II. pal divines being willing the others should go their whole CHARLES length, and exert their force, it was at last agreed to argue in writing. The most remarkable things in this debate were these two: First. They had a long argument about settling the sense and application of Rom. xiv. 1, 2, 3, "Him that is weak in the faith, receive you, but not to doubtful disputations," &c. But the meaning of a resembling text having been discussed in the Church commissioners' answer, I shall waive the recital of what passed upon this head. Only here it may be observed, that the Presbyterian ministers were the opponents. "Whe arguing. In the other part of the dispute, the question was, ther it was sinful to enjoin ministers to deny the commnion to those that would not receive it kneeling?" And here the episcopal divines who opposed, urged several arguments, that things in their own nature indifferent might become necessary, as to their use, when commanded by lawful authority. In this debate Baxter seems to have been either perplexed in his understanding, or indisposed for closing the difference; for no proposition could be made plain enough to gain his assent. For instance, the episcopal divines argued thus: "That a Baxter's unsupported command which commands only an act in itself lawful, is not manner of sinful." This was denied by Baxter, upon the score that some unlawful circumstance might hang on the command, or because the penalty might be overcharged. The opponents reinforced their proposition thus: "That command which commandeth an act in itself lawful, and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly, or per accidens, any sin is consequent, which the commander ought to provide against, is not sinful." This Baxter denied, for this dark reason, "Because the first act commanded, may be accidentally unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other act or circumstance be such." This, besides the obscurity of the answer, appears no more than a repetition of what he had answered before. However, to disentangle this divine, the opponents endeavour to set the argument in a stronger light, if possible. To this purpose, they improve their proposition, thus: "That command which commandeth an act, in itself lawful, and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence directly, or per accidens, any sin is consequent, which the commander Id. թ. 167, 168. JUXON, ought to provide against, hath in it all things requisite to the Abp. Cant. lawfulness of a command, and particularly cannot be guilty of commanding an act per accidens unlawful, nor of commanding an act under an unjust penalty." This proposition, thus demonstratively couched, was denied by Baxter for his reasons last mentioned. His talent lay in retiring to foreign distinctions, and misapplications of the rules of logic. But whether this involving the argument, and raising a mist, was art, or infirmity, is hard to determine. However, let the most charitable construction pass. This cavilling and chicane,—as it appeared, at least, in Baxter's management,-was complained of in print, by bishop Morley. This prelate takes notice, that Friend for Baxter's denying that plain proposition last mentioned, was not only a frivolous and false manner of arguing, but likewise destructive of all authority, human and divine; that the rejecting propositions of such evidence, strikes the Church out of all authority for making canons for the settling of order and discipline. And more than this, such a sceptical length of denial takes away all legislative power from the king and parliament, and even from God himself; for no act can be so good in itself, but that it may lead to a sin by accident. And if to command such an act be a sin, then every command must be a sin. Letter to a Vindication of himself from Mr. Baxter's Calamy's Life of Baxter, p. 168, 169. The conference at Savoy ends without an accommoda tion. And thus the conference at the Savoy ended without an accommodation. Whether the encouragement the Nonconformists received from the king and the ministry, the assurances they might have from some leading members in parliament, or their interest they reckoned on with the people; whether all, or any of these motives made them stand off, and less compliant, is farther than I shall pronounce. Before I take leave of this subject, I shall just mention those Church commissioners who had the greatest share in the debate. Henchman, then bishop of Salisbury, and afterwards of London, is reported well acquainted with the Fathers and councils he discoursed with great temper, but was strongly against large abatements and schemes of comprehension. This prelate, together with Sheldon and Morley, are said to have had the chief management of this affair. Dr. Pearson, afterwards bishop of Chester, disputed with great exactness. The ministers on the other side had a particular regard for him, and believed that if this divine had been an umpire in the II. controversy, his concessions would have gone a great way: CHARLES and, to mention only one more, Dr. Gunning, afterwards bishop of Ely, had a principal part in the debate: he had a ready pronunciation, and argued with great learning and vigour. His regard for the practice of antiquity made him adhere strictly to the ceremonies and constitution of the Church and he thought it by no means reasonable to give up usages and regulations, so primitively settled and supported. At the close of the last day it was mutually agreed, that the report of the conference should be delivered to the king in writing, and that each party should give in this general account, "That the Church's welfare, that unity and peace, and his majesty's satisfaction, were ends upon which they were all agreed but as to the means, they could not come to any harmony." Soon after this conference, the Nonconformist commissioners drew up an account of their performance, together with a petition to his majesty for those alterations and abatements which had been lately promised. It was presented by bishop Reynolds, Bates, Manton, and Baxter. Part of their address runs thus : tion. 886. "As your majesty, under God, is the protection The Nonconformists whereto your people fly, and as the same necessities still re-the main which drew forth your gracious declaration, we most king for the benefit of his humbly and earnestly beseech your majesty, that the benefits late declaraof the said declaration may be continued to your people, and in particular that the additions may be made to the liturgy, that are therein expressed.We shall wait in hope, that so great a calamity of your people as would follow the loss of so many able, faithful ministers, as rigorous impositions would cast out, shall never be recorded in the history of your reign; but that these impediments of concord being forborne, your kingdoms may flourish in piety and peace," &c. But this application failed of success. The king might probably be of opinion, that these ministers came off with disadvantage, and sunk in the controversy. Id. p. 176. 1661. While the debate at the Savoy was on foot, a new parlia- May 8, ment met at Westminster; the members of both houses were well affected to the Church and crown. And, not to mention JUXON, other things, of this we have an instance, in their order for Abp. Cant. burning the "National Vow and Covenant," by the common hangman. May 22. A new parliament meets at Westmin ster. Dr. Heylin's letter to a minister of state. At the summoning this parliament, the Church was not perfectly re-established; and the king, as has been observed, had granted a commission to a certain number of Episcopal and Presbyterian divines, to treat an union at the Savoy: for these reasons, it was once almost resolved by the court, not to call a convocation with the parliament. Before this matter was fully settled, Dr. Heylin wrote a letter to a principal minister of state, to solicit the king that the clergy might be continued in their ancient privilege of holding synods. I shall give the reader only some part of this application: "MY LORD, "If it is objected," says the doctor, "that the commission, now on foot, for altering and explaining certain passages in the public liturgy, may either pass instead of a convocation, or else is thought to be neither compatible nor consistent with it; I hope far better in the one, and must profess, that I can see no reason in the other. For, first, I hope that the selecting some few bishops, and other learned men of the lower clergy, to debate on certain points contained in the Common Prayer-book, is not intended for a representation of the Church of England, which is a body more diffused, and cannot legally stand bound by their acts and counsels. And if this conference be for no other purpose, but only to prepare matters for a convocation, (as some say it is not) why may not such a conference and convocation be held at once? For neither the selecting of some learned men, out of both orders, for the composing and reviewing of the two liturgies digested in the reign of king Edward VI., proved any hinderance in the calling of those convocations which were held, both in the second and third, and in the fifth and sixth, of the said king's reign. Nor was it found that the holding of a convocation, together with the first parliament, under queen Elizabeth, proved any hinderance to that conference, or disputation which was designed between the bishops and some learned men of the opposite parties; all which considered, I do most humbly beg your lordship to put his majesty in mind of sending out his mandates to the two archbishops for summoning a II. convocation (according to the usual form) in their several pro- CHARLES vinces; that this poor Church may be held with some degree of veneration, both at home and abroad. "Your lordship's," &c. Upon the strength and seasonableness of this application, the king, it is probable, dispatched his mandate for a convocation in each province; the writs for summoning the parliament having been issued some unusual time before. His majesty's writ to William, archbishop of Canterbury, for meeting his suffragans and clergy at St. Paul's, London, was dated April the 11th. cation meets. At the time appointed the convocation was opened with The convoDivine service, and a sermon was preached in Latin, by Dr. Session 2. Thomas Pierce, on Acts xv. 28. And the archbishop, being somewhat disabled by age and ill health, the bishop of London presided. On the 16th of May the convocation met upon prorogation, in the collegiate church at Westminster. And Acta Supehere Dr. Fearn, dean of Ely, elected prolocutor in the former rioris Dosession, was presented to Sheldon, and confirmed. After this Vid. Synod. Anglic, in the clergy of the lower house being dismissed, the bishops Append. consulted for a form of prayer to be used on the 29th of May, deinc. and another for the 30th of January. The drawing these forms was referred to two several committees, each consisting of four bishops, and eight of the inferior clergy. mus Convoc. p. 60. et Id. After the next prorogation, the president delivered the form Sess. 3. of prayer for May 29, to the prolecutor, who was to lay it before the lower house for their consent. And now this precedent suggested the want of a particular "form for the minis-. tration of baptism to those of riper years," and referred it to a committee of three bishops, and six of the lower clergy. July the 17th, the bishop of Sarum brought in a draught of Sess. 18. some canons, which were read, amended, and recommitted. Id. P. 80. At the second meeting of the parliament, Nov. 20, the con- Id. p. 84. vocation met the day following, when the king's letters were read for the review of the Common Prayer, and a committee was appointed for that purpose. This weighty business en- Sess. 48. gaged the whole synod till December 20, when the Book of Common Prayer, revised and amended, was approved and |