An Account of the Growth of Deism in EnglandStephens, William
History
An Account of the Growth of Deism in England
Stephens, William
Church and state -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800; Deism -- Early works to 1800; Deism -- Great Britain -- Early works to 1800
The Church of _England_ is a meer Party, (say they again) and has a
Watch-word whereby they know one another, which they can vary upon
occasion. _Non-Resistance_ was the Word in King _Charles_'s days. For
though at that time you did conform to every tittle and ceremony,
injoin'd by Rubrick and Canon, yet if you failed in the Point of
_Non-Resistance_, you were a _Phanatick_ and _Republican_, a _Rebel_,
and what not? Now if this Doctrine be contain'd in the Book of Homilies,
as the _Jacobites_ say, 'tis a Sacred Record of the Unjustice of some of
those who concurred in the late Revolution. The _Shiboleth_ of the
Church now is King _William's de facto Title_; And no Conformity to
Homilies and Rubricks will make you owned by the present Church, if you
should acknowledge the King to be otherwise said than a meer _de
facto_. Now (say they) although we grant that Men will submit to the
Government, upon their own particular Principles, and therefore 'tis
reasonable that the King should admit the Obedience of his Subjects upon
what Grounds they please, yet we know no Reason why the Church should
set up the _de facto_, as the only Principle of Obedience: And when the
King had better Titles to his Crown, as the Consent of the People in
Parliament, and his Matrimonial Title with the Queen, yet he must be
made to pay the greatest price for the weakest and worst of all Titles;
and give Dr. _S----_ Sixteen Hundred Pounds a Year, for a _Defactoship_
only.
You see, Sir, that the _Deists_ want not Occasions for their Prejudices,
how far soever they are from having Reason o' their side. And pray
resolve me, why must this false Title be set up as 'twere by the King's
Consent, to worm out the only true one? Why must none be preferr'd to
Church-Dignities, but such who come in upon this Title only? And those
who own the King's Right upon the Consent of the People, be still
labouring under the Church's highest displeasure? and poor _Johnson_, a
Man against whom no Immorality was ever objected, that is an Object even
of the _Deists_ Compassion, be left to starve for the Cause? Nay, they
have gone so far upon the Strength of Dr. _S----_ Convocation-Title, in
Opposition to that of Parliament, that since the good Queen is dead, and
the Consent of the People, according to them, null and void; they have
left the King a bare Possession, without any Title at all.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account