is not so wise, and it may be wiser than I am, and sees further than I do, and therefore is not exactly of my opinion in every thing?"

To give a man to the devil, is an odd way of keeping him from the devil; which I ignorantly imagined was the profession and duty of every clergyman.

I have thus, my Lord, taken to pieces this venomous author, and shewn his spirit. He has reviled, beyond sea, one whom he dares not attack at home. And he sculks and scolds in Switzerland, because his base spirit must breathe somewhere.

But praised be Almighty God, however he may gratify himself by reviling other bishops, the nation is blessed in your grace with a Metropolitan of such uniformity in life and principles, as must ever baffle calumny, and confound the malice of his and the church's enemies; and who will never give occasion to such a story as is told of a western bishop at the revolution, who fled from the Protestant religion, and the prince of Orange at Exeter, to king James and father Peters at London, and was made an archbishop for his loyalty and passive obedience. But, as he was going northward to take possession of his new dignity, he bethought himself that the Bible was better, and like to get the better of his holiness and Popery; and so he declared for the prince, and a free Parliament, upon the road.

I have the honour to be with profound veneration,

My Lord,

your grace's most dutiful son,

and most obedient, humble servant.

An Examination of the Facts and Reasonings in the Lord Bishop of Chichester's Sermon, preached before the House of Lords, on the 30th of Jan. 1731. Humbly addressed to His Lordship.

MY LORD,

I HAVE read some very extraordinary sermons on this same occasion, and heard of many more such; but considering the place, and the preacher, I believe there have been found few more notable than that preached lately by your lordship.

In your Sermon upon church authority, you drew so much trouble upon yourself, by your unwary positions, no wise favoured by Scripture, and successfully exposed by a brother prelate (famous for his love and defence of truth, however unfashionable and disgustful) that I hoped you would have proved more circumspect in any labours of yours, that were to be afterwards presented to the world. I am therefore sorry, that you should again lay yourself open; and whilst you are scttering your public rebukes, should deserve one yourself.

I should indeed have still thought you too wise and moderate, to be capable of reviving old heats and partialities, had you not in fact done it: nor else could I have imagined that you would again venture into the world another performance so very loose and exceptionable, that even your friends condemn it, and think it ill judged, and unfair.

M

to keep them. Nay, 'tis probable we should be told too, that he had a divine right to do what he pleased, and none had a right to controal him, or to expect any concessions at all from him; and that all which has been done since, has been only successful rebellion. For what has been too wicked or too mad, to be said upon both these occasions already, and upon both these kings?

That his father was very sincere, your Lordship takes upon you to determine roundly. Though the violation, the repeated and continual violation of his coronation oath; his passing the bill of rights, and owning all these rights to be legal and just, and thence confessing that he had broken them all; nay, his violating that very bill in all its parts, almost as soon as he had passed it, were but ill marks of a heart very upright and sincere. Of all these excesses he was guilty, at a time when his parliament were well disposed for the honourable support of his government, and free from any design to distress it, much less to alter it; nay, were ready to grant him very noble supplies, if he would but have suffered justice to be done upon public traitors, the infamous instruments of illegal power and of mutual distrust between him and his people.

Whilst I am upon this head, I would take notice that he actually committed, or attempted to commit all the enormities, all the acts of usurpation committed by the late king James; levied money against law, levied forces, and obliged his subjects to maintain them, against law; raised a body of foreign soldiers to destroy the law, and enslave his people at once; dispensed with all the laws; filled the prisons with illustrious patriots who defended the law, and themselves by the law; encouraged and rewarded hireling doctors to maintain that his will was above law, nay itself the highest law, and binding upon the consciences of his subjects, on pain of eternal damnation; and that such as resisted his lawless will, resisted God. and were guilty of impicty and rebellion. He robbed cities of their charters, the public of its money and liberty, and treated his free-born subjects as slaves born only to obey him.

It is said that he was not a papist; perhaps he was not, that is, not a subject to the Pope of Rome; but he was bent upon setting up a hierarchy in England, resembling that of Rome in all its power and terrors. Nor does it avail, if men are to be persecuted and oppressed for their conscience, whether they suffer from the tyranny of a Hildebrand, a Luther, or a Laud. All persecuting religions are alike terrible to those who alike hate or dread all persecuting religions. It is certain, that of all the dissenters, none but the Papists had any mercy shewn them, and these were in high favour.

It is also certain, that for all these exorbitances be underwent much affliction, and a severe lot afterwards, from men too who had no sort of right to inflict it. But they did by power, as he once had done, used it wantonly, and without mercy or law. This I candidly own: but your Lordship, who strongly represent his fate, says nothing of his crimes; and surely oppression and usurpation are great ones, and big with all crimes crimes of which that unhappy Prince seems not to have had a true sense, if any nor is his repentance apparent, though God knows he had abundant cause for it. Here therefore is a powerful objection against his sincerity; since it does not appear that he was struck with

any sense of his guilt. Can a man be said to own his fault, who jus tifies himself, and seems conscious of his innocence ?

It would have been but fair in your Lordship, to have shewn his errors and evil doings, as well as his sufferings. The former you scarceJy touch, and therefore are an advocate, not an instructor.

In your second paragraph there is a doctrinal passage which seems to deserve some attention: You tell us, to fear the Lord, means, to us Christians," To believe and practise the doctrines and duties taught by Christ in the scriptures, or by his ministers agreeably thereto." 1 thought it had been enough to believe and practise them as taught by him; that all farther authority was needless; and that submitting to the deductions of the clergy from thence, or to their paraphrases upon these, was no part of our duty. If such deductions or explanations appear to us true and rational, we must believe them though they came from a layman; if we think them false or partial, will your Lordship say, that we are to believe them, because they come from the clergy?

I beg your pardon, my Lord, if I mistake your meaning. But in your words there seems to lurk a sort of latent claim of right in the clergy to interpret the scriptures authoritatively. If you mean so, nothing is more dangerous, or untrue: If you mean no such thing, why do you add, or by his ministers agreeably thereto? Who are to judge of this agreeableness? If their hearers, if the laity be the judges, then such words were needlessly added, and stand for nothing; and there is an end of all church authority, and of any pretence to it. But if the clergy be both to interpret, and to judge for others, then there is an end of all liberty, of all judgment and conscience amongst men, and the clergy are all so many Popes, infallible and irresistible; which I presume your Lordship will not say; and shall be glad to hear you talk clearly upon this subject, of itself clear enough, but often darkened and wrested by design.

Your Lordship tells us, (p. 6.) that "to fear the king, is to obey him that is in a limited and legal government, to observe the laws and that this is the certain rule of obedience, which leaves all men without excuse, who pretend ignorance." This is true. But did not this very rule leave king Charles I. also without excuse? For, if he were to be exempted from the rule, your just distinction of a limited and legal government had been absurd. He therefore having the laws for his guides, sinned against knowledge: nor, had he been ignorant, would it have excused him; since it was his duty to inform himself. Nor is my lord Clarendon's plea of his ignorance, a good plea. Besides, I think the king declared at his trial, that he understood law as well as most private gentlemen in England.

Your Lordship, repeating again the words of your text, tells us, that" we are advised by it not to mix, or familiary converse with such as are given to change, lest we be seduced by them to idolatry," &c. An advice entirely applicable to that king, though your Lordship makes no such application. It was from him, and his evil counsellors, the change began. Why did he converse with such; why did he nourish and employ them? Why was he governed by them? Why did he listen to them more than to the voice of his duty, and of the laws? Had not his Popish queen, weak and bigotted as she was, prodigious

I know nothing more repugnant to the spirit of the gospel, than for one professing to preach it, to enlist himself a champion of a party, indeed almost of any party; since most parties are too visibly heated and influenced by motives altogether worldly, passionate and human; nor so much concerned what serves the interest of truth, as what serves the interest of faction; and are generally foes to truth, where truth interferes with them. Surely 'tis unworthy of a preacher of the gospel, to fence with or against sounds, to equivocate and lay false colours, to discover faults on one side only, to invent merit on the other, and to darken, or disguise, or suppress facts; instead of informing, to mislead; and to heighten popular animosities, instead of calming them. All this is the work, not of a preacher, whose province is truth and peace; but of an apologist, who hides or adulterates the truth; of an inflamer, who would create rage and strife.

Whether such wicked use had not been made of this same anniversary, experience too sadly tells; and whether your Lordship hath made a right use of it, whether you have been utterly unmoved by the spirit of party, and of your order, and have censured without prejudice or partiality, I leave to your own conscience, and the consideration of our readers.

Your Lordship begins with the use which is to be made of history, and particularly of the impious fact then to be commemorated. Butl doubt, in making use of that fact you are too narrow, and have omitted one of the principal uses (whether in tenderness to the memory of that prince, or in mistaken court to other princes) namely, what bitter effests he felt from his thirst of unbounded power; that in violating his duty, he brought misery upon himself; that if he had observed the laws, and protected the rights of his people; his people, and the laws would have protected him but that by following evil counsels, and his own arbitrary will, whilst he was misguided by flattering and ambitious bishops, and oppressed his lay subjects, he lost the hearts and confidence of his people; and by pursuing lawless ineasures, taught his enemies to destroy him against law.

Another obvious use to be made of this fact, omitted likewise by your Lordship, is, thence to warn princes against being seduced by pious flattery, or any flattery; nor to suffer sycophants, especially religious sycophants, the most dangerous of all others, to inspire them with evil passions, or to soothe such passions as they already have. King Charles the First had raised the power of the church, even beyond his own; and the churchmen openly asserted their power to be independent and unaccountable; independent even of the crown, though they had sworn the contrary; and in return for his suffering them to usurp upon him, they encouraged and prompted him to usurp upon the kingdom. Thus the two lawless powers were to support and recompense each other. It was indeed a plain, a wicked bargain struck between the crown and the mitre; both bent to enslave these nations, and to divide shares in the common oppression. For the clergy are not wont to serve either God, or the king for nought; and though they be spiritual men, whose only business is to guide us to the other world, they are seldom satisfied with a small part of this, which they are always teaching others 40 renounce. It was well said by a reverend doctor, to an assembly of

doctors: "If you would teach the laiety to contemn the world, shew them the way, by contemning it first yourselves."

Is not this a true account? Had not the king and the clergy, by breaking all bounds, and by invading the privileges and properties of all men, drawn down a general odium upon both crown and mitre ? And has your Lordship fully, or at all, opened and owned this matter? Have you warned princes and churchmen against aspiring to more power or wealth than the constitution has given them; against the iniquity and infamy of violating their trust, a trust so important and sacred? Have you warned them against the consequence and the curse of ambition and violence?

Your Lordship repeats the words of your text, "to fear the Lord and the king, and not to meddle with them that are given to change;" and you add, that "had our forefathers followed this advice, the horrid fact we this day lament, had not been committed." My Lord, I say, if that prince and the churchmen then had followed this advice, that horrid fact never had been committed. Who were addicted to change? Was it the king and churchmen? Or was it the people? Not the people surely, who seem to have been entirely contented with the form of government, and not to have had a thought of another, till they were daily more and more incensed by the merciless oppressions of the court and the bishops. My Lord Clarendon owns the good temper and inclinations of the people, which were so remarkably peaceable that thence, he says, many wondered the more at the prodigious change which afterwards happened, and seems to lay the blame of all upon arch-bishop Laud.

The question therefore is, who were the aggressors? Who began enormities, who defied and overturned the law? Was it the people? No. It was the court and the clergy, and both rioted in lawless rule for a long course of years. After this change, this alarming change, where all law and security were swallowed up, it was natural for other changes to follow; and when once a general war was begun, no change, nor any excess was to be wondered at. Had not the king disregarded, and even overthrown law, he needed not have been a martyr to public resentment, nor even to a particular faction. Neither can I comprehend what you mean, when towards the end of your sermon, you say, That the crown is now limited by law ;" as if it had not been so then.

66

I agree with your Lordship, "That the like can never happen again, if posterity will have the wisdom to take warning from this example." But to condemn indiscriminately all that was done, especially at first, against the king, and indiscriminately to extol his character and reign, is the ready way to encourage the like to happen over and over. It is plain that his son was thus encouraged, and thus came to suffer as well as his father; nor can I say, that the fate of the son was less miserable than that of the father, but rather to any man of spirit more miserable. I am moreover very inclinable to fear that were times to change once more, we should hear higher encomiums upon the martydom of eighty-eight, than upon that of forty-eight, (if that be possible) and from the same men too. We should then be told what concessions the martyr king James made, and how sincere he was in them; he told how criminal they were who would not accept them; though 'tis manifest he made none with any the least intention