CHAPTER XXII. THE COMMENCEMENT OF A NEW ERA-CONFERENCE WITH THE 31. Attempts to get the first word with King James. § 2. He gives indications that he will support the Church. § 3. The Millennary Petition. § 4. Replies to it. § 5. The King shows an inclination to listen to it. § 6. Proclamation for a Conference. § 7. The Conference at Hampton Court. § 8. The first day's work. § 9. The second day. § 10. The third day. § 11. Arrangements for carrying out the alterations. § 12. Death of Whitgift; his Character. § 13. A Proclamation ordering conformity. 14. Character of King James. § 15. Character of the new § 16. Church Legislation in Parliament. § 17. Meeting of Canterbury Convocation. § 18. The Canons of 1604. § 19. York ConVocation accepts them. § 20. Proclamation for conformity by St. Andrew's Day. § 21. Bancroft made Archbishop. § 22. Character of the new Subscription. § 23. The Bishops ordered to enforce it. § 24. The Judges consulted. § 25. Deprivations of Ministers. § 26. The Abridgment of the Lincolnshire Ministers. § 27. Morton's reply. § 28. Apparent success of Bancroft's measures. § 29. Testimony of Lord Clarendon. § 30. Of Dr. Heylin. era. § 1. THERE was sufficient doubt as to the religious opinions of the Scotch king who succeeded Elizabeth on the throne of England, to make all parties eager to have the first word with him on his accession. Mr. Lewis Pickering," a Northamptonshire gentleman, zealous for the Presbyterian party," was the messenger chosen by the Puritans to hasten into Scotland with congratulations, and Dr. Neville, Dean of Canterbury, was deputed by the archbishop and the prelates. The dean was outstripped considerably by the zeal and activity of his rival, but, says Fuller, "he may be said to come first who comes really to effect what he was sent for." 1 § 2. Dr. Neville brought back "a welcome answer of his Highness' purpose, which was to uphold and maintain the government of the late queen as she had left it settled." This message was a great relief to the archbishop, for both he and the Bishop of London had been doubtful whether James would not favour the Puritanical discipline. Further indications were soon given of the conservative intentions of the new monarch. He warned off by a proclamation those who were flocking to him with their 1 Fuller, Ch. Hist. x. i. 13 2 Fuller, u. s. 1 grievances in his progress southwards, and by another proclamation he forbade all innovations in the Church either in doctrine or discipline.2 §3. The Puritans had been long preparing for a vigorous manifesto to the new ruler. They had drawn up a petition recounting all their grievances, to which the signatures or approvals of about 750 ministers had been obtained. This was forwarded to the king soon after his accession, and the calm tone in which it was composed, and the reasonableness of some of its demands, caused, on its becoming known, a considerable trepidation among the Church divines.3 § 4. The universities were somewhat aimed at in it, and they at once replied. Cambridge passed a decree that whoever opposed the doctrine or discipline of the Church of England, either in word or writing, should be suspended from all degrees already taken, and disabled from taking any new degree. Oxford published a reply, in which it averred that the framers of the petition were such as advocated a limited monarchy, and the subjecting the titles of kings to the approbation of the people. This seemed a sure way to prejudice King James against the document. On his part the Primate carefully collected the information needful to meet the Puritanical complaints. The bishops were directed to cause their archdeacons or commissaries to see personally every incumbent and curate within their jurisdictions, and to ascertain from them the number of communicants in each parish, the number of recusants; the names of pluralists, with particulars of their benefices; the number of impropriations, and whether endowed with vicarages or served by curates, and the stipends paid; the names of all parsonages endowed with vicarages; the value of both; the names of all patrons of benefices. § 5. All this information was collected at the desire of the king, and he further wrote both to the Chancellor of Oxford and to the archbishop, desiring that they should take into consideration the restoration of impropriations to the Church.5 The archbishop became "exceeding pensive," and the hopes of the Puritans were high. Everywhere they were employed in getting signatures of influential laymen to support their petition. Whitgift wrote to the king pointing out that the restoration of impropriations by the universities would be ruin to them; and at length, in September 1603, the king made public a letter to the archbishop and 1 State Papers of James I. (Domestic), i. 21. 2 Collier, Ch. Hist. vii. 273. 3 The petition, known as the Millenary Petition, will be found in Notes and Illustrations to this chapter. 5 Harleian MSS. 677, 23, 30. Strype's Whitgift, iv. 31. bishops, declaring his constancy to the Church, and his determination to uphold the laws for its protection, but without shedding of blood.1 The bishops were reassured, but at the same time they were informed that their adversaries were to have a fair hearing. § 6. October 24, 1603, came out a proclamation dated from Wilton, "touching a meeting for the hearing and determining things pretended to be amiss in the Church." The king declares in this that he was 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 held 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. "This our godly purpose we find hath been misconstrued by some men's spirits, whose heart tendeth rather to combustion than reformation, as appeareth by the courses they have taken, some using public invectives against the state ecclesiastical here established, some contemning their authority and the processes of their courts, some gathering subscriptions of multitudes of vulgar persons to be exhibited to us, to crave that reformation which, if there be cause to make, is more in our heart than in theirs. . . . We are not ignorant that time may have brought in some corruptions which may deserve a review and amendment, which, if by the assembly intended by us, we shall find to be so indeed, we will therein proceed according to the laws and customs of this realm by advice of our Council, or in our high Court of Parliament, or by Convocation of our clergy, as we shall find reason to lead us." 2 § 7. In accordance with this proclamation a conference was arranged to be held at Hampton Court in January 1604. The king nominated the Puritan deputies. This was an unfortunate arrangement, as it at once gave a handle to objectors.3 It was also complained by the Puritans afterwards that the authorised report of the conference, drawn up by Barlow, was grossly partial to the Church, that "it fraudulently cut off and concealed all the speeches (which were many) that his Majesty uttered against the corruptions of the Church, and the practice of prelates ;" and if, says the writer, "the king's own speeches be grossly abused by the author, it is much more likely that speeches of other men are 1 State Papers of James (I. Domestic), ii. 39; iii. 82. 2 Ib. iv. 28. 3 Calderwood says: "Two or three were appointed of the sincerer side, that were not sound, but only to spy and prevaricate."-Ch. Hist. of Scotland, p. 474. abused." 1 It was also unfortunate that on the side of the Puritans only four divines were nominated (Doctors Reynolds and Sparkes, Mr. Chaderton and Mr. Knewstubbs), while the Church was allowed to be represented by not less than nineteen." This neglect of proper securities for fair discussion and report, naturally suggested to the Puritans to repudiate and scoff at a conference in which their substantial gains amounted to so little.3 The king was also no doubt offensively jocular, and argumentative in an unfair degree for a moderator; and it is probable that in presence of so great a phalanx of Church dignitaries, and before a judge whose bias was so clearly shown," the Puritan divines argued weakly, so that all wondered they had no more to say." To the Church the result of the conference was highly satisfactory. No important concessions had to be made, and if any doubts had existed in the minds of any churchmen as to the inclinations of the king towards Presbyterianism, they were fully and entirely removed. 4 § 8. On Saturday, January 14, only the bishops and five deans, with the Lords of the Council, were present with the king, it being understood that this meeting was for the king's own satisfaction on sundry points in the English ritual, on which he desired some explanation. After long discussion, six points were referred to the bishops as requiring some alteration-viz. the titles of the general absolution, and the confirmation of children, and the allowance of baptism by women. Also two points relating to the jurisdiction of The the bishops, and one to the state of the Church in Ireland. Puritans gave out that the king was strongly against the bishops, and, in fact, it appears that he argued with them for three hours against private baptism. The divines, however, were sufficiently well satisfied to bestow extravagant laudations on his Majesty's learning and eloquence.5 § 9. On Monday, January 16, the Puritans were admitted to state their objections. They divided these into four heads--(I.) of doctrine; (II.) of pastors; (III.) of Church government; (IV.) 1 Quoted in Lathbury's Hist. of Convocation, p. 225. Fuller seems to endorse the accusation, x. i. 24. 2 Nine bishops: Whitgift, Matthews, Bancroft, Bilson, Babington, Rudde, Watson, Robinson, Dove. Eight deans: Montague Dean of the Chapel, Christ Church, St. Paul's, Worcester, Salisbury, Chester, Windsor, Westminster. Archdeacon King and Dr. Field.-(Collier.) 3 Neal's Puritans, ii. 29. 4 Montague, letter to his mother, Nicholls' Progresses, i. 315. 5 Thus Montague:-"He spake for three hours wisely, witily, and learnedly, and with that pretty patience that I think no man living ever heard the like.' "He sent us away," says Barlow, "not with contentment only, but astonishment." "He showed such dexterity, perspicuity, and sufficiency,' says Bilson," that I protest before God, without flattery, I have not observed the like in any man living." of ritual and the Prayer-book. I. The objections made to the Articles were (a) to the sixteenth," We may depart from grace given and fall into sin." They desired also to have the Lambeth Articles inserted in the book. (b) To the twenty-third, "It is not lawful for any to minister in the congregation" (which it was said implied that one might minister out of the congregation though not lawfully called). (c) To the twenty-fifth, which calls "confirmation a corrupt following of the apostles," and yet in another place it is enjoined. (d) That a clause might be added to the articles, stating that the intention of the minister is not necessary to the sacrament. (e) To the thirty-seventh Article, which states that the Bishop of Rome "hath no authority," that the words "nor ought to have" might be added. (f) That an addition should be made to the Church Catechism. (g) That some order be taken for the better observance of the Lord's day. (h) That a revision of the translation of the Bible should be made. To these objections the following answers were given :-(a) With regard to the doctrine of predestination, the king desired it should be handled tenderly, and having inquired concerning the Lambeth Articles, was opposed to their introduction. (b) This objection was considered frivolous. (c) Confirmation by the bishop was defended as a primitive practice. (d) This was refused on the ground of overcumbering the book. (e) The statement of his having no authority was said to imply that he ought to have none. (f) It was conceded that an addition to the Catechism might profitably be made. (g) That this ought to be looked to. (h) That this also was desirable. II. The objections as to pastors—(a) That learned ministers be provided for each parish. (b) That subscription be relaxed. Dr. Reynolds specially excepted against the use of the Apocrypha, and some insertions of words in the Gospels. It was answered-(a) That it was hard to turn old incompetent men out. The bishops suggested that the bad appointments of lay patrons were a chief cause of the evil of unlearned ministers. (b) Subscription must be maintained, but some of the changes indicated by Dr. Reynolds might be made. III. The objections as to Church government-(a) That ecclesiastical censures should be pronounced by lay chancellors. (b) That prophesyings should be repressed. (a) To the first it was answered that the matter had been often under consideration, and it was reserved. (b) To the second the king broke out into a rage, saying, "If you aim at a Scotch presbytery, it agreeth as well with monarchy as God and the devil. Then Jack and Tom, and Will and Dick, will meet and censure me and my Council." IV. The objections to the ritual and Prayer-book were urged by Mr. Knewstubbs. He objected-(a) To the cross in baptism. (b) To the surplice. (c) To the ceremonies of the marriage service. (d) To the |