In a recent debate, David "SoCal" Preston argued that Archbishop John Whitgift believed that the Apocrypha were "divine" and/or "inspired" Scripture. Unfortunately for SoCal, it turns out that his claim was based on a questionable tertiary source, which left out important context, which fundamentally changes the meaning and value of the alleged quotation from Whitgift (pictured below).
Before getting as close to the source as we can, let's be clear about John Whitgift and his views on the apocrypha.
Whitgift's earliest biography, by his younger contemporary Sir George Paule, makes no direct mention of his views on the canon of Scripture. The biography does acknowledge that Whitgift was opposed to the Puritans, and even makes reference to the Conference at Hampton-Court, Jan. 14. 1603, which occurred shortly prior to Whitgift's death, at the beginning of the reign of James I of England (the famous "King James" of the King James Version).
The meeting that SoCal's source refers to seems to be the one described in Paule's biography (p. 40; see citations section below) this way: "The next Year following, for farther satisfaction of some of the greatest, and most honourable Counsellors of State in these Points, the two Archbishops, and the Bishop of Winchester were pleased to hear the Reasons of some Ministers that refused to conform themselves unto the Orders of the Church established." If that alignment is correct, this would be dated (based on Paule's biography to December 1584, according to the "table of the life of Archbishop Whitgift").
In 1822, John Strype printed "The Life and Acts of John Whitgift," in four books plus a large appendix, in three volumes (vol. 1, vol. 2, vol. 3). This work provides a great deal more detail than Paule's biography. Stype describes a book in April 1584, attributed to one of the clerks of Queen's council, Robert Beal, which (among many other things) contained complaints about the book of Common Prayer including (according to Whitgift's summary): "In the Communion Booke he misliketh the readinge of the Apocrypha in the churche ; private baptisme ; the crosse in baptisme : interrogatories ministred unto infants;" (p. 287) I mention this because the same complaints reoccur.
Also in 1584 (presumably later in the same year than Beal's complaint), a paper was published titled, "Means how to settle a godly and charitable Quietness in the Church," (p. 386) among which were complaints about the book of Common Prayer including: "V. First, That no Minister be enforced to read any piece of the Apocrypha in the service ... VI. Secondly, That in the sacrament of the Baptism, none be enforced to use the sign of the cross, if he shall see cause of superstition; ... VII. That in the ministration of the said sacrament, the words Doest thou beleieve, may be pronounced, Do you believe, to the godfathers ... VIII. That all baptizing by midwives and women... may from henceforth be inhibited, and declared void...." (p. 388) Notice again, the same complaints.
Strype notes that he has placed the Archbishop's answers to these complaints in his Appendix (vol. III of the work). The answers can be found, beginning at p. 135 of vol. 3. Since are interested in Whitgift's view of the Apocrypha, we should see the Article offered by the "Means ..." paper, followed by Whitgift's Answer (p. 137):
Article.
First, That no Mynisters be enforced to reade any piece of the Apocrypha in the service ; seinge in the first booke prynted in the beginninge of her Majesties raigne the same is left out, and was after (without warrant of lawe, and contrarie to the statute, which alloweth but three alterations) inserted.
Answere,
This were to alter and change the booke, not to expounde yt.
The Scripture here called Apocrypha, abusively and unproperlie, are holy wrytings, voyd of error, parte of the Bible, and soe accounted of in the purest tyme of the Churche, and by the best wryters : ever redd in the Church of Christ, and shall never be forbidden by me, or by my consent : they are in the kalendar of King Edward's latter booke, and prynted the first year of her Majesties raigne ; and the alteration of the kalendar, as it now is, is sufficiently warranted.
Notice that Whitgift objects to the books being called "apocrypha" and insists that they are "holy writings" and also that they do not have any error. He thinks they are "part of the Bible" and read and considered part of the Bible in Christ's church back in the "purest time of the Church."
I think it's worth noting what Whitgift does not claim. Whitgift does not insist that these books are canonical, nor that they are infallible, nor that they have the same authority as the canonical Scriptures. I certainly don't agree with Whitgift's view, but Whitgift knows very well that the label "Apocrypha" is a condemnatory label (in that time when he lived). Whitgift also knows, I think, that these books are not authored by the Holy Spirit. I have to add, "I think," because he seems to rely exclusive on church tradition and church authority, to the exclusion of any divine authority or divine warrant. There are certainly other possible explanations of his unexpressed mental state.
In January, 1603, a conference was held, in which the Puritans asked for some reforms of the church from King James, who they thought would be more friendly to their cause than Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth I. They succeeded in obtaining concessions both on the idea of women (and other non-ordained people) baptizing and also on the Apocrypha. That concession on the Apocrypha was this:
4. The Apocrypha, that hath some repugnancy to the canonical Scripture, shall not be read; and other places chosen, which either are explanations of Scripture, or suite best for good life and manners.
Additionally, a paper was drawn up afterwards, with this item:
That consideration be had, what chapters, both of the Apocrypha and canonical Scripture, are meetest to be read in the churches.
That care be taken, that one uniform translation of the Bible be printed, and read in the church : and that without any notes.
The latter of these paragraphs is, of course, the impetus for the King James Version revision of the Bishop's Bible. The former paragraph may seem at odds with the preceding section, but with both quotations present, one can see that there was a view at that time that not every passage of the Apocrypha was unsuitable for reading (although the Puritans insisted that it should not be read at all).
I should note, however, that this also shows the weakening grasp of Archbishop Whitgift at the end of his life (two decades after the 1584 discussion). Although King James never fully sided with the Puritans, he was less antagonistic to them than his predecessor had been.
Returning to Whitgift's earlier battles with the Puritans, as early as 1572 (according to Strype's biography), Whitgift provided an answer to "XXI. Of subscribing to the Communion Book. Certain general Faults, wherewith the Book is charged by the Admonishers. Of reading of Homilies and the Apocrypha in the Church. Of the Name Priest, given to the Ministers of the Gospel. Matters concerning the Solemnization of Marriage. Of the Confirmation of Children. Of Burials, and Matters thereunto appertaining. And other particular Matters, for which they refuse to subscribe to the Book." (vol. 1, p. 68) In 1582, a book titled, "The Practice of Prelates," included the accusation: "the Apocrypha to be read instead of canonical Scripture, nay, rather as serving more to edification" (vol. 1, p. 243)
By 1583 (though undoubtedly also earlier than this date), the Puritan position was clear, as expressed by Lord Treasurer Burghley: "None of the Apocrypha to be read in the Church." (vol. 1, p. 245) This was then followed by Beal's book and the "Means how to settle ..." paper, which we have already discussed above. After 1584, the conflict continued. Strype notes that topics like "reading the Apocrypha in the congregation" were being handled by what he terms "Disciplinarians" in their own "classical and provincial assemblies," pushing for greater Reformation of the church of England (vol. 1, pp. 554-5)
In 1589, Whitgift faced criticism from someone whom Strype identifies as a "libeller" (vol. 1, p. 590):
The libeller again reckoned it up among the Archbishop's high crimes, that he commanded the Apocrypha to be bound up with the Bibles. The Archbishop said, he did indeed give such commandment, and further, that he meant to see it observed : asking, who ever separated the Apocrypha from the rest of the Bible, from the beginning of Christianity to that day ? Or what Church in the world, reformed or other, did it at that present ? And shall we, added he, suffer this singularity in the Church of England, to the advantage of the adversary, offence of the godly, and contrary to all the world besides ? That he knew there was great difference between the one and the other : yet that all learned men had from the beginning given to the Apocrypha authority, next to the canonical Scriptures. And therefore that such giddy heads as thought to deface them, were to be bridled. And that it was a foul shame, and not to be suffered, that such speeches should be uttered against those books, as by some had been : enough to cause ignorant people to discredit the whole Bible.
Note the critical point here: "great difference between the one and the other" (i.e., between the canonical Scripture and the Apocrypha) and that the authority is not the same, but rather "next to" the canonical Scriptures. Now, of course, I don't agree with a lot of Whitgift's supposed facts, and it hard to say what he would have thought had he been better informed, but it is important to note his concessions reported here. Please note that I'm quoting Strype's summary, not necessarily the words of Whitgift himself.
Strype's was not the last biography of Whitgift. Powel Mills Dawley published "John Whitgift and the English Reformation" in 1954. There does not seem to be any direct discussion of his views on the Apocrypha in that biography, although p. 216 reminds us that "The Act of Supremacy declared nothing to be accounted heresy except what had been so adjudged "by the authority of the Canonical Scriptures, or by the first four General Councils ...." (a similar reminder appears at p. 60)
Rev. H. J. Clayton published "Archbishop Whitgift and His Times" in 1911. While he does not delve deeply into the subject of Whitgift's view of the Apocrypha, he does offer the following quotation from Whitgift's works (emphasis added):
I do firmly believe that only the books of the canonical scripture are of that absoluteness and perfection that nothing may be taken away from them, nothing added to them. I do not think the communion-book to be such but that it may admit alteration. I do not believe it to be so perfect, but that there may be both added to it and taken from it. But this I say, that it is a godly book, and nothing in it (that I know) against the Word of God; and those imperfections, or rather motes, that you say to be in it, not to be such that any godly man ought to stir up any contention in the Church for them, much less to make a schism, and least of all to divide himself from the Church. This is my opinion of that book which, unless by learning and good authority I justify, let me have the blame and shame of it. I will not enter into your hearts, to judge what you think of your inward parity . . . that very perfection of an outward platform of a Church, which you challenge unto yourselves, is one step to Novatianism, and well deserveth the name of Catharism.
(pp. 39-40) Catharism is a name associated with an ancient group that was identified at that time as heretical, but is etymologically the same name as "Puritanism," the former coming from the Greek, and the latter from the English by way of the Latin. Clayton's citation is this: "Works, I, pp. 173, 174 (Parker Society)." (link to relevant page of the Works)(second link) This is from the "Tractate I" portion of Whitgift's Defense.
The Parker Society's "The Works of John Whitgift, D.D." can be found here:
- First Portion, Tractates I-VI, "The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright" (another copy)
- Second Portion, Tractates VII-X, "The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright"
- Third Portion, Tractates XI-XXIII, "The Defence of the Answer to the Admonition Against the Reply of Thomas Cartwright" plus Sermons, Selected Letters, Etc. (another copy)
Perusing the remainder of his works, I found this similar statement in his Defense to Tractate VIII (p. 154, emphasis added):
I know no man whose writings and works are so perfect (the writers of the canonical scriptures excepted), that all things in their books are to be allowed. But God forbid that we should therefore reject that which they have well and truly spoken. You will do little for Ambrose, if you will not allow him for an historical witness of that which was in his time.
In his Defense to Tractate XXI, Whitgift argued (Third portion, p. 342)
All this of the “vessels of the temple, the instruments, besoms, flesh-hooks, trumpets, &c.,” is superfluous, and proveth nothing, except it can be shewed that the Lord hath commanded only the canonical scriptures to be read in the church, and nothing else; or that the Lord hath as particularly expressed all things to be used in the church under the gospel, as he did in the temple under the law; the contrary whereof I have proved, Tract. 1.1; and the kind of reasoning that you use in this and other places, upon similitudes, is not of sufficient force to prove anything, only it carrieth away the ignorant people.
For clarity, Whitgift is not acknowledging that "the Lord hath commanded only the canonical scriptures to be read in the church, and nothing else," he's saying that his opponent must establish that. However, behind it is his tacit admission that the Apocrypha are not - in fact - canonical Scripture.
Whitgift also later argued, in the same tractate defense (Third portion, pp. 349-50):
The apocrypha that we read in the church have been so used of long time; as it may appear in that third council of Carthage, and 47. canon, where they be reckoned among the canonical books of the scripture. They may as well be read in the church, as counted portions of the old and new testament; and, forasmuch as there is nothing in them contrary to the rest of the scripture, I see no inconvenience, but much commodity that may come by the reading of them.
Notice that although he cites the Third Council of Carthage, he does not go so far as to insist that the Apocrypha truly are canonical, just that (in his view) they were considered to be among the canonical books of Scripture.
I should note that there were still some unpublished works of Whitgift, including his lectures on Revelation (MS 9787 and MS 8716, which may be practically identical, and could serve as a source of a publication in the future, should someone be interested in publishing his work, see p. xxi).
By this point, I hope that the reader has at least some idea of the position of John Whitgift with respect to the Apocrypha compared with the canonical scriptures.
With this background, we should consider what SoCal Preston offered in his recent debate.
From the wording used by SoCal in the debate, we can see that SoCal was dependent on the work of Timothy Berg, in an October 2, 2022, blog post at "King James Bible History" (link to post). Berg's work is a tertiary source of the information.
Berg, in turn, is reliant on Albert Peel, "The Seconde parte of a register : being a calendar of manuscripts under that title intended for publication by the Puritans about 1593, and now in Dr. Williams's Library, London," section 173, found in vol. 1, pp. 275-83. Peel's source is, apparently, a manuscript from the 16th century, which was part of a collection of manuscripts evidently intended for publication but never published (until Peel's work in 1915). Peel thanks Dr. Williams's Trustees for their permission to print the manuscripts. Dr. Williams's library is, I think, the same one that can still be located today (link). I have not devoted the labor necessary to identify whether these manuscripts remain extant. However, it should be clear that Peel, even when reproducing the manuscript verbatim, is a secondary source, because the manuscript he is reproducing does not purport to provide quotations from Whitgift, but rather summaries or paraphrases of what Whitgift (and others) said, as provided (apparently) by his theological opponent, Walter Travers. I say "apparently," because Peel himself seems unsure who the author of the manuscript is.
Peel's transcription is not modernized to 20th century spellings. There are some footnotes, which are made by Peel. Peel resets the footnote numbering on each page, and I've maintained his numbering, despite injecting the footnotes into the body of the text.
Peel's transcription is partly a transcript, partly a summary. Without referring to the manuscripts that Peel used, it is (of course) difficult to verify the quality of the summaries. Likewise, I cannot assure myself of the quality of the transcription, although Peel's willingness to leave some typos or inconsistency in the manuscript uncorrected in his transcription (but with a note, such as "[sic]"), gives me hope that the quotations are only abridged where Peel notes, through breaking off quotation marks and providing ellipses.
In the transcription, except for the footnotes, the brackets are in Peel. The ellipses are also in Peel. For readability, I've made minor changes to the form of the words, such as using modern American spellings, de-abbreviating certain words, replacing numbers with their spellings where modern style demands, and the like. See the linked source for Peel's spellings, abbreviations, etc.
In order to distinguish between the material Peel himself provides, and the material Peel quotes, I've added formatting to the text. Peel's document contains a formatting difference itself, which is subtle but helpful.
In the text, there are a few expressions that I myself am not familiar with. For example, "we began to enter into the next reach," is not one I've heard before. However, I've resisted the urge to try to modernize any such expressions (beyond the spelling updates I mentioned already). The abbreviation "B" is for "Bishop," "H" is for "Honorable," and "L" is for "Lord," whilst two of each letter is the plural form.
Peel's transcription is as follows (link to source).
173. [ .] "A true report of the first conference at Lambeth had in presence of the R.H. the Earl of Leicester, the L. Gray, and Sir Fra. Walsingham between two bishops, which were the Archbishop of Canterbury and the Bishop of Winchester, and two ministers, Mr. Dr. Sparke and Mr. Travers, concerning things needful to be reformed in the book of Common prayer." [Apparently written by Walter Travers.]
"First the Archbishop began to declare : — Whereas my L. of Leicester had requested for his satisfaction in such points of the book of Common prayer as were called into question, that he might here [sic] what the ministers did reprove, and how such things were to be answered, he had granted my L. to procure such to come thither for that purpose, as might seem best to his good L., and now, I perceive, said he, you are the men whom my L. is desirous to hear; of whom the one I never saw nor knew before (meaning Mr. Dr. Sparke), the other I know well. Let us hear what the things are in the book of Common prayer which you think ought to be amended; you appear not now judicially before me, nor come not as called to question by authority for these things, but by way of conference to object what you have to say against the book, that it may be answered. For which cause it shall be free for you (speaking in duty) to charge the book with such matter as you suppose to be blameworthy in it. Which speech of the Archbishop, being likewise affirmed by my L. of Leicester, Mr. Dr. Sparke made answer to this effect:That we gave most humble and hearty thanks to Almighty God, and to that H. presence, that after so many years, wherein our cause could never be admitted to any indifferent hearing, it had pleased God of his gracious goodness, so to dispose, that we had now that equity and favor shown us, that before so H. personages, as might be worthy means to Her Most Excellent Majesty for the reformation of such things as were to be redressed, it was now lawful for us, with that convenient liberty and freedom which had been promised us, to declare what points of the book had need to be revisited [sic, revised] and reformed. Which our endeavor, because it concerned the service of God and the satisfaction of such as were in authority, and for that the good issue of it depended upon the favor of God, he desired that before we entered any further, we might first seek for gracious direction and blessing of God by prayer.
At which words, framing himself to begin to pray, the Archbishop interrupted him, saying he should make no prayers there, nor that place a conventicle.
Then Mr. Travers, joining with Mr. Sparke, desiring that it might be lawful for them to pray before they proceeded any further, that it was very convenient, for the better preparation of our selves, and of all that were present, to a reverend regard, in speaking and hearing of the things which were to be dealt withal.
But the Archbishop not yielding thereunto, continuing to term it a conventicle if any such prayer were suffered to be made. My L. of Leicester and Sir Fra. Walsingham willed Mr. Sparks[fn1 MS. varies between Sparke and Sparks.] to content himself, seeing they doubted not but that we had prayed already before our coming thither. Therefore Mr. Sparke, leaving to use any such prayer as he had prepared, made a short sweet prayer in very few but gracious words, notwithstanding the Archbishop ceased not to interrupt his speech with like words as he had used before. Which so finished, a little after he began again to speak in this manner.
Mr. Sparke. The points of the book which we mind to stand upon we refer specially to two.
Whereof the first contains such matters as concerns the books appointed to be read in the Church for holy Scripture, and the second the doctrine of the Sacraments.
Touching the books we are to speak of the Canonical and of the Apocrypha. And of the Canonical we have two things to show, wherein concerning them we esteem the book not to agree with the word of God. Whereof the first is, the disgrace done to the Canonical Scriptures, in that some part of them are appointed not to be read, which being so appointed by the book, is grievously punishable by Statute, if anything be done or used otherwise. Now that the minister should be liable to a great punishment for reading such chapters we think it cannot stand with the word of God.
Further they are said by the said book to be appointed not to be read as least edifying, and which may best be spared. Whereunto being added that certain chapters out of the Apocrypha are appointed to be read for them, and to be read as holy scriptures and parts of the Old Testament, ...which cannot be intended but to be for the contrary reason, that is that they edify more, and can less be spared, whereby the Apocrypha are made equal, nay, are preferred before the Canonical.
We suppose these points, for all these respects, cannot be justified by God's word.
To this the Archbishop answered that the books called Apocrypha were indeed parts of the holy scripture and of the Old Testament, that they had been used to be read in the Church in ancient time, and that they might and ought to be now read amongst us.
Whereunto Mr. Travers replied that the title of holy scripture is the peculiar style whereby the Holy Ghost distinguishes the Canonical Scriptures of the Old Testament from the Apocrypha and from all writings (Rom. 1²). Further that such are only holy scriptures as are given by inspiration from God, the Holy Ghost inspiring holy men of God, by whom they were delivered unto us...(2 Tim. 3; 2 Pet. 1).
Here the Archbishop answered that the Apocrypha were likewise given by inspiration from God, as were all so whatsoever the heathen had written well.
Whereunto Mr. Travers replied that in a general sense of the word Inspiration it was true that he had said of the Apocrypha, for so the Apostle... teaches, that no man says, Christ is the Lord, but by the Holy Ghost. And in another place it is said the infinite variety of gifts, ministries, and operations, is of one and the same spirit, which giveth to every man according as it pleases him.
But here, said he, is a question of such an inspiration as did so wholly carry (as the Apostle Peter speaks) and govern the holy men of God so inspired, as that in reporting and setting down these holy writings they were exempted from all possibility of error, in which sense the holy are said to be holy scriptures, and given by inspiration from God, as proceeding from the Holy Ghost first, and then from holy men so fully possessed and inspired by him as it were not possible for them to err in that service ; and therefore not in some part only, but thorough out and in every part and respect divine and holy: which agreeing neither to the Apocrypha nor to any other writings whatsoever, but only to the Canonical Scriptures, it remained strong against him, which he had affirmed, that it stands not with God's word that the books of Common prayer doth as generally and indifferently call the Apocrypha holy scriptures and parts of the old testament as it doth the Canonical, and much more, that it prefers some part of them before some of the Canonical, as more edifying, and which may less be spared.
The Archbishop answer to this was that we could not show any error to be in the Apocrypha, that they have been held for holy scriptures by the ancient fathers, and so vouched and cited by them, as namely by Cyprian and by Augustine and divers other from the beginning of Christ's Church, so always esteemed, and therefore read in the Church unto this day.
Whereunto Mr. Travers replied that notwithstanding it were so, that the Apocrypha books could not be touched with any error — which after by good proof would fall out otherwise — yet the authors of them were not so wholly directed by God in the writing of them but that they might have erred, which made an infinite difference between them. He added further, that they had not always caried that credit in the Church which he had spoken of, as appears both by other, and namely by Jerome, who declares what reckoning the Church made of them, and himself freely calls some of them fictions and fables.
To this he said that Jerome had made question of them, so other had made question of some of the Canonical, and that we could not be ignorant what Eusebius and some of the Councils had judged of the matter. So that, (said he), if men would cavil, they might make a question upon the reason of the Canonical, whereby it appeared that this doubting of the Scriptures was a dangerous way for Atheism to enter in by among us.
Which speech of so unequal comparison provoked Mr. Travers to say that he supposed these writings (which are of so divers kinds) to be equal, and so much more to prefer the Apocrypha afore the Canonical, not to be far from blasphemy, the difference of honor being as great between the one and the other, as between humane and divine writings, and in respect of the authors of them, as between God and man.
Where the Archbishop willing him not to be so hasty, Mr. Dr. Sparke replied that the reading of them had been forbidden by Councils, and named Laod. 3.
To which the Archbishop answered that so that Council declared the Apocalypse to be Apocrypha, which if he would have to be of authority in the one, he was also to grant it in the other.
Mr. Dr. Sparke replied that the Apocalypse had other evident proof, to show it to be Canonical, but this testimony declared that to be untrue which he had said, of the use of the ancient Church to read them.
Then the Archbishop willed us to come [to] the errors of the Apocrypha, for, said he, thither you will come, as good early as late.
Mr. Dr. Sparke said he would, but he had first to show another thing, touching the Canonical Scriptures, which was the mistranslation of them. Thus when we had doubled this point, we began to enter into the next reach, which was not long. In the entrance whereof Mr. Sparke said, that notwithstanding it were hard to have any translation in which no want might be found, yet it was very meet that of all translations extant, the best should be appointed to be read in the public assemblies of the Church. Now, said he, whereas we have divers translations of the holy scriptures, that which in the book is appointed to be read is the worst, and to be charged with sundry gross and palpable errors[fn1 As an example, Sparke pointed out that in Matt. 1, where all other translations rightly had "Mary was betrothed to Joseph," the translation appointed read "Mary was married to Joseph." On this a long discussion ensued, Travers maintaining that the mistranslation failed to emphasize Mary's virginity.]....
To all which reply, no other answer being made, but the same which had been before, and the LL. desiring to hear some other matter then this, which required some skill in the tongues, and the B. taking likewise small pleasure in it, and making hast to come to the objections of the errors in the Apocrypha, for which they thought they were better prepared to make their answer, Mr. Sparke, with this consent, as with tide and wind, was caried on to the discovery of the errors in the Apocrypha, and so we come to the same."
The first "error" raised was in regard to Ecclesiasticus 46, where Samuel is said to have prophesied after his death. After a discussion[fn2 In the discussion, the Archbishop "read out of his note-book... the exposition of some writer, I think of Peter Martyr."],
"my L. of Leicester asked if that chapter were one of those which are appointed by the Book to be read out of the Apocrypha, which the Archbishop confessed. Then my L. Gray prayed the Archbishop to answer a thing, which he moved, not for argument, but to be satisfied and instructed in it, which was, what error the people might be in danger to learn by the hearing of this read, and by the believing of it? And whether it were an error to think that the witches had power to raise the bodies of the dead? To which he making none other answer, but that it was a question among the learned whether they have any such power or no, and no further reply at that time being made unto it, Mr. Sparke sailed forward, and touched next with the 9th of Judith."
Sparke held that this chapter was contrary to Genesis 49, and debate again followed. Travers made the final speech and
"this my L. of Leicester confirmed to be true and the rest acknowledged in like manner. With which speeches we passed by the Apocrypha and began to enter into private Baptism."
Sparke's indictment of private baptism was that it was not
"agreeable to the word of God in sundry respects: first, for the place, which is private; next for the persons, also private, as being lay men, as we call them, nay women, as may appear to be intended by the book; then for such a case of necessity as is there supposed, and last of all, for the doctrines whence this practice is come, which are, that the children not baptized should be in danger of damnation, and that the outward baptism with water, even for the work wrought, saves the child that is baptized."
The Archbishop held that the book did not appoint women to baptize, but accepted as lawful baptism administered by them in necessitous cases. At this point,
"the night came so fast upon us as the LL. being willing to rise, he could go no further, and we were fain also to put into land before we had run half our course. So the LL. departed and the conference of the first day finished."
"The second day when my L. Tres. was also present and the Archbishop of Yorke in place of the B. of Winchester.
The Archbishop of Canterbury began with the rehearsal of the points debated the first day, and after required us to proceed in objecting what we had further to say.
Then Mr. Dr. Sparks, having observed the repetition to have been made to the disadvantage of the good cause, rehearsed it again, noting what things he had omitted, and howe he had not satisfied the matters which had been objected, by which occasion then, as by a contrary wind, already a good way upon the voyage, we were cast back again, and touched again at all the places where we had been afore. Which was rather done because my L. Treasurer had not been at that conference the first day, and was desirous to inform himself of the matters that had been objected. Wherein leaving the rep[et]ition of the same things, it shall be needful only to note those points which were further added by occasion the second day."
As to the Apocrypha, Travers claimed that writings not quoted by Christ could not be "Holy Scripture," but the Lord Treasurer refused to accept this as a sound argument. The question whether Jesus cited all the prophets was then discussed, and from this Sparke again turned to the mistranslation of the Scriptures. The Archbishop pointed out that here he was at a disadvantage, as he knew no Hebrew, while Sparke and Travers were both proficient. After reconsideration of Ecclus. 46 and Judith 9, the subject of private baptism was introduced. "The presence seemed to agree unto" the statement of Travers, that baptism by one who was no minister was no Sacrament, but a profanation of the Sacrament, but the Archbishop maintained his former position with regard to baptism by women.
"My L. Treasurer said he thought indeed, when the book was made, that the practice in this land was such, and so known to be. The Archbishop of Yorke following said he disallowed it, and had forbidden it in all his Diocese, that he had spoken to the Queen of England, of it, and would not suffer it, speaking very earnestly in the matter[fn1 Apparently these words refer to the Archbishop, not to the Queen.]. Then for the case of necessity the Archbishop of Canterbury, answered that Calvin against the Anabaptists held Baptism to be necessary, and reproved the Anabaptists for deferring it so long. To whom Mr. Travers replied that Calvin did not otherwise judge Baptism necessary, then so as it might not of contempt or negligence be omitted, whereof he condemned the Anabaptists for deferring so long. He added further : — other necessity then that which excludes contempt and negligence is not acknowledged, neither by him, nor by any other professing the Gospel, and that generally all the Churches of our profession condemned any other case of necessity."
Whitgift maintained that the Articles showed that the Church of England did not believe that baptism was necessary to salvation, and Travers agreed with this, though he continued to maintain that the practice of baptism by women, "and the tying of grace to the outward sacrament" contradicted the belief expressed in the Articles.
"Here my L. of Leicester said he would remember Mr. Sparke of some other matter, as of the Interrogatories in public Baptism, and of the Cross."
A very long controversy concerning the "Interrogatories" followed, the main question being whether the godfather could answer the questions for the child.
"Then came we to the Cross, against which Mr. Sparke objected the Ceremonies taken from the Heathen, and they which have no necessary use were not to be retained; for which purpose he alleged Deut. 7. and 12., with sundry other places.
To which my L. Treasurer answered that this was not of the Heathen, nor of the papists, but afore popery used in the primitive Church, being a matter of greater mystery then commonly was thought, as that the Christians gloried in the Cross, wherewith they were reproached by the Heathen as by a thing ignominious and shameful.
To this Mr. Travers replied that Ceremonies were they never so ancient and of never so good institution by men, if they were abused to Idolatry, and were of no necessary use, were to be abolished."
Travers continued his argument by claiming that just as the brazen serpent had to be destroyed when it led to idolatry, so the use of the Cross ought to be abolished, and he concluded :
"there is added to the Cross in Baptism a signification and doctrine which cannot stand with the word of God: for it is not lawful for the Church to institute mystical rites and ceremonies, that is, with signification of doctrine annexed unto them, this being a kind of Sacrament, which no man male institute. And this... is not any private or singular opinion of our own, but set down by the famous and worthy Churches, as appears in the observations annexed to the Harmony of the confessions of the Churches[fn1 See above, p. 196 n.].
The Archbishop of Canterbury answered nothing to this so grave and reverend testimony of the Churches, but only that we were wont to find fault with dumb ceremonies, and that now we blamed those that had any signification. He added further that Mr. Beza did leave the Churches their liberty in using the Cross, which my L. Treasurer said was wisely done.
Then Mr. Travers said, Mr. Beza did godly and wisely in that he would not condemn the Churches which used it, nor prejudice their liberty by his judgement, but... his opinion is clear with us, that it ought to be abolished ; nay, further, he giveth Counsel to the ministers rather to forgo their ministry then to subscribe to the allowance of it.
Here my L. of Leicester said it was a pitiful thing that so many of the best ministers and painful in their preaching, stood to be deprived for these things.
To whom Mr. Travers said, my L., we acknowledge the peace of the Church ought to be dearer unto us then our lives, but with your L. good favor, I must needs sale, in conscience to God and in the duty I owe to Her Most Excellent Majesty, to your good LL.. and to this whole Church and State, that the ministers in so doing have done well, and ought not to have yielded, though they were to be put from their ministry, the matters being such which they were required to subscribe unto, as your L. hath partly heard and partly is further to be shown."
After touching on private communion and the apparel of ministers[fn1 On this point both parties claim the support of Ridley.] Leicester asked if the Puritans " had any other points material of doctrine."
"The Archbishop of Canterbury said, yea, we would call the Bbs. authority and jurisdiction into question and other things.
Then Mr. Travers said, he had to object against the book the allowing and justifying of an insufficient ministry, which... is directly against the word, for which purpose he alleged 1 Tim. 3, that a B. (which is every minister) ought to be able [to] teach ; Tit. 1, and such like.
Here my L. Treasurer asked what Scripture there was, that he that should minister the Sacrament must needs be a preacher?
Mr. Travers answered Matt. 28. — Go forth, preach and baptize — which Christ having so joined together, it was not lawful for men to put asunder. He added further that it was not our private opinion, but the universal doctrine and practice of all the Churches of the gospel.
Wherein the Archbishop saying that he misinformed the company, for that the French Church had allowed in the beginning some such.
Mr. Travers answered that he spoke of the doctrine and discipline of the Churches, which he held universally to be such as he had said, till he showed the contrary.
Then the Archbishop answering that the Apost. rule was an Idea of a minister, Mr. Travers replied that to make it an Idea overturned all religion, seeing that so, the duty of Magistrates, Commonwealths, Churches, Householders, parents, children, and so every man would make his duty an Idea.
My L. Treasurer objected it was impossible.
To whom Mr. Travers answered that if other Churches lying under the edge of the bloody sword of their Magistrates, and wanting the protection and favor which God had given to us, did keep this order, it could not be thought impossible for us, in so happy a time, and so great means to attain unto it.
Then Mr. Sp. began to object against Nonresidence and Pluralities, but that being a little talked of as a matter disallowed of by all judgments, and needing no debating, my L. of Leicester, saying it grew late (as it was indeed) said he would break of[f] our disputation with another matter.
Which he did in making a request to the Archbishop of Canterbury, which being a little talked on, the Lords arose, the company departed."
***
Whether these are Whitgift's actual words is harder to say. There is no such extreme account of Advocacy for the Apocrypha offered in his collected works. However, he did defend the use of the Apocrypha in the churches (first example)(second example). Whitgift was no friend of the Puritans, and it is reported that Whitgift forbade Travers from preaching in March 1586. Berg himself warns (emphasis mine):
Walter Travers recorded a conference in the 1580s between himself, Sparke, bishop Cooper, and Archbishop Whitgift, over Puritan complaints to the BCP, possibly caricaturing Whitgift (item 173 in Peel, modernized and lightly summarized below).
With these things in mind, I offer the following comparison chart between my own "modernized" (but not summarized) version shown above and Berg's light summary. My reason is not to offer any criticism of Berg, as he could not have expected the misuse to which his light summary was put.
| Peel's Transcript | Berg's Light Summary | Differences | ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
| ||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
During the debate (mentioned in my introduction above), SoCal read the following (link to spot in the debate):
John Whitgift, the Archbishop of Canterbury who crowned King James himself when he ascended to the throne of England, said of the apocrypha during a small debate between himself and a Puritan Walter Traverse over the book of common prayer and this is what they said:
"Whitgift: The books called apocrypha are indeed parts of the holy scripture and of the old testament they have been used to be read in the church in ancient time and they might ought to be now read amongst us. Travers says: Holy scripture is a title reserved for the canon of the old testament new testament only applicable to the books inspired by the holy spirit. Whitgift says: But the apocrypha were likewise given by inspiration of God. Traverse. Surely this could only be true in the general sense in which anyone saying Christ is Lord is inspired not in the sense of producing a writing without error. Whitgift says: you cannot show any error to be in the Apocrypha. They have been held for holy scriptures by ancient fathers so vouched and cited by them as namely Cyprian and by Augustine and diverse others from the beginning of the Christ church. So always esteemed and therefore read in the church unto this day. Traverse says: Jerome distinguished between canonical and ecclesiastical books and Whitgift wearily says: This doubting of the scriptures is dangerous way for atheism to enter in among us."
Although SoCal did not identify his source, I'm confident that he got this from Berg. You will see that the wording aligns with Berg's wording, even where the summary is quite abridged with respect to the original.
Later in the debate (link to point) SoCal put it this way:
But what I wanted to do, I wanted to show you that within the Protestant denomination that this is also believed and this is taught in in in in hell too. Does he not believe that John Wycliffe was not a regenerate believer? I'm pretty sure he believes he was. Whitgift who clearly stated that the Apocrypha was divine scripture.
For the sake of argument, I'm happy to assume that Archbishop Whitgift was a regenerate believer. The problem for SoCal is that Whitgift never comes out and says what SoCal needs him to say, unless you remove the context as (unfortunately) Berg's summary did.
During the cross-examination, SoCal attempted to cross-examine me about what he himself had said (link to point):
SoCal: So let's get this straight. Let's get this straight. Whitgift said that the apocrypha is scripture. Correct?
T-Fan: Whitgift didn't say that the apoc?--- You're talking about a dialogue that you presentation and that one that you presented? It sounded as though he's saying it's scripture.
SoCal: Okay. Okay. All right. So, let's suppose I'm telling you the truth, which I am. Do you think his use of the word apocrypha agrees with the way you're communicating it to the audience?
T-Fan: I don't-- I'm not suggesting that Whitgift's view of the Apocrypha and mine are the same.
As a minor point, this was one of several times in the cross-examination where SoCal did not follow the rules of debate, as this exchange was not a cross-examination of anything I said.
Still later in the debate (link to point) SoCal put it this way:
But the thing is this is that I am showing you that John Whitgift believed, who was Archbishop-- the one who crowned King James, believed that these were inspired scriptures.
The problem with this argument is that (assuming we take Travers' account as reliable, which is the only reason to discuss it in the first place) Whitgift says that even heathen writings are "inspired by God." As Travers points out, that's not the sort of inspiration we are talking about. Thus, this kind of point is meaningless and moot.
Finally, I think it's valuable to consider the central argument being made by Travers: some of the canonical Scriptures are not in the assigned reading, but Apocrypha are. This implies that the Apocrypha are more edifying than the actual, canonical Scripture. Not only shouldn't the Apocrypha be read at all, but certainly it should not be read with higher priority than the actual Word of God.
*** Citations
"The life of John Whitgift, Archbishop of Canterbury, in the times of Q. Elizabeth and K. James I written by Sir George Paule ; to which is added a treatise intituled, Conspiracy for pretended reformation, written in the year 1591, by Richard Cosin ..." In the digital collection Early English Books Online 2. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/A56725.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed October 2, 2025.
