vigils thereof without any Foundation (as we conceive) in Scripture, may be omitted. That if any be retained, they may be called Festivals, and not Holy-days, nor made equal with the Lord's-day, nor have any peculiar service appointed for them, nor the People upon such Days forced wholly to abstain from Work, and that the Names of all others now inserted in the Calender which are not in the first and second Books of Edward the sixth, may be left out."

The observation of Saints days, is not as o f Divine, but Ecclesiastical Institution, a n d therefore it is not necessary t h a t t h e y should have any other g r o u n d in Scripture, t h a n all other Institutions o f t h e same nature, so that t h e y be agreeable t o t h e Scripture in t h e general e n d , for the p r o m o t i n g piety, a n d t h e observation of t h e m was ancient, as appears b y the Rituals, a n d Liturgies, a n d by the j o y n t consent of Antiquity, a n d by the ancient translation o f t h e Bible, as t h e Syriack a n d Ethiopick, w h e r e t h e Lessons a p p o i n t e d for Holydayes, are n o t e d a n d set d o w n , the f o r m e r o f w h i c h was m a d e near the Apostles t i m e ; Besides o u r Saviour himself kept a Feast of the Churches Institution, viz. the Feast of the Dedication, St Jo. 12.22. T h e c h o i c e e n d of these days being not feasting, b u t the exercise of H o l y Duties, t h e y are fitter called Holydayes, than Festivals, a n d t h o u g h t h e y be all o f like nature, it d o t h n o t f o l l o w t h a t t h e y are equal; The people may be dispensed w i t h for their w o r k after the Service as A u t h o r i t y pleaseth. The other names are left in t h e Calender, not that they should be so k e p t as Holydayes, but they are useful for t h e preservation o f their memories, a n d for other reasons, as for Leases, Law-dayes, &c.

11

'Holy Days' had been in the calendar and lessons of 1S59; but it was anathema to the Presbyterians to call any day but the Lord's Day a 'Holy Day'. 59 'black letter' saints h a d been a d d e d to the Calendar during Elizabeth's reign (though without any propers), and it is those the Exception wishes to see removed. In 1662 there is reference to 'Sundays a n d other Holy-Days', a n d the 59 saints remained in the Calendar.

21

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

General E x c e p t i o n

T h e A n s w e r of the B i s h o p s

7.That the Gift of Prayer, being one special Qualification for the Work of the Ministry bestowed by Christ in order to the Edification of his Church, and to be exercised for the profit and benefit thereof, according to its various and emergent necessity; It is desired that there may be no such imposition of the Liturgy, as that the exercise of that gift be thereby totally excluded in any part of Publick Worship.12 And further, considering the great Age of some Ministers, and Infirmities of others13, and the variety of several Services ofttimes concurring upon the same day, whereby it may be inexpedient to require every Minister, at all times to read the whole; It may be left to the discretion of the Minister, to omit part of it, as occasion shall require: which liberty wefindto be allowed even in thefirstCommon Prayer Book of Edward 6.

§1 This makes the Liturgy void, if every Minister may put in, and leave out all at his discretion. §2 The gift or rather the spirit of Prayer consists in the inward graces of the spirit, not in ex tempore expressions, which any man of natural parts, having a voluble tongue, and audacity, may attain to without any special gift. §3 But if there be any such Gift as is pretended, it is to be subject to the Prophets, and to the Order of the Church. §4 The mischiefs that come by Idle, Impertinent, Ridiculous, sometimes Seditious, Impious, and Blaspemous Expressions under pretence of the Gift, to the dishonour of God, and scorn of Religion, being far greater than the pretended good of exercising the Gift: It is fit that they who desire such liberty in publick devotions, should first give the Church security that no private Opinions should be put into their Prayers, as is desired in the first Proposal, and that nothing contrary to the Faith should be uttered before Cod, or offered up to him in the Church. §5 To prevent which mischief the former Ages knew no better way, than to forbid any Prayers in publick, but such as were prescribed by public Authority: Con. Carthag. Can. 106. Milen. Can. 72.

8.That in regard ofthe many Defects which have been observed in that Version ofthe Scriptures which is used throughout the Liturgy14 (manifold Instances whereof may be produced, as in the Epistle for the first Sunday after Epiphany, taken out of Rowans 12.1 Be ye changed in your shape\ And the Epistle for the Sunday next before Easier, taken out of Philippians 2.5Foundinhisapparelasaman,assiso

[No Answer]15

12

13 14

15

This 'Gift'—(he Puritan charisma—was a crucial distinguishing feature of the Presbyterian p r o g r a m m e . As noted earlier (see page 17 above), a certain liberty did exist u n d e r C a n o n 55 of 1604, a n d the Presbyterian use of it w a s m u c h attacked b y the bishops; and thus, the Exception reveals a fear lest it be suppressed. The idea of the 'Gift' is ridiculed in the Answer (with a n interesting allusion to 1 Cor.14.32-33). Is there here s o m e concealed reference to the restoring of clergy d i s p o s s e s s e d in 1644-1646, s o m e of w h o m , h a v i n g w a i t e d s e v e n t e e n years, m i g h t n o w be of great a g e a n d b e replacing y o u n g e r ministers. Epistles a n d G o s p e l s in 1549 a n d t h e r e a f t e r c a m e f r o m the Great English Bible of 1539. T h e P u r i t a n s c o m p l a i n e d at t h e H a m p t o n C o u r t C o n f e r e n c e ( C a r d w e l l , p p 187,214) w h i c h led to J a m e s I c o m m i s s i o n i n g t h e ' K i n g J a m e s Version'. H o w e v e r , t h e 1604 P r a y e r Book r e t a i n e d t h e 1539 texts, a n d t h e 'AV' w a s n o t c o m p l e t e d till 1611. This w a s c o n c e d e d (CI, p 77 below); t h e Epistles a n d G o s p e l s of 1662 w e r e t a k e n f r o m the 1611 AV.

22

T H E P R E F A C E S AND G E N E R A L General E x c e p t i o n

EXCEPTIONS

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

the Epistle for the fourth Sunday in Lent, taken out of the fourth of the Galatians, Mount Sinaiis Agar in Arabia, andbordereth upon the City which is now called Jerusalem.16 The Epistle for StMatthew's Day taken out of the second Epistle of Corinth, and the 4th. We go not out of Kind. The Gospel for the second Sunday after Epiphany, taken out of the second of John, When Men be drunk. The Gospel for the third Sunday in Lent, taken out of the 11th oiLuke, One House doth faE upon another. The Gospel for the Annunciation, taken out of thefirstoiLuke, This is the sixth Month which was called barren] and many other places) we therefore desire instead thereof the New Translation allowed by Authority may alone be used. 9.That inasmuch as the holy Scriptures are able to make us wise unto Salvation, to furnish us throughly with all good Works, and contain in them all things necessary, either in Doctrine to be believed, or in Duty to be practised; whereas diverse Chapters of the Apocryphal Books appointed to be read, are Charged to be in both respects, of dubious and uncertain credit; It is therefore desired, that nothing be read in the Church for Lessons, but the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New Tfestament.17

As they would have no Saints dayes observed by the Church, so no Apocriphal Chapter read in the Church, but upon such a reason, as would exclude all Sermons, as well as Apocripha, viz. because the holy Scriptures contain in them all things necessary, either in Doctrine to be believed, or in duty to be practised; if so, why so many unnecessary Sermons? why any more but reading of Scriptures? If notwithstanding their sufficiency, Sermons be necessary, there is no reason why these Apocriphal Chapters should not be as useful, most of them containing excellent discourses, and rules of mortality*, it is heartily to be wished that Sermons were as good; if their fear be that by this means, those Books may come to be of equal esteem with the Canon, they may be secured against that by the Title which the Church hath put upon them, calling them Apocriphal, and it is the Church's testimony which teacheth us this difference, and to leave them out, were to cross the practice of the Church in former Ages. * [Misprint for 'morality'.

16 17

Interestingly this mistranslation above all others had been the illustration which the Puritans had brought to the Hampton Court Conference to make the case for a new translation (Cardwell, p 187). T h e long-running complaint of the Puritans against Ihe Apocrypha is made a 'General Exception' going beyond the principle of Article V I . The complaints seem to have made it a point of principle by the Bishops to ensure the Apocrypha was read in church, and this was increased in 1662.

23

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

T h e A n s w e r of the B i s h o p s

General E x c e p t i o n 10. That the Minister be not required to rehearse any part of the Liturgy at the Communion-'I&ble, save only those parts which properly belong to the Lord's Supper; and that at such times only when the said holy Supper is administred.18

REVISITED

That the Minister should not read the Communion Service at the Communion Table, is not reasonable to demand, since all the Primitive Church used it; and if we do not observe that golden Rule, of the venerable Council of Nice, Let antient customes prevail, till reason plainly requires the contrary: We shall give offence to sober Christians by a causelesse departure from Catholick usage, and a great advantage to enemies of our Church, than our Brethren I hope20 would willingly grant, The Priest standing at the Communion Table, seemeth to give us an invitation to the holy Sacrament, and minds us of our duty, viz. To receive the holy Communion, some at least every Sunday, and though we neglect our duty, it is fit the Church should keep her standing.

11. That as the Word (Minister) and It is not reasonable that the word Minister should be not Priest, or Curate, is used in the only used in the Liturgy, for since some parts of the Absolution, and in divers other places;Liturgy may be performed by a Deacon, others by it may throughout the whole Book be none under the Order of a Priest, viz. Absolution, so used instead of those two Words19; Consecration, it is fit that some such word as Priest, and that instead of the Word Sunday should be used for those Offices, and not Minister, the Word Lord 's-day may be every which signifies at large every one that ministers in that holy Office, of what Order soever he be; The word where used. Curate signifying properly all those who are trusted by the Bishops, with Cure of Souls, as antiently it signified, is a very fit word to be used, and can offend no sober person. The word Sunday is antient. Just.Mart. Ap.2. And therefore not to be left off. 12. Because singing of Psalms is a Singing of Psalms in Meetre is no part of the Liturgy, and so no part of our Commission.2' considerable part of publick Worship, we desire that the Version set forth and allowed to be sung in Churches, may be amended, or that we may have leave to use a purer Version. 18 19

20 21

This refers to the use of ante-communion without the sacrament on most Sundays, with the minister ?????? to the North Side of the Table. The Answer is an amazing over-kill; and of course no change was made. 1559 does have a random mixture of 'priest', 'minister' a n d 'curate'. The Bishops again give an overkill answer (for Canon 32 of 1604 is entitled 'None to be made Deacon and Minister both in one Day', and the 1604 Canons use 'Minister' throughout, with but two mentions of 'priests' in Canon 8). 1612 reshuffled the random usage, so that although it has 'priest' at each Absolution, yet it also has 'priest' interchangeably with 'minister' in baptism, at which the ordinal specifically says a deacon can officiate. The first person singular is somewhat unexpected, and tempts us to look for the hand of the drafter. The Psalms were always treated as a book separate f r o m the Book of Common Prayer.

24

T H E P R E F A C E S AND G E N E R A L

EXCEPTIONS

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

General Exception 13. That all obsolete words in the CommonPrayer, and such whose use is changed from their first significancy (as Aread) used in the Gospel for the Monday and Wednesday before Easter [Then opened he their wits] used in the Gospel for Easter Tuesday, &c, may be altered unto other Words generally received, and better understood.

[No Answer23]

14. That no Portions of the Old "testament, or of the Acts of the Apostles, be called Epistles, and read as such.

[No Answer 4 ]

15. That whereas throughout the several Offices, the Phrase is such as presumes all Persons (within the Communion of the Church) to be regenerated, converted, and in an actual state of Grace, (which, had Ecclesiastical Discipline been truly and vigorously executed, in the Exclusion of Scandalous and obstinate Sinners, might be better supposed: But there having been, and still being a confessed want of that (as in the Liturgy is acknowledged,) it cannot be rationally admitted in the utmost Latitude of Charity.) We desire that this may be reformed.22

The Church in her Prayers useth no more offensive phrase, than St .Paul uses, when he writes to the Corinthians, Galathians, and others, calling them in general the Churches of Cod, Sanctified in Christ Jesus, by vocation Saints, amongst whom notwithstanding there were many, who by their known sins (which the Apostle endeavoured to amend in them) were not properly such, yet he gives the denomination to the whole, from the greater part, to whom in charity it was due. And puts the rest in mind what they have by their Baptisme undertaken to be, and what they profess themselves to be, and our prayers and the phrase of them, surely supposes no more than that they are Saints by railing, sanctified in Christ Jesus, by their Baptisme admitted into Christs Congregation, and so to be reckoned members of that Society, till either they shall separate themselves by willful Schisme, or be separated by legal Excommunication; which they seem earnestly to desire, and so do we.

22

23 24

H e r e the P r e s b y t e r i a n ecclesiologv bites into the liturgy. Both s i d e s reckon to s e e the w h o l e n a t i o n in the visible church, a n d b o t h are prima facie p r e p a r e d to treat t h e m then as truly c o n v e r t e d . T h e E l i z a b e t h a n a n d H a m p t o n C o u r t P u r i t a n s , for all their C a l v i n i s m a n d d o c t r i n e of election, n e v e r f o u n d fault w i t h this categorical l a n g u a g e . But for the S a v o y Presbyterians t h e lack of necessary discipline (as they s a w it), a n d the s u s p i c i o n that t h e L a u d i a n c h u r c h m e n w e r e v e r g i n g o n ex opere operate s a c r a m e n t a l i s m , find t h e m c h a f i n g at this f u n d a m e n t a l liturgical principle. T h e A n s w e r here i n v o k e s ' c h a r i t y ' ( w h i c h the E x c e p t i o n h a d d i s c o u n t e n a n c e d ) , b u t at P44 a n d P45 the Bishops a p p e a r to go f u r t h e r (qv). T h i s is c o n c e d e d , in t h a t it w a s l a r g e l y c o v e r e d b y C I w h i c h r e l a t e s to G8 a b o v e . T h i s is c o n c e d e d in C 2 ( p a g e 77 b e l o w ) .

25

THE SAVOY C O N F E R E N C E

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

General Exception 16.That whereas orderly connection of Prayers, and of particular Petitions and Expressions, together with a competent length of the Forms used, are tending much to Edification, and to gain the reverence of People to them. There appears to us too great a neglect of both, of this Order, and of other just Laws, of Method. Particularly 1. The Collects are generally short, many of them consisting of one, or at most two Sentences of Petition; and these generally ushered in with a repeated mention of the Name and Attributes of God, and presently concluding with the Name and Merits of Christ; whence are caused many unnecessary Intercisions and Abruptions, which when many Petitions are to be offered at the same time, are neither agreeable to Scriptural Examples, nor suited to the Gravity and Seriousness of that Holy Duty. 2.The Prefaces of many Collects have not any clear and special Respect to the following Petitions; and particular Petitions are put together, which have not any due Order, nor evident Connection one with another, nor suitableness with the Occasions upon which they are used, but seem to have fallen in rather casually, than from an orderly Contrivance. It is desired that instead of those various Collects, there m a y b e one methodical and intire form of Prayer composed out of many of them. 25 17 .That whereas the publick Liturgy of a Church should in reason comprehend the Summ of all such Sins as are ordinarily to b e confessed in Prayer by the Church, and of such Petitions and Thanksgivings as are ordinarily by the Church to be put up to God, 25

REVISITED

§1. The Connexion of the parts of our Liturgy is conformable to the Example of the Churches of C o d before us, and have as much dependence as is usually to be seen in many petitions of the same Psalm, and we conceive the Order and Method to be excellent, and must do so, till they tell us what that Order is which Prayers ought to have, which is not done here. §2.The Collects are made short as being best for devotion as we observed before, and cannot be accounted faulty, for being like those short but prevalent prayers in Scripture; Lord be merciful to me a Sinner: Son of David have mercy on us; Lord encrease our Faith. §3.Why the repeated mention of the Name and Attributes of God, should not be more pleasing to any godly person, we cannot imagine, or what burden it should seem, when David magnified one Attribute of Cods mercy, 26. times together, Psal. 36. Nor can we conceive why the Name and merits of Jesus with which all the Prayers should end, should not be as sweet to us as to former Saints and Martyrs, with which here they complain our Prayers do so frequently end: since the Attributes of God are the ground of our hope, of obtaining all our Petitions, such Prefaces of Prayers as are taken from them, though they have no special respect to the Petitions following are not to be termed unsuitable, or said to have fallen rather casually than orderly.

Despite the defensive A n s w e r the Bishops w e n t some way towards meeting ¡he desire for longer prayers with further (and s o m e w h a t fuller) prayers u n d e r 'Prayers and Thanksgivings', a d d i n g to C r a n m e r ' s prayers (about the weather, w a r and plague) new petitions 'In the Ember Weeks', 'A Prayer for the H i g h Court of Parliament', a n d 'A Collect or Prayer for all Conditions of m e n ' ; a n d a new 'A General Thanksgiving' (as well as thanksgiving for deliverance from the weather, w a r a n d plague—perhaps m u c h needed after 110 y e a r s of petitions w i t h o u t thanksgivings). H a d this Exception actually exposed a n e e d — d e s p i t e the defensive Answer?

26

T H E P R E F A C E S AND G E N E R A L

EXCEPTIONS

T h e A n s w e r of the B i s h o p s

General Exception and the publick Catechisms or Systems of Doctrine, should summarily comprehend all such Doctrines as are necessary to be believed, and these explicitly set down: the present Liturgy as to all these seems very defective. Particularly

§1 .There are besides a preparative Exhortation several preparatory prayers: Despise not O Lord humble and contrite hearts. Which is one of the sentences in the Preface; and this, 7hat those things may please him, which we do at this present; at the end of the Absolution: And again immediately after the Lords Prayer before the Psalmody, O Lord open thou our Lips. &c. §2.This which they call a defect, others think they have 2.The Confession is very reason to account the perfection of the Liturgy, the defective, not clearly Offices of which being intended for common and general expressing original Sin, nor sufficiently enumerating actual services, would cease to be such, by descending to particulars, as in confession of Sin, while it is general, all Sins, with their Aggravations; but consisting only of Generals: persons may and must joyn in it, since in many things we whereas confession, being the offend all; But if there be a particular enumeration of sins, Exercise of Repentance, ought it cannot be so general a confession, because it may happen that some or others by Cods Grace have been to be more particular.26 preserved from some of those sins enumerated, and therefore should by confessing themselves guilty, tell God a lye; which needs a new Confession. §3.As for original sin, though we think it an evil custom springing from false Doctrine, to use any such expressions as may lead people to think that to the persons baptized (in whose persons only our Prayers are offered up) original sin is not forgiven in their holy Baptism; yet for that there remains in the Regenerate some reliques of that which are to be bewailed, the Church in her Confession acknowledgeth such desires of our own hearts as render us miserable in following them; That there is no health in us, that without Gods help our frailty cannot but fall. That our mortal nature can do no good thing without him; which is a clear acknowledgment of Original sin. 1. There is no preparatory Prayer in our Address to God for Assistance or Acceptance; yet many Collects m the midst of the Worship have little or nothing else.

26

T h e e x a m p l e of t h e Directory a n d t h e d e t a i l e d a c c o u n t i n g of s i n i n its s e c t i o n 'Of Publike Prayer before the Sermon' w e l l i l l u s t r a t e s w h a t the P r e s b y t e r i a n s w e r e s e e k i n g . T h e A n s w e r s h o w s t h e B i s h o p s ' e v a l u a t i o n of t h a t . N o c h a n g e w a s m a d e to a n y c o n f e s s i o n i n 1662.

27

THE

General

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

T h e A n s w e r of t h e

Exception

Bishops

3.There is also a great Defect a s to s u c h Forms of publick Praise a n d Thanksgiving, a s a r e suitable to Gospel-worship.

§4.We know not what publick prayers are wanting, nor do they tell us, the usual Complaint hath been, that there were too many: Neither do we conceive any want of publick Thanksgivings: there being in the Liturgy Te Deum, Benedictus, Magnificat, Benedicite, Glory be to Cod on high, Therefore with Angels and Archangels, The doxology. Clory be to the Father, &c. All peculiar, as they require, to Gospel worship, and fit to expresse our thanks and honour to God upon every particular occasion, and occasional Thanksgivings after the Letany, of the frequency whereof themselves elsewhere complain, who here complain of defect; If there be any forms wanting, the Church will provide. 27

4.The whole Body of the C o m m o n Prayer also consisteth very m u c h of m e e r Generals: as, (to have our Prayers heard) to be kept from all Evil, and from all Enemies, and all Adversity, that we might do God's Will] without any mention of the Particulars in which these Generals exist. 5.The Catechism is defective a s to m a n y n e c e s s a r y Doctrines of our Religion: s o m e even of the Essentials of Christianity not mentioned except in the C r e e d , a n d there not a s explicite a s ought to b e in a Catechism.

§5.They complain that the Liturgy contains too many Generalls, without mention of the particulars, and the Instances are such Petitions as those, That we may do Cods will; To be kept from all evil, almost the very Terms of the Petitions of the Lords Prayer: so that they must reform that, before they can pretend to mend our Liturgy in these Petitions. §6.We have deferred this to the proper place as you might have done. 28

18.Because this Liturgy containeth the Imposition of divers C e r e m o n i e s which from the first Reformation have b y sundry l e a r n e d a n d pious M e n b e e n j u d g e d unwarrantable, a s

§1 .We are now come to the main and principal demand as is pretended, viz. The abolishing the Laws which impose any Ceremonies, especially three, the Surplice, the Sign of the Crosse, and Kneeling; These are the Yoak which if removed, there might be peace. It is to be suspected, and there is reason for it, from their o w n words, that somewhat else pinches, and that if these Ceremonies were laid aside, and these or any other Prayers strictly enjoyned without them, it would be deemed a burden intollerable, it seems so by N.7. where they desire that when the Liturgy is altered, according to the rest of

1. That Publick Worship m a y not b e c e l e b r a t e d by any Minister that d a r e not w e a r a Surpless. 2. That n o n e may baptise, nor b e baptised, without the transient I m a g e of the Cross, which hath at least the S e m b l a n c e of a Sacrament of h u m a n Institution, b e i n g u s e d as a n m g a g m g 27 28

A n d , a l t h o u g h they say all is well, the C h u r c h d i d ' p r o v i d e ' . See n o t e 25 o n p a g e 26 a b o v e . T h e Bishops k n o w v e r y well t h e c o m p l a i n t is c o m i n g a s a ' P a r t i c u l a r ' (see PS3 below).

28

THE

General

PREFACES

AND

GENERAL

T h e A n s w e r of t h e

Exception

Sign in our first and solemn Covenanting with Christ, and the Duties whereunto we are really obliged by Baptism, being more expresly fixed to that airy Sign than to this holy Sacrament. 3. That none may receive the Lord's Supper that dare not kneel in the act of receiving; but the Minister must exclude all such from the communion: although such kneeling not only differs from the practice of Christ and of his apostles, but (at least on the Lord's Day) is contrary to the practice of the Catholick Church for many hundred Years after, and forbidden by the most venerable Councils that ever were in the Christian World. All which Impositions, are made yet more gnevous by that Subscription to their Lawfulness, which the Canon exacts, and by the heavy Punishment upon the Non-observance of them which the Aci of Uniformity inflicts.29 And it being doubtful whether God hath given power unto Men, to institute in his Worship such Mystical Tfeaching Signs, which not being necessary in genere, fall not under the Rule of doing all things

EXCEPTIONS

Bishops

their proposals, the Minister may have liberty to adde and leave out what he pleases; Yet because the imposition of these Ceremonies is pretended to be the insupportable Grievance, we must of necessity either yield that demand, or shew reason why we do not; and that we may proceed the better in this undertaking, we shall reduce the sum of their complaint, to these several heads, as we find them in their Papers; the Law for imposing these Ceremonies, they would have abrogated for these reasons.

§2.1 .It is doubtful whether God hath given power to men to impose such signified signs, which though they call them significant, yet have in them no real goodness, in the judgment of the Imposers themselves, being called by decently, orderly, and to edification, and them things indifferent, and therefore fall not which once granted will upon the same under St.Pauls rule of Omnia Decenter, nor are reason, open a door to the Arbitrary suitable to the simplicity of the Gospel Worship. Imposition of numerous Ceremonies of §2.2 Because it is a violation of the Royalty of which St Augustine complained in his Christ, and an impeachment of his Laws as days; and the things in Controversie unsufficient, and so those that are under the law being in the Judgment of the Imposers of Deut. 12. Whatsoever I command you, confessedly indifferent, who do not so observe to do, you shall take nothing from it, nor much as pretend any real Goodness in adde any thing to it; You do not observe these. 29

The three specific 'excepted ceremonies' mentioned here are part of the central package of Puritan complaints dating from Edward VI's reign, and almost institutionalized from 1559 onwards (there was usually a fourth item—the ring in marriage—which here is only a 'Particular' (see P62 below)). The surplice, while required by Canons 24, 25 and 58 , did not recur as a 'Particular' because the form of the O r n a m e n t s Rubric (see PI and P2 below) did not actually mention the surplice (secAppendix 1: Ornaments). The other two ceremonies do come again as 'Particulars': kneeling for communion at P32, P33 and P35, (met bv the return of the Declaration on Kneeling); and the sign of the cross in b a p t i s m at P45 (met by a note in 1662 referring to Canon 30 of 1604). T h e 'Act of Uniformity' must be the 1559 Act, printed at the Front of all 1559 and 1604 Prayer Books.

29

THE SAVOY C O N F E R E N C E

REVISITED

General Exception

T h e A n s w e r of the B i s h o p s

them of themselves, otherwise than what is derivedfromtheir being imposed, and consequently the Imposition ceasing, that will cease also, and the Worship of God not become indecent without them.30 Whereas in the other hand on the Judgment of the Opposers, they are by some held sinful, and unlawful in themselves; by others very inconvenient and unsuitable to the Simplicity of Gospel Worship, and by all of them very gnevous and burthensome, and therefore not at allfitto be put in ballance with the Peace of the Church, which is more likely to be promoted by their removal, than continuance: Considering also how tender our Lord and Saviour himself is of weak Brethren, declaring it much better for a Man to have Milstone hang'd about his neck, and be cast into the depth of the Sea, than to offend one of his little Ones: And how the Apostle Paul (who had as great a Legislative Power in the Church, as any under Christ) held himself obliged by that Common Rule of Charity, not to lay a stumbling block, or an occasion of offence before a weak Brother, chusing rather not to eat flesh whiles the world stands (though in it self a thing lawful) than offend his brother for whom Christ died. We cannot but desire that these Ceremonies may not be imposed on them, who judge such Impositions a violation of the Royalty of Chnst, and an Impeachment of his Laws as insufficient, and are under the holy awe of that which is written,

§2.3.Because sundry learned pious, and Orthodox men, have ever since the Reformation judged them unwarrantable, and we ought to be as our Lord was, tender of weak Brethren, not to offend his little ones, nor to lay a stumblingblock before a weak Brother. §2.4.Because these Ceremonies have been the fountain of many evils in this Church and Nation, occasioning sad divisions betwixt Minister, & Minister; betwixt Minister and People, exposing many Orthodox Preachers to the displeasure of Rulers; And no other fruits than these can be looked for from the retaining these Ceremonies.

30

§3.rule 1. Before we give particular Answer to these several Reasons, it will be not unnecessary to lay down some general premises, or rules, which will be useful in our whole discourse. 1. That C o d hath not given a power only, but a command also of imposing whatsoever should be truly decent, and becomming his publick Service, 7 Cor.14. After St.Pau/ had ordered some particular Rules for Praying, Praising, Prophesying, &c., He concludes with this general Canon, Let all things be done euchemonos*, in a fit Scheme, Habit, or Fashion, decently, and that may be uniformity in those decent performances, let there be a taxis**, Rule or Canon for that purpose. §4.rule 2. Not Inferiours but Superiours must judge what is convenient and decent; They who must order that all be done decently, must of necessity, first judge what is convenient, and decent to be ordered. §5.rule 3. These Rules and Canons for decency •[This is printed in Creek letters in G D and Cardwell, but in G D it is misprinted (the correct form would be euschemonos) - 'decently'.] " [ T h i s is printed in Greek letters in G D and Cardwell 'order'.]

While the Presbyterians 'except' against individual ceremonies, their centra] complaint (making this a 'General' Exception) is against the imposition of that which Scripture does not impose. They cite St Augustine and the multiplicity of ceremonies as that gives them some leverage within the existing Book, as 'Of Ceremonies why some be abolished and some retained' quotes this passage of Augustine ('What would St Augustine have said . ..?'), but they are arguably off the point, as it is not multiplicity but imposition of ceremonies against which they except. The Bishops' theme-song of 'decently and in order' is ringing in the Presbyterian ears.

30

THE

PREFACES

AND

GENERAL

EXCEPTIONS

General E x c e p t i o n

The A n s w e r of the Bishops

Deut. 12.32. (What thing soever I command you, observe to do it) Thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it) but that there may b e either a total Abolition of them, or at least such a liberty, that those who are unsatisfied concerning their lawfulness or expediency, may not be compelled to the Practice of them, or Subscnption to them.

made and urged by Superiours, are to be obeyed by Inferiours, till it be made as clear that now

But may b e permitted to enjoy their Ministerial Function, and Communion with the Church without them. The rather because these Ceremonies have for above an hundred years been the Fountain of manifold Evils in this Church and Nation, occasioning sad Divisions between Ministers and Ministers, as also between Ministers and People, exposing many Orthodox, Pious, and Peaceable Ministers, to the displeasure of their Rulers, casting them on the edge of the Penal Statutes, to the loss not only of their Livings and Liberties, but also of their Opportunities for the Service of Christ, and his Church: and forcing People, either to Worship God in such manner as their own Consciences condemn, or doubt of, or else to forsake our Assemblies, as thousands have done. And no better Fruits than these can be looked for from the retaining and imposing of these Ceremonies, unless we could presume, that all his Majesty's Subjects should have the same Subtilty of Judgment to discern even to a Ceremony, how far the Power of Man extends in the Things of God, which is not to b e expected, or should

they are not bound to obey, as it is evident in general, that they ought to obey Superiours; for if the exemption from obedience be not as evident as the Command to obey, it must needs be sin not to obey. §6. rule 4. Pretence of Conscience is no exemption from obedience, for the Law as long as it is a Law, certainly binds to obedience; Rom.7.3. Ye must needs be subject, and this pretence of a tender gainsaying Conscience cannot abrogate the Law, since it can neither take away the Authority of the Law-maker, nor make the matter of the Law in it self unlawful; Besides if pretence of Conscience did exempt from obedience, Laws were uselesse, whosoever had not list to obey might pretend tenderness of Conscience, and be thereby set at liberty, which if once granted, Anarchy and Confusion must needs follow. §7.rule 5. Though Charity will move to pity, and relieve those that are truly perplexed or scrupulous: yet we must not break Cods Command, in Charity to them, and therefore we must not perform publick Services undecently or disorderly for the ease of tender Consciences. §8.ans.1. These premised we Answer to your first Reason, that those things which we call Indifferent, because neither expressly commanded norforbiden by God, have in them a real goodnesse, a fitnesse, and decency, and for that cause are imposed, and may be so by the Rule of St.Paul* by which Rule and many others, in Scripture a power is given, to men to impose Signs, which are never the worse surely, because they signifie something that is decent and comely, and so it is not doubtful whether such power be given;" It would rather be * [In marginl 1 Cor.14.

31

The tenor of this a n d following parts of the A n s w e r is to make it clear that virtually everything will be i m p o s e d from above, not only to p r o d u c e ' o r d e r ' in worship, but also to m a k e it clear that those in authority are going to exercise their authority fully

31

T H E SAVOY C O N F E R E N C E

REVISITED

G e n e r a l Exception

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

yield Obedience to all the Impositions of Men concerning them, without inquiring into the Will of God, which is not to b e desired. We do therefore most earnestly entreat the Right Reverend Fathers and Brethren, to whom these Papers are delivered, as they tender the Glory of God, the Honour of religion, the Peace of the Church, the Service of his Majesty in the Accomplishment of that Happy Union, which his Majesty hath so abundantly testified his Desires of, to joyn with us in importuning his most Excellent Majesty, that his most gracious Indulgence, as to these ceremonies, granted in his Royal Declaration, may be confirmed and continued to us and our Posterities, and extended to such as do not yet enjoy the Benefit thereof.

doubtful, whether the Church could impose such idle Signs, if any such there be, as signifie nothing. §9.ans.2. To the second, that it is not a violation of Christs Royalty to make Laws for decency, but an exercise of his power and authority, which he hath given to the Church: And the disobedience to such commands of Superiours is plainly a violation of his Royalty. As it is no violation of the Kings Authority, when his Magistrates command things according to his Laws; But disobedience to the command of those Injunctions of his Deputies, is violation of his Authority; Again, it can be no impeachment of Christs Laws as insufficient, to make such Laws for decency, since our Saviour as is evident by the Precepts themselves, did not intend by them to determine, every minute and circumstance of time, place, manner of performance, and the like, but only to command in general the substance of those duties, and the right ends that should be aimed at in the performance, and then left every man in particular (whom for that purpose he made reasonable) to guide himself by rules of reason, for private Services; And appointed Covernours of the Church, to determine such particularities for the publick: Thus our Lord commanded Prayers, Fasting, &c. for the times and places of performance; he did not determine every of them, but left them to be guided as we have said;32 So that it is no impeachment of his Laws as insufficient, to make Laws for the determining those particulars of decency, which himself did not, as is plain by his Precepts, intend to determine, but left us Covernours for that purpose, to whom he said, As my Father sent me, even so send I you; and let all things be done decently, and in order; of whom he hath said to us, Obey those that have the over-sight over you; and told us that if we will not hear his Church we must not be accounted as Christians, but Heathens and Publicans;

[NB The Answer lo G18 is far longer than the Exception and so occupies all the next three columns on this and the facing page, and on p a g e 34 also.]

32

T h e Bishops are slipping in at least the propriety of m a k i n g requirements of fasting again (see footnote 10 on page 20 above).

32

THE

P R E F A C E S AND G E N E R A L

EXCEPTIONS

T h e A n s w e r of t h e Bishops

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

And yet nevertheless they will not hear it, and obey it in so small a matter, as a circumstance of time, place, habit, or the like, which she thinks decent and fit, and yet will be accounted for the best Christians, and tell us that it is the very awe of Gods law, Deut.12.32. that keeps them from obedience to the Church in these commands, not well considering that it cannot be adding to the Word of God, to command things for order and decency which the Word of God commands to be done so as they be not commanded as Gods immediate Word, but as the Laws of men, but that it is undenyably adding to the Word of God, to say that Superiours may not command such things, which God hath no where forbidden, and taking from the Word of God, to deny that power to men, which Gods Word hath forgiven them.*

Hampton-Court. If after so many years preaching of the Gospel, there he any yet unsatisfied, I doubt it proceeds rather out of stubbornnesse of opinion, than out of tendernesse of Conscience* If by tendernesse of Conscience they mean, a fearfulnesse to sin, this would make them most easy to be satisfied, because most fearful to disobey superiours. But suppose there be any so scrupulous, as not satisfied with what hath been written, the Church may still without sin urge her command for these decent Ceremonies, and not be guilty of offending her weak brother, for since the scandal is taken by him, not given by her, it is he that by vain scrupulosity offends himself, and layes the stumbling-block in his own way.

§10.ans.3.The command for decent Ceremonies may still continue in the Church, notwithstanding the 12. of Deut. and so it may too for all the exceptions taken against them, by sundry learned, pious, and Orthodox persons, who have judged them, they say, unwarrantable. And if Laws may be abrogated assoon as those who list not to obey will except against them, the world must run into confusion. But those that except are weak Brethren, whom by Christs Precept and example we must not offend. If by weak we understand ignorant, they would take it ill to be so accounted; and it is their own fault if they be, there having been much written, as may satisfy any that have a mind to be satisfied: And as King James of blessed memory said at * [Cardwell renders 'forgiven' as 'given' •• almost certainly correctly.l

§11. The case of St .Paul, not eating of flesh, if it offended his Brother, is nothing to the purpose, who there speaks of things not commanded either by God, or by his Church, neither having in them any thing of decency, or significancy to serve in the Church, St. Paul would deny himself his own liberty, rather than offend his Brother, but if any man breaks a just Law or Custom of the Church, he brands her for a lover of Schism, and Sedition, 1 Cor.11.16. §12.ans.4. That these ceremonies have occasioned many divisions, is no more fault of theirs, then it was of the Gospel that the preaching of it occasioned strife, betwixt father and son, &c. The true cause of those divisions is the cause of ours, which S.¡am. tells us is Lust, and inordinate desires of honours, or wealth, or licentiousness, or the like; were these Ceremonies laid aside, there would be the same divisions, if some, who think Moses and Aaron took too much upon them, may be suffered to deceive the people, and to raise in them vain fears and jealousies of their Governours: but if all men would, as they ought, study peace and quietness, they would find other and better fruits of these Laws of Rites and Ceremonies, as edification, decency, order, and beauty in the service and worship of God. *IThis quotation is not distinguished in its typeface from its prose context in C D , but that must be in error.]

33

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

T h e A n s w e r of t h e Bishops §13.cer.3. There hath been so much said not only of the lawfulness, but also of the conveniences of those Ceremonies mentioned, that nothing can be added. This is in brief may here suffice for the Surplice, that reason and experience teaches, that decent ornaments, and habits, preserve reverence, and awe; held therefore necessary to the Solemnity of Royal Acts, and Acts of justice: and w h y not as well to the Solemnity of Religious Worship? And in particular no habit more suitable then white linnen, w h i c h resembles purity and beauty, wherein Angels have appeared, Rev.15. Fit for those w h o m the Scripture calls Angels; and this habit was ancient; Chrys.Ho.60 ad po. Antioch. §14. The cross was alwaies used in the C h u r c h in immortali lavacro, (Tertul.) A n d therefore to testify our C o m m u n i o n with them, as we are

33

34

35

REVISITED

T h e A n s w e r of t h e Bishops taught to d o in our Creed, as also in token that w e shall not be ashamed of the Cross of Christ, it is fit to be used still, and w e conceive cannot trouble the conscience of any that have a m i n d to be satisfied.33 §15. The posture of kneeling best suites at the C o m m u n i o n , as the most convenient, a n d so most decent for us, w h e n we are to receive, as it were from God's hand, the greatest of the Seals of the Kingdom of Heaven: he that thinks he may do this sitting, let him remember the prophet Mai. Offer this to thy Prince, t o receive his Seal, from his o w n hand sitting, see if he will accept of it. W h e n the Church did stand at her prayers, the manner of receiving was more adorantium. S.Aug.Psal.98. Cyril.Catech. Mystag.5. Rather more then at prayers, since standing at Prayer hath been generally left, and kneeling used instead of that, (as the Church may vary in such indifferent things); n o w to stand at C o m m u n i o n , w h e n we keel at Prayers were not decent, much lesse to sit, w h i c h was never the use of the best times. 34

Both sides seem to have lost sight of a historical oddity of the sign of the cross in baptism, that in 1549 there w e r e five places in the text where black crosses appeared in the text, and in 1552 all these had gone, and the only remaining use of the sign was this once in baptism (where it w a s explained). But had Cranmer reckoned to cut it out at the next revision? C r a n m e r himself thought kneeling for c o m m u n i o n almost inevitable if the congregation w e r e kneeling for most of the rest of the service. But the Presbyterians could well have queried the propriety of ever kneeling for prayer if it w e r e conceded that standing was primitive. [Printed here for page 35 opposite] A m o d e r n eye may detect each side giving away more than they may have meant to to their opponents. The Presbyterians seem to be saying that an actual proven use of the first three centuries should be accorded 'primitive Authority' (a very dangerous concept for them - though it may be protected by the assurance that anything unwelcome to the Presbyterians could and would be deemed 'spurious' or 'interpolated', so that no actual threat would be experienced). The Bishops on the other hand, if they were interested in a 'Prayer of Consecration' on the 1637 model, could well have replied: that of course the Liturgies of Basil, Chrysostom and Ambrose were authentic, that they should not be doubted on the predictable grounds that they did not fit the Presbyterians' presuppositions or desiderata, and that the King's commission clearly provided them as models. As it was, although Benedicite in particular was provocative (see P7, page 38 below), the liturgical material they state they wish to retrieve from the past is somewhat exiguous. T h e last sentence cannot help but raise a smile - the initial presumption being that for a liturgy to be in force, it would have to have been prescribed by a General Council; and the derivative of there being no Acts of Uniformity about liturgy (or their equivalent) in the early Councils was that the rites must therefore have been in use from the very first days of the church. It is as well that the Bishops suspended only Sursum Corda and the few other agreed items upon this principle.

T H E P R E F A C E S AND G E N E R A L General Exception

EXCEPTIONS

T h e A n s w e r of t h e B i s h o p s

19 As to that Passage in his Majesty's Commission, where we are authorized, and required to compare the present Liturgy, with the most ancient Liturgies which have been used in the Church, in the most purest and primitive Times; We have in Obedience to his Majesty's Commission, m a d e Enquiry, but cannot find any Records of known Credit, concerning any entire Forms of Liturgy, within the first Three hundred years, which are confessed to be as the most primitive, so the purest Ages of the Church, nor any Impositions of Liturgies upon any National church for some hundreds of years after, We find indeed some Liturgical Forms fathered upon St ..Basil, St .Chrysostome, and St. Ambrose, but we have not seen any Copies of them, but such as give us sufficient Evidence to conclude them either wholly spurious, or so interpolated, that we cannot make a judgment which in them hath any primitive Authority.

§16. That there were ancient Liturgies in the Church is evident: S.Chrysostom, S.Basil and others; and the Creeks tell us of StJames's, much elder then they; and though we find not in all ages whole Liturgies, yet it is certain there were such in the oldest times, by those parts which are extant, as Sursum Corda &c. Gloria Patri &c. Benedicite, Hymnus, Cherubinus &c., Vere dignum & justum &c., Dominus vobiscum. Et cum spiritu tuo, with divers others. Though those that are extant may be interpolated, yet such things as are found in them all consistent to Catholick and primitive doctrine, may well be presumed to have been from the first, especially since we find no original of these Liturgies from general Councils.35

4

The Particular Exceptions Having thus in general expressed our Desires, we come now to particulars, which we find numerous, and of a vanous nature; some, we grant, are of infenour Consideration, verbal rather than material (which, were they not in the publick Liturgy of so famous a Church, we should not have mentioned) others dubious and disputable, as not having a clear Foundation in Scripture for their warrant: but some there be that seem to be corrupt, and to carry in them a repugnancy to the Rule of the Gospel; and therefore have admirastred just Matter of Exception and Offence to many, truly religious, and peaceable; not of a private station only but learned and judicious Divines, as well of other Reformed Churches, as of the Church of England, ever since the Reformation. We know much hath been spoken and wntten byway of Apology; in Answer to many things that have been objected; but yet the Doubts and Scruples of Tfender Consciences still continue, or rather are increased. We do humbly conceive it therefore a Work worthy of those Wonders of Salvation, which hath wrought for his Majesty now on the Throne, and for the whole Kingdom, and exceedingly becoming the Ministers of the Gospel of Fteace, with all holy moderation and tenderness to endeavour the removal of every thing out of the worship of God which may justly offend or grieve the spirits of sober and godly people. The things themselves that are desired to be removed, not being of the foundation of religion, nor the essentials of publick worship, nor the rmoval of them in any way tending to the prejudice of the church or state: therefore their continuance and rigorous imposition can no ways be able to countervail the laying aside of so many pious and able ministers, and the unconceivable grief that will arise to multitudes ofhis Majestys most loyal and peaceable subjects, who upon all occasions are ready to serve him with their prayers, estates, and lives. For the preventing of which evils we humbly desire that these particulars following may be taken into serious and tender consideration. 35

[This note is sel out o n p a g e 34 facing]

35

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book

REVISITED

Exception

Concerning Morning and Evening Prayer. Exception. [1 ]Tliat Morning and Evening Prayer We desire that the words of the first Rubrick may be shall be used in the accustomed place expressed as in the Book established by Authority of of the Church, Chancel or Chap-pel, Parliament 5 &6Edw. 6. Thus [the Morning and except it be otherwise determined by Evening Prayer shall be used in such place of the the Ordinary of the place, and the Church, Chappel, or Chancel, and the Minister shall Chancel shall remain as in times past. so turn him, as the People may best hear, and if 1559: there be any Controversie therein, the matter shall That]The be referred to the Ordinary. Rubrick.

Chancel or Chappd] chapel or Chancel it be]it shall be Chancel shall remain as] chancels shall remain, as they have done [the comma is missing in DB and L'Estrange] Rubrick.

[2]And here is to be noted, thai the Minister, at the time of the Communion, and at other times, in his Ministration, shall use such Ornaments in the Church, as were in use by Authority of Parliament, in the Second year of the Reign of Edward the Sixth, according to the Act of Parliament.

Exception. Forasmuch as this Rubrick seemeth to bring back the Cope, Albe, &c. and other Vestments forbidden by the Common Prayer Book, 5 and 6 Edw.G. and so our Reasons alledged against Ceremonies under our Eighteenth general Exception, we desire it may be wholly left out.

1559: at other limes, in his] at all other times in his [The 'all' is missing in DB) Rubrick.

[3]The Lord's Prayer after the Absolution ends thus, Deliver us from Evil.

Exception. We desire that these words, For thme is the Kingdom, the power and the glory for ever and ever, Amen. May be always added unto the Lord's Prayer;

[Not a direct quotation from 1559]

[4] [Frequency of Lord's Prayer]

and that this Prayer may not be enjoyned to be so often used in Morning and Evening Service.

36

PARTICULAR

Answer

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

We think it fit that the Rubrick stand Background: The rubric of 1 5 5 2 ought to as it is, and all be left to the discretion have been in 1 5 5 9 Csee Appendix 1 : of the Ordinary. Ornaments). The omission of a comma after 'remain'has affected the t e x t since 1 5 5 9 . Theology: The Presbyterians are probably here haunted by Laud; 1 5 5 9 gives interventionary powers to the bishop, whereas 1 5 5 2 does not. Outcome: The Ornaments rubric was marginally changed [see Appendix 1); the comma remained lost from the direction about chancels; and the bishop retained his powers. For the reasons given in our Answer to the 18th General, whither you refer us, we think it fit that the Rubrick continue as it is.

Background: The 1 5 5 9 A c t did indeed seem to refer to cope etc. S e e Appendix 1. Theology: The Answer to G 1 8 does not touch on m a s s vestments but only refers to the surplice without meeting the point made. Outcome: The rubric w a s changed to repeat the words of the 1 5 5 9 A c t exactly, omitting reference to ' the time of the Communion', but leaving a s many enigmas.

These words For thine is the Kingdom, &c., are not in S.Luke, nor in the antient copies of St. Matth, never mentioned in the antient Comments, nor used in the Latin Church, and therefore questioned whether they be part of the Gospel: there is no reason that they should be alwayes used.

Background: There was no doxology in 1549/ 1 5 5 2 etc. The Reply shows the issue was raised by the AV of Matt. 6 . 3 [itself incorrect]. Theology: The Answer would appear to be correct, but does not deal with the AV Outcome: The doxology w a s added in the first use in Morning and Evening Prayer and the post-communion use in the eucharist, but not elsewhere.

It is used but twice in the morning, and twice in the Evening Service, and Iwice cannot be called often, much lesse so often. For the Letany, Communion, Baptism, &c. they are Offices distinct from morning and evening prayer, and it is not fit that any of them should want the Lords Prayer.

Background: The second use came when confession e t c were added a t the beginning of Morning and Evening Prayer in 1 5 5 2 Theology: The A n s w e r does not quite manage to justify its being used twice in a service, Outcome: No change,

37

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book

Exception

Rubrick. [5]And at the end of every Psalm throughout the year, and likewise in the end of Benedictas, Benedicite, Magnificat, & Nunc Dimitís, shall be repeated, Glory to the Father, &c.

Exception. By this Rubrick, and other places in the Common Prayer Books, the Gloria Patri, is appointed to be said six times ordinarily in every Morning and Evening Service, frequently eight times in a Morning; sometimes ten, which we think carries with it at least an appearance of that vain repetition which Christ forbids; for the avoiding of which appearance of evil, we desire it may be used but once in the Morning, and once in the Evening.

1661: Dimitís] [Misprint (1559 a n d G D h a v e 'tt')] Glory to the Father] [Misprint omitting 1)e']

Rubrick.

[6]ln such places where they do sing, there shall the Lessons be sung, in a plain Tune, and likewise, the Epistle and Gospel. 1559: Tune, and]tune, after the manner of distinct reading: and

Exception. The Lessons, and the Epistles, and Gospels being for the most part neither Psalms nor Hymns, we know no warrant why they should be sung in any place, and conceive that the distinct Reading of them with an audible voice, tends more to the Edification of the Church.

Exception. We desire that some Psalm or Scripture Hymn may be appointed instead of that Apocryphal.

Rubrick.

[7]Or this Canticle, Benedicite omnia opera.

In the Letany. [8] [Re the Litany]

Rubrick.

[9]From all fornication, and all other deadly sin.

Exception. In regard that the wages of sin is death; we desire that this Clause may be thus altered, From Fornication, and all other heinous, or grievous sins.

1559: From all fornication] From fornication [NB: Sylvester calls this a 'Rubrick']

38

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

This Doxology being a solemn Confession of the blessed Trinity, should not be thought a burden to any Christian Liturgy, especially being so short as it is: neither is the repetition of it to be thought a vain repetition, more than His mercy endureth for ever, so often repeated, Psal. 136. We cannot give God too much glory; that being the end of our Creation, and should be the end of all our Services.

Background: Any weighty r e p e t i t i o n w a s likely t o have t h e Exceptions raising t h e s p e c t r e of 'vain r e p e t i t i o n s ' . Theology: The A n s w e r c i t e s a r e l e v a n t passage in Psalm 1 3 6 , b u t would have been m o r e telling if t h e y had urged t h e need t o p u t a C h r i s t i a n face upon t h e use of Old T e s t a m e n t Psalms. The Reply c i t e s ' C h r i s t ' s prohibition of b a t t o l o g y ' l Outcome: No change.

The Rubr. directs only such singing, as is after the manner of distinct reading, and we never heard of any inconvenience thereby, and therefore conceive this Demand to be need lesse.

Background: The Puritans w e r e always suspicious of singing, especially of prose. Theology: The only issue was clarity and naturalness in conveying t h e t e x t of S c r i p t u r e . It was no surprise t h e bishops had heard no 'inconvenience' while t h e BCP w a s o u t of use! Outcome: N e v e r t h e l e s s t h e r u b r i c w a s abolished.

This Hymn was used all the Church over, Cone. Tolet.Can.13. and therefore should be continued still, as well as Te Deum (Ruffin. Apol. cont. Hieron.) or Veni Creator, which they do not object against as Apocryphal.

Background: Benedicite is f r o m t h e Apocrypha [From The Song of t h e T h r e e Holy Children, i n s e r t e d into t h e book of Daniel, b e t w e e n 3 . 2 3 and 3.243; it c a m e i n t o 1 5 5 2 as a l t e r n a t i v e t o Te Deum. Theology: The A n s w e r mocks t h e P r e s b y t e r i a n s f o r valuing A p o c r y p h a l m a t e r i a l less t h a n o t h e r non-biblical liturgical compilations. Outcome: No change re t h e B e n e d i c i t e , b u t m o r e use of t h e Apocrypha overall.

Background: The whole litany s t y l e of p r a y e r The alterations here desired are so nice, as if they that made them were is unwelcome t o t h e Puritans. Theology: The A n s w e r looks a c c u r a t e . given to change. Outcome: No change. From all other deadly sin, is better, than, From all other hainous sin] upon the reason here given; because the wages of sin is death.

Background: No previous c o m p l a i n t had been raised. Theology: The Reply s h o w s a f e a r l e s t t h e r e be t w o kinds of sin, ' m o r t a l ' and 'venial'. Outcome: No change.

39

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k

REVISITED

Exception

Rubrick.

Exception.

[10] From Battel, and Murther, and Because this Expression oisudden death hath been sudden Death. so often excepted against, we desire, if it be thought fit, it may be thus read, From battel and murther, and 1559: from dying suddenly, and unprepared. and sudden] and from sudden [NB: Sylvester calls this a 'Rubrick'] Rubrick.

Exception.

[11]That it may please thee to preserve all that travel by land or by water, all women labouring with child, all sick persons, and young children, and to show thy pity upon all prisoners and captives.

We desire the term (fill) may be advised upon, as seeming liable to just Exceptions, and that it may be considered, whether it may not be better put indefinitely, those that travel, &c. rather than universally.

1559: with child] of child [NB: Sylvester calls this a 'Rubrick']

The Collect on Christmas Day. Rubrick.

Exception.

[12]Almighty God, which hast We desire that in both Collects the word (This day) given us thy only begotten Son, to may be left out, it being according to vulgar take our Nature upon him, and this acceptation a Contradiction, day to be born of a pure Virgin, &c. [NB: Sylvester calls this a 'Rubrick'] Rubrick.

[13]Then sMl follow the Collect of the Nativity, which shall be said continually unto New-years-day. The Collect for Whitsunday. Rubrick.

[14]God which upon this day, &c

[This is included on P12 above.]

1559: which upon] which as upon [NB: Sylvester calls this a 'Rubrick'] Rubrick.

[15]The same Collect to be read on Monday and Tuesday in Whitson-week. [Not a direct quotation from 1559]

40

PARTICULAR

Answer

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

From sudden death, as good as, From Background: The Latin original was mors dying suddenly, which therefore we improvisa, which is undertranslated by pray against, that we may not be 'sudden'. unprepared. Theology: Christians should not fear 'sudden death' [if prepared). Outcome: No change. [All that travel] as little lyable to exception as [those that travel,] and more agreeable to the phrase of Scripture, 1 Tim.7.2.1 will that prayers be made for all men.

Background: There was no previous complaint Theology: The distinction made is too subtle to follow easily. However the Reply cites The Spanish Armada [and others) as travellers for whom we should not pray. Outcome: No change.

[No Answer]

Background: Festival days, apart from sabbaths, were very suspect to Puritans anyway, even without further problems. Theology: Dating the birth of Christ is very difficult [but see the Answer to P28 below!). Outcome: No Answers were given here, and C4 accepts the principles. Actual wording of 1662 differs slightly.

[No Answer]

Background: This collect dates equally from 1549, with this same problem. Theology: Dating Whitsunday has a better basis than Christmas [though the result is moveable). Outcome: A change was made in 1B62.

41

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book

Exception. We desire that these Collects may be further [16]The two Collects for St. John's Day, and Innocents, the Collects for considered and debated, as having in them, divers the first day in Lent, for the fourth things that we judge fit to be altered. Sunday after Easter, for Trinity Sunday, for the sixth and twelfth Sunday after Trinity, for St. Luke's day, and Michaelmas day. Rubrick.

[Not a direct quotation from 1559 - note also that the last two are out of order]

The Order for the Administration of the Lord's Supper. Exception. [17]So many as intend to be partakers The time here assigned for notice to be given to the of the Holy Communion shall signifie Minister, is not sufficient. their Names to the Curate over-night, or else in the Morning before the beginning of Morning Prayer, or immediately after. Rubrick.

1559: before] afore

Rubrick.

[18]And if any of these be a notorious evil liver, the Curate having knowledge thereof, shall call him and advertize him in any wise not to presume to the Lord's Table.

Exception. We desire the Ministers power both to admit and keep from the Lord's Thble, may be according to his Majesty's Declaration, 25 Octob. 1660. in these words, The Minister

shall admit none to the

Supper, till they have made a credible their Faith, and promised

1559: evil liver, the Curate] evil liver, so that the congregation by him is offended, or have done any wrong to his neighbour by word or deed: the Curate

Obedience

as is expressed

Considerations

of the Rubrick, before

and that all possible

for the Instruction Offenders, partake

in the the

diligence

and Reformation

whom the Minister

of

to the Will of

God, according Catechism,

Lord's

Profession

of

be used

Scandalous

shall not suffer to

of the Lord's

7hble, until they have

openly

declared

themselves

to have truly repented

and

amended

their former naughty lives, as is partly

expressed

in the Rubrick, and more fully in the

Canons.

42

PARTICULAR

Answer

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

We do not find, nor do they say, what is to be amended in these Collects; therefore to say any thing particularly, were to answer to we know not what.

Even the greatest sympathizer with the Presbyterians has t o applaud the Answer here. It is impossible t o detect common threads or even occasional errors in virtually all the collects cited; and Cranmer's collects of the first day of Lent and of Trinity Sunday are among his classics. Nevertheless, almost all the others mentioned were re-touched in 1BB2; and the Reply meets the Answer by pointing out t h a t the Presbyterians had hoped to meet the Bishops and speak about details.

[No Answer]

Background: The rubric stood in this form from 1 5 4 9 twhen it proved very difficult t o persuade t h e people t o receive communion]. But in Elizabeth's reign the p a t t e r n began of communion following immediately upon Morning Prayer which eliminated t h e notice. Theology: The notice is intended t o give the Curate scope t o deal with m a t t e r s of reconciliation and repentance in advance. Outcome: There was no Answer, but the Bishops allow C5, and t h e 1 6 6 2 rubric duly reads, ' ...at least some time the day before.'

[No Answer]

Background: The Presbyterians wanted full power of discipline t o lie with the minister in the local church, and this appears to be granted by the 1552 rubric. However, the Worcester House Declaration appeared to offer a more contemporary expression, if the Bishops were wanting the bishop brought into the matter Theology: The citation of the Worcester House Declaration draws from a part which is actually about qualifications for confirmation [on which the t e x t insists], and t h e disciplinary question is tacked on to that. It is Canon 2 6 of 1 6 0 4 t o which the King refers. Outcome: The Bishops allow a more specific banning from Communion, but insist t h a t offenders must be reported t o them. See C6. The 1 6 6 2 rubric requires reference t o the bishop, which earlier versions had not. 43

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k

Exception. Rubrick. [19]TiiCT2 shall the Priest rehearse We desire, distinctly all the ten 1 .That the Preface, prefixed by God himself to the ten Commandments, and the People Commandments, may be restored, kneeling, shall after every 2. That the fourth Commandment may be read as in Commandment ask God's mercy forExod.20. Deut.5. He blessed the Sabbath day. transgressing the same. 3.That neither Minister nor People may be enjoyned to kneel more at the reading of this, than of other parts of 1559: Scriptures, the rather because many ignorant Persons for transgressing the same] for Ihcir are thereby induced to use the Tbn Commandments as a transgression of the same Prayer. 4.That, instead of those short Prayers of the Fteople intermixed with the several Commandments, the Minister, after the reading of all may conclude with a suitable Prayer. Rubrick.

[20]After the Creed, if there be no Sermon, shall follow one of the Homilies already set forth, or hereafter to be set forth by common Authority.

Exception.

We desire that the Preaching of the Word may be strictly enjoined, and not left so indifferent at the Administration of the Sacraments, as also that Ministers may not be bound to those things which are are as yet but future and not in being. are are] [error in Sylvester]

[21 ]After such Sermon, Homily, or TWo of the Sentences here cited are Apocryphal, and Exhortation, the Curate shall four of them more proper to draw out the Peoples Bounty declare, &c., and earnestly exhort to their Ministers, than their Charity to the Poor. them to remember the Poor, saying one or more of these sentences following.

[22]Then shall the Churchwardens, Collection for the Poor may be better made at or a little or some other by them appointed, before the departing of the Communicants. gather the Devotion of the People.

44

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

To say [Lord have mercy upon us], after every Commandment is more quick and active, than to say it once at the Close, and why Christian people should not upon their knees ask their pardon for their life forfeited for the breach of every Commandment, and pray for Grace to keep them for the time to come, they must be more than Ignorant that can scruple.

Background: 1552 had turned the Kyries into ten penitential and aspinational responses to the Decalogue. Theology: The Presbyterians set out a range of their classic desires— viz. Exodus 20.2 in full; 'sabbath'; and no responses. They added the ludicrous notion t h a t kneeling will favour the idea that God's commands are really liturgical prayers. Outcome: No change (but see C7).

Some Livings are so small, that they Background: In 1549, the Homilies [the are not able to maintain a licenced First Book is dated 1547] were for clergy Preacher, and in such and the like not trusted with a licence to preach. The Cases this provision is necessary: nor Second Book was from Elizabeth's reign [see can any reason be given, why the Article XXXV). Minister's reading a Homily, set forth Theology: The Presbyterians rejected any idea of by common Authority, should not be non-preaching clergy. The Answer about small accompted preaching of the Word, livings looks weak and the Reply is scathing, as well as his reading (or pronouncing Outcome: Little change of substance, but by heart) a Homilie, or Sermon of his the rubric begins ' Then shall follow the own, or any other mans. Sermon, or one of the Homilies...'. The Sentences tend all to exhort the people to pious liberalise, whether the Object be the Minister, or the Poor, and though some of the Sentences be Apocryphal, they may be useful for that purpose

Background: Offertory Sentences date from 1549 [when giving to the poor replaced the offertory of elements), and two sentences from Tobit were included. Theology: The Apocrypha was a red rag to the Presbyterians; but their fussy point about giving to ministers is good in logic. Outcome: No change.

Why collection for the poor, should Background: The offertory of money, at the end be made at another time, there is no of the ante-communion in 1549, and near the reason given, onely change desired, end of it in 1552, thus came near the end of the usual service; so it could hardly come later Theology: The Answer is right, as the Exception is not argued Outcome: No change.

45

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book

REVISITED

Exception

Exhortation.

[23]We be come together at this time If it be intended that these Exhortations should be to feed at the Lords Supper, unto the read at the Communion, they seem to us to be which in Gods behalf I bid you all unseasonable. that be here present, and beseech you for the Lord Jesus Christ sake that ye will not refuse to come, &c. [24] The way and means thereto is first to examine your Lives and Conversations, and if ye shall perceive your offences to be such as be not only against God, but also against your Neighbours, then ye shall reconcile your selves unto them, and be ready to make Restitution and Satisfaction. [23 and 24 come from the first and third long exhortations in 1559]

[25]And because it is requisite that We fear this may discourage many from coming to the Sacrament, who lye under a doubting and no man should come to the holy Communion, but with a full trust troubled Conscience. in God's mercy and with a quiet Conscience.

Before the Confession.

[26]Then shall this general Confession We desire that it may be made by the Minister only. be made in the name of all those that are minded to receive the holy Communion either by one of them, or else by one of the Ministers, or by the Priest himself.

46

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The first and third Exhortations are very seasonable before the Communion, to put men in mind how they ought to be prepared; and in what danger they are, to come unprepared; that, if they be not duly qualified, they may depart, and be better prepared another time.

Background: The Exhortations were a large part of the hortatory and didactic reformed elements in 1549 and 1552, and fulfil virtually every Presbyterian criterion. Theology: The Answer expresses the purpose of the Exhortations well. It is hard to see how the Exception could be sustained on a reformed basis. Outcome: The Exhortations remained textually much the same, but with not only the order changed of the first two, but also a new use of these two as being both optional alternatives to give warning in advance of the celebration, which thus met the actual point of the Exception.

Certainly themselves cannot desire, that men should come to the holy Communion with a troubled conscience, and therefore have no reason to blame the Church for saying, It is requisite, that men come with a quiet conscience, and prescribing meanes for quieting thereof: If this be to discourage men, it is fit they should be discouraged and deterred, and kept from the Communion, till they have done all that is here directed by the Church, which they may well do, considering that this Exhortation shall be read in the Church, the Sunday, or Holiday before.

Background: 1552 of all texts puts up the highest barriers to receiving communion. The rubric is not explicit about it being for the 'Sunday or Holiday before', but that use fits, Theology: Both sides are concerned lest the over-scrupulous be discouraged; yet the Presbyterians, who might have been expected to be the stricter party [see P34 and P69], appear here as the less strict, But the Exhortation goes on to help those with a 'doubting and troubled conscience', Outcome: No change, but the text and rubrics make it clear it is for the Sunday before,

[No Answer]

Background: 1548/1549/1552 assume one representative person speaks the confession; ' the priest himself' is but third option, perhaps to free him to absolve the people. Theology: The Presbyterians on principle want only the minister speaking. Outcome: The Bishops allow a compromise at C9. 47

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k

REVISITED

Exception

Before the Confession.

[27] 77KM shall the Priest or the Bishop (being present) stand up, and turning himself to the people say thus.

Before the Preface on Christmas day and 7 days after. [28]Because thou didst give Jesus Christ thine only Son to be born as this Day for us, &c.

The Minister turning himself to the People is most convenient throughout the whole Ministration.

First, we cannot peremptorily fix the Nativity of our Saviour to this or that day particularly: Secondly, it seems incongruous to affirm the Birth of Chnst and the descending of the Holy Ghost to be on this day for seven or eight days together.

Upon Whitsunday, and six days after. [29]According to whose most true promise the Holy Ghost came down this day from Heaven.

P r a y e r b e f o r e that w h i c h is at the Consecration.

[30lGrant us that our sinful bodies may be made clean by his Body and our Souls washed through his most precious blood. 1559: Grant us that] Grant us therefore (gracious Lord) so to eat the flesh of thy dear Son Jesus Christ, and to drink his blood, that

Prayer at the Consecration [31]Hear us O merciful Father, be., who in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had given thanks, he brake it,and gave to his Disciples, saying, Take, eat, &c.

We desire, that whereas these Words seem to give a greater efficacy to the Blood than to the Body of Christ, they may be altered thus,That our

sinful souls and bodies maybe cleansed through his precious Body and Blood.

We conceive that the manner of the consecrating of the Elements is not here explicite and distinct enough, and the Ministers breaking of the Bread is not so much as mentioned,

1559: gave tolgave it to

48

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The Minister's turning to the people, is not most convenient throughout the whole Ministration: When he speaks to them as in Lessons, Absolution, and Benedictions, it is convenient that he turn to them; when he speaks for them to God, it is fit that they should all turn another way, as the ancient Church ever did; the reasons of which you may see Aug.lib.2.,de Ser.Dom. in monte.

Background: The r u b r i c d a t e s f r o m 1 5 4 8 when E a s t w a r d p o s i t i o n w a s used, b u t w a s kept in 1 5 5 2 w h e n t h e positions of t a b l e s and m i n i s t e r s w e r e changed. Theology: By 1 6 6 1 it m u s t be assumed t h a t t h e normal position is ' N o r t h Side' of a table against t h e East wall, t h e minister facing South till he t u r n s t o t h e people. The Answer e r e c t s a theology out of contingent recent history. Outcome: No change.

It appears by the greatest evidences of Antiquity, that it was upon the 25. day of Decemb. S.Aug in Psal. 132.

Background: The origins of C h r i s t m a s [and i t s dating] a r e d i s p u t e d , but 2 5 D e c e m b e r is certainly a n c i e n t . Theology: The P r e s b y t e r i a n s w e r e h e s i t a n t about C h r i s t m a s anyway [and see P 1 2 and P 1 3 above]. The Exception re ' t h i s day' has no Answer, b u t is conceded a t C4. Outcome: A s s h o w n a t C4.

It can no more be said, those words do give greater efficacy to the blood, then to the body of Christ, then when our Lord saith, This is my blood which is shed for you, and for many; for the remission of sins, &c. And saith not so explicitly of the Body.

Background: This d i s t i n c t i o n of roles as b e t w e e n body and blood began in 1 5 4 8 [when t h e w o r d s of d i s t r i b u t i o n also m a t c h e d i t j , and c o n t i n u e d in 1 5 4 9 and 1552. Theology: The Exception is reasonable, t h e A n s w e r defensive. Outcome: No change.

[No Answer]

Background: In 1 5 5 2 all s u g g e s t i o n of an objective ' c o n s e c r a t i o n ' w a s removed. The idea c r e p t back. See Appendix 2. Theology: The Exception held t h e field. Outcome: The Bishops conceded C 1 D — b u t see Appendix 2.

49

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k Rubrick

[32]Then shall the Minister first receive the Communion in both kinds, &c., and after deliver it to the people in their hands, kneeling; and when he delivereth the bread, he shall say, The Body of our Lord Jesus Christ which was given for thee, preserve thy body and soul unto everlasting Life, and take and eat this in Remembrance, &c.

REVISITED

Exception We desire, that at the Distribution of the Bread and Wine to the Communicants, we may use the Words of our Saviour as near as may be, and that the Minister be not required to deliver the Bread and Wine into every particular Communicants hand, and to repeat the words to each one in the singular number, but that it may suffice to speak to divers jointly according to our Saviours Example.

1559: after deliver it to] after to untolinto [misprint? But used for both bread and wine, though 1549 has 'unto']

[33] [Kneeling to receive communion]

Rubrick.

[34] And note, that every Parishioner shall Communicate at the least three times in the year, of which Easter to be one, and shall also receive the Sacraments and other Rites, according to the Orders in this Book appointed. 1559

orderslorder

We also desire, that the Kneeling at the Sacrament (it being not that Gesture which the Apostles used, though Christ was personally present amongst them, nor that which was used in the purest and primitive times of the Church) may be left free, as it was 1. and 2. EDW. As touching Kneeling, &c, they may be used or left as every Mans Devotion serveth, without blame.

Exception. Forasmuch as every Parishioner is not duly qualified for the Lord's Supper, and those habitually prepared are not at all times actually disposed, but many may be hindered by the Providence of God, and some by the Distemper of their own Spirits; we desire this Rubrick may be either wholly omitted, or thus altered: Every Minister shall be bound to administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper at least thrice a Year, provided there be a due number of Communicants manifesting their Desires to receive. [The rubric is printed, erroneously, in Roman type in Sylvester.]

50

PARTICULAR Answer

EXCEPTIONS Notes

It is most requisite that the Minister deliver the Bread and Wine into every particular Communicant's hand, and repeat the words in the singular number; for so much as it is the propriety of Sacraments to make particular obsignation to each Believer, and it is our visible profession, that by the Grace of Cod, Christ tasted death for every man.

B a c k g r o u n d : 1 5 5 9 had combined t h e w o r d s of distribution into a lengthy formula t o be s a i d t o e a c h recipient individually. Theology: The Presbyterians wished to have the elements handed round, with ministerial words said t o all or many a t once (as at the L a s t Supper—and a s exemplified in the Director O u t c o m e : The A n s w e r (ignoring t h e s c r i p t u r a l n a r r a t i v e s ) held t h e floor—no c h a n g e w a s made.

Concerning Kneeling at the Sacrament we have given account already: only thus much we adde, that we conceive it an errour to say that the Scripture affirms the Apostles to have received not-kneeling. The posture of the Paschal Supper we know, but the institution of the holy Sacrament was after Supper; and what posture was then used the Scripture is silent. The Rubr. at the end of the 7. £d.C. that leaves kneeling, crossing, &c, indifferent, is meant only at such times as they are not prescribed, and required. But at the Eucharist, kneeling is expresly required in the Rubr. following.

B a c k g r o u n d : The h i s t o r y of t h e requirement t o kneel underlies everything here, s e e G 1 8 and P 3 5 . Theology: While t h e B i s h o p s a t root simply w i s h t o affirm t h a t t h e C h u r c h h a s power t o c o m m a n d godly c e r e m o n i e s , yet t h e i r felt need t o m e e t t h e P r e s b y t e r i a n s on t h e i r own ground of s c r i p t u r e leads t h e m into real oddities of e x e g e s i s . O u t c o m e : The D e c l a r a t i o n on Kneeling w a s r e s t o r e d ( s e e P 3 5 below].

This desire to have the Parishioners at liberty, whether they will ever receive the Communion or not, savours of too much neglect, and coldness of affection towards the holy Sacrament: It is more fitting that order should be taken to bring it into more frequent use, as it was in the first, and best times; Our Rubr. is directly according to the ancient Council of Eliberis C.87. Gratian de Consecrat. no man is to be accounted a good Catholick Christian that does not receive three times in the year: The distempers which indispose men to it, must be corrected, not the receiving of the Sacrament therefore omitted: It is a pitiful I pretence to say, they are not fit, and make their sin their excuse; Formerly our Church was quarrelled at for not compelling men to the Communion, now for urging men; how should she please?

B a c k g r o u n d : The r e q u i r e m e n t of t h r e e t i m e s a y e a r in 1 5 5 2 replaced once a year in 1 5 4 9 , which reflected medieval p r a c t i c e . Theology: The P r e s b y t e r i a n s here s e e m t o leave t h e individual's communicating t o depend upon very subjective f a c t o r s . O u t c o m e : No s u b s t a n t i a l change.

51

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book [35] [Declaration on Kneeling]

Exception And we desire that the following Rubrick in the Common-PrayerBook, in 5 and 6 Edw., established by Law as much as any other part of the Common-Prayer-Book, may be restored for the vindicating of our Church in the matter of Kneeling at the Sacrament (although the Gesture b e left indifferent) [Although no order can be so perfectly 'devised but it maybe

of some, either for their Ignorance

'Infirmity, or else of Malice 'depraved, 'brotherly

and Obstinacy,

and interpreted

in a wrong part; and yet,

'Offences should be taken away; therefore 'the same. Whereas 'kneeling

it is ordained of the Lord's

should receive

'Receivers,

in the Book of

'Kneelingmight

and and disorder

that any Adoration

which

We do declare,

that

is done or ought to be

Bread or Wine, there

or unto any real and essential Presence

'Christ's natural Flesh and Blood: For as concerning 'Sacramental

Bread and Wme, they remain

'Substances,

and therefore

to be abhorred

thingbeing

grateful

might else ensue, lest yet the same

'done either unto the Sacramental

'Idolatry

Communicant

which

of the humble and

be thought or taken otherwise,

'it is not meant thereby

Common-Prayer,

Supper, that the

and to avoid the prophanation

'about the holy Communion

may be,

are we willing to do

the holy Communion,

'weE meant for a signiScation

'received,

because

Charity willeth that so much as conveniently

'in the Administration

and

misconstrued,

bodily

there being

still in their very

may not be adored; for that

of all faithful Christians:

of

the natural

were

and as

concerning

'the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour Christ, they are in 'Heaven'and

not here, for it is against the Huth of Christ's

'Body to be in more places

natural

than in one at one time.

OfPublick Baptism. There being divers Learned, Pious and Peaceable Ministers, [36] [Admission to infant who not only judge it unlawful to Baptize Children, whose baptism] F&rents both of them are Atheists, Infidels, Hereticks, or Unbaptised, but also such whose Fkrents are Excommunicate Persons, Fornicators, or otherwise notorious and scandalous Sinners; We desire they may not be enforced to Baptize the Children of such until they have made due Profession of their Repentance.

52

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

This Rubr. is not in the Liturgy of Queen Elizabeth, nor confirmed by Law, nor is there any great need of restoring it; the World being now in more danger of profanation, then of Idolatry: besides the sense of it, is declared sufficiently in the 28. Article of the Church of England: The time appointed we conceive sufficient. [The last sentence is misplaced and should be the Answer to P37 below.]

Background: In 1552 the 'Black Rubric' [a 19th century title) was inserted by Order in Council after printing had started, when John Knox preached against the requirement of kneeling. The Exception wants the kneeling optional ['the Gesture. . . indifferent'), and the explanation restored. Elizabeth's Act restored 1552 [with stated changes and no mention of this Declaration; but the Answer is stronger in law as the Act restored precisely the Book annexed Co the 1552Act—see Appendix 2. Was the Exception quoting the Declaration from LEstrange? Theology: The Answer accepts the theology of the Declaration, as set out in Article XXVIII. There is no attempt to explain the theology away. Outcome: Despite the dismissive Answer, at a late stage the Declaration was restored as the final rubric, with one change [see Appendix 2). It is in a different hand from the rest of the text in the manuscript Book annexed to the 1BB2 Act.

We think this desire to be very hard and uncharitable, punishing the poor Infants for the Parents sakes; and giving also too great and arbitrary a power to judge which of his Parishioners he pleaseth, Atheists, Infidels, Hereticks, &c. and then in that name to reject their children from being Baptized: Our Church concludes more charitably, that Christ will favourably accept every Infant to Baptism, that is presented by the Church according to our present Order: And this she concludes out of Holy Scriptures (as you may see in the Office of Baptism) according to the Practice and Doctrine of the Catholick Church, Cypr. Ep.59. August. Ep.28.& de verbApost.Ser.14. [In C D this is presented with text in roman and quotation in italic, in reverse from style of other Answers)

53

Background: In 1552 and the 1604 Canons the pressure is on the ministers to seek out unbaptized children and bring them to baptism. However, Presbyterian apologias for infant baptism were more restrictive, and suspended the qualification for inclusion in the covenant upon the faith of the parents. Theology: The Answer has a strongly ex opere operate air to it, calculated to make the Presbyterians polarize further—and it provoked a polemical and sarcastic Reply. Outcome: No change.

THE

SAVOY C O N F E R E N C E

REVISITED

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k Before

Rubrick.

[37]Parents shall give notice over night, or in the morning.

Baptism

Exception.

We desire that more timely notice may be given.

1559: notice]knowledge Rubrick.

[38]And the Godfathers, and the Godmothers, and the people with the Children, &c. 1559: the peopk]pcople

Rubrick.

[39]Ready at the Font.

In the first Prayer. [40] By the Baptism of thy Welbeloved Son, &c, didst sanctifie the Hood Jordan, and all other waters to the Mystical washing away of Sin, &c.

Exception. Here is no mention of the Parents, in whose right the Child is baptised, and who are fittest both to dedicate it unto God, and to covenant for it; we do not know that any Persons, except the Parents, or some others appointed by them, have any Power to consent for the Children, or to enter them into Covenant. We desire it may be left free to F&rents, whether they will have Sureties to undertake for their Children in Baptism or no.

We desire it may be so placed as all the Congregation may best see and hear the whole Administration.

It being doubtful whether either the Flood Jordan, or any other Waters were sanctified to a Sacamental Use, by Christ's being baptized, and not necessary to be asserted, we desire this may be otherwise expressed. ['Sacamental' is a delightful misprint in Sylvester.]

54

PARTICULAR

Answer

The time appointed we conceive sufficient. (In C D and Cardwell this is printed at end of Answer to P35 above, but it is clearly misplaced and responding to P37 here.l

It is an erronious doctrine, and the ground of many others, and of many of your Exceptions, that children have no other right to Baptism then in their Parents right. The Churches Primitive practise* forbids it to be left to the pleasure of Parents, whether there shall be other Sureties or no? It is fit we should observe carefully the practice of venerable Antiquity, as they desire Prop. 18.

EXCEPTIONS

Notes Background: Previous guidance concentrated on getting infants baptized quickly. Theology: The Presbyterians allege no reasons. Outcome: No change. Background: The Presbyterians had historically accepted the 1552 rite [save for the sign of the cross], but had always been restive about role of godparents. Theology: The Presbyterians reassert their covenant theology, in which parents must be tested if children are to be admitted to baptism, and proxies are inappropriate. Outcome: The parents receive the same mention as before, in the previous sentence (see P37 above); but there is no change to give them more prominence.

* [In marginl S.Aug.Ep.23.

The Font usually stands as it did in Primitive times, at or near the Church door, to signify that Baptism was the entrance into the Church mysticall, we are all baptized into one body,7 Cor. 72. 73. and the people may hear well enough.

Background: 1559 said nothing about the place of the font; but Canon 81 of 1604 says it is 'to be set in the ancient usual places'. Theology: The Presbyterians want the baptism audible and visible; the Bishops predictably go for allusive significance. Outcome: No change.

If Jordan and all other waters be not so far sanctified by Christ, as to be the matter of Baptism, what authority have we to baptise? and sure his Baptism was Dedicatio Baptismi.

Background: In 1552, despite this opening, in fact the prayer is simply prayer for the candidates, and there is [as in the eucharist) no objective 'sanctification' of the water Theology: As the rite later quotes Matt. 28.19 as warrant, it does not simply insist that Christian baptism stems from the baptism of Jesus in Jordan. The Reply asks whether all bread was sanctified by the Last Supper Outcome: The 'Flood' prayer is unchanged: but an objective 'consecration' (as in the eucharist) is added to the 1552 text later on.

55

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k The third Exhortation.

[41] Do promise by you that be their Sureties. The Questions.

[42] Doest thou forsake, &c. Doest thou believe, &c. Wilt thou be Baptized, &c.

T h e s e c o n d P r a y e r before Baptism.

[43]May receive remission of Sins by spiritual Regeneration.

REVISITED

Exception We know not by whatrightthe Sureties do promise and answer in the Name of the Infant: it seemeth to us also to countenance the Anabaptistical Opinion of the necessity of an actual Profession of Faith and Repentance in Order to Baptism. That such a Profession may be required of Ffcirents in their own Name, and now solemnly renewed when they present their Children to Baptism, we willingly grant: but the asking of one for another is a practice whose warrant we doubt of; and therefore we desire that the twofirstInterrogatories may be put to the Fiarents to be answered in their own Names, and the last propounded to the F&rents or Pro-parents thus, Will you have this Child Baptized into this Faith?

This expression seeming inconvenient, We desire it may be changed into this; Maybe regenerated and receive the Remission of Sins.

1559: sins]their sins [NB: this would be more plausibly described as the second prayer in the rite (which is what the heading must mean), and it comes before Exceptions 41 and 42]

In the Prayer after Baptism.

[44]That it hath pleased thee to regenerate this Infant by thy holy Spirit.

We cannot in Faith say that every Child that is baptized is regenerated by Cod's Holy Spirit at least it is a disputable point, and therefore we desire it maybe otherwise expressed.

1559: bylwith |NB: In 1559 this comes after Exception 451

56

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

It hath been accounted reasonable, and allowed by the best Laws, that Guardians should Covenant and contract for their Minors, to their benefit: by the same right, the Church hath appointed sureties to undertake for Children, when they enter into Covenant with God by Baptism; And this generall practice of the Church is enough to satisfy those that doubt.

Background: The proxy vows a t infant b a p t i s m date f r o m a l m o s t o u r e a r l i e s t d i r e c t evidence of infant baptism. They e n s u r e t h a t t h e expression of r e p e n t a n c e and f a i t h belong t o t h e candidate, n o t someone else, and t h a t t h e vows can properly be r a t i f i e d or renewed by t h e candidate a t c o n f i r m a t i o n , The 1 5 5 2 rubric read ' Then shall the Priest demand of the Godfathers and Godmothers these questions following, b u t it is clear t h e y a n s w e r for t h e infant. Theology: While infant b a p t i s m c a n n o t be justified solely by proxy vows, t h e d e s c r i p t i o n of t h e 'Anabaptistical Opinion' is w o r t h c o n s i d e r a t i o n - t h a t e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e r e p e n t a n c e and f a i t h of t h e c a n d i d a t e belong closely w i t h b a p t i s m , even, Anglicans m i g h t add, w i t h infant baptism. Outcome: Very little change, b u t 'in t h e name of t h i s Child' is added t o t h e f i r s t question.

Most proper for Baptism is our spiritual Background: The earlier P u r i t a n s do not Regeneration, S. John 3. Unlesse a man seem t o have disputed any b a p t i s m a l be born again of Water and the Spirit, language in t h e Prayer Book. &c. And by this is received remission of Theology: The point here is simply t h e logical sins, Acts 2.3. Repent, and be baptised one t h a t , although b a p t i s m is a s s o c i a t e d every one of you, for the remission of w i t h b o t h r e g e n e r a t i o n and forgiveness, t h e sins; So the Creed [one Baptism for the f o r m e r is n o t said in S c r i p t u r e t o convey t h e remission of sins.] l a t t e r Nor does t h e A n s w e r m e e t t h e point. [Acts 2 . 3 is a misprint for 2 . 3 9 1 Outcome: No change.

Seeing that Gods Sacraments have their effects, where the Receiver doth not ponere obicem, put any bar against them (which children cannot do); we may say in faith of every child that is baptized, that it is regenerated by Gods Holy Spirit, and the denial of it tends to Anabaptism, and the contempt of this holy Sacrament, as nothing worthy nor material, whether it be administered to children or no:

Background: During a c e n t u r y of c o m p l a i n t s a b o u t t h e sign of t h e c r o s s in b a p t i s m , no P u r i t a n s objected t o t h i s clause, until t h e Laudian school arose, Theology: The Laudian A n s w e r does n o t a f f e c t t h e meaning as u n d e r s t o o d during t h e Tudor period. See t h e G o r h a m controversy, Outcome: No change, but f o r m a l principles of t h e infant r i t e provide a s e c u r e basis f o r t r a n s f e r t o 'Riper Years',

57

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k After Baptism.

[45]Then shall the Priest make a Cross, &LC.

[46] [Private baptism]

Concerning the Cross in Baptism, we refer to our 18th General.

Of Private Baptism. We desire that Baptism may not be adrhinistred in a private place at any time, unless by a lawful Minister, and in the presence of a competent Number: That where it is evident that any Child hath been so baptised, no part of the Administration may be reiterated in publick, under any Limitations: and therefore we see no need of any Liturgy in that Case.

Of the Catechism. Catechism.

[•17]1 .Quest. What is your Name, &c. 2. Quest. Who gave you that Name? Ans.My Godfathers and my Godmothers in my Baptism. 3. Quest. What did your Godfathers and Godmothers do for you in baptism?

Exception.

We desire these three first Questions may be altered; considering that the far greater number of Persons Baptized within these Twenty years last past, had no Godfathers or Godmothers at their baptism: The like to be done in the seventh Question.

1559: that namelthis name do for you in baptism] then for you

[48]2. Ans. In my Baptism, wherein I was made a Child of God, a Member of Christ, and an Inheritor of the Kingdom of Heaven. 1559: child of God, a member of Christ] a member of Christ, the child of God [NB: this is part of the answer to Question 2 in P 47 above]

We conceive it might be more safely expressed

thus; Wherein I was visibly admitted into the number of the Members of Christ, the Children of Cod, and the Heirs (rather than inheritors) of the Kingdom of Heaven.

58

PARTICULAR

Answer

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

Concerning the Cross, w e refer to our This is a l m o s t t h e s t o r m - c e n t r e of P u r i t a n Answer to the same in general.

controversy—see the footnotes to G18.

And so do we, where it may be brought into the publick Congregation. But since our Lord hath said, S. Joh 3. Unlesse one be born of Water and the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. W e think it fit that they should be Baptized in private, rather than not at all; It is appointed now to be done by the lawful Minister. [New§]Nor is any thing done in private reiterated in publick, but the solemn reception into the Congregation, with the prayers for him, and the publick declaration before the Congregation of the Infants now made by the Codfathers, that the whole Congregation may testify against him, if he does not perform it, which the Ancients made great use of.

Background: Private baptism was the norm in the Middle Ages. Provision for it was retained in 1549 and 1552; but it was always unwelcome to Puritans. At Hampton Court James I disallowed lay baptism, which was part of the complaint; but the service remained and remained an irritant to the Presbyterians. Theology: The Exception both mentions 'a lawful minister' (which the Answer points out is already required] and also eliminates any truly 'private' baptism; for, by urging the necessity of a 'competent Number', it turns all allowable occasions of baptism into 'public' ones—hence the prohibition of 'reiteration'. Outcome: No concession was made; on the contrary, whereas it appears that previously a private baptism, followed by the child being brought to church, might avoid the use of the sign of the cross, that tunwanted] loophole was closed in 1662.

Though divers have been of late baptized without Cod-fathers, yet many have been baptized with them, and those may answer the Questions, as they are: the rest must answer, according to truth. But there's no reason to alter the Rule of the Catechism, for some mens irregularities.

Background: In 1549 the child is named early in the service, in 1552 at the baptism. But the Exception strictly opposes godparents. Theology: Both sides accept recent baptisms without godparents as valid baptisms, but the Exception tries to maximize on that nonnecessity. Outcome: No change.

Background: The formal language of 1549 was acceptable to Puritans until the expressing the Efficacy of the Laudians made too much of it; then they Sacrament, according to S.Paul, the 26, excepted against it. The Answer illustrates and 27. of Gal.3. Where S. Paul proves t h a t Laudian view. them all to be Children of God, Theology: The proposal exactly articulates because they were baptized, and in their covenantal doctrine of infant baptism. their Baptism had put on Christ; If Outcome: No change. We conceive this expression as safe as that which they desire, and more fully

Children, then Heirs, or, which is all o ne,Inheritors,Rom.8.7 7.

59

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book Of the Rehearsal of the Ten Comma ndments.

REVISITED

Exception

[49] [Ten Commandments]

We desire that the Commandments be inserted according to the New Translation of the Bible.

[50] 10 Ans. My Duty towards God is to believe in him, &c.

In this Answer there seems to be particular respect to the several Commandments of the first Täble, as in the following Answer to those of the second. And therefore we desire it may be advised upon, whether to the last word of this Answer may not be added ¡particularly on the Lord's day] otherwise there being nothing in all this Answer that refers to the fourth Commandment.

[51]14 Quest. How many That these words maybe omitted, and Answer thus given; Sacraments hath Christ Hvo only, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. ordained, &c.? Ans. Two only, as generally necessary to Salvation. [52]19 Quest. What is We desire that the entring infants into God's Covenant may required of Persons to be be more warily expressed, and that the words may not seem Baptized? to found their Baptism upon a real actual Faith and Ans. Repentance, whereby Repentance of their own; and we desire that a promise may they forsake sin; and not be taken for a performance of such Faith and Repentance: and especially, that it be not asserted, that they Faith, whereby they perform these by the promise of their Sureties, it being to the stedfastly believe the Seed of Believers that the Covenant of God is made; and not Promises of God, &c. (that we can find) to all that have such believing Sureties, who 20 Quest. Why then are are neither Parents, nor Proparents of the Child. Infants baptized when by reason of their tender Answer ¡This, uniquely, begins in this column Age they cannot The effect of Childrens Baptism, depends neither upon their perform them? own present actual Faith and Repentance, which the Ans. Yes: they do perform Catechism saith expresly, they cannot perform; nor upon the them by their Sureties, Faith and Repentance of their natural Parents, or Pro-parents, who promise and vow or of their Godfathers or Godmothers; but upon the Ordinance them both in their and Institution of Christ: But it is requisite that when they c o m e Names. to age, they should perform these Conditions of Faith and

Repentance, for which also their Godfathers and Godmothers charitably undertook on their behalf. And what they do for [Continued in left-hand column on facing page

60

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

Answer

W e conceive the present Translation to be agreeable to many antient Copies, therefore the change to be need I esse.

Background: The t e x t of t h e Decalogue c a m e f r o m t h e G r e a t English Bible. Theology: The Exception s o u g h t a c o n s i s t e n t use of t h e AV 1 5 5 2 is very near it; b u t t h e Reply s h o w s t h e y w a n t e d (AV] ' s a b b a t h day' [not 'seventh') as 'blessed' by God. Outcome: No change.

It is not true that there is nothing in that Answer w h i c h refers to the 4th Commandment; for the last words of the Answer d o orderlie relate to the last Commandment of the first Table, which is the fourth.

Background: This s e c t i o n is indeed general a b o u t d u t i e s t o w a r d s God. Theology: The Exception s h o w s t h e f e a r of t h e P r e s b y t e r i a n s t h a t keeping ' t h e L o r d ' s • a y ' would n o t be enforced. The A n s w e r ' s r e f e r e n c e t o t h e Lord's Day is casuistry. Outcome: No change.

These words are a Reason of the Answer that there are t w o only, and therefore not to be left out.

Background: The 1 B 0 4 addition t o t h e C a t e c h i s m r e f l e c t e d A r t i c l e XXV Theology: The bishops agree t h e r e a r e ' t w o only' (and evade t h e point?). Outcome: No change.

f r o m facing pagel

the Infant in this Case, the Infant himself is truly said to do, as in the Courts of this Kingdom daily, the Infant does answer by his Guardian, and it is usual for to do homage by proxy, and for Princes to marry by proxy. For the further justification of this Answer, See St. Aug. Ep. 23. ad Bonifac. Nihil aliud credere quam fidem habere; ac per hoc cum respondetur Parvulum credere qui fidei nondum habet effectum, respondetur Fidem habere propter fidei Sacramentum, & convertere se ad Deum propter Conversions Sacramentum, quia & ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti: itaque parvulum, etsi nondum fides ilia, quae in credentium voluntate consistlt, tamen ipsius fidei Sacramentum, fidelem facit.

Background: The 1 6 0 4 s e c t i o n d r a w s upon 1 5 5 2 infant b a p t i s m , b u t begins w i t h t h e general principles of f a i t h and r e p e n t a n c e (cf A r t XXVII). Proxy a f f i r m a t i o n s of t h e s e in b a p t i s m grew f r o m t h e c o m m o n c h a r a c t e r liturgically of adult and infant b a p t i s m ; t h u s t h e a f f i r m a t i o n s belong to the candidate in e i t h e r case. Theology: The Anglican formularies had always been indistinct as t o why infants w e r e eligible f o r baptism. Baxter, as o t h e r Puritans, had debated long w i t h A n a b a p t i s t s t o defend infant b a p t i s m — b u t t h e basis w a s (as here) always t h e 'covenantal' theology of a special s t a t u s before God of t h e 'seed' of believers. The foothold t h i s had in 1 5 5 2 lay in t h e obligation on p a r e n t s t o give notice before baptism, but t h a t is ignored here. The Bishops swing s t r o n g l y t h e o t h e r way. Outcome: Despite t h e Answer, C 1 2 allowed t h a t t h e ' S u r e t i e s ' do not ' p e r f o r m ' . 61

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book [53] [The Catechism generally]

REVISITED

Exception In the general we observe, That the Doctrine of the Sacraments which was added upon the Conference at Hampton-Court, is much more M y and particularly delivered than the other parts of the Catechism, in short Answersfittedto the memories of Children, and thereupon we offer it to be considered : First, Whether there should not be a more distinct and M Explication of the Creed, the Commandments, and the Lord's Prayer. Secondly, Whether it were not convenient to add (what seems to be wanting) somewhat particularly concerning the Nature of Faith, of Repentance, the two Covenants, of Justification, Sanctification, Adoption, and Regeneration.

Of

Confirmation.

The last Rubrick before the Catechism.

[54] And that no Man shall think that any detriment shall come to Children by deferring of their Confirmation, he shall know for truth, that it is certain by God's Word, that Children being baptized, have all things necessary for their Salvation, and be undoubtedly saved.

Although we charitably suppose the meaning of these words was only to exclude the necessity of any other Sacrament to baptized Infants; yet these words are dangerous as to the misleading of the Vulgar, and therefore we desire they may be expunged.

Rubrick after the Catechism.

[55]So soon as Children can say in their Mother-tongue the Articles of the Faith, the Lords Prayer, and the Ten Commandments, and can answer such other Questions of th is short Catechism, &c. then shall they be brought to the Bishop, &c. and the Bishop shall Confirm them. 1559: ""fo Cs"ch"SWer ^

^

° " "n5Wer

a,S Ca

We conceive that it is not a sufficient qualification for Confirmation, that children be able memoriter to repeat the Articles of the Faith, commonly called the Apostles Creed, the Lord's Prayer, and the Tfen Commandments, and to answer to some Questions of this short Catechism; for it is often found that Children are able to do all this at four orfiveyears old. 2dly It crosses what is said in the third Reason of thefirstRubrick before Confirmation, concerning the usage of the Church in times past, ordaining that Confirmation should be mimstred unto them that were of perfect Age, that they being instructed in the Christian Religion, should openly profess their own Faith, and promise to be obedient to the Will of God. And fr®181,01® i 3 ^ ) ' w e d e s i r e 11131 n o n e m a y b e Confirmed but according to His Majesty's Declaration, viz That Confirmation be rightly and solemnly performed by the Information, and with the Consent of the Minister of the place.

62

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The Catechism is not intended as a whole Body of Divinity; but as a Comprehension of the Articles of Faith, and other Doctrines most necessary to Salvation; and being short, is fittest for Children, and Common people; and as it was thought sufficient upon mature deliberation, and so is by us.

Background: The Catechism in 1 5 5 2 was the initial part of the confirmation service. The section on the sacraments was added a f t e r t h e Hampton Court Conference, and was a distinctive new feature of t h e 1 6 0 4 Book. It is usually a t t r i b u t e d t o Overall. Theology: The bid for more on 'the t w o covenants' etc. is characteristic of Puritan theology. Outcome: There was no Concession by the Bishops, but in 1B62 the Catechism was divided from confirmation t o be its own service.

It is evident that the meaning of these words is, that Children Baptized and dying before they commit actual Sin, are undoubtedly Saved, though they be not Confirmed; wherein we see not what danger there can be of misleading the vulgar, by teaching them truth: But there may be a danger in this desire of havingthese words expunged, as if they were false; for StAustin saies, He is an Infidel that desires* them to be true, Ep.23. ad Bonifac.

Background: In pre-Reformation usage confirmation came in random ways, but could come very early in life. The Reformers deferred it t o the age of 13-1 B, and w r o t e t h i s reassurance into t h e preface t o the catechism and confirmation, particularly for t h e parents of children who died young, Theology: Outside the context outside, t h e baptismal efficacy look over-mechanical, Outcome: All references t o confirmation (and its deferral] were omitted, and t h e rubric was then made more explicit [' dying before they Commit SCtUai S/ri) and moved t o follow

»[Cardwell here has 'denies' as though the original were a misprint, w h i c h it probably is]

We conceive that this qualification is required rather as necessary, than as sufficient; and therefore it is the duty of the Minister of the place, Can.67. to prepare Children in the best manner to be presented to the Bishop for Confirmation, and to inform the Bishop of their fitnesse; butsubmitting the judgement to the Bishop, both of this, and other qualifications, and not that the Bishop should be tyed to the Ministers consent. Compare this Rubr. to the second Rubr. before the Catechism, and there is required what is further necessary and sufficient.

t h ( J

j n f a n t

b a p t j s m

p u b

|

j c

H t e

Background: The earlier Puritans wanted stronger Catechisms iand gained additions t o the Catechism at Hampton Court], but also wanted evidence of 'heart' conversion. They distrusted both confirmation and bishops, Theology: The 1 5 5 2 rubric spoke of 'years of discretion' and 'perfect age'; but the Exception typically picks on the possibility of mere saying answers by rote, Outcome: W i t h the separation of t h e catechism, rubrics from t h e end of confirmation were relocated, and the requirement of the minister t o bring children t o t h e bishop is newly modified by t h e clause '... the names of all such persons. ..as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop... '

63

THE SAVOY CONFERENCE

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book Rubrick after the Catechism. [56]Then shall they be brought to the Bishop by one that shall be his Godfather, or Godmother.

The Prayer before the Imposition of Hands. [57]Who hast vouchsafed to regenerate these thy Servants by Water and the Holy Ghost, and hast given unto them the forgiveness of all their sins.

REVISITED

This seems to bring in another sort of Godfathers and Godmothers, besides those made use of in Baptism; and we see no need either of the one, or the other

This supposeth that all the Children who are brought to be confirmed, have the Spirit of Christ, and the forgiveness of all their sins : Whereas a great number of Children at that Age, having committed many sins since their Baptism, do show no Evidence of serious Repentance, or of any special Saving Grace: And therefore this Confirmation (if administred to such) would be a perillous and gross Abuse.

Rubrick before the Imposition of Hands. [58]Then the Bishop shall lay his hand This seems to put a higher value upon Confirmation, then upon Baptism or the Lord's Supper; for on every Child severally. according to the Rubrick and Order in the Common1559: Prayer-Book, every Deacon may Baptize, and every Minister may consecrate and administer the Lord's Supper, but the Bishop only may Confirm.

64

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The Compilers of the Liturgie did, and so doth the Church; that there may be a witnesse of the Confirmation.

Background: The m e r e m e n t i o n of g o d p a r e n t s is unwelcome. Theology: It does look like 'another sort'of an u n w a n t e d species . Outcome: 1 6 6 2 has one godparent as 'a witness', b u t t h e candidate is n o t 'brought' by t h e godparent.

It supposeth, and that truly, that all children were at Background: The supposition of 1 5 5 2 their Baptism, regenerate by Water, and the Holy seems t o have been a formal one, Ghost, and had given unto them the forgivenesse of though w i t h t h e expectation t h a t all all their Sins; and it is charitably presumed, that, would in due course be confirmed, notwithstanding the frailties and slips of their Theology: The Presbyterians assume Childhood, they have not totally lost, what was in all are t o be confirmed, and are Baptism conferred upon them, and therefore suspicious of reaffirming t h e formal addes, Strengthen them we beseech thee, O Lord, supposition, a t least for w o r s t cases. with the Holy Ghost, the Comforter, and daily The A n s w e r goes beyond a formal encrease in them their manifold gifts of Crace, &c. supposition and a s s e r t s a universal None that lives in open sin ought to be Confirmed, deposit of baptismal grace, which ['their' must be a misprint for 'thy', which the bishops could be may be partially but not totally lost, right] Outcome: No change expected to get Confirmation is reserved to the Bishop in honorem Ordinis; Toblesse, being an Act of Authority; so was it of old. St. Hierom, Dialog. Adv. Lucifer, saies, it was tot/us orb/s consensioin hancpartem. And St.Cyprian to the same purpose, £p. 73. And our Church doth every where professe, as she ought, to conform to the Catholick usages of the Primitive times; from which causelesly to depart, argues rather love of contention than of peace. The reserving of Confirmation to the Bishop, doth argue the Dignity of the Bishop above Presbyters, who are not allowed to Confirm; but does not argue any excellency in Confirmation, above the Sacraments. St .Hierom argues the quite contray, ad Lucif.cap.4. That because Baptism was allowed to be performed by a Deacon, but Confirmation only by a Bishop; therefore Baptism was most necessary, and of thegreatestvalue;ThemercyofGodallowingthe most necessary means of Salvation, to be administred by inferiour Orders, and restrainingthe lesse

Background: The R e f o r m e r s had remodelled c o n f i r m a t i o n t o e n s u r e t h a t children a t ' t h e y e a r s of d i s c r e t i o n ' w e r e well i n s t r u c t e d in t h e f a i t h (note t h e combining of c a t e c h i s m and confirmation]. The roie of t h e bishop [who w a s s u p p o s e d t o examine t h e c a n d i d a t e s personally, or a t l e a s t appoint s o m e o n e t o do so] w a s r e t a i n e d , n o t least as having o v e r s i g h t of t h e p a s t o r a l w o r k of each parish. Theology: All w e r e agreed t h a t c o n f i r m a t i o n is n o t a s a c r a m e n t [see P 6 0 ] , b u t disagreed about i t s r e l a t i o n s h i p t o episcopacy, Outcome: No change t o t h e rule t h a t only bishops c a n confirm. The

necessary, to the higher, for the honour of their Order, a s s u m p t i o n t h a t t h e c a n d i d a t e is a 'child' w a s abandoned—now c a n d i d a t e s m i g h t be of any age. 65

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book The Prayer after Imposition of Hands.

REVISITED

Exception

[59] We make our humble Supplications unto thee for these Children; upon whom, after the Example of thy Holy Apostles, we have laid our Hands, to certifie them by this Sign of thy Favour and gracious Goodness towards them.

We desire that the Practice of the Apostles may not be alledged as a ground of this Imposition of Hands for the Confirmation of Children, both because the Apostles did never use it in that Case, as also because the Articles of the Church of England declare it to be a corrupt imitation of the Apostles practice, Acts 25.*

[60][Laying on of hands]

We desire that Imposition of Hands may not be made as here it is, a Sign to certifie Children of God's Grace and Favour towards them, because this seems to speak it a Sacrament, and is contrary to that forementioned 25th Article, which saith, That Confirmation hath no visible Sign appointed by God.

"['Acts' is a misprint in Sylvester for 'Art.', followed in Cardwell.]

The Last Rubrick after Confirmation.

[61 ]None shall be admitted to the holy We desire that Confirmation be made not so Communion, until such time as he can necessary to the Holy Communion, as that none say the Catechism, and be confirmed, should be admitted to it unless they be confirmed. 1559: None shall be] there shall none be

66

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

Prayer after the Imposition of hands, is grounded upon the practice of the Apostles, Heb.6.2, & Acts 8.7 7. Nor doth 25. Article say, that Confirmation is a corrupt imitation of the Apostles practice, but that the 5. commonly called Sacraments have ground* partly on the corrupt following the Apostles, &c., which may be applied to some other of those 5; but cannot be applied to Confirmation, unless we make the Church speak contradictions

Background: While Cranmer cited the outward 'example of thy holy apostles' he removed all suggestion t h a t this conveyed t h e illapse of the Holy Spirit, and its highest significance became 'certifying'. Neither 1 5 5 2 nor the Articles relies upon the A c t s 8 passage as warrant. Theology: On any fair reading Article XXV [in its 1 5 6 2 addition) does say confirmation comes from t h e ' c o r r u p t following of t h e apostles'. Outcome: No change in t h e postconfirmation prayer.

Tground' must be a misprint for 'grown' (cf Art.xxv, from which it is quoting).!

We know no harm in speaking the language of holy Scripture, Acts. 8.75*. they laid their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost; and though Impositions of hands be not a Sacrament, yet it is a very fit sign, to certifie the persons what is then done for them, as the Prayer speaks. * ¡'15' is an error in g d , corrected to'77' in Cardwel11

There is no inconvenience that Confirmation should be required before the Communion, when it may be ordinarily obtained: that which you here fault, you elsewhere desire,

Background: Cranmer replaced t h e medieval blow on the cheek w i t h t h e laying on of a hand, citing t h e outward example of the sign used by the apostles. Theology: To 'certify' is a lesser role than t h a t of a sacrament. Both sides deny confirmation is a sacrament, but t h e bishops do cite A c t s 8 [which Bancroft had denied was a ground of confirmation at Hampton Court), and thus raise t h e theological stakes. Outcome: No change Background: The origin of t h e rubric is in Peckham's Constitutions of 1 2 8 1 , seeking t o prop up confirmation. It was adapted into 1 5 4 9 [when the catechism was built into the rite) to emphasize the need of instruction before receiving communion. But very few had been confirmed since 1 6 4 2 , and the new bishops had not yet caught up on t h a t lack. Theology: Neither side seems t o be treating the rite as doctrinally vital. However, the Answer may include an adhominem reference t o Baxter's Confirmation and RestaurationV\ 658]. Outcome: Despite the Answer, C 1 4 granted an addition t o t h e rubric ' or be ready and desirous to be confirmed and this came into 1662. It tips t h e balance against a sacramentalist view of confirmation, and lays the weight upon preparation. 67

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book Of the Form of [62]The Man shall give the Woman a Ring, &c. shall surely perform and keep the Vow and Covenant betwixt them made, whereof this Ring given and received is a Token and Pledge, &c. 1559:

REVISITED

Exception Solemnization of Matrimony. Seeing this Ceremony of the Ring in Marnage is made necessary to it, and a significant Sign of the Vow and Covenant betwixt the Parties; and Romish Ritualists give such Reasons for the Use and Institution of the Ring, as are either frivolous or superstitious. It is desired that this Ceremony of the Ring in Marriage may be left indifferent, to be used or forborn.

give the woman] give unto the woman shall surely] may surely

[63]The Man shall say, With my Body I thee worship.

This word [worship] being much altered in the Use of it since this Form was first drawn up; We desire some other word may be used instead of it.

1559: man shall] man taught by the priest shall say, With] say, &c.: With

[64] In the name of the Father, and These words being only used in Baptism, and here of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in the Solemnization of Matrimony, and in the Absolution of the Sick; We desire it may be considered , whether they should not be here omitted, least they should seem to favour those who count Matrimony a Sacrament.

[65]TiIl Death us depart.

This word [depart] is here improperly, used.

[NB: In 1559 this comes before Exceptions 63 and 64]

Rubrick. Exception. [66]Then the Minister or Clerk going We conceive this Change of Place and Posture to the Lords Table, shall say or sing mentioned in these two Rubricks is needless, and this Psalm. therefore desire it may be omitted. Next Rubrick. [67]The Psalm ended, and the Man and the Woman kneeling before the Lord's Table, the Priest standing at the Table, and turning his face, &c. 68

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The Ring is a significant sign, only of humane institution, and was alwayes given as a pledge of fidelity, and constant love, and here is no reason given why it should be taken away; nor are the reasons given in the Roman Ritualists given in our Common-Prayer-Book.

Background: The ring in marriage was one of four 'excepted ceremonies' among Elizabeth Puritans and at the Hampton Court Conference. It has lost its prime place among the top four by 1661. Theology: It is simply the making mandatory that which Scripture does not mention to which exception is made. Outcome: No change—the Church has authority to order [see G18)

[No Answer]

Background: The origin of the word as meaning 'honour' was accepted at Hampton Court Conference. Theology: The case for a change is made. Outcome: The Bishops gave no Answer, but made a concession [C15)—which they then did not deliver; and 1662 saw no change.

These words (In the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost) if they seem to make Matrimony a Sacrament; may as well make all sacred, yea civil actions of weight to be Sacraments, they being usual at the beginning and ending of all such. It was never heard before now, that those words make a Sacrament.

Both sides agree matrimony is not a sacrament; but the Presbyterians are again on ludicrous ground in alleging that any Trinitarian formula will convey a notion of sacrament

[No Answer]

The bishops conceded this in C16, and the change was made in 1662.

They go to the Lords Table, because the Communion is to follow.

Background: Even in 1552 the change probably was needless. Theology: There is a tussle going on about communion at matrimony (cf P69, P701 Outcome: No change

69

THE SAVOY C O N F E R E N C E

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book Collect. [68] Consecrated the state of Matrimony to such an excellent Mystery.

REVISITED

Exception Exception. Seeing the Institution of Marriage was before the Fall, and so before the Promise of Christ, as also for that the said Passage in this Collect seems to countenance the Opinion of making Matrimony a Sacrament, we desire that the Clause maybe altered or omitted.

Rubrick. [69]Then shall begin the Communion, and after the Gospel shall be said a Sermon, &c.

Exception. This Rubrick doth either enforce all such as are unfit for the Sacrament to forbear Marriage, contrary to Scripture, which approves the Marriage of all Men; or else compels all that marry to come to the Lord's Last Rubrick. Ihble, though never so unprepared: And therefore [7Q]The new married Persons the same we desire it may be omitted, the rather because that day of their Marriage must receive the Marriage Festivals are too often accompanied with Holy Communion. such Divertisements as are unsuitable to those Christian Duties which ought to be before and follow after the receiving of that Holy Sacrament.

Of the Order for the Visitation of the Sick. Rubrick before Absolution.

[71 ] Here shall the sick Person make a special Confession, &c., after which Confession the Priest shall absolve him after this sort: Our Lord Jesus Christ &c., and by his Authority committed to me, I absolve thee.

Exception.

Forasmuch as the Conditions of sick Persons be very various and different, the Minister may not only in his Exhortation, but in the Prayer also be directed to apply himself to the particular Condition of the Person, as he shall find most suitable to the present occasion, with due regard had both to his Spiritual Condition and Bodily Weakness, and that the Absolution may only be recommended to the Minister to be used or omitted as he shall see occasion.

70

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

Though the institution of Marriage was before the Fall, yet it may be now, and is consecrated by God to such an excellent mystery, as the representation of the spiritual marriage, between Christ and his Church, Eph.5.23. We are sorry that the words of Scripture, will not please.The Church in the 25. Article, hath taken away the fear of making it for a Sacrament.

Background: The Puritan fears of any hint of the Roman sacramental system date back to Elizabeth's reign, even to seeking to lose clear scriptural allusions. Theology: The Answer is entirely fair Outcome: No change.

This inforces none to forbear Marriage, Background: As with baptism, both sides but presumes (as well it may) that all assume the whole population will pass persons marriageable ought to be also through the rite, which may produce that fit to receive the Holy Sacrament; And which the Exception anticipates. marriage being so solemn a Covenant Theology: 1552 is very prescriptive, at a of Cod, they that undertake it in the point where on all other occasions the fear of God, will not stick to seal it by worshippers are free not to receive receiving the Holy Communion, and communion, and the Presbyterians have a accordingly prepare themselves for it. It point. were more Christian, to desire that Outcome: Although no Concession was those licentious Festivities might be granted at the time, yet in 1662 the earlier supprest, and the Communion more reference to beginning the communion was generally used by those that marry: the dropped, and this rubric revised to ' It is happiness would be greater then can convenient that the new-married persons easily be exprest. Unde sufficiat* ad should receive the holy Communion at the enarrandum felicitatem ejus Matrimonii,time of their Marriage, or at the first quod Ecclesia conciliât, & confirmât opportunity after their Marriage.' oblatio. Tertul. Iib.2. ad Uxorem. *fCardweil amends to

'sufficiunt'I

All which is here desired, is already presumed, namely, that the Minister shall apply himself to the particular condition of the person; but this must be done according to the Rule of prudence and justice, and not according to his pleasure: therefore if the sick person shew himself truly penitent, it ought not to be left to the Ministers pleasure to deny him Absolution, if he desire it. Our Churches direction, is accordingto the 73. Can. of the venerable Council of Nice, both here, and in the next that follows.

Background: This text was in 1549 for all 'auricular confession', but in 1552 solely for the sick, if the sick person (perhaps facing death] were very troubled [see full text of rubric]. Theology: Even with the provisos the rubric reads as very prescriptive; and the first person indicative verb contained problems. Outcome: No Concesssion was allowed, but the 1662 rubric read: ' Here shall the sick person be moved to make a special confession of his sins, if he feel his conscience troubled... After which confession, the Priest shall absolve him [if he humbly and heartily desire it] after this sort.' 71

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book

REVISITED

Exception

[72][Form of Absolution]

That the form of Absolution be Declarative and Conditional, as [1 pronounce thee absolved] instead of [I absolve thee] if thou doest truly repent and believe.

Of the Communion of the Sick. Rubrick.

[73]But if the sick Person be not able to Consider, that many sick persons either by their ignorance or vicious Life, without any evident come to Church, yet is desirous to receive the Communion in his House; manifestation of Repentance, or by the Nature of the then he must give knowledge overDisease disturbing their Intellectuals, be unfit for night, or else early in the Morning, to receiving the Sacrament. It is proposed, that the the Curate, and having a convenient Minister be not enjoyned to administer the place in the sick Man's House, he shall Sacrament to every sick Person that shall desire it, there administer the Holy Communion. but only as he shall judge expedient. 1559: to church) to the church yet ] and yet the house ] his house curate; and ] curate, signifying also how many he appointed to communicate with hint. And

[74] [Burial of the Dead]

Of the Order for the Burial of the Dead. We desire it may be expressed in a Rubrick, that the Prayers and Exhortations here used are not for the benefit of the Dead, but only for the Instruction and Comfort of the Living.

First Rubrick.

We desire that Ministers may be left to use their [75]The Priest meeting the Corps at the Church-Stile, shall say, or else the Discretion in these Circumstances,and to perform the whole Service in the Church, if they thinkfit,for Priest and Clerk shall sing, &c. the preventing of those Inconveniences which many times both Ministers and People are exposed unto by standing in the open Air.

72

PARTICULAR

Answer

EXCEPTIONS

Notes

The form of Absolution in the Liturgy, is more agreeable to the Scriptures then that which they desire; it being said, in St .John 20. Whose sins you remit they are remitted, not, whose sins you pronounce remitted; and the Condition needs not to be expressed, being always necessarily understood.

Background: The Reformers usually affirmed t h a t ministers had power t o 'declare and pronounce' forgiveness, while this t e x t appears t o go beyond t h a t , Theology: The Answer takes John 2 0 . 2 3 very literally, but allows the condition to underlie it. Outcome: No change,

It is not fit the Minister should have power to deny this viation, or holy Communion to any that humbly desire it, according to the Rubrick; which no man disturbed in his wits can do, and whoever does, must in charity be presumed to be penitent, and fit to receive.

Background: From 1 5 5 2 onwards a full r i t e had t o take place in t h e home, but communion was open t o any who might desire it. Theology: The Exception is carping at t h e discretion lying w i t h the would-be communicant, not the minister; but t h a t is t h e normal position of the healthy. Outcome: Tiny changes in t h e rubric, but nothing of substance.

[No Answer]

Background: 1 5 5 2 omitted any suggestion of praying for t h e dead. Theology: The Directory forbade all rites for burial. The Exception is wary of even 1552. Outcome: No addition.

It is not fit so much should be left to the discretion of every Minister: And the desire that all may be said in the Church, being not pretended to be for the ease of tender Consciences, but of tender Heads, may be helped by a Cap, better then a Rubr.

Background: The 1 5 5 2 service was all in t h e churchyard. The Directory had no funerals; so now t h e Presbyterians fear bad weather. Theology: Only the weather is alleged. The Reply, without a trace of humour, says parts other than the head get refrigerated in the cold. Outcome: Interestingly, 1 6 6 2 made much more provision for holding the service in church.

73

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

Exception

1 6 0 4 Prayer Book T h e s e c o n d Rubrick.

[76] When they come to the Grave the These words cannot in Truth be said of Persons Priest shall say, &c. Forasmuch as it living and dying in open and notorious sins. hath pleased Almighty God, of his great mercy to take unto himself the Soul of our dear Brother here departed: We therefore commit his Body to the Ground in sure and certain hope of Resurrection to Eternal Life.

1559: grave the priest] grave, whiles the corpse is made ready to be laid into the earth, the priest T h e first Prayer.

[77]We give thee hearty thanks for These words may harden the wicked, and are that it hath pleased thee to deliver inconsistent with the largest rational Charity this our Brother out of the miseries of this sinful world, &c. That we with this our Brother, and all other departed in the true Faith of thy Holy Name, may have our perfect Confirmation and Bliss. 1559: Confirmation]consummation

The last Prayer. [78]That when we depart this Life, These words cannot be used with respect to those we may rest in him, as our hope is Persons who have not by their actual Repentance this our Brother doth. given any ground for the hope of their Blessed 1559: Estate.

we depart] we shall depart

Of the Thanksgiving of Women after Child-birth commonly called Churching of Women. In regard that the Womens kneeling near the Tbble is [79]The Woman shall come unto the Church, and there shall kneel down in in many Churches inconvenient, we desire that these some convenient place nigh unto the words may be left out, and that the Minister may place where the Table stands, and the perform that service either in the Desk or Pulpit. Priest standing near her, shall say, &c. 1559: unto the church] into the church standing near her] standing by her

74

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

We see not why these words may not be said of any person, who we dare not say is damned; and it were a breach of Charity to say so, even of those whose repentance we do not see: For whether they do not inwardly, and heartily repent, even at the last act, who knowes? And that Cod will not even then pardon them upon such repentance, who dares say? It is better to be Charitable, and hope the best, then rashly to condemn.

Background: The old tension with the Puritans is enshrined h e r e — h o w t o write Christian liturgy for all, while having a deep belief it only applies t o some. Theology: The Bishops give a resistant Answer but then make their last Concession [C17) t h e omission of 'sure and certain' Outcome: A new opening rubric forbids the use of t h e Burial service for 'any that die unbaptized, or excommunicate, or have laid violent hands upon themselves.' In the t e x t , despite C17, 'sure and certain' remains, but 'the' is inserted before 'resurrection'.

[No separate Answer]

The same issues are raised by this Exception as by P76, and t h e Answer t o P76 is presumably intended t o cover this and P78 also.

[No separate Answer]

See above re P76 and P77.

It is fit that the woman performing especial service of Thanksgiving should have a speciall place for it, where she may be perspicuous to the whole Congregation; and neer the Holy Table, in regard of the Offering she is there to make: They need not fear Popery in this, since in the Church of Rome she is to kneel at the Church door.

Background: In 1 5 4 9 it was still The Order for the Purification of Women', and t h e woman knelt 'near the quire door'. In 1 5 5 2 it became The Thanks Giving of Women after Childbirth', and t h e woman had t o kneel 'nigh unto the place where the table standeth'. Theology: The Bishops love actions 'near the table', t h e Presbyterians do not. But the point about Rome seems good. Outcome: 1 6 6 2 directs her t o 'some convenient place, as hath been accustomed . . . , but omits mention of the table. 75

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

1 6 0 4 Prayer B o o k Rubrick.

[80]Then the Priest shall say this Psalm 121.

REVISITED

Exception Exception. This Psalm seems not to be as pertinent as some other, viz. as Psalm 113. and Psal. 128.

1559: the Priest shall] shall the pries!

[81]0 Lord, save this Woman thy Servant. Ans. Which putteth her trust in thee.

Last Rubrick.

[82]The Woman that comes to give Thanks, must offer the accustomed Offerings.

It may fall out that a woman may come to give thanks for a Child born in Adultery or Fornication, and therefore we desire that something may be required of her by way of Profession of her Humiliation, as well as of her Thanksgiving.

This may seem too like a Jewish Purification, rather than a Christian Thanksgiving.

1559: comes to give] comet]i to give her

T h e s a m e Rubrick.

[83]And if there be a Communion, it is We desire this may be interpreted of the duly convenient that she receive the Holy qualified; for a scandalous Sinner may come to make Communion. this Thanksgiving.

5

The Conclusion of the Presbyterians' Exceptions Thus have we in all humble pursuance of his Majesty's most gracious Endeavours for the publick weal of this Church, drawn up our Thoughts and Desires in this weighty Affair, which we humbly offer to his Majesty's Commissioners for their serious and grave Consideration, wherein we have not the least thought of depraving or reproaching the Book of Common Prayer, but a sincere desire to contribute our Endeavours towards Healing the Distempers, and (as soon as may be) reconciling the Minds of Brethren. And inasmuch as his Majesty hath in his generous Declaration and Commission mentioned new Forms to be made and suted to the several Fkrts of Worship; We have made a considerable progress therein, and shall (by God's assistance) offer them to the Reverend Commissioners with all convenient speed1. And if the Lord shall graciously please to give a Blessing to these our Endeavours, we doubt not but that the Peace of the Church will be thereby setled, the Hearts of Ministers and People comforted and composed, and the great Mercy of Unity and Stability (to the immortal Honour of our most dear Soveraign) bestowed upon us and our Posterity after us. 1

This refers to Baxter's 'Reformed Liturgy'—see p 7 above.

76

PARTICULAR

EXCEPTIONS

Answer

Notes

The Psalm 727. is more fit and pertinent, This one looks like sheen pernickitiness. then those others named, as 7 7 3,728. and therefore not to be changed. If the woman be such as is here mentioned, she is to do her penance before she be* Churched. *[Cardwell has 'is']

This one looks like a further instance of serenely confident liturgy being used for all and sundry, and worrying the Presbyterians in the process.

Once again, there is an Exception with no Offerings are required as well under the Gospel, as the Law: and amongst force in it, but a revealing of Presbyterian other times most fit it is, that oblations paranoia. should be, when we come to give thanks for some special Blessing, Psal.76.T0, 7 7. Such is the deliverance in Child-bearing. This is needless, since the Rubr. and Comm.* require that no notorious person be admitted.

The same fear a s with various Exceptions above besets the Presbyterians, but in the Reply they a c c e p t the a s s u r a n c e given.

"[Cardwell renders this as 'common sense'!

The Concessions of the Bishops The Concessions

(with Exception reference)

[1: G8,G13]We are willing that all Epistles and Gospels be used according to the last Translation. [2: G14]That when any thing is read for an Epistle, which is not in the Epistles, the superscription be, [For the epistle.] [3: G12]That the Psalms be collated with the former Translation, mentioned in Rubr. and Printed according to it. [4; P12-16]That the words (this day) both in Collects, and Prefaces, be used only upon the day it self, and for the following dayes, it be said (as about this time.) [5: P17,P26]That a longer time be required for signification of the names of the Com. and the words of the Rubr. be changed into these (at least some time the day before.) 77

T h e O u t c o m e in 1 6 6 2 This was duly done and may be the origin of 'Authorized to be read in Churches' (AV). This was done - see, eg, Acts 2 on Whitsunday. The Reply says it is an odd way of saying it is not an Epistle. The Reply was that this was not understandable. The Psalms were left in the Coverdale version. The collects and proper prefaces of Chnstmas Day and Whitsunday used 'as at this time', and the following days did also. The exact phrase 'at least some time the day before' was added to the rubric.

THE

The Concessions

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

(with Exception reference)

REVISITED

T h e O u t c o m e in 1 6 6 2

[6: P18]That the power of keeping The second and third rubrics now gave scandalous Sinners from the Communion, this power of exclusion to the 'curate', may be expressed in the Ruhr, according to but he was to report the matter to the the 26. and 27. Canons, so the Minister be bishop within 14 days. obliged to give an account of the same immediately after to the Ordinary. [7: P19]That the whole Preface be prefixed to This was written in the Annexed Book, the Commandments. but struck out, (It is in the Catechism.) Both first and second exhortations were 18: P23]That the second Exhortation be read made alternatives for giving notice in some Sunday, or Holy-day, before the advance of forthcoming celebrations. celebration of the Communion, at the discretion of the Minister. [9: P26]That the general Confession at the This was compromise not concession. Communion be pronounced by one of the 1662 has it said,'..., by one of the Ministers, the people saying after him, all ministers; both he and all the people kneeling humbly upon their knees. kneeling upon their knees and saying,' [10: P31]That the mariner of consecrating the Presbyterians and Bishops appear Elements, may be made more explicit, and agreed here, and the changes are express; and to that purpose, those words be substantial, though not exactly in these put into the Rub. [then shall he put his hand words. See Appendix 2 on page 79 upon the Bread, & break it] then shall he put opposite. his hand unto the Cup.l [11: P39]That if the Font be so placed as the This would be a canonical provision Congregation cannot hear, it may be referred rather than a liturgical rubric. to the Ordinary, to place it more conveniently [12: P52]That those words [Yes they do perform The exact alteration was made. them, &c.] may be altered thus: [Because they promise them both, by their Sureties, &c. [13: P54]That the words of the last Rubr. before The rubric was moved to the end of the the Catechism, may be thus altered, (that public baptism of infants and changed children being baptized have all things to read, 'It is certain by God's Word, necessary for their salvation, and dying before that children which are baptized, they commit any actual sins, be undoubtedly dying before they commit actual sin, saved, though they be not Confirmed.] are undoubtedly saved.' [14: P61]That to the Rubr. after Confirmation, 1662 added 'or be ready and destous to these words may be added (Or be ready, and be confirmed'. Thus preparation is the desirous to be Confirmed) vital feature of confirmation. [15: P63]That those words (with my body I This change was not made, thee worship) may be altered thus: (with my body I thee honour.) [16: P65]That those words (till death us This change was made. depart) be thus altered (til death us do part.) [17: P76]That the words (sure and certain) This change was not made, See the may be left out. Notes on P76 re 'the resurrection1, a general affirmation, less related to the particular dead person. 78

Appendix 1: The Ornaments Rubric At P2 (page 36), the Presbyterians quote the 'Ornaments Rubric' from before Morning Prayer in 1559/1604. In 1552 this had read: 'And here it is to be noted, that the minister at the tyme of the Communion and all other tymes in his ministration, shall use neither albe, vestment, nor cope: but being archbishop or bishop, he shall have and wear a rochet; and being a precst or deacon, he shall have and wear a surplice onely.' The 1559 Act which restored the 1552 Book ordered three stated changes in it, and 'none other or otherwise'. The three did not include this rubric, and they were so minor that there was no need to attach a full text to the Act, and the Book authorized in 1552 thus determined the text of the 1559 Book. However, late on in the Act came the clashing provision: 'Provided always, and be it enacted, that such ornaments of the church, and of the Ministers thereof shall be retained, and be in use, as was in this church of England by the authority of Parliament in the second year of the reign of King Edward the sixth, until other order be therein taken. ..' It is likely that 'retained' is an initially important word here. The assumption in 1559 is that the vestments are there in the parishes, and so can be 'retained and be in use'. However, somebody somewhere judged that the printed copies of the Book must conform to the Act, and the 1559 new text of the Ornaments rubric, as in PI and P2, resulted. In Elizabeth's reign there then followed a kind of twin-track approach—on the one hand the Act and the Book appeared to decree the vestments of 1549; on the other the whole controversy on the ground was one of trying to get Puritans to wear surplices. However, the Act's order was 'until other order be therein taken'—and clearly the policy of the authorities in Elizabeth's reign was that the surplice should be worn. Thus, if and when 'other order' was to be taken, at that point the rubric would become obsolete (and even misleading). The other order may have been Elizabeth's Injunctions of 1559 or Parker's Advertisements of 1566, or conceivably Canons 24, 25 and 58 of 1604 (Canon 24 cites the Advertisements). But on any view, the terms of the Act were met. Thus the 'rubric' (which did not include the condition within the Act) became totally misleading. Curiously the Savoy literature reads as though both sides were misled—the Presbyterians (in P2) reading the rubric as having currency in relation to alb and cope; the Bishops (in their Answer to G18) reckoning it enforced the surplice (which was the field of controversy), and not answering about the 1549 vesture. In the Convocation revision, the text of the rubric was changed to reflect the Act more closely, and that is how it appears in 1662—yet the policy in relation to vesture remained identically one of enforcing the surplice. The 1662 rubric, which has been the subject of endless speculation and not a little forensic investigation, does not really appear to be subject to a condition as the 1559 one was—and has a higher claim to legality also. At face value it is mandatory (which would actually preclude the use of a surplice at the eucharist), so that it requires an all-or-nothing interpretation. On the other hand it is vitiated by the words 'retained and be in use', as no such vestments remained in English parish life in 1661. It was finally superseded by the Church of England (Vesture of Ministers) Measure 1964, and the corresponding canon (B8) in the new code of Canons.

Appendix 2 : Eucharistie Consecration It is evident at P31 (seen, reduced, in its original format on the outside front cover) that both sides are pulling at the same end of the rope. We look at each in turn. The Bishops inherited the 1552 rite. I have demonstrated elsewhere that this had no objective consecration in rubric or text, in action or word.' However, in Elizabeth's reign, in a judgment of policy, a Puritan, Robert Johnson, went to jail for not doing a supplementary consecration, 1

COB, What did Cranmcr times since then)

Think he was Doing? (Grove Liturgical Study n o . 7 , 1 9 7 6 , and reprinted three

79

THE

SAVOY

CONFERENCE

REVISITED

when supplies ran out. There was no reason in 1552 why he should, but Elizabethan policy had dictated that This is my body' and This is my blood' should be viewed as consecratory, and thus needing to be repeated when supplementary provision of one or both elements was needed. The point was reinforced in Canon 21 of 1604, that 'no Bread or Wine newly brought shall be used; but first the words of Institution shall be rehearsed'. The word 'consecration' is not used, but the purpose seems clear. Then in 1637 the prayer was dubbed 'The Prayer of Consecration', manual acts were added during the reading of the narrative, the cup words say the presbyter is 'to lay his hand upon so much .. .as he intends to consecrate', after communion the presbyter covers what 'reniaineth of the consecrated elements', and there is provision both for supplementary coasecration (by repeating the words of Institution), and for consumption of consecrated remains. DB shows that Cosin at least was mirroring this in England, and CIO grants the request of P31 without any sense of reluctance—it gave the Bishops what they wanted. But what did the Presbyterians want? They did believe in an objective consecration, and the Directory, for example, has a prayer over the elements, after which the direction says T h e Elements being now sanctified by the Word and Prayer [the Minister is to continue the action to the distribution]'2 But there is probably also a thrust of Baxter's which went beyond this. In his 'Reformed Liturgy he makes the breaking of bread a kind of dramatization of Jesus' body being broken, and a pouring of wine as of Jesus' blood being shed.3 The two belong together; and the dramatic sign comes between the consecration and the distribution.4 However, P31 did not name the 'pouring', and CIO simply took it literally, and put in the rubrics re 'consecration' which the Bishops wanted, and, met the Presbyterians by inserting a 'breaking' of the bread where the narrative says Jesus broke it. But is that what the Presbyterians wanted? It is necessary to distinguish between the liturgical procedures required for 'consecrating' and the theological upshot in terms of what such consecration does to the bread and wine. Although Stuart Anglicans follow Rome, as far as a 'moment' of consecration goes, that does not mean that they believed in transubstantia tion, or anything like it.5 The receptionist language of the prayer of consecration and of Articles XXV and XXVIII remained intact.'' However strong the language about eating the body and drinking the blood of Christ, there is no entail about an objective change in the nature or 'substance' of the bread. There is then the interesting (if academic) question about the significance of the restoration of the Declaration on Kneeling in 1662, and its restoration with one change of wording. This came at the Privy Council stage in February 1662, and must have been intended to help those who (overscrupulously) contended that kneeling to receive implied some form of worship of the elements (see P35). The question then is whether the excision of 'real and essential presence' was done in order covertly to assert that in kneeling we do now worship a 'real and essential presence there being of Christ's natural flesh and blood'. And the answer to this question is that the Declaration in both 1552 and 1662 says the 'natural flesh and blood' of Christ are 'in heaven, and not here'; and that to say that the insistence that we are not worshipping any 'corporal presence of Christ's natural flesh and blood' nevertheless allows a belief that Christ's flesh is present in or with the bread non-corporally (and can and should be worshipped as such) defies reasonable belief.7 2 3

4

5 6 7

See The Westminster Directory (Grove Liturgical Study n o . 2 1 , 1 9 8 0 ) pp 22-23. Is there an element of the AV of 1 Cor.11.24 'my body broken for you' in this? C r a n m e r had put 'given for you' from Luke 22.19 (the longer text, which is what he had) into the narrative of institution, but had (marvellously) never tried 'broken for you'. I think we could go so far as to see this as a discrete sacramental action, within an overall sequence, which spells out the significance of the consecrated elements prior to the reception. This dramatization should not, however, be read (as in Dix, The Shape of the Liturgy, p 677) as revealing a 'higher' doctrine of eucharistic presence. See my recent Grove Booklet, Euehciristie Consecration (Grove Worship Series n o . 1 4 8 , 1 9 9 8 ) for a clear distinction between what effects consecration and what consecration effects. See the Bishops' easy acceptance of Article XXVIII in the Answer to P35. For a plea that the language of 'real and essential presence' had changed its meaning since 1552, see J.T.Tomlinson, The Prayer Book Articles and Homilies (Church Association, 1897) p 264. T h u s the language of the Declaration had to be changed here to keep its meaning unchanged.

80