Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

till it has come to stand for a complication of notions, as contradictory to the original intention as darkness is to light.' His lordship in his Answer agrees that in the original intention of the word, it might mean such fervency and warmth as are consistent with such calmness and undisturbedness of mind as is the ornament and defence of the understanding.' The complicated notions which he condemns, are · heat' and 'flame to such a degree,' &c. that is, as he explains himself, such as amount to 'perturbation, agitation, and disorder of soul.' Now then, either in the notion of the multitude, and in common discourse, prayer signifies 'perturbation, agitation, and disorder of soul ;' or this instance is not to his purpose, has no meaning at all. But that this is not a common notion of

prayer

his lordship shall witness; for having stated this false notion in his Answer, he does no longer charge it on the multitude, but says that

some honest Christians are uneasy under such notions, as ministers of parishes find,” (if he may guess by himself): so that this notion of prayer, which stands as an instance of an abuse passing on the multitude in common discourse, is at last made out by guess only, and that guess founded in this, that his lordship has had some apply to him who were so weak as to be made uneasy by such notions. Thus the case stands : and whether his lordship did in his sermon mean to write against that fervency and warmth which by the multitude in common discourse is reckoned to be requisite to prayer, and has found himself obliged to retract it in his answer; or whether he at first chose an instance nothing to his purpose,

and scruple and misunderstanding of some weak Christians, instead of the common notion of the multitude of Christians, is not my business to inquire : only I beg his lordship to name the books and sermons which have recommended perturbation, agitation, and a disorder of soul, as necessary to prayer; or“ taught men to raise their passions, till they know not where they are, nor what they are doing.' I am of opinion some of his weak Christians raised the notion out of their own fears and superstition, and told his lordship that some book or sermon had filled them with the scruples, (and the best sermon may give occasion to the scruples of weak minds,) and his lordship has taken their

gave us the

word for it; and the authoritative interpretation of these weak men is all he has to support his charge. Be this as it will, his lordship is like to get little by his explications, if they prove to be all like this; and has as little reason to complain of being exposed by a misrepresentation of his sense.

Another explication of the same sort his lordship has given us in the Answer, for though the sermon is levelled at all in common, and the word church (not peculiar to papists) set aside and changed for that of kingdom, because the complication of notions belonging to it were in the use of the multitude, and in common discourse, as contradictory to the original intention of it as light to darkness; in which view any man would suppose that his lordship meant the multitude in his own country rather than the multitude of Italy and Spain; yet with respect to the very worst of the complicated notions belonging to the word church, namely, the absolute power of churchmen, his lordship says, “I profess I never knew nor heard of any church on earth, except the church of Rome in its latter corrupted state, which ever dared to claim such an absolute authority.” And yet in the sermon preached against the church of Rome, (as we are now bound to believe,) there is not one word to show this intention; Rome, or the church of Rome, is not once mentioned, nor is there a single sentence to justify the church of which his lordship is a bishop. We have had much complaint of late, in books to which his lordship is no stranger, of protestant popery, and his lordship’s known zeal in that cause is so eminent, that I believe it was never a doubt, till his lordship raised one, against whom the sermon was designed. We are now told the corrupt church of Rome only holds the doctrine he professes to write against; and if his lordship will thus explain the other parts of his doctrine which have given offence, it will hardly be worth while to differ with him about an expression; if he will really recant, it shall be allowed him to go off with the honor of explaining.

Another term to which his complaint refers is vilify.

Were I to acquaint the world with how much respect to his lordship’s episcopal and personal character the debate in the Lower House began and ended, it would appear to deserve other resentments than it has already met with from his lordship.

But as they meant not, by the respect they showed, to court his favor, so neither shall I repeat it to avoid his anger. What the Committee did is public to the world; and if his lordship can pardon the great offence of showing the tendency of his doctrine, I will undertake to prove they have done nothing to justify this part of his complaint. To vilify a man is a base unworthy design, the poor artifice of a little mind, courting reputation by whispering the supposed faults of others, or venting an impotent desire of revenge in calumny and forgery. But what is there like this to charge on the proceedings of the Lower House ? Was it base or unworthy to vindicate the church from his lordship’s misrepresentations, or the just power of the king and legislature from his rash unwarrantable censures ? Was it an unbecoming part to lay before his grace and the bishops, the proper judges of the cause, the evil tendency which they saw in his lordship’s book and sermon ? Had they any by-ends to serve in a cause so little favored ? or have they laid any thing to his lordship’s charge but his own words? Where then is the offence? Is it, perhaps, that they have given their reasons to support their complaint? If it is, the answer is short—they will be maintained.

The last article of his lordship’s complaint is couched in these words, ‘use me as you please. When these words are used to a private man, they are at once a charge and a defiance; a charge that he deals unjustly, and a defiance of all he can do. How properly soever they may be used in such cases

some occasions, yet they are words never to be used to courts of judicature; and therefore, as they respect the Convocation, they are the highest contempt and

But perhaps his lordship has no greater an idea of a convocation than he has of a church, and may think them onlyó a number of men, whether small or great, whether dispersed or united :' yet whatever he may know or think of the matter, they are a number of men vested by the constitution with a judicial capacity to judge and censure. In that capacity they acted in all they did with relation to his lordship; and common decency should teach him to treat the jurisdiction he is under with proper respect; common prudence should suggest to him that such bodies never die ; and that he may not always find shelter

on

under a royal writ. But whatever indignation his lordship shall now think fit to show, it will be no surprise to those who remember in what manner he treated the Lower House of Convocation when he was only a private presbyter ; with what an air he condemned their proceedings, called them to their duty, and defied their authority; as if he had then been all that he now desires to be. This considered, I say, his lordship has no right to complain, supposing the manner of the Convocation's proceeding towards him to have been other than it was.

I shall not enter into a detail of his lordship’s conduct in times past, or lay to his charge any warm expression that may be excused by the heat of controversy: I only desire the reader to take a view with me of the many civilities which lie dispersed in his · Preservative,' a book lately written against the non-jurors; in which cause the clergy need not have been made parties against the government, had not his lordship in his great tenderness and goodness gone out of his way to compel them to come in.

The title-page is the first thing that offers itself; and the book (as being nobly descended, I suppose) has more names

The first is, “A Preservative against the Principles and Practices of the Non-Jurors both in Church or State.' Can there be a better? Does it not fully take in all that the most zealous friend to the government can wish or desire to see on the argument? Why then is a second added ? a second too, that has not one word in it to adapt it peculiarly to the controversy of the non-jurors ! Conscience and common sense extend to every cause, and are therefore peculiar to none.

It is true; but his lordship has distinguished in his second title, which is, • An Appeal to the conscience and common sense of the Christian Laity.' So flaming was his zeal against his own order, that he could not contain himself from expressing it in his title-page, and making an occasion, where none was offered, to show it. An appeal to somebody is also an appeal against somebody. Against whom is this appeal brought ? Against the non-jurors you will say: it is natural indeed to think so from the occasion of the book : but hold a little. The con

than one.

[ocr errors]

* The first edition is referred to.

sciences and common sense of the Christian laity are appealed to; now the Christian laity can in no sense or propriety of language be opposed to non-jurors: there are Christian laity as well as Christian clergy among the non-jurors; there are so likewise among the jurors; but the distinction of the body of Christians into clergy and laity is so well known, that there can be no doubt in this case but that the appeal is brought against the Christian clergy; and the candid intimation it holds forth is, that they are void of conscience and common sense; for an appeal to the laity as having conscience and common sense, is an appeal against the clergy as having neither. If the reader still doubts of his lordship’s meaning, he shall have it cleared up by himself. See how he reproaches the clergy who took the oaths: they (the non-jurors) “saw with pleasure, that many of those who took the oaths did it on a principle of reproach to the government, if not of shame to themselves ; and that most of those who defended both that and the church united with it, moved very faintly in their work; treated the one as an usurpation, and the other as what it was barely lawful for the laity, in imitation of former precedents, to communicate with.” No wonder his lordship should think they have no conscience or common sense, who took oaths on a principle of shame to themselves, and treated the government they owned as, --- I hate to repeat the words; which nothing but pride of heart and conceitedness of his own performances could have suggested. For when he says that ‘Most of those who defended both that and the church,' &c. do not mistake him as if he meant to except any of the clergy from this injurious reflexion : no, it is himself only and his few disciples that are excepted: the limitation only leaves room for his own triumphal chariot to pass over the neck of his brethren. Thus again, he tells us that the non-jurors had “ the approbation and concurrence of many of the clergy, in the main points, to produce for themselves ;” and, “ I am persuaded they owe the greatest advantages of their cause to a part of the clergy." These are they who, in the preface, he tells us, “ professing themselves his (that is, Jesus Christ's) followers and his ministers, substitute themselves in his place, and assume the authority of their great legislator and judge :">

« AnteriorContinuar »