66

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 trifling." They replied, "they must prove "alterations necessary:' The ministers answered, 66 they

66

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.

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. At 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 for“bearing; 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.

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

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 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 as if they had been sound reasoning: that he was unweariedly 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

66

66

of

of such coemonies of Rome, which we have cast out; he 161, ** Yes; and I think we ought to have more, and not fewer."

On the side of the Presbyterians, Dr. Horton never appeared, nou Dr. Drake, because of a misnomer in the commission. Dr. Lightfoot, Dr. Tuckney, and Mr. Woodbridge were present only once or twice. Dr. Bates and Dr. Manton behaved with great modesty. The chief disputant was Mr. Baxter, who, (says Mr. Neal) "had a very metaphysical head and fertile invention, and was one of the most ready men of his time for an argument, but too eager, and tenacious of his own opinions." Next to him was Mr. Calamy, who had a great interest among the ministers in town and country.

Among the auditors, there was, with the bishops, a crowd of young divines, who behaved indecently. Among the few that came in with the Presbyterians, were Mr. Miles and Mr. Tillotson, afterwards archbishop of Canterbury.

At the close of the last day it was agreed that nothing should be given in on either side to the king, as charged on the other, but in writing; and that they should on each side give this account, That they were all agreed upon the ends, the welfare, unity and peace of the church, and his majesty's happiness: but after all their debates, they disagreed about the means.

The dispute being ended, the Presbyterian commissioners met by themselves, and resolved to draw up an account of their endeavours, and present it to his majesty, with a petition for his promised help for those alterations and abateinents, which they could not procure of the bishops. But all availed nothing; and they were generally entertained with peproach, and branded as rigid Presbyterians, though they pleaded for primitive episcopacy. They were represcated in the common conversation of those who were poping for pictament, as the most seditious people in the Wort unwinthy to be used like men, or to enjoy any li

It was the constant cry, that they were plotting, or alg, the people against the government.

for the liner part of this year many worthy ministers, drop talde goulemen and others, were imprisoned in Tiffos ouisa under a pretence of being concerned in

Tu Nomber, Mr. Ambrose Sparry (a sober Custer, lo had never espoused the Parliament's f t f moderate episcopacy) had a wicked neighbour,

neighbour, who bearing him a grudge for having reproved him for adultery, thought he had now an opportunity to be revenged. He or his confederates, framed a letter, as from a nameless person, directed to Mr. Sparry," that "he and Captain Yarrington should be ready with money "and arms at the time appointed, and that they would ac"quaint Mr. Osland and Mr. Baxter with it." He pretended that he found this letter under a hedge, where a man had been sitting, who pulled out a great many letters, all of which he put up again, except this, and went away. This vile informer carried the letter to Sir John Packington, (a zealous man in such business,) who sent Mr. Sparry, Mr. Osland, and Captain Farrington* to prison.

Many upon this occasion, especially Mr. Sparry, lay long in prison; and even when the forgery was detected, they had much difficulty in obtaining a release. Though Mr. Baxter was named in the above letter, he was then, and had been for some time in London, so that he escaped; and yet where ever men were taken up and imprisoned, in distant counties, it was said to be for Baxter's plot.

N

SECT. IV.

The Act of Uniformity; and Reflections upon it.

OTWITHSTANDING all their discouragements, Mr. Calamy, and some other ministers still used their interest with men in power, to get the parliament to pass the king's declaration into a law; and sometimes the Lord Chancellor and others gave them some hope of success.

* Dr. Calamy says, that Captain Yarrington was a man of an established reputation; who in the year 1681, published a full discovery of the first Presbyterian sham plot: in which he declares he related nothing but what he could prove by letters, and many living witnesses; and his account was never publicly contradicted. He says, that many, both of the clergy and laity, disliking the king's declaration concerning ecclesiastical affairs, resolved to run things to the utmost height: and that some of the leading Church-men were heard to say, "they would have an act so framed as "would reach every Puritan in the kingdom: and that if they thought "any of them would so stretch their consciences as to be comprehended "by it, they would insert yet other conditions and subscriptions, so that "they should have no benefit by it." To render them odious to government, they contrived what they called a Presbyterian plot, which was laid in about thirty-six different counties. That the general cry occasioned by these sham plots much promoted the Uniformity-Bill, which passed that session, will easily be judged by any one that will peruse Yarrington's narrative.