Sidor som bilder
PDF
ePub

to lead me, attentively difcuffing his facts and his reasoning on every queftion of the leaft importance fo as to enable the reader to form a judgment of the contents of his performance by reading mine. In fact, this method alone correfponds with my idea of anfwering a literary work of any kind. Here I had reafon to expect the controversy would have ceased, or at least that it would have drawn near to a conclufion, by my opponent's being forced to obferve the line of regular argumentation which I had traced out for him. In fhort, 1 promifed myself after what had paffed, that he would not venture upon another publication against me, unless he should feel himself enabled to fupport his charges in a more conclufive manner than he had hitherto done. In this expectation, however, I have found myself miftaken. He has chofen to continue the conteft with the fame weapons which have already failed him. He gives a fecond edition of a work, which has been refuted in all its parts. He brings the most weighty accufations against a numerous body of his fellow fubjects, which have been demonftrated to be falfe and calumnious in the face of the public. It is true he has entered into a few trifling chronological, or other unimportant difcuffions, which, if they be not in their turn anfwered, may be confidered by fome readers, according to the wishes which he intimates, as "referring to those particulars of my publication that are most deserving of notice."(1) He has alfo, by way of diverting the conteft, thought proper to make a very violent perfonal attack upon me for my conduct in a transaction that is totally foreign to the present controversy; and in order to difarm the refentment of the Catholic body at large which he has provoked, he attempts to perfuade them that in vilifying their religion and their ancestors, he is not combating them, but only me.(2) I must take this opportunity of mentioning that another gentleman,

(1) See Advertisement to Reflect. p. 5.
(2) Ibid, p. 7, alfo Append. p. 525, 526.

befides

befides Dr. S., who is alfo a prebendary of Winchester cathedral, has lately drawn his pen against me on the occafion of my Hiftory, in a fort of Annual Regifter, of which he is the author, called THE HAMPSHIRE REPOSITORY, and that he has fo far forgotten himfelf as to defcend to downright fcurrility against me.(1)

In the circumftances above ftated I truft that thofe refpectable perfonages who have been the moft urgent with me to difcontinue the prefent controverfy, will excufe my giving a fecond edition of the LETTERS TO A PREBENDARY. I muft add for their information, that it is not in my power to prevent a new edition taking place. The former impreffion is fold to a fingle copy, and the demand for the work both in England and Ireland is very great. Hence it will not appear extraordinary, that a printed PROSPECTUS of a new edition of it fhould have been circulated without my knowledge. In fhort, I am well affured that if I do not agree to reprint the work correctly under my own eye, it will be reprinted without my agreement, and probably incorrectly, at a distance from me.

At the prefent time both my adverfaries have taken a formal leave of me. Now though I cannot object to this determination of theirs, yet I cannot avoid making a few remarks on the motives which one of them, Dr. S. affigns for it on his part. He fays, that "a farther controversy would not produce conviction in either of the parties." (2) This declaration, I think, is a bad fpecimen of the pure and ardent zeal for religious truth, which ought to characterize Chriftian divines of every denomination. What can the public judge from such a speech but that either the perfons who utter it are not poffeffed of this zeal, or else that Christ

has

(1) See Supplement to the present work, p. 464, 465, notes (2) Advertifem. p. 5.

has left his faving truths wrapped up in fuch impenetrable darkness that even men of good will, with every advantage for inveftigating them, are incapable of difcovering them? He further alleges, that we two, viz. Dr. S. and myself, "are hardly enough agreed upon common principles to be qualified to reason together." (1) If this be really fo, he ought to have reflected upon the circumftance before he challenged me at all to the controverfy. The truth however is: I believe in every tittle of the Holy Scriptures, in the three Creeds and in the other fundamental doctrines of the Church of England contained in her two first Articles. I alfo admit the axioms and demonftrations of Euclid, the phyfics of Newton, the metaphyfics of Locke, the logic of Ariftotle and Watts, &c. In cafe the learned gentleman agree with me in these particulars, and more especially if he admit, as much as I do, of the fundamental doctrine and difcipline of the established church, it will foon appear, that we have common principles enough, not only to reafon upon with respect to all the points at iffue between us, but also to bring them to a speedy termination.

My antagonist concludes his ADVERTISEMENT with the most severe farcafms upon me and with as extravagant compliments to himfelf, in confequence of the cenfures which I have paffed in the courfe of my work upon different writers of celebrity, whose names he enumerates, no less than upon him, for the refpective faults which they are known to have been guilty of. (2) The fact is, as I do not accuse him of copying all the feveral defects of these eminent men, fo neither do 1 fuppofe him to have attained to their peculiar excellencies. In a few words, if I condemn Father Paul, it is not for his learning, but for his hypocrify if I find fault with Locke, it is not for his metaphyfics, but for his politics: if I diflike Tillotfon, it is not for his eloquence, but for his misreprefentations: if I cenfure Clarke, it is not for hist writings

(1) Advertisem. p. 6

(2) Ibid. p. 7.

writings on natural, but for those on revealed religion: if I blame Hoadly, it is not for his talents, natural or acquired, but for his latitudinarianifm: finally, if I abandon our common acquaintance, Dr. Balguy, it is not for his unrivalled precifion of thought and perfpicuity of language, but for his downright Socinianifm.

Before I conclude this article, it will perhaps be expected that I fhould fay fomething of the notice which is faid to have been taken of the prefent controverfy by perfonages of the first rank and confequence in the kingdom, and that on the most important and folemn occafion. It has been reported that my opponent has been complimented by the high authority alluded to, with having" written in a gentleman-like ftyle," and that I have been blamed for the alledged" afperity of my language," at the fame time that I am allowed to have proved myfelf" a well informed individual," which I interpret to imply that I have at least written like a scholar. Whilft I bow with due respect to this dignified criticism, I cannot help suspecting that the noble author of it had not, when he pronounced it, met with certain paffages in my adverfary's pages of a much more injurious nature to the Catholic body at large as well as to myfelf, than any which can be produced from my book against him.(1) At all events, I conclude that this noble perfonage had not observed those unconftitutional doctrines into which my opponent has unwarily flipped, (2) and those heterodox opinions which he so perfeveringly maintains. (3) With refpect to the latter, I must once more remark, what I have elsewhere more fully demonftrated, (4) that thefe

are

(1) See the paffages quoted in the present work at pp. 6, 7, 8,

21, 281.

(2) See pp. 327, 328, 329, 330, 336, also the passage quoted above in the present Preface.

(3) See pp. 369, 370, 371, 373, &c. 385, 404, 440, 448. (4) See the whole Letter No. VIII, on HOADLYISM, and more particularly the POSTSCRIPT to it.

are not moot points for theological debate, but the very groundwork and quinteffence of Chriftianity, on which neither the established church nor the law admits of any exception or compromife whatfoever.(1) To render this matter more clear, I fhall barely obferve, that if the fyftem which I have detected and combated in my letter upon Hoadly ifm be falfe, then the adherents of it are guilty of an impiety, which the firft Proteftant archdeacon of Winchefter defines to be no less than "attempting to tear the eternal Son of God from the throne of his Deity:"(2) and, that if on the other hand, this fyftem be true, then the Church of England, no less than that which adhere to, daily teaches and practises rank idolatry.

I have now only to mention the alterations which have taken place in this fecond edition of LETTERS TO A PREBENDARY. An endeavour has been made throughout the whole of them to amend the language, and, in fome inftances, to render the argumentation more perfpicuous. The context is illuftrated with many additional notes, and a Poftfcript is added to each letter, in anfwer to the new matter contained in my adverfary's late edition of his REFLECTIONS, and alfo by way of fumming up the evidence on each leading point that has been contefted between us. There is also a SUPPLEMENT in anfwer to the perfonal charges which Dr. S. has brought against me in the Supplement of his aforefaid new edition. To diftinguish these additions, they are in general placed between crotchets. On the other hand, to keep both the work itself and the price of it within as narrow bounds as poffible, the APPENDIX, which occurred in the former edition, is omitted in this. In fact, the fubject of it appears foreign to the present letters, confifting entirely of answers

to

(1) See the whole Letter No. VIII, on HOADLYISM, and more particularly the POSTSCRIPT to it.

(2) See archdeacon Philpot's Invective against Arianism, pp. 438, 439.

« FöregåendeFortsätt »