"the Exercise of his Function, to which he was "appointed according to the Inftitution of God, "and the fame Solomon appointed another to fuc"ceed him. What can be a more exprefs Parallel "than this, of the fupreme Civil Power depriving "one Ecclefiaftical Perfon, and putting in another, 66 upon the fole Confideration of the Interest of the "State?" Mr. Sm-th is fhock'd with this Inftance, and with a hard fhift gets thro it, but not without leaving fome Marks of unfair Dealing, and (I really think) Scruples in his Mind. He will have, thrufting Abiathar out from being Prieft, to fignify, taking away the Endowments of the Crown, always beftow'd on their Perfons (I fuppofe he means his Preferments) and his Banishment. Well, and what was this lefs or other than Deprivation, that is, from the Execution of his Office? which is all the Bishop pro. duces it for. But it was not a total Deprivation, fays Mr. Smth: He means, I fuppofe, he was not depriv'd of his Prieftly Office, or facred Character: Be it fo, there's no hurt done to the Bishop's Caufe. Mr. Sm-th allows Abiathar was depriv'd of his Preferments, and banish'd, which is full enough to the Bishop's purpofe; for he could not act or execute his Office of High Prieft but at Jerufalem, so the Execution of his Office ceas'd. I would only take notice by the by, that Mr. Sm-th gives a very infufficient Reason for his not being totally depriv'd, " Be

caufe he was call'd High Prieft afterwards in the 4th "Chapter of 1 Kings." Anfw. So he was before his Deprivation, and this was enough to give him place amongst all that had been and were Solomon's Chiefs, who are both mention'd in the 4th Chapter.

S. 27. This Gentleman objects further, That the Cafe of Abiathar can be no Parallel, because Solomon was an extraordinary Perfon. He was fo in fome Cafes, but in this it plainly appears, that Solomon difplac'd him for his factious Adherence to Adonijah.

Again, Mr. Sm-th objects, "That this was done, to fulfil the Word of the Lord." Yes, in the Event, but not in Solomon's Defign; his Aim was to fecure the Throne, by difplacing his Enemies. But Mr. Sm---th "thinks his Lordship will be inclin'd, upon Re

view, to think it doubtful, whether it was a Depriva"tion in the Sense here contended." By no means; for 'tis paft doubt with the Bishop, and with any attentive Reader, that it was a Deprivation of Abiathar from the Execution of his Prieftly Office, for his Adherence to Adonijah, Solomon's Competitor. And let him confider the Paffage a thousand times, and he can make nothing lefs of it. He acknowledges, pag. 27. "The Civil Power may deprive Ecclefiafticks of Diocefe, Revenues, Honours, &c. and Life it felf; but not their Orders, fo as to make them "ceafe to be Bishops." This will be all granted him, and is already imply'd in abundance thro the Bishop's Discourse, as I have fhewn before: So that all his first 27 Pages have been combating a Phantom of his own Brain, a Pofition no where maintain'd, but often caution'd against by the Bishop; which when Mr. Sm---th is pleas'd to confider well, he will be forry he fhould give himself and the Bishop fo much unneceffary Trouble, and impofe upon his unwary Readers fo unfairly. What muft fome prejudic'd Readers think of the Bishop, when they find this Gentleman telling them very gravely, pag. 27, 28. that there's nothing in the Epifcopal or Prieftly Office inconfiftent with the Power of Kings, or the Security of Civil Power? Who fays or thinks there is? What does the Gentleman mean? The Bishop neither expreffes nor implies any fuch thing in his Prefervative. Again, in pag. 30, 31. The Function, fays he, ought not to be punish'd, but the Miftake. If Miftakes could be punish'd, I would gladly have this Gentleman's Mistakes, tho not his Perfon, feverely punish'd; for thro want of Candour, or due Confideration, he mistakes fo palpably the Bishop's Meaning in the

Points

Points upon which he pretends to argue with the Bifhop, and perverts his Sentiments fo grofly, that whoever reads Mr. Sm---th, and does not read the Bishop, will certainly conclude, that the Bifhop maintains that Lay-Powers can deprive Ecclefiafticks of Holy Orders. And this Infinuation runs thro Mr. Sm---th's first 27 Pages of his Confiderations, as I faid before.

§. 28. The Gentleman in pag. 29. banters his Readers, telling them, "That the Church of Eng-. land never thought it a Contradiction to fear God, and "honour the King; what then, fays he, can render Deແ privation of her Minifters neceffary to the Security of "the Civil Powers? Does not he know that the Nonjurors think it a Contradiction to fear God, and honour King GEORGE? Has the King then not power to fecure himfeif and the State against fuch Enemies? Nay, Mr. Sm---th is fo bold as to infinuate, There's of late a Jealousy of the Function it self; which is altogether true as to the Nonjurors of the Sedition, and of the rebellious Principles of fuch, the State is, and has reafon to be jealous, because they are induftrious to fhew them, and boaft of them in all Places. "O but it has ever been the peculiar Glory σε of the Church of England, not only to teach the can

trary, but to condemn every Tendency (to Diloyalty he means) "whether it came from Rome or Geneva. To teach and to practife Obedience to Government by the Rules of the Gofpel, is the Duty of every Christian Church; and the Church of England has rightly stated that Duty in her Homilies; But fome of her Divines have notoriously misreprefented that Duty, and laid thofe Stumbling-Blocks before the Nonjurors, which at this day makes them Rebels in Principle against the prefent Government. And whatever Opinions, contrary to Loyalty, truly fo call'd, have been propagated by fome, who have receiv'd their Notions from Rome or Geneva, I fear there are others who have imbib'd Opinions at Ox

ford

ford and Cambridge, equally dangerous to all Government, properly fo call'd, and utterly inconfiftent with our Monarchy and Conftitution; and when they have embrac'd fuch falfe and dangerous Notions, prefently they have the Affurance to call them Oxford or Cambridge Loyalty, and the Doctrine of the Church for footh, skreening their pernicious Errors under those venerable Names. 'Tis by fuch Teachers that this Gentleman, Mr. Sm--th, has been unhappily influenc'd in his Opinions, which have had fo great an Afcendant over his Reafon, as to give him a wrong Biafs, and to difable him from reading the Prefervative with his common Intelligence or Integrity. For he goes on ftill to speak of totally depriving fome of their Holy Orders, &c. as if the Civil Government had fo depriv'd them, and the Bishop had vindicated fuch a Deprivation. And upon this false mistaken Suppofition, Mr. Sm---th ftarts feveral Particulars, that reflect upon the Bishop and the Government too. Pag. 32. He tells his Readers, There's a Variety of Civil Penalties, of which the Government may take its Choice. This fuppofes Deprivation of Nonjurors by Act of Parliament, to be an Ecclefiaftical Penalty inflicted by Civil Authority. Let him read the Act of Uniformity, 1662. and fee if he don't find the Civil Powers then enacting Deprivation, which was actually executed upon many Hundreds. However, that Deprivation was a Civil Deprivation, it did not extend to their Holy Orders, fo as totally to deprive them of them; nor does a like Civil Deprivation of the Nonjurors take away their Powers conferr'd in Ordination; nor does the Government or the Bishop fuppofe it does. 'Tis true, the Nonjurors can't exercife their Function here, but the Government would be very well pleas'd if they'd withdraw and preach in the Eaft or Weft-Indies. The World is wide, and when they have left Britain, there's ftill before them Campus dicendi ampliffimus. In doing fo, they'd oblige the Nation, and the poor Heathens whom they should convert;

convert; God forbid they fhould ftay here till they are imprifon'd, banish'd, or hang'd, which Mr. Sm--th mentions, pag. 32. as fome of the Civil Penalties which the Government might chufe.

. 29. After this tedious wrangling in behalf of the Nonjurors, this Gentleman at laft turns fhort upon them, pag. 33. for he feems frankly to condemn the "trange Monopoly fome of the Nonjurors "have made of all the Sacerdotal Powers and Privileges "which Chrift has given to his Church, as wild and

*

extravagant, &c. yet thinks the Blafphemy and "Absurdity charg'd on fuch a Claim of the Priest"bood in general, admits of fome Difficulty, &c." And after fome Cenfure upon the Bishop, cites the whole 77th pag. of the Prefervative. Now the following Notions of the Nonjurors are there briefly reprefented, and afterwards confuted by the Bishop: as, That "there's no Hope of the Favour of God, "but in a strict Communion with the Nonjuring Church, "which is govern'd by a regular Succeffion of Bishops: "That God difpenfes his Favours only by their Hands, " and their fubordinate Priefts: That you can't be au- · "thoritatively blefs'd, or releas'd from your Sins, but "by them who are the Regular Priests That Churches "under other Bishops are fchifmatical, excommunicate, "out of God's Favour." Now tho Mr. Sm---th blames the Nonjurors for appropriating the Sacerdotal Powers and Privileges to themselves, yet he thinks the Bishop to blame for feeming to difallow of fuch Powers to the Clergy in general. And he's fo impatient of venting his Sentiments, that he takes up the Bishop upon a general Claufe, that's only preparatory to his following Arguments, and tells him, "He should not content himself, were there no"thing to be faid to either Papift or Proteftant, but a

general Harangue on the Justice and Goodness of "God." Nor does the Bishop defire his Readers to

*Principles of the Nonjurors.

be