- Subfequent Hiftory of the English Catholics down to the prefent time. Mocedot's plot.Oates's plot.---Its unparalleled malice against both the king and the Catholics.--Charles II. and James II. lefs defpotic than their predeceffors.----Difpenfations of the penal laws in former reigns.----Demonftration of the au- thority exercised by former princes over colleges, in a detailed feries.The title under which this authority was claimed.---- Modern instance of this authority.----James II. a real patron of toleration.----Embarraffment of Dr. S. on this head.---Abfur- 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 conftitutional principles..---Alarming doctrines and pofitions on this head of Dr. Balguy and Dr. S.----New penal laws after the Revolution.----Hiftory of the act of 11 and 12 W. c. iv...Unreasonableness of these measures, and contradic- plified in lord George Gordon and the Proteftant Affociators. ----Their attempts to intimidate the legislature and overturn the government.Their daring falfehoods.----Their final history.... The more ample relief granted to the Catholics in 1791.----The benevolence of certain individuals on that occafion.- -POST- This fubject the cause of the prefent controverfy.----Uprightness of the author's views in oppofing Hoadlyifm.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, epifcopal ordination, and fucceffion.Pofitions in oppofition to this doctrine, by bishop Hoadly, Dr. Balguy, and Dr. S.---Doctrine of the Ch. of Eng. concerning the two Sacraments.-The neceffary oppofition to this of Hoadly and his followers.----Examina- tion of Dr. B.'s Sermon on the Sacraments.----A demonftra- tion that the washing feet is a true facrament, on the principles of the Hoadlyites.-The church doctrine concerning the myf terious and beneficial nature of the Eucharift.-Dr. B.'s con. feffion on this fubject.-His profane derivation of the Lord's Supper from the Pagan facrifices.-An examination of Dr. S.'s pretence in favour of the Hoadlyan scheme of the facrament.- Neceffary reasoning of an intelligent Gentoo on this fubject.- The bishop of Bangor's remarks on the connection between the Hoadlyan fcheme 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 Chrift and the Trinity.-His various schemes of explaining our falvation through Christ.-- He denies Revelation to be a fyftem of Ethics.-The doc- trine of Dr. S. concerning the fundamental mysteries of Chrif- 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 difcuffion of what Dr. S. has published concerning the Trinity.- The ftatute 13 of Eliz. c. 12, concerning Uniformity.-Act of Uniformity, requiring unfeigned affent and confent.-Ca- nons of the Church of England to the fame effect.-Bishop H.'s method of fatisfying his confcience concerning the requi fite affent and confent.-Dr. B.'s diffent from the established church. His excellent reafoning on the neceflity of public uniformity. This argument turned againft himself.-His ex- ceptions against the xxxix Articles.-His mode of justifying the fubfcription 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 lefs tings. Their fhare in the prefent commotions.-The Catholic religion unjustly accufed on this head by Dr. Rennell, and two refpectable prelates.-One great fource of thefe calamities pointed POSTSCRIPT.-Neceffity of the prefent difcuffion. -Hoftility both of the church and the ftate, to Arianism and Socinianifm.-Archdeacon Philpot's invective against them.--- These herefies defined.-Application of these definitions to pas- Dr. S.'s attempt to difunite the Catholics.-Defence of both the late contending parties in that body from his mifreprefenta- tions. Vindication of the author from the charges of Dr. S.- PREFACE PREFACE To the Second Edition. As I am not accountable for the commencement, so neither am I for the continuance of the controverfy, of which the following letters form part. I wrote the hiftory of the city in which I refide, as connected with the general history of England, in order to fupply 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 fame fubject.(1) This work was admitted even by its profeffed enemies to have answered its intended defign, and to have brought to light a fund of hidden information relative to former times; but they complained that it prefented 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 difagreeable colours. If this were the cafe it was no fault of mine. I was an hiftorian, not an orator, as fuch it was my duty to reprefent facts in their true light. For this purpose I drew my narrative from the moft authentic and uncontroverted fources, and thefe I every where diftinctly pointed out, for the conviction. of thofe readers who might be difpofed to question its veracity. After (1) See Preface to vol. i, of THE HISTORY CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL AND SURVEY OF THE ANTIQUITIES OF WINCHESTER. After an interval of fome months from the publication of the faid work, a profeffed Answer to it, from the most celebrated pen in this vicinity, was announced to the public. Upon examination, however, it was found to be juft as much an answer to the Annals of Baronius or to Boffuet's Univerfal History, as to my HISTORY AND SURVEY OF WINCHESTER. Scarce a dozen articles in the two quarto volumes of which it confifts, and thofe comparatively of fmall importance, are fo much as mentioned by my opponent. The fubftance of his work is made up of a general mifrepresentation 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 fociety and government, especially to that of this kingdom." Thus was the foundation of a real and ferious controversy laid down, and, what is most extraordinary, by a perfon who profeffed" the greateft diflike to fuch contests and the most ardent defire of uniting all Chriftians in the defence of their common cause ;"(1) for it was impoffible that the Catholics fhould fit down quietly under charges of this nature, especially when brought by so respectable an adverfary as Dr. S.; they owed it to the ftate and to their fellow fubjects, no less than to themselves, to repel them ; and it was natural for me who had been the innocent caufe of their being brought, to ftand forward for this purpose.(2) In the execution of this tafk I have purfued a very different plan from that of my adversary. I have not amused my reader or myself with fanciful theory, vague declamation, or defultory invective; but I have made it my bufinefs to follow him, ftep by step, wherever he has been pleased to (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 confeffed that the History of Winchester furnished no juft ground for the Reflections on Popery. |
