THE HAMPTON COURT CONFERENCE.

THE accession of James I. to the throne of this realm was an event calculated to awaken the hopes of the Presbyterians. Educated as the King had been in the principles of that body, it was not to be expected that they would omit so favourable an opportunity for urging their objections to the Book of Common Prayer, or for seeking relief to their scruples respecting a conformity to its rubric. They accordingly exerted all their influence at court, as well as sought by various petitions to the King himself, to obtain the redress of their grievances. One of these, which, from the alleged, though not real, number of the petitioners, was known by the name of the millenary petition, did not fail to arouse the energies of the Church, and especially of the Universities. With the view, perhaps, of settling these differences and disputes, or, at least, with the desire of obtaining information respecting certain doctrines contained in the Book of Common Prayer, the King appointed a conference to be held between the two parties, in his presence, at Hampton Court palace, on January 12, A.D. 1604. Dr. Barlow, one of the divines present on the occasion, published "the sum and substance" of what then took place; and so

much of his work is extracted below, as may serve to account for the alterations made in the baptismal offices, as well as the addition to the Church Catechism of that part, which treats of the Sacraments, commonly ascribed to the pen of Dr. Overall.

THE FIRST DAY'S CONFERENCE.

The day appointed was, as by his Majesty's proclamation we all know, Thursday the 12th of January; on which there met, at Hampton Court, by nine of the clock, all the Bishops and Deans summoned by letters; namely, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishops of London, Durham, Winchester, Worcester, St. David's, Chichester, Carlisle, and Peterborough; the Deans of the Chapel, Christ Church, Worcester, Westminster, Paul's, Chester, Windsor, with Dr. Field, and Dr. King Archdeacon of Nottingham; who, though the night before they heard a rumour that it was deferred till the fourteenth day, yet, according to the first summons, thought it their duty to offer themselves to the King's presence, which they did. At which time it pleased his Highness to signify to the Bishops, that the day having prevented or deceived him, he would have them return on Saturday next following. On which day all the Deans and Doctors attending my Lords the Bishops into the presencechamber, there we found sitting upon a form Dr. Reynolds, Dr. Sparks, Mr. Knewstubs, and Mr. Chaderton, agents for the millenary plaintiffs. The Bishops entering the privy chamber staid there till commandment came from his Majesty, that none of any sort should be present but only the Lords of the privy council and the Bishops, with five Deans, viz. of the Chapel, Westminster, Paul's, Westchester,

Salisbury; who being called in, the door was close shut by my Lord Chamberlain.

After a while his excellent Majesty came in, and having passed a few pleasant gratulations with some of the Lords, he sat down in his chair, removed forward from the cloth of state a pretty distance; where, beginning with a most grave and princely declaration of his general drift in calling this assembly,.... in particular he signified unto them, "the principal matters why he called them alone, with whom he would consult about some special points, wherein himself desired to be satisfied. These he reduced to three heads : first, concerning the Book of Common Prayer, and divine service used in this Church; secondly, Excommunication in the Ecclesiastical Courts; thirdly, the providing of fit and able ministers for Ireland.

'In the Book he required satisfaction about three things. First, about Confirmation. (1.) For the name, if arguing a confirming of Baptism, as if this sacrament without it were of no validity, then were it blasphemous. (2.) For the use, first brought upon this occasion; infants being baptised, and answering by their patrini, it was necessary they should be examined when they came to years of discretion, and after their profession made by themselves, to be confirmed with a blessing or prayer of the Bishop, laying his hands upon their heads; abhorring the abuse in popery, where it was made a sacrament and corroboration to Baptism.

<< The second was for absolution.

"The third was private Baptism; if private for place, his Majesty thought it agreed with the use of the primitive Church; if for persons, that any but a lawful minister might baptise any where, he utterly disliked: and in this point his Highness grew somewhat earnest against the baptising by women and laicks.”

As touching Confirmation (the Lord Archbishop) shewed

at large the antiquity of it, as being used in the Catholic Church ever since the Apostles' time, till that of late some particular Churches had unadvisedly rejected it. Then he declared the lawful use of it, agreeable to his Majesty's former speech, affirming it to be a mere calumniation, and a very untrue suggestion, if any had informed his Highness, that the Church of England did hold or teach, that without Confirmation, Baptism was imperfect, or that it did add any thing to the virtue and strength thereof. And this he made manifest by the rubrics in the Communion Book set before Confirmation, which were there read.

My Lord of London succeeded, saying, that the authority of Confirmation did not depend only upon the antiquity and practice of the primitive Church, which out of Cyprian, Ep. 73, and Hieron. adversus Luciferian. he shewed, but that it was an institution apostolical, and one of the particular points of the Apostles' catechism, set down and named in express words, Heb. vi. 2; and so did Mr. Calvin expound that very place, who wished earnestly the restitution thereof in those reformed Churches where it had been abolished. Upon which place the Bishop of Carlisle also insisted, and urged it both gravely and learnedly. His Majesty called for the Bible, read the place of the Hebrews, and approved the exposition.

Something also the Bishop of Durham noted, out of the Gospel of St. Matthew, for the imposition of hands upon children. The conclusion was, for the fuller explanation (that we make it not a sacrament, or a corroboration to a former sacrament), that it should be considered of by their Lordships, whether it might not without alteration (whereof his Majesty was still very wary) be entitled an examination with a Confirmation.

The Lord Archbishop proceeded to speak of private Baptism; shewing his Majesty, that the administration of Baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed in the

66

practice of the Church, but inquired of by Bishops in their visitation, and censured; neither do the words in the Book infer any such meaning. Whereunto the King excepted, urging and pressing the words of the Book, that they could not but intend a permission and suffering of women and private persons to baptise." Here the Bishop of Worcester said, that indeed the words were doubtful, and might be pressed to that meaning; but yet it seemed by the contrary practice of our Church (censuring women in this case), that the compilers of the Book did not so intend them, and yet propounded them ambiguously, because otherwise perhaps the Book would not have then passed in the Parliament (and for this conjecture, as I remember, he cited the testimony of my Lord Archbishop of York); whereunto the Bishop of London replied, that those learned and reverend men who framed the Book of Common Prayer, intended not by ambiguous terms to deceive any, but did indeed by those words intend a permission of private persons to baptise in case of necessity, whereof their letters were witnesses: some parts whereof he then read, and withal declared that the same was agreeable to the practice of the ancient Church; urging to that purpose, both Acts ii. where 3000 were baptised in one day, which for the Apostles alone to do was impossible, at least improbable; and besides the Apostles there were then no bishops or priests and also the authority of Tertullian, and St. Ambrose in the fourth to the Ephesians, plain in that point; laying also open the absurdities and impieties of their opinion who think there is no necessity of Baptism. Which word necessity he so pressed not, as if God without Baptism could not save the child; but the case put, that the state of the infant dying unbaptised being uncertain, and to God only known; but if it die baptised, there is an evident assurance that it is saved; who is he that having any religion in him, would not speedily, by any means, procure his

: