the Pope's spiritual fupremacy. They are shocked that the denial of it fhould be imputed to them." On the other hand, "those Roman Catholics who fcruple this oath are ready and defirous to give their engagements to the conftitution and government in the most explicit and unequivocal terms. They think themlelves bound by an oath which they have already taken, and which they are willing to strengthen, to defend to the utmost of their power the civil and ecclefiaftical establishment of the country, though all the Catholic powers, with the Pope at their head, were to levy war in order to establish their religion...I will go no farther at prefent, I will only fay in general, that there are parts of this oath which I myself would refufe to take."(1) It must be allowed that these authoritative accounts of the unfortunate difunion in question are widely different from that of Dr. S. and we are not furprised, after having heard them, at the line of conduct which the legislature thought proper to adopt with respect to that misunderstanding.

I fhall make as fhort as poffible of the part in the APPENDIX which relates to my perfonal conduc on the aforefaid occafion; though it was evidently for the purpose of depreciating this in the eyes of the public that my opponent has entered upon the prefent fubject. On the credit of a paper which was privately circulated during the heat of our contefts, and which was afterwards unwarily published in Ff4 what

(1) See the fpeech of the bishop of St. David's, now bishop of Rochefter, which is published at full length in the Gent. Mag. for September, 1791, p. 826-831, and republished by J. P. Coghlan.

Secondly, he accuI declared, that, in and the new title of DISSENTERS,

what is called The Third Blue Book,(1) he charges me with having palmed falfehood upon the members of parliament, in a hand-bill which I caused to be distributed amongst them, when I afferted, that thofe in whose concerns I acted were taken by furprife at the introduction into that honourable affembly of the oath which they objected to, of which point, after all, they themselves must be allowed to be the only competent judges. fes me of equal falfehood when oppofing the faid form of oath, PROTESTING CATHOLIC "I spoke the fenfe of the Roman Catholic clergy in general, and of many thousands of his Majefty's other loyal fubjects, no lefs than my own."(2) In oppofition to this affertion, Dr. S. maintains, from the aforefaid paper, that when I published this I had no commiflion to act for any perfon whomfoever, and that even after I was queftioned on the fubject of my authority, I could only procure a deputation from three nameless individuals, who themfelves had no claim to tranfact bufinefs in the name of any other Catholic. Little aware is Dr. S. what a fplendid monument he is here labouring to erect to my name. In fact, the oath in question being univerfally exploded, and the title of Protesting Catholic Diffenters being held in the utmost execration, could he perfuade the Catholics of this and future ages, that I had been fingular in my oppofition to them, and that, without fupport or countenance from any other person whomfoever, I had rushed into parlia

(1) Appendix to BB. 111, n. vii.

(2) See Facts relating to the Conteft, p. 3. Coghlan.

ment,

ment, and had fingly preferved to them their former oath of allegiance and their unalterable family name, what a panegyric would not this form at once of my orthodoxy, difcernment, and intrepidity! Thus much is inconteftably evident, that to the happy change in the original plan of the act by whatever means Providence effected it, our native Catholics are indebted for their efcape from an impending fchifm, and the conscientious exiles from the Continent owe their fafety from inevitable destruction. For there is not one of those virtuous fufferers, who would not have preferred the guillotine in his own country, to the oath and title that, without fuch a change, he must have taken in this, in order to avail himself of its proffered bounties. The fact however is, I am by no means entitled to fuch high praife. I was but the humble inftrument of other more dignified perfons in this great work. Thofe three namelefs individuals, alluded to above, were the three ecclefiaftical fuperiors of the English Catholics, to whom the generality of them looked up for fettling the terms of that profeffion of their faith, which government required of them as the condition of its fa

Thefe fuperiors figned a formal deputation. in my favour, as foon as any question was raised upon that head, by the terms of which they declared me to be their agent, not only in the meafures which I fhould take, but alfo in thofe which I had already taken respecting the act of parliament then pending. As to the unimportant queftion concerning the authenticity of the inftrument of Proreftation at the Mufeum, namely, whether it be

the

the original or only a copy, which I fhould never have taken up if I had not been formally called upon to do fo by a printed challenge that was fent to me concerning it; I fhall fatisfy myfelf with faying, that as true as are the axioms of Euclid, fo true it is that the original Proteftation is not now in the library of Ruffel-street. We have in our hands printed copies of the faid original, which are certified to be exactly conformable to the original as it existed in 1789, and which are the fame that most persons fubfcribed their names to. Now the inftrument in the Museum differs from this in a variety of particulars, that are diftinctly pointed out in the pamphlet which I printed on the occafion, as Dr. S. may at any time convince himself, if he will take the trouble necessary for this purpose.-Quæ non funt æqualia uni tertio, ea non funt aqualia inter fe. Atqui, &c. Ergo, &c. In the whole of this transaction I am very far from imputing any blame to the Committee. Neither they nor even the Cifalpine Club entertained a fufpicion of the accident by which fome copy or other happened to fupplant the original Protestation at the Museum, until I was called upon to demonftrate the fact. Nor do I know indeed that any other person is to blame in this affair, as I have proved that the Proteftation paffed through a great many hands for the purpose of being figned and printed; that it was twice taken to pieces, and repeatedly copied both in manuscript and in print.(1)

From this compendious ftatement Dr. S. will fee how egregiously he misleads the public, when he de scribes

(1) See A Further Report to the Cifalpine Club.

fcribes me, in the above-mentioned tranfaction, as "an individual influenced by old prejudices which have taken deep root"(1) Hence-forward I am confident he will be more careful what private memoirs he adopts, no lefs than what general Reflections on Popery he publishes. The fame caution I think will be obferved by other writers who chance to perufe the foregoing letters, and who have a reputation to lofe at the fame time for morality and for literature. (2) Dr. S. however taking it for granted that I stood

(1) Append. p. 276.

[(2) In this number I cannot include another Reverend Prebendary of Winchester Cathedral, the Conductor of the HAMPSHIRE REPOSITORY, who however refpectable he is as a gentleman, certainly has no reputation to lofe as an author. He seems indeed himself to be at length fenfible that he cannot "arrogate" to himself " the character of an antiquary," and he even disclaims "a taste" for the science of one, as being fuggefted, according to his ideas, "by fome congenial demon." Hamp. Repof. p. 133. On the other hand, if we fubfcribe to the opinion of the late Dr. Warton, who was an exquisite judge in matters of this nature, though, by his own confeffion, no judge at all of hiftorical and ecclefiaftical antiquities, his pretenfions to the title of a polite writer are not better grounded than to that of an antiquary. It would indeed be an easy matter to demonftrate the deficiency of the reverend gentleman upon every point he has written upon, both as to matter and manner, whether in profe or in verfe, by an actual review of the two volumes of his Repofitory, and of his Occafional Sermons and Poems, and to confirm fuch an opinion of them by the authority of authors of real character, were I animated with that spirit of animofity against him, which he betrays against me. But as I confined myself, in the first edition of this work, to a refutation of what he had advanced concerning the first volume of my HISTORY OF WINCHESTER, fo on the prefent occafion I fhall confine myself within ftill narrower bounds, for I fhall not even take notice of his criticisms on my fecond volume of the faid Hiftory, which have lately appeared, but shall content myfelf with answering the perfonal charges that he has now raked together against me.

The