the special injunctions of the Almighty, or were sanctioned by his approval; and that to heap obloquy and ridicule upon them for their conduct in these respects, was not to uphold moral rectitude upon its just and proper principles; but was virtually to cast the imputation of iniquity upon the Divine Lawgiver himself, the Moral Governor of the universe, and thus to undermine the very foundation of all practical religion, obedience to the Divine will.

Sentiments so adverse to the prevailing opinions of most of his opponents did not escape severe animadversion; and charges were heaped upon him of giving advantage and triumph to the cause of infidelity, by placing the vindication of Scripture on untenable ground. Tindal himself, having already smarted under the animadversions of Bishop Gibson's two pastoral Letters, took the opportunity, in a reply to the second of those Letters, to subjoin some Remarks on Dr. Waterland's Scripture vindicated. This publication Dr. W. deemed unworthy of reply. Adverting to it, in the opening of his second part of Scripture vindicated, he observes, "There has appeared a pamphlet, called, A second "Address, which pretends to make some exceptions "to what I had written upon the former texts. But "the performance is so low, that my readers would "not excuse my stopping one moment about it. "The author, I perceive, had exhausted himself in "his great work, and it is but very little reinforce"ment we are to expect from him. He has shewn "that he can rail, which nobody doubted of: and

66

so he might as well have spared himself this new "trouble. He shall say what he pleases, for the pre"sent, of the Vindicator."

A much more considerable adversary, however, now took the field. Dr. Conyers Middleton, from an early period of their academical history, had manifested much personal ill-will towards Waterland, his too successful competitor in literature and in public esteem; and had also already discovered symptoms of a disposition far from favourable to revealed religion. Scarcely could the first part of Scripture vindicated have got into general circulation, before it was assailed by this eager disputant, in an anonymous pamphlet, addressed as A Letter to Dr. Waterland, containing some Remarks on his Vindication of Scripture, in answer to a book, entitled, Christianity as old as the Creation; together with a sketch or plan of another answer to the said book. 1731. The attack is vehement, but unguarded; offensive in its personalities; rash in its principles and its positions; regardless of consequences that might flow from them; and directed, at all hazards, to the inflicting of a wound upon his adversary, whatever injury might incidentally accrue from it even to religion itself.

After deprecating any disrespectful treatment of deistical writers, and intimating that the most effectual mode of rendering them favourable to Christianity would be to concede to them the principles on which they reason, and to detract somewhat from the entire perfection of the Scriptures, he proceeds to the discussion of those points in which he conceives the sacred writings to be most vulnera

66

ble, and Dr. Waterland's Vindication to have most completely failed. The Mosaic account of the fall he treats as a mystical fable; and ridicules, in every variety of contemptuous expression, its literal interpretation. The institution of circumcision he conceives to rest upon no satisfactory proof of Divine authority; but to have been evidently borrowed by Moses from the Egyptians. In touching upon this topic, he recommends "moderate and qualified senti"ments concerning the Divine origin of the Jewish religion, and the Divine inspiration of its founder, "Moses; which will otherwise prove a stumbling"block to men of understanding." The account of the confusion at Babel is also given up, as unworthy of credit. Having dwelt at considerable length upon these subjects, and protested against the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures, he proceeds to his plan of another answer to Tindal's book. This plan consists almost entirely of arguments grounded upon hypothetical concessions to the Deists; in order to convince them, that "should we allow Christianity "to be a mere imposture, on a level only with all "the other impostures that have obtained in the world, it would not be difficult to shew from the "dictates of reason, that an attempt to overturn it,

66

66

66

as it is now established by law, derived from our "ancestors, confirmed by the belief and practice of "so many ages, must be criminal and immoral." Upon this notable plan, the author would undertake to build the only defence of Christianity, that men of reason and understanding can approve!

It was unnecessary for Waterland himself to undertake the castigation of this performance. Though

anonymous, its author was sufficiently known; and that the sentiments it contained should issue from such a quarter, was deeply felt as a discredit reflected upon the Church, and upon religion itself. The foremost among those who animadverted upon its contents was Dr. Zachary Pearce, who published, but without his name, A Reply to the Letter to Dr. Waterland, setting forth the many falsehoods, both in the quotations and the historical facts, by which the Letter-Writer had endeavoured to weaken the authority of Moses. This tract is very dispassionately, ably, and successfully argued. Its design was not so much to defend Dr. W. or to enter into the dispute betwixt him and Tindal, as to expostulate with the Letter-Writer on the gross mistatements in his pamphlet. This was done with so much spirit and effect, that Middleton felt it necessary to put forth (though not till nearly a year afterwards) A Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland. Here he evidently betrayed a consciousness of having rashly committed himself upon certain points vitally affecting the credibility of the Mosaic history, and of having hazarded opinions, or insinuations, at least, exceedingly difficult to reconcile with the Scripturerecords. He endeavours to shake off the imputation of scepticism, and of prejudice against revealed religion, by declaring himself to be "a true friend to Christianity," and by reiterated and vehement complaints, that any suspicions to the contrary should have been entertained of him. He expresses, however, a wish to "explain himself more clearly in "some points, where, contrary to his intention, he might perhaps have given offence." Yet on these

66

66

points no such explanation as might remove the suspicions is to be found. His Defence is chiefly confined to matters of criticism, and to the falsifications charged upon him in the Reply. His dexterity in repelling or evading his adversary's blows, his spirit and vigour in seizing the opportunity of any fresh assault, his undaunted ease and effrontery under every advantage or disadvantage in the contest, discover talents and attainments of a superior order. But the unfortunate bias his mind had probably received at an earlier period was undoubtedly increased by acrimonious personal feelings; and this, together with a disdain of control, and a contempt for received opinions on matters where individual judgment ought least confidently to be trusted, rendered him captious, inconsiderate, and overbearing. Dr. Pearce had the advantage of qualities better suited than these to the purpose he had taken in hand. His abilities were solid, his acquirements extensive and highly respectable, his temper firm and even, his learning sound, his sentiments under the regulation of the purest religious principles. He felt accordingly a proper degree of confidence in the cause he had espoused; and was not deterred by the contumelies heaped upon him by his opponent, from returning to the conflict. This he did in A Reply to the Defence of the Letter to Dr. Waterland, published in 1732.

In this Reply fifteen charges of misquotation before alleged are re-considered, and Dr. Middleton's defence of them is shewn to be evasive and inefficient. But the Defence having more fully disclosed the author's sentiments upon some points affecting