Selected quad for the lemma: england_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
england_n	abandon_v	church_n	obedience_n	15	3	7.0090	4	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A47758	Remarks on some late sermons, and in particular on Dr. Sherlock's sermon at the Temple, Decemb. 30, 1694 in a letter to a friend.	Leslie, Charles, 1650-1722.	1695 (1695)	Wing L1148; ESTC R2124	59,686	64

little more Dirty and seems as if it was bred in a Pigsty 4. I am yet further obliged to you for confirming according to your Model and Talent all other Matters and Things in the Remarks you have thought good to take Notice of so that if you had pleased you might have called your Pamphlet a Defence of the Remarks For I can assure you it is a much better Defence of the Remarks than of the Sermons This I suppose you did not think on and it may be you do not yet know it but in this I shall relieve you by an enumeration of Particulars and then take my leave of you I. You tell me p. 1. That I charge such of the Clergy as think themselves oblig'd to speak honorably of the present Government with inconsistency with their former Principles and Practices and then add If it could be but as well proved as it is boldly asserted Well Sir whether I have proved it or no I shall leave to the Reader but I am very certain you have proved it sufficiently For you immediately tell me I should have consider'd what hath been writ in defence of the Clergy from that Charge by Mr. Johnson and the Author of Bibliotheca Politica This Sir let me tell you is a very lucky Choice and you could not have pickt out two such Authors for my Purpose For the Principles that both of Them proceed upon are directly contrary to those which the Gentlemen whom the Remarks charges with inconsistency have asserted preached and maintained over and over Mr. Johnson and the Letter to the Lord Russel consist like Fire and Water and Dr. Burnet's Dialogues and the Bibliotheca are as consistent as Contradictions or as that Doctor is consistent with himself so that you defend them from inconsistency by plainly proving it For if these Gentlemen justify their present Practices by the Principles of those two Authors then they do it by deserting and abandoning their own Principles and that Sir with your good leave is Inconsistency with a Witness and if you please down-right Apostacy But you tell us they defend them from inconsistency by proving That Passive Obedience as cry'd up in the late Times was never the Doctrin of the Church of England But by your Favour that is more than they or you or all your Party are able to prove but that is not the Question now and therefore suppose it what is that to the Purpose These very Gentlemen believed and taught That Passive Obedience was the Doctrin of that Church and as such pressed it upon the Consciences of Men under pain of Damnation And does not your own Mr. Johnson tell one of them Dr. Tillotson That he cram'd Passive Obedience down the Throat of a dying Lord And could you find no Body but Mr. Johnson to defend him from Inconsistency And I 'll warrant you Dr. Sherlock is defended from Inconsistency too by his old Friend Mr. Johnson Sir you have the strangest way of defending Things that ever was heard of But it seems even this Defence such as it is admits of Exceptions for you add For such of them as might be hurried into that Opinion by the Current of the Times meaning St. Asaph Dr. Tillotson Dr. Burnet Dr. Patrick Dr. Sherlock and all the Ecclesiastical Champions of the Usurpation for these are the Men who held this Opinion are charged with Inconsistency and whom you undertake to defend from it These it seems are the light and inconsiderate Men who took up an Opinion of this Weight with haste and precipitation and without due Regard had to the Nature of it So that when Dr. Tillotson wrot the Letter to the Lord Russel when Dr. Burnet wrot his Dialogues Dr. Patrick his Friendly Debate and Paraphrases Dr. Sherlock his Case of Resistance Dr. Stillingfleet his Jesuits Loyalty 't was all Weakness and Incogitancy they swam with the Stream without either Caution or Consideration Now Sir if this is all that can be honestly said for them 't is sure no extraordinary Character and makes their Authority of no Value in the World For if Men can be hurried into such Opinions by the Current of the Times who knows but they may be so still And the wisest Man living will never be able to distinguish whether their new Opinions and Practices are the result of their Judgments or the effects of the Times and give me leave to tell you That when Men change their Doctrins with Seasons and Opportunities 't is a shrewd Suspition that the Times make the Doctrines and if you will derive their Pedigree they may say to the Revolution Thou art our Father However such it seems they are and what is to be said to defend them Why as to that you tell us It may be reply'd that no Man is forbid to examin his Principles To examin his Principles No doubt of it But pray Sir what do you mean by Examining One would think that when Men preach Sermons write Books treat of the Question ex Professo that they either had or at least ought to have examined them Upon my Word you make rare Men of them and fit to be trusted with our Consciences And this is a glorious Defence indeed that from Year to Year from Sermon to Sermon from Book to Book they inculcate these Principles and fasten them upon the Consciences of Men as eternal and immutable Doctrines and yet never examined them themselves Sir this is a lamentable Case and you are very hard put to it when you have no other way to defend them but what at one Dash blasts all their Authority and discredits every Thing they have said since the Revolution as well as before For I crave leave to tell you That meer Swearing will never mend a Man's Character And therefore you call upon them to much purpose to lay hold on all Occasions to commend the present Government when at the same time you have taken extraordinary Care that their Words shall go for just nothing For if the World believe you I am certain they neither will nor can believe them But for all that they must be defended And you yet add That my whole Charge amounts to no more than this that some of the Clergy were formerly Blind but now they See Well! if my Charge amounts to no more yours you see amounts to a great deal more and you must answer for it as well as you can However methinks this is a pretty way to defend them from Inconsistency for what you call Blindness and Seeing I call Owning and Renouncing and so does all the World besides But you may call it what you please your Metaphors mean the same Thing and the plain English is They have forsaken their former Principles and that is the Inconsistency I charge them with which you frankly own and abundantly prove so that as far as I can see we are perfectly agreed and there need no more Words about it II. The next Thing is the Distinction