posed spuriousness of his birth, had been only held forth to amuse the vulgar."[1]
This project, however, was defeated by King James, who would not allow his son to be made a party to such an arrangement. Thus did James sacrifice the only prospect of the restoration of his family.[2] Still from the general dislike of the nation to George I. it has been supposed, even by Mr. Hallam, that the Pretender might have obtained the throne, if he had embraced Protestantism.
We must now revert to the controversy arising from the deprivation of the Bishops, in which we left Dodwell engaged in the year 1692. It was not until the year 1695 that Dodwell published his Defence of the Vindication, in reply to Hody.[3] In this work he contends that the oath of canonical obedience to the deprived Bishops was binding. This argument explains Dodwell's subsequent views, when, after Lloyd's death, Ken ceased to claim the submission of the Clergy; and it is quite consistent with his return to the established Church at that time. It is a most elaborate and able performance.[4]
- ↑ Macpherson, ii. 123-4.
- ↑ Ibid. 125.
- ↑ A Defence of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops. Wherein the case of Abiathar is particularly considered, and the invalidity of lay deprivations is further proved, from the doctrine received under the Old Testament, continued in the first ages of Christianity, and from our own fundamental laws. In a reply to Dr. Hody and another author. To which is annexed the doctrine of the Church of England, concerning the independency of the Clergy on the lay-power, as to those rights of theirs which are purely spiritual, reconciled with our oath of supremacy and the lay deprivations of the Popish Bishops in the beginning of the Reformation. By the author of the Vindication of the deprived Bishops. London. 4to. 1695.
- ↑ See the Defence, &e. See also Dodwell's Life, for an abstract, 254, 267.
