By Geo. Matcham, Esq. 263 
| objects to my charge of dogmatism on Dr. Whitaker, and has had 
recourse to another work of Sir Richard Hoare, from which he 
extracts a passage, which he considers equally reprehensible in 
this respect. 
That work was written at an advanced period of life by a person 
of perhaps the greatest experience in such subjects of his day, and 
his conclusion, (to which objection has been taken) was grounded 
on an elaborate previous examination of the ground, and of the 
points in dispute: it was in fact but a form of expression, merely 
intimating the probable effect of a successful argument on the 
mind of the reader. But if Sir Richard is considered as too posi- 
tive, the dogmatism of the other is not diminished, and the charge 
is founded not merely on an isolated passage, but on the general 
tenor of his works. Your readers also will remember that in fact 
the comparison was not made between them, but between Whitaker 
and Dr. Thurnam, whose mode of conducting a controversy, is as 
excellent in itself, as its tone and manner appear to be difficult to 
follow. In conclusion, I cannot but express my regret that Mr. 
_Serope should have thought it necessary to represent me as exhibit- 
ing “the pride of superior information,” (p. 300) or any token of 
“emblematic triumph” (p. 306).. “My White Horse,” which 
mounting his West Saxon Dragon, he thinks it worth while so 
strenuously to assail, is an unpretending hobby which ambles or 
stumbles as the case may be, and the verdict of your readers may 
determine; and as the deprecatory expressions at the close of my 
previous paper, have not exonerated me from the charge of pre- 
sumption, I may add that the enviable sensations of fancied triumph, 
if they even existed, have long since passed from me with the years 
and the friends that are gone, and cannot now be recalled. 
“Frigidus obstiterit circum praecordia sanguis.”’ 
I am not however indifferent to the inference which may be 
drawn that I have lightly or wilfully trifled with the time or 
eredulity of your readers,! and on this account, if on no other, some 
vindication of my former communication is required. 
BI beg however to acknowledge the proper correction of my unintentional 
error in assigning the date of the death of Simeon of Durham to the year 1357, 
instead of 1129, arising from imperfect information, and the want of better 
‘books of reference. 
