Sidor som bilder

to raise your voice to do away that only pretext for penal statutes, in the following liberal testimony: “I with pleasure do them (the Catholics) the justice of acknowledging that their general conduct has long deserved the confidence of government for loyalty and fidelity.(1)

I have the honour to remain, &c.

(1) P. 109.


[Dr. S. having professed to animadvert, in the supplementary notes to the second edition of his work, on “ those particulars of the Answer to it which seemed most deserving of notice,” (p. v. Advertisement to 2d ed.) the reader will conclude that he has, at least, attempted to disprove my account of the origin of the present controversy, by transferring the odium of the first assault from his own shoulders to mine, and to thew that I and the Catholics in general have been treated by him with justice and Įiberality. He will expect to find either a vindication of the strange mode that has been resorted to, of attacking my HISTORY OF WINCHESTER, by a general Philippic upon Popery, or some kind of apology for such conduct. Finally he will presume that the anonymous abuse of me which was taken


up from The Pursuits of Literature, has on the present occasion either been justified or omitted.

Not a word, however, of all this occurs in the said new edition. In the place of it the author gives us the Duke of Portland's Letter in commendation of the French Emigrant Clergy, and a long extract from one of his own fermons concerning the tenets of Catholics, in order to fhew that, by suppressing a part of it, I have misrepresented his meaning. What I quoted from him, amongst other passages in the same spirit, was to this effe&t: that the following doctrines “remain fixed on the Catholic church by virtue of her own principles, viz. to propagate re. ligion by persecution, llaughter and devastation, to consider every crime, even of the blackest kind, fan&tified by this end, to offer pardons and indulgences in order to exempt men from moral obligati. ons, and to make them easy under the violation of them.”—These horrid charges our author persists in repeating, and thinks he has made ample satisfaction to the Catholics by allowing in a subsequent pas. sage which I did not quote, “ that there is, and always has been a great proportion of benevolent and virtuous Catholics, who abhor the consequences to which the principles of their religion would lead them.”-Does Dr. S. then really think that Catholics will accept of this compliment to themselves at the expense of their religion? Will they bear to be told that they are better than their religion teaches them to be, whilst the best of them are conscious that they are infinitely worse? The present controversy has demonstrated our author's inabiB 3


lity to support fome of these charges. Should he hereafter be able to make out any one of his other accusations, I pledge myself, in the face of the public, to renounce the religion which is implicated in them.]




title page,

T being manifestly your intention to render the religion of your ancestors an object of sufpicion to our government and countrymen, at the present day, as may be gathered from

your and still more plainly from the passage cited below; (1) hence, you place in the front of your attack upon it, your strongest and most popular argument for this purpose, under the following title to your second letter: The Supremacy and Infallibility of the Pope, with the Independence of the Church on the Civil Power.

Before I proceed to answer your objections on these heads, I might require you to prove the supposition on which they are grounded, or rather your positive assertion that thefe form one of “ the prominent topics of my History of Winchester."(2) But, Sir, to follow where you are pleased to lead me, it is easy to fhew, that from the confused and indistinct view which you possess of the subjects you undertake to treat of, yourarguments are shot at random, and that, however they may impofe upon ignorant and superficial readers, they are incapable of making the smallest iinpression on the minds of theologians and scholars. In fact, you every where confound the Pope's essential spiritual jurisdiction with his accidental temporal power. You jumble together the very distina subjects of the supremacy, and the infallibility. Nay you are fo ill-informed, or so uncandid, as to charge Catholics with attributing impeccability, or an exemption from human errors and vices, amongst other privileges, to their chief Bishops. Hence you tria umph at discovering that some Pontiffs, in their long succession from St. Peter, during a space of almost 1800 years, have disgraced their sacred station. (1) Hence, also, your taunting “ pity for the task of poor Catholic writers," and particularly of Cardinal Baronius and myself, who, you say, “ are obliged to support all that the Councils and Popes have ever said or done,”(2) and even those wars, usurpations, and crimes which you so liberally ascribe to them.(3) Your ideas are equally indistinct on the latter, as on the former part of your subject, I mean the indepen. dence of the church on the state. You place no boundaries between the power of teaching and baptising all nations, which Christ communicated to the ministers of his church, a power that is to remain with them till the end of the world, (4) and those teinporal privileges and emoluments which they have derived from the piety of Christian princes and states. You take no notice of the diversity that has prevailed, both in the ecclefiaftical and in the civil laws,


(1) “ I shew how unfavourable the opinions, which Mr. M. would recommend, are to Government, to society, to our rights and liberties as Englishmen.” P. 6.

(2) P.E.



(3) P. 14.

(1) P. 12. (2) P. 25.
(4) St. Matt. xxviii, 19, 27.

with respect to these privileges and emoluments in different ages and countries. Thus, because I juftified in my History the celebrated primate who defended theclerical privileges, as he found them established in the twelfth century, you assert, that “ I wish to subject Great Britain and Britons to them at the present day.”(1) I am sorry to give so unfavoura. ble an account as this of the work of an eminent scholar upon a professional subjea. The chief cause of this confusion I conceive to be, the defective plan you have followed in studying the doctrines of the religion which you treat of. Had you laboured to acquire a knowledge of these, from the famous schoolman St. Thomas Aquinas, whom you boast of being unacquainted with, (2) instead of his less learned and edi. fying countrymen, Dante and Petrarch,(3) you would

have (1) P. 15

(2) P. 66. P. 15. Dr S. promises to avoid quotations from infidel and interested historians, and to prefer those which to me must appear unexceptionable, p. 7. To thew how well he fulfils this promise I will give a list of his principal authorities, viz. the poets Dante and Petrarch, both of them remarkable for their irreligion and hatred of the reigning Pontiffs ; Giannone, an unprincipled lawyer, who fattered the court of Naples in its attempt to get rid of the feudal tribute of the white palfrey due to that of Rome, by heap. ing up every kind of abuse and calumny against the latter ; Machiavelli, whose very name announces deceit and infidelity; finally, the treacherous Father Paul Sarpi, who professed one religion in order to serve another (see his life prefixed to The Rights of Sovereigns) and whose glaring faliehoods, to the number of near 400, have been so well exposed by Pallavicini, in his genuine History of the Council of Trent [Dr. S. complains in his 2d edition, p. 18, that I have called Giannone unprincipled and Father Paul treacherous. I have however given my reasons for using these appellations, which he has not attempted to refute. With respect to F. Paul, not only Catholic writers but also Protestants of the first eminence, such as Bishop Burnet in his life of Bedell, Juricu, Deodati, &c. prove


« FöregåendeFortsätt »