THE

SUMME

AND

SUBSTANCE

OF THE

CONFERENCE

Which it pleafed his Excellent Majestie to have with the Lords Bishops, and others of his Clergie (at which the most of the Lords of the Councill were prefent), in his Majefties Privie-Chamber, at Hampton Court Jan. 14. 1603.

CONTRACTED BY

WILLIAM BARLOW

DOCTOR OF DIVINITY, AND DEAN OF CHESTER,

Whereunto are added fome Copies (Jcattered abroad) unfavory, and untrue.

ADVERTISEMENT.

ISHOP BARLOW's account of the Hampton

BISHOP

Court Conference, as a fingle tract, is now become fcarce, and is not frequently to be found entire in books of hiftory, or in collections of tracts. It was published about a century ago, in a work called the PHOENIX; confidered then as a tract no where to be found, but in the clofets of the curious. The frequent references to it, lately made by certain writers, have induced the Editors of the "Churchman's Remembrancer" to bring forward this interefting Account, in full confidence that it will prove an acceptable prefent to the public, and be serviceable to the caufe of fober religion. With respect to the authority of the piece as an authentic report of the Conference, there has been, as muft be expected, fome little debate; the adherents to the worsted party affecting to call in question the veracity of the good Bithop, whilft the victorious receive it as a true and faithful narrative.

A 3

rative. The objections to this account of Bishop Barlow are to be seen in the writings of James Peirce, and Daniel Neale. Peirce, in his Vindication of the Diffenters, a work which we believe has long enjoyed the rank of a text book among that party, confidently speaks of this Account as a falfe one, and gives a more true and exact one from Mr. Calderwood. He argues that Bishop Barlow's account cannot be a true one, because it reprefents Dr. Raynolds, who was celebrated for one of the most famous divines of his age, as talking at the Conference in a stupid, filly, and childish way; and afferts, that the Bishop repented upon his death-bed of the wrong he had done Dr. Raynolds and his brethren. Neal fays, That this Conference was published at large only by Dr. Barlow, who being a party, fays Fuller, fet a sharp edge on his own, and a blunt one on his adverfaries weapons. He quotes Peirce to fhew, that Drs. Sparks and Raynolds complained, that they were wronged in that relation; that Dr. Jackfon declared that Barlow repented of it upon his death-bed; and that Calderwood, by means of Patrick Galloway, has fet things in a different light. He further fays from Peirce, (which Peirce gives from an old Pamphlet,) "It is

66

very certain that Bishop Barlow has cut off "and concealed all the fpeeches that his

Majefty made against the corruptions of the Church, and the practices of the Prelates, "&c. That the Puritans objected to the "account of the Conference by Dean Barlow, as published without the knowledge, advice

σε

or confent of the other fide." (Hift. of the Pur. Vol. 1.) So much for the objections against the Account of this Conference, which originate for the moft part with Peirce. On the other fide of the queftion, we offer the following obfervations and authorities.

Peirce boldly calls Bishop Barlow's, a falfe account; but, for ought to be feen in his Vindication, there is nothing brought to prove it fo. That "Calderwood's fhould appear at first fight "vastly different from Bishop Barlow's rela"tion," appears neither ftrange nor at all incredible; and furely he would not have us confider the mere circumftance of the difference of the two relations, as any proof that Barlow's is falfe. Calderwood was a Presbyterian; he sends his brief account, adopted from a letter of Patrick Galloway, a Prefbyterian, to the Presbytery at Edinburgh. But we must not forget, that Calderwood's Hiftory is a pofthumous work, extracted from materials written by him, during his retirement in Holland; "whither he "had been driven by James and his PrivyA 4 council,