notice of them, and give Cerberus a sop' to keep him quiet." JAMES I. -His meaning was, that factious people might have no pretences to continue their clamour. And here, by the way, we are to observe, that, at this first day's conference, none but the bishops and deans above-mentioned, and the lords of the council, were admitted into the presence." And now The first day's conthe king acquainted the bishops and the rest, that the reason ference. of his consulting them by themselves was to receive satisfaction concerning several usages in the worship and discipline of the Church. These his majesty ranged under three general heads. The first related to the Book of Common Prayer; the second was touching excommunication in the ecclesiastical courts; the third was to suggest a provision 674. of well-qualified ministers for Ireland. "I. As to the Book of Common Prayer, he required satisfaction in three things: "First, About confirmation. 1. He scrupled the term; for if it imported a confirming of baptism, as if this sacrament was insignificant without it, then there was blasphemy in the name. For though the ancient custom was defensible, that infants answering by their godfathers should be examined when they came to years of discretion; that after having owned the engagement made for them at the font, they should be confirmed with the bishop's blessing and imposition of hands; yet his majesty abhorred the abuse of raising this usage to a sacrament, and attributing its giving any force to baptism. "The second thing he desired to be cleared was concerning absolution. His majesty had been informed, that this usage in the Church of England had some resemblance with the pope's pardons: but, in his opinion, God had given a commission to absolve only in two cases: the one was general, the other particular. For the first, All prayer and preaching, his majesty conceived, imported an absolution. As to the second, It was to be applied to those who had repented of scandalous crimes; otherwise, where the person is neither excommunicated nor under penance, there was no necessity of his being absolved. "His majesty's third objection was to private baptism. WHIT GIFT, And here he made a distinction: if it was private with Abp. Cant. reference to the place, he thought it consistent with the practice of the primitive Church; but if it related to the person, he disliked it to the last degree. And upon this occa sion he expressed himself with some warmth against women and laicks administering this sacrament. Bancroft, "II. The second general head was excommunication. And here his majesty proposed two things: First, The matter. Secondly, The person. First, He desired to be satisfied as to matter of fact, whether this censure was executed upon light occasions, as the complainants pretend Secondly, Whether it was not too frequently exerted! As to the persons, he expected to be resolved, why lay-chan cellors and commissaries should exercise this solemn part of ecclesiastical authority? Secondly, Why the bishops themselves did not take in the assistance of the dean and chapter, or some other clergymen of character? That the dignity and weight of the censure would be better understood this way; and that such an assistance in lower censures, and giving of orders, would be likewise serviceable. "III. The provision for Ireland the king postponed to a consultation after the conference was ended." When the king had ended this introductive discourse, the archbishop, kneeling, suggested to the audience how bountiful the providence of God had been to this kingdom, in setting so learned and judicious a prince at the helm. After this prefatory respect, he addressed himself to give his majesty satisfaction in the order proposed. First, As to confirmation, he showed the antiquity of it at large; and that it had been all along practised in the Church from the apostles' times: that this had been the constant usage of Christendom, till some particular Churches had unadvisedly thrown it off of late; and that it was a very untrue suggestion, that the Church of England held baptism imperfect without confirmation. And this he made good by the rubric before this office. The bishop of London seconding the archbishop, affirmed that confirmation had not only the practice of the primitive Church, and the testimony of the fathers for its defence, but that it was over and above an apostolical institution, and JAMES I. a part of the Catechism expressly mentioned in the New Heb. 6. 2. Testament. That Calvin expounded the text in the Epistle to the Hebrews to this sense; and earnestly wished the custom might be revived in those reformed Churches which had suppressed it. The bishop of Carlisle reinforced this Robinson. reasoning, and urged the text with great learning and pertinency. The bishop of Durham likewise cited St. Mat- Matthew. thew, to justify the imposition of hands upon children. The result was, that for the clearer explanation that the Church of England makes confirmation neither a sacrament nor a corroboration of baptism, it should be referred to their lordships whether the office, standing as it did, might not be called an examination with a confirmation. The point of absolution came up next. And here the archbishop cleared the practice of the Church of England from all abuse and superstition: for this he appealed to the "Confession" and " Absolution" in the beginning of the Communion-book. The king, perusing the book, found the allegation true, and acquiesced. But the bishop of London, stepping forward, told his majesty, that in the Communionbook there was another particular and personal form of absolution prescribed in the "Visitation of the Sick;" adding withal, that not only the Confessions of Augsburg, Bohemia, and Saxony, retained it, but that Calvin approved such a general confession and absolution as is used in the Church of England. The form being read, the king liked it extremely, and called it an apostolical ordinance. The conclusion was, that the bishops should consult whether the "remission of sins" might not be added to the absolution rubric, for explanation sake. Further, the archbishop went on to speak concerning private baptism. He endeavoured to satisfy his majesty that the administration of baptism by women and lay persons was not allowed by the Church of England; that the bishops, in their visitations, censured this practice; and that the words in the office do not infer any such latitude. To this the king excepting, cited the office, and argued that the words could not be construed to less than a permission for women and lay persons to baptize. Here the bishop of Warrester strack in, and confessed that the words were somevine Micos, and might be strained to that meaning but by the center-practice of the Church, by women bung censured upon this score, it seems reasonable to supuse the compiers of the office did not design to be so 485 19 understand and yet notwithstanding they couched the form # sonricus expressions, because otherwise perhaps the buk mugla det have passed in parliament. The bishop of Lamica, ang sarded with this discourse, replied, that those kartei ami reverend persons who drew up the Common77) Pawe, Jai no intention to mislead the people by perTie voÌ, Kni İculüeing expressions, but really designed * PEEISSOM 32 perate persoas for baptizing in case of neANDY and for this be appealed to their letters, some passages zë which were then read. This bishop proceeded to yoyo this gecmission was agreeable to the practice of the zeumiwe Church. To this purpose he urged the text in the saccind of the Acts, where three thousand are said to Jasy beer Jaccized in one day; that it was impossible, or at bas medalie that the Apostles could administer the SICPKURATE. IZ. Such numbers in so small a time; and that in chose auch ins of Christianity there were no bishops or Yongsas, exorcing the Apostles. He likewise cited the augherises of Verquilar, and St. Ambrose. And here he laid voor the sdsurday and ingiety of the opinion which supPORR DE MARup af baptisen. te this the king regled. That the instance in the Acts Max $# EXIROCzy case: and that to argue from the jes a Church in is beginning, and before it was perfive) temoà, ma Church settled, and in a flourishing con 1999, me was good reasoning. He went on to maintain the www dens and argued that the text in St. John, "Alwar * men de born of water," &c. was meant of the eevmemsiet or hear; and that he had defended this sense HE PA POLE Against some ministers in Scotland. "It may * Kenge zu was my lords" continues the king, “that I think yow in Bagland give too much to baptism, since Rowwww www.hs ago I argued with my divines in Scotland Bu avtabing now hitle to that sacrament; insomuch that a port mumeret såvel ma, "If I thought baptism so necessary, that if it were omitted the child should be damned?" I JAMES I. answered him, 'No; but if you, being called to baptize the child, though privately, should refuse to come, I think you shall be damned."" And here the king declared so far for the necessity of baptism, that when it could be administered by the clergy it ought never to be omitted; but the laity, he conceived, ought not to presume on that office in any case. And yet, which was somewhat particular, he disapproved all rebaptization, though that sacrament had been administered by private unauthorized persons. The bishop of Winchester discoursing learnedly upon this Bilson. subject, affirmed, that to bar private persons baptizing in cases of necessity, was to cross upon all antiquity: that it was a maxim in divinity, that the minister was not of the essence of the sacrament. To this the king answered, that though the minister was not of the essence of the sacrament, he was notwithstanding of the essence of the right and lawful ministry of the sacrament. His ground was the words in the Apostles' commission, "Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them," &c. Upon the whole, it was resolved the bishops should debate afterwards, whether the words "curate, or lawful ministers," might not be inserted in the rubric for private baptism. The king proceeding to the point of excommunication in instances of lesser misbehaviour, demanded, first if the name might not be changed, and yet the same censure continued: or, secondly, whether an equivalent correction might not be substituted in lieu of it. The affirmative of this motion was unanimously assented to. An alteration of this kind had been often desired in the late reign; but the queen was resolved to unsettle nothing, but abide by the first establishment. And thus the reader has the substance of the first day's conference. On the Monday following, the four complainants, Rey- Jan. 16. nolds, Sparkes, Knewstubbes, and Chadderton, were called into the privy-chamber, Patrick Galaway, minister of Perth, being likewise admitted. For the Church, the bishops of London and Winchester appeared, together with the deans and doctors above-mentioned. The king entering the room with The second prince Henry, made a short speech to the same effect with ference. day's con |