Sidor som bilder

Subsequent History of the English Catholics down to the present time.
Unreasonableness of the vulgar prejudices against Catholics.—Arts

of Cecil, earl of Salisbury, to wean James I. from his attach-
ment to them.—Dr. S.'s misrepresentation of the gun-powder
plot.-Number, character, and principles of the conspirators.
Cecil the chief artificer and promoter of it.-His further views
on the heads of the Catholics.--His consummate hypocrisy in
flattering the king and alarming the nation.----Refutation of the
affertion that this plot has no parallel in hiftory.---- Three Pro-
testant gun powder plots..... The absurdity and uncharitableness
of celebrating the 5th of November.----Dr. S.'s candour in this
respect.----The fatal artifice used in drawing up the oath of alle-
giance.----Absurd charges of disloyalty and plots against Catho-
lics under Charles I...Their unrivalled loyalty and sufferings
in the grand Rebellion.----Curious anecdotes relative to the reli-
gion of that period..---The share the Catholics had in preserv-
ing the life of Charles II.---- Fresh accusations against them at the
Restoration...--Strange assertions of Dr. S.-.--Fire of London.
--Mocedot's plot.----Oates's plot.----Its unparalleled malice
against both the king and the Catholics.-Charles II. and
James II. less despotic than their predecessors.----Dispensations
of the penal laws in former reigns.----Demonstration of the au-
thority exercised by former princes over colleges, in a detailed
series..... The title under which this authority was claimed.----
Modern instance of this authority.----James II. a real patron of
toleration.---- Embarrassment of Dr. S. on this head...--Absur-

dity of his menacing charge upon the author's loyalty.-.-Retor-

fion of the charge upon himself.----Explicit avowal of the writer's

adherence to constitutional principles...--Alarming do&trines and

positions on this head of Dr. Balguy and Dr. S.---New penal

laws after the Revolution.---- History of the act of u and 12

W. c. iv....-Unreasonableness of these measures, and contradic-

tions of Dr. S. concerning them.----General reflections on the

hypocritical pretexts of all the preceding persecutions.----The

relief granted to the Catholics under his present Majesty in 1778.

---- The hypocrisy and intolerance of former persecutors exem-

plified in lord George Gordon and the Protestant Associators.

----Their attempts to intimidate the legislature and overturn the

government.----Their daring falsehoods.---- Their final history....

The more ample relief granted to the Catholics in 1791..---The

benevolence of certain individuals on that occasion.- -POST.

SCRIPT.--General review of the perfecutions exercised on the

English Catholics.

P. 264.----351.



This subje&t the cause of the present controversy.----Uprightness

of the author's views in oppofing Hoadlyism.----His wish to

preserve the doctrines of the Church of England as a barrier

against infidelity.----Her doctrine concerning the nature and

authority of the Church of Christ, episcopal ordination, and

succeffion.----Positions in 'opposition to this doctrine, by

bilhop Hoadly, Dr. Balguy, and Dr. S.-Doctrine of the

Ch. of Eng. concerning the two Sacraments.--- The necessary

oppofition to this of #oadly and his followers.----Examina-

tion of Dr. B.'s Sermon on the Sacraments.----A demonstra-

tion that the washing feet is a true facrament, on the principles

of the Hoadlyites. The church doctrine concerning the mys.

terious and beneficial nature of the Eucharist.–Dr. B.'s cón.

feffion on this subject.-His profane derivation of the Lord's

Supper from the Pagan sacrifices.-An examination of Dr. Si's

pretence in favour of the Hoadlyan scheme of the facrament.-

Neceffary reasoning of an intelligent Gentoo on this subject.-

The bishop of Bangor’s remarks on the connection between

the Hoadlyan scheme and Socinianifm.—The explicit doctrine

of the Church of England concerning the Trinity and Incar-

nation.- Heterodoxy of Bishop H.-Dr. B. denies all myf-

teries whatsoever.-His untheological reasoning on this head.-

His impious doctrine concerning Christ and the Trinity.-His

various schemes of explaining our salvation through Christ.-

He denies Revelation to be a system of Ethics. — The doc-

trine of Dr. S. concerning the fundamental mysteries of Chris-

tianity.-His errors concerning the nature of faith.-His de-

nial that any thing else is revealed by God of his own nature,

except that he is one, and that he is incorporeal.--An accurate

discussion of what Dr. S. has published concerning the Trinity.-

The statute 13 of Eliz. c. 12, concerning Uniformity.--Act

of Uniformity, requiring unfeigned affent and consent.--Ca-

nons of the Church of England to the same effect. ----Bishop

H.'s method of satisfying his conscience concerning the requi-

site assent and confent. - Dr. B.'s diffent from the established

church.-His excellent reasoning on the neceflity of public

uniformity.—This argument turned against himself.--His ex-

ceptions against the xxxix Articles. His mode of justifying

the subscription of them.--Dr. S.'s objections to them. His

call for a reformation of them.--The author's motive for defend-

ing the doctrine of the establishment.--A Catholic departs less

from it than a Hoadlyite.-Character of H.'s political wri-



To the Second Edition.

As I am not accountable for the commencement, fo neither am I for the continuance of the controversy, of which the following letters form part. I wrote the history of the city in which I reside, as connected with the general history of England, in order to supply an acknowledged literary deficiency, and to disabuse the public of the most egregious errors and fables that had been palmed upon it in all the preceding publications on the same subject.(1) This work was admitted eren by its professed enemies to have answered its intended design, and to have brought to light a fund of hidden information relative to former times; but they complained that it presented details too favourable to the religion of our ancestors, and that it exhibited the alterations which took place in this refpect between two and three centuries ago, in disagreeable colours. If this were the case it was no fault of mine. I was an historian, not an orator, as such it was my duty to represent facts in their true light. For this purpose I drew my narrative from the most authentic and uncontroverted sources, and these I every where distinctly pointed out, for the conviction of those readers who might be disposed to question its veracity.



After an interval of some months from the publication of the said work, a professed Answer to it, from the most celebrated pen in this vicinity, was announced to the public. Upon examination, however, it was found to be just as much an answer to the Annals of Baronius or to Bossuet's Universal History, as to my HISTORY AND SURVEY OF WINCHESTER. Scarce a dozen articles in the two quarto volumes of which it consists, and those comparatively of small importance, are so much as mentioned by my opponent. The substance of his work is made up of a general misrepresentation of the doctrine and conduct of the Catholics, and this for the avowed purpose, as appears by the very title page, of proving that the religion of the Alfreds and the Wykehams is inimical to “civil society and government, especially to that of this kingdom.” Thus was the foundation of a real and serious controversy laid down, and, what is most extraordinary, by a person who professed“ the greatest dislike to such contests and the most ardent defire of uniting all Christians in the defence of their common cause;"(1) for it was impossible that the Catholics should sit down quietly under charges of this nature, especially when brought by so respectable an adverfary as Dr. S.; they owed it to the state and to their fellow fubjects, no less than to themselves, to repel them ; and it was natural for me who had been the innocent cause of their being brought, to stand forward for this purpose.(2)

In the execution of this task I have pursued a very different plan from that of my adversary. I have not amused my reader or myself with fanciful theory, vague declamation, or desultory invective ; but I have made it my businefs to follow him, ftep by step, wherever he has been pleased


(1) See REFLECTIONS ON POPERY, 2d. ed. pp. 4, 6.

See the account of Dr. S.'s work in the Anti-Jacabin Review, in which it is candidly confessed that the History of Winchester furnished no just ground for the Reflections on Popery.

[ocr errors]
[ocr errors]
« FöregåendeFortsätt »