was then moved, That they would go over the particulars excepted against, and declare what alterations they could yield to. But they told them, "They had nothing to say

upon that head, till the necessity of an alteration in ge"neral was proved, which it had not as yet been; they "would yield to all that was proved necessary, but looked upon none as necessary." The ministers urged them again and again with the words of the king's declaration and commission; and observed, "It was strange, that when "the king had so long and publicly determined upon the ،، end, and called them to consult about the means, they "should at least presume to contradict him, and deter"mine the end itself unnecessary, and consequently no means necessary: and that therefore all their meetings “ had been but triling.” They replied, They replied, "they must prove "alterations necessary:" The ministers answered, "they were necessary to peace and unity, which without them "would not be attained:" To which they would by no means yield. This was to draw on a dispute, before the end of which, the time of the commission was likely to expire. To this therefore the ministers objected. But nothing else would be yielded to, and so a dispute was agreed upon, to argue the necessity of altering the liturgy.

66

66

At

After two days debate about the order of the disputation, Dr. Pearson alone undertook to dispute on the side of the bishops, when the ministers had discharged the opponent's province; which was accepted. Three of a party were chosen on each side to manage the dispute. The bishops chose Dr. Pearson, Dr. Gunning, and Dr. Sparrow : the ministers chose Dr. Bates, Dr. Jacomb, and Mr. Baxter: and they met to dispute accordingly. But there were so many speakers, and so many interruptions, and so many personal reflections, that it was to very little purpose. length, bishop Cosins produced a paper, as from a considerable person, containing a method to end the controversy; which was, "to put the complainers upon distinguishing "between the things they charged as sinful, and those "which they opposed as inexpedient only." The three disputants on the ministers side, were desired to draw up an answer to it against the next morning; which they did, and charged eight things as flatly sinful, and contrary to the word of God, viz. "That no minister be admitted to "baptize without using the sign of the cross-or officiate without the surplice. That none be admitted to the

،، Lord's

"Lord's Supper, without receiving it kneeling," &c. &c. After a great deal of loose discourse, they came at length to the dispute, which was managed in writing: the sole argument was, "the sinfulness of enjoining ministers to deny the communion to all that dare not kneel." The ministers proved their assertion thus. That it was denying the sacrament to those whom the Holy Ghost commands us to receive; urging Rom. xiv. 1-3. "Him that is weak "in the faith receive you, but not to doubtful disputation, "&c." The episcopal divines answered, "That that text "was not to the purpose, because it speaks of things "lawful and not commanded; whereas the debate was "about things lawful, and also commanded; and, withal, "because the receiving there mentioned, is not to be "understood of immediately receiving persons to the "holy communion." The Presbyterian disputants replied: "The text forbids any such commands of things "lawful, as are not consistent with receiving and forbearing; and that it must necessarily take in receiving persons to the Lord's Supper, because it requires the receiving men to that church-communion in the ge"neral, of which the sacrament is a most eminent part, " &c." But when Dr. Gunning had read certain citations and authorities for the other side, Bishop Cosins, the moderator, put the question, "All you that think Dr. Gunning "has proved that Rom. xiv. speaketh not of receiving "the sacrament, say Aye." Upon which there was a general cry Aye, aye, among the hearers of the episcopal party, of whom there were many in the hall, whereas the Presbyterians had but two or three.

66

66

At length the episcopal divines became opponents upon the same question, and argued thus: "That command, "which enjoins only an act in itself lawful, is not sinful." This Mr. Baxter denied. They then added; "That com"mand, which enjoins an act in itself lawful, and no "other act or circumstance unlawful, is not sinful." This also Mr. Baxter denied: as he did some other propositions of theirs. At length, finding themselves embarrassed, the dispute broke off with noise and confusion, and high reflections upon Mr. Baxter's cloudy imagination, and his perplexed, scholastic, and metaphysical manner of distinguishing; and Bishop Saunderson being in the chair, pronounced that Gunning had the better of the argument. Bishop Morley asserted in print, that Mr. Baxter's asser

tion was not only false, but destructive of all authority, human and divine. Upon this the whole nation almost was filled with tragical exclamations against the abominable assertion of one of the disputants at the Savoy, "that "things not evil of themselves, may have accidents so evil as may make it a sin to him that shall command them." And thus ended the dispute at the Savoy, and all endeavours for reconciliation upon the warrant of the king's commis

66

sion.

It may not be amiss to add some remarks upon the temper and carriage of the commissioners on both sides; several of whom seldom or never appeared: as Dr. King bishop of Chester, Drs. Heylin, Barwick and Earle. Sheldon bishop of London seldom attended, though he, with Henchman and Morley, had the chief management of affairs. Others who were present, did not much concern themselves in the debate, as Dr. Frewen archbishop of York, Bishops Lucy, Warner, Saunderson, Laney, Walton, Sterne, Dr. Hacket, and Dr. Sparrow. Dr. Morley was the chief speaker. His manner was vehement, and he was against all abatements. He frequently interrupted Mr. Baxter. Bishop Cosins was constant, and though inclined to moderation, said some very severe things. He appeared well versed in the canons, councils, and fathers. Bishop Gauden was never absent. He often took part with the Presbyterian divines, and was the only moderator among the bishops, excepting Reynolds, who spoke much the first day for moderation, but afterwards only now and then a qualifying word, though he was heartily grieved for the fruitless issue of the conference.

Of the disputants, Dr. Pearson (afterwards bishop of Chester) disputed accurately, soberly and calmly, and procured for himself great respect from the Presbyterian ministers, who thought, if all had been in his power, it would have gone well for them. Dr. Gunning was the most forward speaker, and stuck at nothing. Bishop Burnet says, "that "he used all the arts of sophistry in as confident a manner

66

as if they had been sound reasoning: that he was un"weariedly active to very little purpose, and being very "fond of Popish rituals and ceremonies, he was much set "upon reconciling the church of England to Rome." Accordingly when Dr. Bates urged it upon him, that on the same reasons as they imposed the cross and surplice, they might bring in holy water, and lights, and abundance

of

Arthur Jackson, presented him with a richly-adorned Bibie; which he received, telling them" It should be the "rule of his government and of his life.”

SECT. III.

Attempts for a Coalition. The Savoy Conference, and its fruitless wrue.

WHEN

THEN the King was received with the general acclamations of his people, the expectations of men were various, according to their several interests. Some plain and moderate Episcopalians thought of an union with the Presbyterians. The more politic part of them knew that all their ancient power, honour, and revenues would be restored, and none suffered to share with them. But many of the Presbyterians were in great hopes of favour. Besides promises from men in power, they had an assurance from K. Charles himself, in his declaration from Breda, April 4, 1660, in these words, "We do declare a liberty to tender "consciences, and that no man shall be disquieted, or called " in question, for differences of opinion, which do not dis"turb the peace of the kingdom." To cherish their hopes, ten of them were made the King's chaplains in ordinary, tho' none of them ever preached, except Mr. Calamy, Dr. Reynolds, Mr. Baxter, Dr. Spurstow, and Mr. Woodbridge, once each. By this means, having easy access to his majesty, they waited upon him with Lord Manchester, recommending to his serious consideration the union of his subjects in religi ous matters, begging that only necessary things might be the terms of it. The king declared himself highly pleased with their inclinations to agreement, and resolved to do his part to promote it; but told them, "It could not be expected but "by abating something on both sides, and meeting in the "midway. He therefore desired them to offer him some "proposals, in order to an agreement about church-govern"ment, this being the main difference, and to set down the "most that they could yield to." They also begged that their brethren on the other side might do the same. king promised they should.

The

After this, the ministers met from day to day at Sion College, to consult openly with any of their brethren that would join with them, that none might say they were excluded. Many of the city ministers assembled, and inany

country

country ministers, then in town, joined them, of whom Mr. Newcomen was the most constant. In about three weeks they agreed to a paper of proposals, in which (after an humble address to his majesty, and four preliminary requests, viz. That serious godliness might be countenanced, and a learned and pious minister in each parish encouraged; that a personal public owning the baptismal covenant might precede an admission to the Lord's Table; and that the Lord's Day might be strictly sanctified) they offered to allow of the true primitive presidency in the church, with a due mixture of presbyters, in order to the avoiding the evils which are incident to the administration of a single person; and for reforming which they proposed, that Bp. Usher's "Reduction of episcopacy into the form of synodical government received in the ancient church," should be the ground-work of an accommodation; that suffragans should be chosen by the respective synods; the associations be of a moderate extent; the ministers be under no oaths, or promises of obedience to their bishops; and that the bishops should not govern by their own will only, but according to canons and constitutions to be established by act of parliament. They owned the lawfulness of a prescribed form of public worship; but desired, that some learned, pious, and moderate divines, of both parties, might be employed either to compile a new liturgy, or to reform the old; adding some other forms in scripture phrase, to be used at the minister's choice. As to the ceremonies, they humbly represented, that the worship of God was perfect without them; that they had ever since the reformation been matter of contention; that they were at best but indifferent, and in their own nature mutable; and therefore they begged, that kneeling at the sacrament might not be imposed; that the surplice, the cross in baptism, and bowing at the name of Jesus, might be abolished; and that care might be taken to prevent future innovations contrary to law.

Quickly after the king's return, many hundreds of worthy ministers were displaced, because they were in sequestrations where others had been cast out by the parliament. The ministers, waiting upon his majesty with their proposals, signified their full satisfaction that all such should be cast out as were in any benefice belonging formerly to one that was not grossly insufficient or debauched; but humbly begged, that all who had succeeded scandalous persons might hold their places: as also where the old incumbents were dead;

C 3

and