triumph over honest and virtuous men, who aimed at nothing more than to bring the discipline of the church a little nearer the standard of Scripture !

But that his majesty might part with his old friends with some decency, and seem to answer the request of the petitioners, he agreed to have a conference with the two parties at Hampton-court,* for which purpose he published a proclamation from Wilton, October 24th, 1603, touching a meeting for the hearing and for the determining things pretended to be amiss in the church. In which he declares, "that he was already persuaded, that the constitution of the church of England was agreeable to God's word, and near to the condition of the primitive church; yet because he had received information, that some things in it were scandalous, and gave offence, he had appointed a meeting to be had before himself and council, of divers bishops and other learned men, at which consultation he hoped to be better informed of the state of the church, and whether there were any such enormities in it; in the meantime he commanded all his subjects not to publish any thing against the state ecclesiastical, or to gather subscriptions, or make supplications, being resolved to make it appear by their chastisement, how far such a manner of proceeding was displeasing to him, for he was determined to preserve the ecclesiastical state in such form as he found it established by the law, only to reform such abuses as he should find apparently proved."+

The archbishop and his brethren had been indefatigable in possessing the king with the excellency of the English hierarchy, as coming near the practice of the primitive church, and best suited to a monarchial government; they represented the Puritans as turbulent and factious, inconsiderable in number, and aiming at confusion both in church and state; and yet, after all, the old archbishop was doubtful of the event; for in one of his letters to Cecil, afterward earl of Shrewsbury, he writes, "Though our humorous and contentious brethren have made many petitions and motions correspondent to their natures, yet to my comfort they have not much prevailed. Your lordship, I am sure, does imagine,

disputation, of which he was extremely fond and conceited. Eccles. Hist. vol. 1. p. 478.-ED. * Life of Whitgift, b. 4. c, 31. p. 568. + Ibid. p. 570

that I have not all this while been idle, nor greatly quiet in mind; for who can promise himself rest among so many vipers ?"*

The place of conference was the drawing-room, within the privy chamber at Hampton-court; the disputants on both sides were nominated by the king. For the church, there were nine bishops, and about as many dignitaries, viz. Dr. Whitgift archbishop of Canterbury, Dr. Bancroft bishop of London, Dr. Mathew bishop of Durham, Bilson bishop of Winchester, Babington bishop of Worcester, Rudd bishop of St. David's, Watson bishop of Chichester, Robinson bishop of Carlisle, and Dove bishop of Peterborough:Dr. Andrews dean of the chapel, Overal dean of St. Paul's, Barlow dean of Chester, Bridges dean of Salisbury, Field dean of Gloucester, and King archdeacon of Nottingham; besides the deans of Worcester and Windsor.

For the Puritans were only four ministers, Dr. John Raynolds, Dr. Thomas Sparks, professors of divinity in Oxford, Mr. Chadderton, and Mr. Knewstubs, of Cambridge. The divines of the church appeared in the habits of their respective distinctions; but those for the Puritans in fur gowns, like the Turkey merchants, or the professors in foreign universities. When the king conferred with the bishops he behaved with softness, and a great regard to their character; but when the Puritan ministers stood before him, instead of being moderator, he took upon him the place of respondent, and bore them down with his majestic frowns and threatenings, in the midst of a numerous crowd of courtiers, all the lords of the privy council being present; while the bishops stood by, and were little more than spectators of the triumph.

The account of this conference was published at large only by Dr. Barlow, who, being a party, says Fuller,† set a sharp edge on his own, and a blunt one on his adversaries' weapons. Dr. Sparks and Raynolds complained, that they were wronged by that relation;‡ and Dr. Jackson declared, that Barlow himself repented, upon his death-bed, of the injury he had done the Puritan ministers in his relation of the Hampton-court conference.§ Mr. Strype has lately pub*Life of Whitgift, Append. b. 4. no. 43. + Church Hist. b. 10. p. 21.

Pierce, p. 153, 154.

"The Puritans (Dr. Harris observes) needed not to have complained so much as they have done of Barlow. If he has not represented their arguments in as just

lished a letter of the bishop of Durham to Hutton archbishop of York, which agrees pretty much with Barlow;* but Mr. Patrick Galloway, a Scotsman, has set things in a different light; from all these, and from the king's own letter to Mr. Blake a Scotsman, we must form the best judgment of it that we can.

The conference continued three days, viz. January 14th, 16th, and 18th; the first was with the bishops and deans alone, January 14th, the Puritan ministers not being present; when the king made a speech in commendation of the hierarchy of the church of England, and congratulated himself that "he was now come into the promised land; that he sat among grave and reverend men, and was not a king, as formerly, without state; nor in a place where beardless boys would brave him to his face. He assured them, he had not called this assembly for any innovation, for he acknow ledged the government ecclesiastical, as now it is, to have been approved by manifold blessings from God himself; but because he had received some complaints of isorders, he was willing to remove them if scandalous, and to take notice of them if but trifling; that the reason of his consulting them by themselves, was to receive satisfaction from them, (1.) About some things in the Common Prayer-book; (2.) Concerning excommunication in the ecclesiastical courts; (3.) About providing some well-qualified ministers for Ireland; that if any thing should be found meet to be redressed, it might be done without their being confronted by their opponents."+

In the Common Prayer-book his majesty had some scruples about the confirmation of children, as if it imported a confirmation of baptism. But the archbishop on his knees replied, that the church did not hold baptism imperfect without confirmation. Bancroft said it was of apostolical institution, Heb. vi. 2, where it is called" the doctrine of the laying on of hands." But to satisfy the king, it was agreed that the

a light, nor related what was done by the ministers as advantageously, as truth required, he has abundantly made it up to them by shewing, that the bishops, their adversaries, were gross flatterers, and had no regard to their sacred characters; and that their mortal foe James had but a low understanding, and was undeserving of the rank he assumed in the republic of learning. This he has done effectually, and therefore, whatever was his intention, the Puritans should have applauded his performance, and appealed to it for proof of the insufficiency of him, who set himself up as a decider of their controversies." Harris's Life of James I. p. 87.--Ed. Fuller, b. 10. p. 8..

Life of Whitgift, Append. b. 4. no. 45.

words examination of children should be added to confir

mation.

His majesty excepted to the absolution of the church, as too nearly resembling the pope's pardon. But the archbishop is said to clear it up to the king's satisfaction; only to the rubric of the general absolution these words were to be added for explanation's sake, remission of sins.

He farther objected to private baptism, and baptism by women. It had been customary till this time for bishops to license midwives to their office, and to allow their right to baptize in cases of necessity, under the following oath:

"I Eleanor, admitted to the office and occupation of a midwife, will faithfully and diligently exercise the said office, according to such cunning and knowledge as God has given me, and that I will be ready to help and aid as well poor as rich women, being in labour and travail with child, and will always be ready to execute my said office. Also, I will not permit or suffer, that any woman, being in labour or travail, shall name any other to be the father of the child, than only he who is the right and true father thereof; and that I will not suffer any other body's child, to be set, brought, or laid, before any woman delivered of child, in the place of her natural child, so far forth as I can know or understand. Also, I will not use any kind of sorcery or incantation in the time of travail of any woman; and I will not destroy the child born of any woman, nor cut nor pull off the head thereof, or otherwise dismember or hurt the same, or suffer it to be so hurt, &c. Also, that in the ministration of the sacrament of baptism, in the time of necessity, I will use the accustomed words of the same sacrament; that is to say, these words following, or to the like effect,' I christen thee in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost;' and none other profane words. And that in baptizing any infant born, and pouring water on the head of the said infant, I will use pure and clean water, and not any rose or damask water, or water made of any confection or mixture. And that I will certify the curate of the parishchurch of every such baptizing."*

Notwithstanding this oath, Whitgift assured the king, that baptism by women and lay-persons was not allowed by the church. Others said it was a reasonable practice, the

Strype's Annals, vol. 1, p. 537.

minister not being of the essence of the sacrament. But the king not being satisfied, it was referred to consideration, whether the word curate, or lawful minister, might not be inserted into the rubric for private baptism.

Concerning excommunication for lesser crimes in ecclesiastical courts, it was agreed, that the name should be changed, but the same censure retained, or an equivalent thereunto appointed. These were all the alterations that were agreed upon between the king and bishops in the first day's conference.

Mr. Patrick Galloway, who was present at the conference, gives this account of it to the presbytery of Edinburgh, "that on January 12 the king commanded the bishops, as they would answer it to God in conscience, and to himself upon their obedience, to advise among themselves, of the corruptions of the church in doctrine, ceremonies, and discipline; who after consultation reported, that all was well; but when his majesty with great fervency brought instances to the contrary, the bishops on their knees craved with great earnestness, that nothing might be altered, lest Popish recusants, punished by penal statutes for their disobedience, and the Puritans punished by deprivation from their callings and livings, for nonconformity, should say, they had just cause to insult upon them, as men who had travailed to bind them to that which by their own mouths now was confessed to be erroneous."* Mr. Strype calls this an aspersion; but I am apt to think him mistaken, because Mr. Galloway adds these words, "When sundry persons gave out copies of these actions, I myself took occasion, as I was an ear and eye witness, to set them down, and presented them to his majesty, who with his own hand mended some things, and eked others that I had omitted." It is very certain, that bishop Barlow has cut off and concealed all the speeches that his majesty made against the corruptions of the church, and the practices of the prelates, for five hours together, according to the testimony of Dr. Andrews dean of the chapel, who said, that his majesty did that day won. derfully play the Puritan.

The second day's conference was on Monday, January 16, when the four ministers were called in, with Mr. Galloway minister of Perth in Scotland, on the one part, and two bi

Calderwood's Hist. Ch. of Scotland, p. 474,