to the feveral criticisms of different writers on the HISTORY AND SURVEY OF WINCHESTER. As fuch it feems more proper to annex the faid APPENDIX to the HISTORY itself, together with anfwers to later strictures on the fame fubject, (1) whenever another edition of that work fhall take place.

(1) Viz. thofe in the Monthly Review, the Anti-Jacobin Review, the British Critic, and the Critical Review. Though most of these publications betray fome degree of that prejudice against the History of Winchefter which it has been the bufinefs of Dr. S. to excite, yet the authors of them all treat it with decency and even with respect, except, a certain writer in the work which is last mentioned, who by the bitterness and even fury of his language proves himself to be a party concerned in the prefent controverfy: Haret lateri lethalis arundo. It is more than probable that he will have his answer in due time, and that his ignorance in the line of antiquities will be demonftrated to the public. In the interim I cannot help observing that it is the duty of the conduc. tors of periodical works to prevent their becoming vehicles of private refentment.

N. B. The references to the pages of THE REFLECTIONS ON POPERY, which occur in the following Letters relate to the first or quarto edition, except where the new or octavo edition is exprefsly mentioned.

LETTER I.

1

LETTERS TO A PREBENDARY.

SIR,

LETTER I.

How is it poffible that profeffing,

as in all fincerity I do, the fame principles of conciliation and charity, together with the fame zeal for the maintenance of civil order and the general interests of Christianity, which you so eloquently difplay, we two should find ourselves oppofed to each other in the characters of rival controvertists? How, in particular, fhould fo unfortunate an event, as I am bound to confider it, have arifen from the publication of my History (1), which, amongst other ends, was certainly intended to promote thofe important objects.

It is true, Sir, when first I took up my pen to record the fucceeding events of two thousand years, and to elucidate the great variety of obfcure and doubtful matter, which presented itself in this research, I was aware that I could not do justice to my readers, or to myself, without representing many points of history, chronology, topography, architecture, and religion, in different lights from those in which they have been exhibited by feveral other writers, and without combating

A

(1) THE HISTORY CIVIL AND ECCLESIASTICAL, AND SURVEY OF THE ANTIQUITIES OF WINCHESTER, in two vols. 4to.

bating many deep-rooted prejudices of the prefent day. Hence I expected to incur the odium, and to meet with the oppofition of the ignorant and the bigoted, that is to fay, of thofe perfons who were either unable or unwilling to investigate the arguments on which I had founded my opinions. But what encouraged me, on the other hand, was the hope of experiencing the approbation and fupport of that small, but enlightened and liberal clafs of men, in which I had ever confidered my prefent antagonist as holding a high rank. As I was myself confcious of a difpofition to renounce my own errors and prejudices, and a ftrong defire of difcovering and exhibiting the truth on every question that fell within the grasp of my abilities and industry, fo I afcribed the fame inclination to all perfons of that defcription; and I took it for granted, that amongst them, at least, I fhould meet with a candid hearing and a liberal commendation for every real difcovery I should make, of whatever nature that might be, or to whatever conclufions it might lead.

With these ideas, how great must have been my difappointment at the time of publication, to find my laborious, and not unfuccessful efforts, in refcuing the hiftory of this venerable city from the mists of fable and uncertainty with which it had heretofore been furrounded, and in adding to the general mafs of hiftorical and antiquarian knowledge, received with ungracious coolnefs, ftudioufly mifreprefented, and without mercy condemned to oblivion and the flames, on account of half a dozen lines in each volume, cenfuring the system of a late popular bishop of this

fee:

fee: which fyftem after all is feen, by the best friends both of church and state, in the fame light as by myfelf! How great, in particular, must have been my mortification, when, it having been found impoffible to flifle my production, and when the most diftinguifhed literary character in the city and neighbourhood of Winchefter had undertaken to anfwer it, I obferved that this was attempted, not by dif proving my facts, by confuting my arguments, by invalidating my authorities, or by oppofing others to them, but by ill-natured and groundless interpretations of my views in writing my Hiftory, and by common-place topics of mifreprefentation and calumny against the religion of our ancestors under the illiberal and abufive term of Popery (1); fuch as have been a thoufand times urged, and a thoufand times refuted. (2)

(1) The term of Catholic or Roman Catholic being now fanctioned by law (see the preamble to the act of 31 Geo. III. c. 32) as well as by common ufage, it is a mark of illiberality and bigotry to denote the religion in queftion by the term of Popery, and the profeffors of it by thofe of Papifls, Romanists, &c. which words were invented in the time of perfecution, to ferve as a cloak for the exercife of it. It has been remarked of a former work of Dr. S. (Confiderations on the prefent State of the Church Eftablifhment) that he every where calls the profeffors of the ancient religion Papifts, except where he fays, "The English clergy fucceed the Roman Catholic clergy of this country in part of their poffeffions." P. 1o8. Catholics are in this point more liberal. They do not, either in writing or converfation, apply invidious terms to their countrymen of a different communion, but rather such as the latter themfelves choose to be denoted by.

(2) Dr. S. has presented us with a lift of controvertists on his fide of the queftion, p. 97, 4to. ed. In oppofition to these names I have no difficulty in placing thofe of Stapleton, Parfons, Howarden, Manning, Gother, and Challoner, as controversial writers who were inferior to the former in no refpect, except that their works are not fo generally known.

After all that has been faid on the fubject of these volumes by yourself, Sir, and your fellow writers in print, and by many other perfons of more zeal than prudence, from mere hearsay in converfation, they will appear, upon examination, to be hiftorical, not controverfial compofitions, and to confift of antiquarian researches, rather than of theological dif fertations. They are accordingly read and commended for the information which they are fuppofed to contain, by many fincere as well as learned Protestants throughout the kingdom, and they were not lefs praised by others of that defcription in this neighbourhood, until Dr. S. founded the trumpet of religious alarm against them. The fact is, having undertaken to write an account of this city, as connected with the general history of the island, from its earliest records down to modern times, for the express purpose of illuftrating the obfcurities, and of diffipating the errors of many former writers, I have omitted no opportunity of attempting this, on any curious or interesting fubject whatsoever that has occurred to me during the feveral periods of the British, the Roman, the Saxon, the Danish, the Norman, and the English dominations. In cafe I have enlarged more upon certain periods than I have upon others, and have more frequently entered into ecclefiaftical difquifitions than into fuch as are merely literary or political, the reason is, because more obscurity and greater errors feemed to prevail with refpect to these than to other periods and fubjects.

my I was confcious, during the whole time of holding the pen, that I was amenable for whatever

I fhould