were thoroughly convinc'd of the Legality of the Revolution why did so many who have taken the New Oaths refuse to take them in the Sense of the Imposers but their own and invent New Salvoes to quiet their struggling and reluctant Consciences Some declaring that they took the Oath only as an Obligation to live peaceably others with a Proviso that it did not oppose contradict or annul the Ancient Fundamental Laws of this Realm Others were drawn by the Magnetick Force and influenced by the powerful Charms of that rare new-invented Salvo that superfine Criticism of a certain eminent Divine and eloquent Preacher in this City than which the subtle most Aristoteletotical Thomas Aquinas himself could not have invented a better viz. That the taking the New Oath is only a temporary Suspension of Allegiance to King JAMES to whom when he returns we might warrantably return to our Duty and Allegiance A smooth and lucky Vehicle which tempted not a few young Ecclesiasticks to swallow the bitter Pill So that the Legality of the Revolution and consequently of the Deprivation being question'd and disprov'd our Author proceeds upon a wrong Hypothesis and has little Reason to blame Dr. B for refusing a Preferment which to take being another's is utterly unlawful But there is a more material Consideration says our Author pag. 6. which may influence prudent and cautious Men who are well preferred already The Experience of the Revolution in 1660. hath taught them how dangeroas it may be in case such a Revolution should happen to change their old Preferments for new ones which may be challenged again by their old Proprietors And why is our Author angry with such prudent and cautious Men who are so tractable as to be willing to be taught by the woful Experience and sad Examples of others who foolishly unhing'd themselves and quitted their old for a precarious Title to new Preferments which currente Rotâ were justly challenged again by their old Proprietors Why may they not be allowed to learn Wisdom from the burnt Child which dreads the Fire and from the cheated Dog in the Fable whose Folly was sufficiently chastis'd by snapping at the Shadow Felix quem faciunt aliena pericula cautum But why does our Author so much dread Why does he put so acute an Emphasis of Horror upon SUCH a Revolution as was that of 1660. which every 29th of May the Anniversary Commemoration of it does bless and all Generations shall call it blessed It being a Revolution which brought many inestimable Blessings with it Which stanch'd the Flux of Blood clos'd our ghastly gaping Wounds and heal'd our Breaches and put an End to our miserable Confusions and the Great Rebellion Which crown'd us with the desirable long wish'd for Blessings of Peace and Plenty and restor'd to every Man his Right to the King his Crown and Royal Dignity to the Church her Revenues and Liturgy to the State the course of Justice and Deliverance from Slavery to the poor oppressed sequestred Loyal English Subject his Liberty and Property and to these distracted Nations a happy Settlement and an opulent Prosperity A Revolution which was not like the * With such invidious Characters there were not wanting some like our Author to disgrace to overcast the brighter Dawn of that happy Revolution to preoccupy and prejudice the â—â—nds of Men. breaking in of the Sea to overthrow our Houses and cause us to perish with our Neighbours but like the soft and gentle Dew or joyful Rain to the parched Earth to refresh and comfort it And why shoâ—ld our Author be so much afraid of and so vehemently deprecate SUCH a Revolution unless he has chang'd his Old Preferments for New ones which he may justly fear will be challenged again by their â—â—d Proprieters I am confident were the Generality of the English Subjects how much soever they are prejudic'd now being too apt to be blinded by the Vapours of intoxicating Fears and Jealousies satisfied that another would prove SUCH a Revolution as was that of 1660. which they have the less cause to fear considering that the Person to be restored is not a cruel bloody Nero or Diocletian but a Branch of the forgiving Race related to the Royal Martyr and Charles the Merciful and an English-man born to which may be added the signal Instances of his Clemency and forbearing Mercy in Ireland to the great disgust and dissatisfaction of the French Generals when he might have taken in all likelihood successful Advantage over the English Army when in a sick and weak and languid State whom he pitied as a true Father of his Country I am confident I say that from SUCH a Revolution they would not make it their Litany Libera nos Domine or cry out in a Fright at the apprehension of it in the Language of our Author If there ever be SUCH a Revolution c. God be merciful to this miserable Nation But our Author makes a lamentable Complaint Pag. 9. What an unpardonable Scandal Dr. B ' s Refusal hath given both to the Enemies and the Friends of the Government Which by the way is no very good Argument of the Goodness of it and no very lucky Omen or Prognostick of its Stability or Continuance In as much as in former Reigns the like Refusal has not given such a Scandal as our Author speaks of Which does not naturally and necessarily owe it self to the Doctor 's Refusal though accidentally and occasionally it may but to the sick and lame and tottering State of the Government which really is neither made better nor worse neither strengthened nor weakened by the Doctor 's Refusal But his refusing to be made so eminent a Member of it and that either out of Fear or Conscience or both may accidentally suggest Reflections upon the Stability or Authority of it And if this confirms the Enemies of the Government in their Opinion of the Unlawfulness to submit to it and weakens the hands of Friends and makes them cautious of embarking in a sinking Interest and fills them with new Jealousies of the Lawfulness of it who can help it whom may we thank for it Not the Doctor but the Badness of the Cause which as the Doctor 's Refusal could not make worse so his Compliance cannot make better In the next Paragraph Pag. 10. we find our Author in a great Fright dreading what might be the fatal Consequence of such a Miscarriage as this both to Church and State i. e. I presume least it should tempt and provoke the new Governours to alter the Constitution of the Church and set up Presbytery But then presently his Fears vanish being persuaded of the good Inclinations of their Majesties to the Church of England of which indeed they have given a signal Evidence by their wonderful kindness to the Episcopal Members of the Church of Scotland But this our Author's Eyes are not yet open to see being blinded and transported with some of that extatick Zeal and good
Affection which his wiser Men Pag. 11. are inspired with which perhaps was the cause of that unmannerly Effort that instance of Rudeness and Folly in him of calling the Doctor Fool which is the softest Name that his good Breeding could bestow upon him which I am apt to think was a little too rude treating of so Reverend a Person whom the Government thought worthy of so high a Character had he not been too self-denying to accept of it He then proceeds in the next Paragraph Pag. 11 12. to his Conclusion from the Premisses This says he plainly proves that supposing it Lawful to have taken the Bishoprick no other Consideration whatsoever can justify the Refusal in our Circumstances If then according to his own Argument it be unlawful or if the Doctor thought it so his Refusal is justifiable But he knows not how to suppose that the Doctor could think it unlawful Which that he could not do he endeavours to prove by two Arguments The first is drawn from the Doctor 's Submission to the Government and taking the Oaths of Allegiance as early as any Man and never that our Author heard had the least Scruple about it Pag. 12 Perhaps the Doctor took the Oath as some of the Kentish Clergy took it i. e. as the Israelites did eat Manna to keep 'em from starving But perhaps the Doctor repents and sees his Error and is sorry for what he has done and therefore as a true Penitent will not add Sin to Sin And though he took the new Oath of Allegiance and that perhaps a little too precipitantly yet he will not Rob or Steal nor commit Sacriledge But our Author is very uncharitable and will allow no place for Repentance though as Esau a Man seek it carefully with Tears For says he this was the time to have been Scrupulous if he would have been so for it seems a little of the latest when he is become a sworn Subject to K. William and Q. Mary to question their Authority to make a Bishop But if true Repentance be not too late with God I know not why Man should account it so His second Argument is drawn Pag. 13. from the Doctor 's exercising Archi-Episcopal Authority by Commissien from the Dean and Chapter of Canterbury during the Vacancy of the See by the Deprivation of the A. B. as it is expressed in the Commission And this he tells us he takes to be altogether as unlawful if either of them were unlawful to seise upon the Authority of the A. B. upon the Account of his Deprivation as to take the Character and exercise the Authority of a Bishop in the See of a deprived Bishop Let the Doctor answer for this himself as I doubt not so great a Canonist is able to do Though at the first sight it appears to any one that is not so well vers'd and learned in the Canon Law that to exercise Archi Episcopal Authority when the Arch-Bishop's hands were tyed up and could not do it himself is a less Fault than to enter pleno Jure upon the Right and Possession of a Bishop unjustly deprived and seise and enjoy the Revenues of his See But I cannot but observe how industriously and malitiously our Author like the Great Abaddon endeavours to keep the poor Doctor from Repentance by shewing and exposing the Absurdity and Unreasonableness of his Refusal from this Consideration That he has plung'd himself so deeply in one Act after another in compliance with the Government which is suppos'd to confirm his Opinion of the Lawfulness of it that he cannot now Stop but must go on ad Finem usque Alas what a Dilemma do Men bring upon themselves when they go out of God's Way and leave the Paths of Truth Justice and Righteousness He that makes one false Step knows not whither he may wander He that presumptuously commits one Error knows not when or where he shall end Uno Absurdo dato sequuntur Mille. But this is the Sinner's Comfort amidst the frightful View of his repeated Acts of Sin that sincere Repentance will expiate for his greatest Errors resolving If I have done Evil I will do so no more Thus our Author having endeavour'd to prove that the Doctor could not think it unlawful to take the Bishoprick He tells us Pag. 14. what the Peoples Sentiments are of his Refusal Which says he after an appearing forwardness to take it hath tempted People to think that he judges it unlawful And if they do so our Author has put a very fine Argument in their Mouths by an easy Train of necessary Consequences wherein he speaks great Truths perhaps against his Will which may be more disserviceable to the Government than he is aware of the bare Recital of which will be enough without a Comment If says he Pag. 15. it be unlawful and perhaps not only the Doctor but others besides him think so to succeed a deprived Bishop then he is the Bishop of the Diocese still and then the Law that deprives him is no Law and consequently the King and Parliament that made that Law no King nor Parliament Which indeed some have been so bold to question thinking it hardly possible that that can be a lawful King who was made so by the People or that a lawful Parliament which was cut out of a Convention not summon'd by the King's Writs but made a Parliament by the celebrated Miracle of Transubstantiation A true Jest perhaps But Ridentem dicere Verum Quis vetat But to go on with his admirable Train of Deductions Pag. 15. If says he the deprived Bishop be the only lawful Bishop then the People and Clergy of his Diocese are bound to own him and no other then all the Bishops who own the Authority of a New Arch-Bishop and live in Communion with him are Schismaticks and the Clergy who live in Communion with Schismatical Bishops are Schismaticks themselves and the whole Church of England now Established by the New Law is Schismatical and Dr. B himself a Schismatick if he communicate with it And thus we have no Church or only a Schismatical Church as well as no King and all that Dr. B has got by refusing a Bishoprick is to prove himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion or to make a Schism if he Separate from â— The last Branch of his Disjunction I deny For though Dr. B proves himself a Schismatick if he live in Communion with a Schismatical Church yet he does not make a Schism by separating from it For he makes the Schism who makes the Terms of Communion unlawful And by the way if all is true in this Train of Consequences neither our Author I hope nor his swearing Brethren will be offended at or condemn the New Separation And so I pass to his second Head of Discourse Pag. 17. viz. the Lawfulness of the Thing it self which he says is so evident when set in a clear Light that it will admit of no Dispute with Men of
Sense He tells us That in a late Letter said to be sent to Dr. B and now printed on the Back side of a scandalous Rhiming Libel upon his Sermon of Restitution he is threatned in case he should accept the Bishoprick with the Fate of those Ecclesiastical Schismatical Usurpers Gregory and George of Cappadocia who unjustly invaded the See of Alexandria upon the deposing of Athanasius the Orthodox Bishop there The Answer to this takes up the rest of his Book in which he takes a great deal of Pains perhaps to little purpose and makes many Flourishes pretending to be very accurate like a Man of Sense in distinguishing and assigning the Difference between the Case of Athanasius and that of our deprived Bishops in which he spends 13 or 14 Pages But all that he says may be answer'd in a very few Words And granting him if it will do him any good because I do not love to wrangle where there is no need what he says in his three first Paragraphs Pag. 18 19 20 21. where he pretends so clearly and accurately to state the Case touching the Incorporation of the Church into the State in a Christian Nation and Government and the Supremacy of the Sovereign Power in all Ecclesiastical Causes and the Extent of that Supremacy Granting him I say what he says in this excepting only in his Instance of deposing Bishops who were never anciently deposed in any Regular Orthodox Christian State without consulting a Synod of Bishops unless in Cases of capital Crimes for which the criminal Bishop has forfeited his Estate and Life and the Sovereign Power may proceed to a Decollation which is a Deposition with a Witness and that without consulting a Synod or Council I shall only take notice of his Distinction in his fourth Paragraph Pag. 21. We must distinguish says he between an Ecclesiastical and Canonical Deposition of a Bishop for Heresy or other Ecclesiastical Crimes and a State Deprivation The first he says concerns the Character and Ecclesiastical Communion it is the Censure of the Church which concerns him as a Bishop and when it is ratified and confirmed not only by a Provincial or National Synod but by a General Council such a deposed Bishop is no longer a Bishop of the Catholick Church and no Christian must communicate with him as a Bishop But a State Deprivation does not concern the Character such a Man may be a Bishop of the Catholick Church still if he do not fâ—ll under Church Censures for Heresy or other Crimes but it only concerns the Exercise of his Episcopal Authority in any Diocese within the Dominions of that State or enjoying any Ecclesiastical Benefice in it Under the first Branch of this Distinction our Author ranks the Case of St. Athanasius and the Case of our deprived Bishâ—ps under the second I am sorry that our Author who it seems has used himself to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons should be so grosly out in his History For 't is notoriâ—â—s that Athanasius was not condemn'd or depos'd for Heresy â—r other Ecclesiastical Crimes the Charge against him was not of that Nature But the Arian Faction being inveterate Haters of Athanasius for his resolute and constant adhering to the Catholick and Orthodox Faith and vehemently and effectually opposing and baffling their Heteredox and Pernitious Opinions and Heretical Doctrines and Positions and particularly at the Council of Nice where he gave a mighty Blow to the growing Heresy and wounded even to Death their great Goliah Arius which was not forgot when he was advanc'd to the Episcopal Throne contriv'd his Ruin and to that end they accuse him to the Emperor who they knew was sensible that Athanasius was Orthodox and therefore that 't was in vain to charge him with Heresy for being a turbulent mutinous factious Man and a Disturber of the Peace and other Immoralities The Emperor out of a just Veneration and Deference for his Character the Crimes laid to his Charge not being Capital which if they had there would have been another sort of Procedure against him witness the Emperor's Directions to * Vid. Life of St. Athanasius in Cave's Lives of the Fathers Vol. 2. p. 77. Dalmatius the Censor at Antioch to proceed against him upon a Charge of Murther who accordingly gave him Notice to provide for his Tryal but before the Day came the Emperor was satisfied that the Person whom he was accus'd by the Arians to have murther'd was alive conven'd a Synod to which he referr'd the Examination of Athanasius's Case in which his implacable Enemies whose Malice and Revenge was whetted and heightned to the highest degree being both a Vid Proceedings in the Synod at Tyre Id. p. 87. his Accusers and Judges they soon pronounc'd him guilty of the Crimes which he was most b The Proceedings against Athanasius appear before the Câ—uncil of Sardâ—ca to be nothing but a Train of Malice and Villany Id. p. 115. unjustly charged with and so depos'd him not from the Episcâ—pal Character but Jurisdiction and the Revenues of his See Upon which the Emperor banish'd him So that such a Block-head as I am cannot whatever this Gentleman with his Linceus Eâ—es who has used himself so much to good Sense as well as to ancient Canons can so easily perceive such a vast Difference between these two Cases Were our deprived Bishops charged with or condemn'd for Heresy So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Character So neither was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops accus'd of and depriv'd for an Offence against the State So was St. Athanasius Are our Bishops deposed from their Episcopal Jurisdiction and the Revenues of their Sees So was St. Athanasius Are our deprived Bishops thrust out and succeeded by Ecclesiastical Schismatical c Such the Sardican Council esteem'd the Anti Bishops that were possâ—ss'd of St. Athanasius's See at Alexandria Gregory is branded with this Mark of Infamy and Detestation p. 116. but especially in passing Sentence against Gregory the Arrian Intâ—â—dâ—r at Alexandria they shew'd a particular Detestation pronouncing him not only to have been no Bishop but not worthy the Name of a Christian nulling all Ordinations made by him and forbidding any to bear that Character that had receiv'd Orders from him George the Cappadocian Monster as Nazienzen calls him who succeeded Gregory was disown'd and discountenanc'd by all the Orthodox Suffragan Bishops and Clergy belonging to the Metropolitical See of Alexandria was install'd by a military Guard being indeed a Man of Blood had a bloody Entrance a bloody Continuance and a bloody Exit Id. p. 142 143. and p. 174 175. Intruders and Usurpers So was St. Athanasius So that it does not appear that there is so vast a Difference between these two Cases i. e. in respect of the Matter and Nature of the Deposition or Deprivation notwithstanding our Author 's accurate Distinction Indeed there is this Difference which he may call a