otherwise made themselves irregular and so deserved deprivation: or if the civil power hath authority to deprive Bishops without a Synod: and if a legal civil power hath deprived these: Then they have no longer any ecclesiastical authority over the faithful. But if on the other hand, they are deprived for maintaining the Doctrine of the Church and for adhering to their duty: if the civil power cannot but in a Synodical way deprive Bishops, or if the power which pretendeth to do it is not legal: Then the sentence of deprivation is not only unjust, but null in itself, and the authority of the Bishops is in full force as before, and the obligation to adhere to their communion as strict as ever."[1]
This is the way in which the case was stated by the early Nonjurors. It will be seen that it is expressed with great moderation: with much greater indeed than was adopted at a later period, when the controversy became warm. It does not pronounce the Bishops and Priests, who complied, heretics. Though, therefore, I consider that the Nonjurors were in error in continuing the Schism, by providing for the succession, yet I must allow, that there was a strong colour for their proceedings, and that the great fault was with King William's government, in proceeding to deprive the Bishops and Clergy, who were so conscientious as to scruple the Oath. The mischief would have been avoided, if the Bishops and Clergy had been permitted to remain in possession of their preferments. It would have been wise in the rulers to have acted, as in an ordinary case of the accession of a new Sovereign. Ecclesiastical persons are not required in such a case to take the Oath
- ↑ Kettlewell, 135.
