Concerning a command of lawful superiors, what was sufficient to its being a lawful command; this proposition was brought by the conforming party.

“That command which commands an act in itself lawful, and no other act or circumstance unlawful, is not sinful.”

Mr. Baxter[26] denied it for two reasons, which he gave in with his own hand in writing, thus: 

One was, “Because that may be a sin per accidens, which is not so in itself, and may be unlawfully commanded, though that accident be not in the command.”  Another was, “That it may be commanded under an unjust penalty.”

Again this proposition being brought by the Conformists, “That command which commandeth an act in itself lawful, and no other act whereby any unjust penalty is enjoined, nor any circumstance whence, per accidens, any sin is consequent which the commander ought to provide against, is not sinful.”

[Sidenote:  His contentions or denials]

Mr. Baxter denied it for this reason, then given in with his own hand in writing thus:  “Because the first act commanded may be per accidens unlawful, and be commanded by an unjust penalty, though no other act or circumstance commanded be such.”

Again, this proposition being brought by the Conformists, “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, hath in it all things requisite to the 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.”

Mr. Baxter denied it upon the same reasons.

PETER GUNNING.[27]

JOHN PEARSON.[28]

These were then two of the disputants, still alive, and will attest this; one being now Lord Bishop of Ely, and the other of Chester.  And the last of them told me very lately, that one of the Dissenters—­which I could, but forbear to name—­appeared to Dr. Sanderson to be so bold, so troublesome, and so illogical in the dispute, as forced patient Dr. Sanderson—­who was then Bishop of Lincoln, and a moderator with other Bishops—­to say, with an unusual earnestness, “That he had never met with a man of more pertinacious confidence, and less abilities, in all his conversation.”

[Sidenote:  Results of the debate]

But though this debate at the Savoy was ended without any great satisfaction to either party, yet both parties knew the desires, and understood the abilities, of the other, much better than before it:  and the late distressed Clergy, that were now restored to their former rights and power, did, at the next meeting in Convocation, contrive to give the dissenting party satisfaction by alteration, explanation, and addition to some part both of the Rubric and Common Prayer,