his opprobrious and ribauld language, the little of argument to be found; and give it a fair and impartial examination.

• The two points, to which I fhall at prefent confine myself, are the punishment of idolatry by the patriarchs; and the punishment of children for the fins of their parents.

In handling the firft, I fhall begin with the article of most confequence; To convict the doctor of arguing on the principles of intolerance, and fhew that his complaints of being falsly and injuriously accufed on this head, are groundlefs and impertinent. I fhall then confider the arguments he brings, to prove that the patriarchs were impowered to punish idolatry; and detect and expose the fophiftry, by which he has endeavoured to load and blacken the fyftem of his learned adversary, and to hide and palliate the nakedness and deformity of his own. Laftly, I fhall examine his objection to the bishop's defence of the Jewish laws. in punishing idolaters with death; and fhew his inability to vindicate this part of the Mofaic conftitution, without having recourse to the principle of the theocracy.'

To fuch of our Readers as are acquainted with the character and writings of Dr. Lowth, which we cannot fuppofe to be a minority of them, the profeffed defign of thefe Remarks muft certainly appear fomewhat extraordinary; the attempt being nothing less than to prove the doctor an advocate for perfecution and intolerance! The zeal of the learned Bishop of Gloucefter, and of his difciples, to vindicate the juft and generous principle of toleration, is, no doubt, highly commendable; but their undertaking to vindicate this principle against Dr. L. feems an effort as needlefs as it would be to fet about proving Locke a philofopher, or Tillotfon a Chriftian.-We fhall, therefore, Ipare ourselves the trouble of reciting the particulars of fo ftrange a charge against the worthy profeffor; and proceed to the fupplemental part of this publication: viz.

The fecond part of an epiftolary correspondence between the Bishop of Gloucefler and the late Profeffor of Oxford, without an imprimatur, i. e. without a cover to the violated laws of honour and fociety.This Correfpondence the Author of the Remarks tells us, he has the bifhop's leave to annex. It fhews, fays he, by the unerring evidence of dates, that the doctor was the aggreffor, and began the quarrel. With what spirit he began it, appears from his infolent and injurious comparison to Father Harduin. Yet this grofs and glaring indignity extorted nothing more from his lordThip than a little raillery. He preferred this gentler mark of fenfibility to ferious expoftulation, when he was expofing arguments that tended to establish intolerance and civil flavery. Drious expoftulation might have had confequences, which the bishop is the laft man to countenance or approve.?

Wa

We have seen a printed copy of this Correfpondence, with Notes and Remarks by Dr. Lowth. As, in all probability, it will never be published, our Readers, we are perfuaded, will be pleased with some extracts from it. The title is-The fecond part of a literary correspondence, between the Bishop of Gloucester and a late profeffor of Oxford: accurately printed from an authentic copy. To which are added, the notes of the firft editor; with notes upon notes and remarks on the letters.

The Bishop of Gloucester and his friends exclaim loudly against Dr. Lowth, and charge him with a grofs violation of the moft refpected laws of fociety, in publishing his lordship's private letters, without his knowledge or confent.

If the publication of letters, fays Dr. Lowth, concerning a mere literary difpute already become public, in vindication of the perfon to whom they were written, against an injurious attack of the writer of them, be a violation of the laws of honour and fociety; what fhall we fay of the publication of the late Dr. M.'s letters to Mr. W.? letters of a perfon, then deceased, to his friend; letters of a private and confidential nature; treating characters and persons, both living and dead, with the utmost freedom; difclofing opinions and fentiments without referve, and fuch opinions and fentiments as have subjected the deceased author to very fevere cenfure; in fhort, fuch letters, as neither the deceased, nor those that were most near to him, would probably by any means have fuffered to be published? By whom, and by what right, were they published? Had the publisher any plea of felf-vindication, any kind of juftifiable pretence for making them public? Was it done by the direction, or the confent, of the deceased; with the permiffion, or even the knowledge, of his widow and executrix? Was it not managed in an underhand way, by a private dealing with the printer; inducing him to falfify the edition of the works of the deceafed, by foifting in the faid letters, without proper authority; and in fuch a manner, that they must appear to have been publifhed by order of the deceased author himself, or that of his executrix? Till fatisfactory answers can be given to thefe queries; it is imagined we shall hear no more, upon this occafion, of the violation of the laws of honour and fociety; of morality, and the law of natures and of the fuperlative facredness of the trust of a private letter.'

We have the following note on the word dates in the bishop's first letter to the profeffor. The conciliating letters, fays his lordship, paffed in the year 1756.-Dr. Lowth's injurious note, relecting on the bishop, was printed in the year 1764,-and the bishop's poffeript, in anfwer to it, in 1765.This is a clear

Biographia Britannica. Art. Middleton.

Bb3

and

and short account of the matter: but the bishop was to be made the aggreffor. How was this to be brought about? by a very extraordinary fetch of wit.In this unlucky year, 1756, an acquaintance of the bishop's examined Bishop Sherlock's Sermons, in which the doctor's opinion of the age of Job was controverted by a quotation from the book itself. But now unluckily again, the examination was published fome months before the correfpondence began.-What then? Might not a convention be broken before it was made, as well as an idolater be punished by the judge before the office was created?'

On this note by the bishop, we have the following notes by Dr. Lowth:- In the year 1764, fays his lordship: here, fays the doctor, is a small chronological mistake. The note in queftion (in the fecond edition of the Prelections) was printed, and publifhed, towards the end of the year 1763. This by the way fhews, that his lordship's animadverfion upon the injurious note was no hafty performance, no precipitate effufion of fudden paffion. It worked in his head, and fermented in his heart, for a long time; and it was preceded from the firft by violent and frequently repeated menaces. The first, of above a year's accumulated wrath, and ftudied invective, at laft iffued forth in the Appendix; a piece, which, for conclufive reafoning, delicate wit, deep erudition, fine tafte, and juft criticism, cannot be paralelled from all the archives of Dunciad literature.'

This is a clear and fhort account of the matter, fays the bishop: this is not a clear account of the matter, fays the doctor, nor the whole of it. The matter is explained in the letter to the author of the Divine Legation, p. 10, &c. and fhall be more minutely explained here. The Examination was published upon, or within a day or two of, May 18, 1756. The former correfpondence was opened towards the end of Auguft; as appears by the date of Dr. C.'s and Mr. S.'s letters to the profeffor. Almoft the whole of which interval the profeffor fpent as follows in a journey in June from Wincheiter to Durham; in refidence, and further ftay, at Durham, and in the neighbourhood in a journey from Durham to Chatfworth; and after fome time spent there, from thence to Winchefter. During which time the P. faw no one perfon, who probably could give him any information of the contents of the examiner's book; except Dr. Warburton, who made no mention of it to him. He had not the leaft notice of them from any other quarter, till fome time after the correfpondence was finifhed; as may be fairly concluded from the fecond paragraph of letter 3d, in the former correfpondence; where no notice at all is taken of the exminer, whose book furnished the abfurd objection there refuted: nor did he enquire for, or fee, the book, till above two years after it was published. The examiner's book therefore was in effect,

I

effect, as far as regarded the P. and his part in what is here called the Convention, as if it had remained all the while unpublished.'

Might not a convention be broken before it was made? fays the bifhop: How, replies the doctor, or by whom? By the examiner, who was no party in the convention, and had no manner of concern in it; and therefore could not break it? Or is this merely defigned to introduce the pleafant conceit, which follows; as well as an idolater be punished by the judge, before the office was created:-as if there were no judges in the time of Job, because they did not wear a fcarlet robe, a full-bottomed wig,

and a coif.'

On letter 2d, we have the following note by the bishop:

And yet, if the account which has been given to the bishop of the doctor's printed letter to him, be true, (and he has reafon to think it fo from this very letter) there is more abuse in it than in all the bishop's writings put together.To felect one curious particular. He charges the bifhop with having, in his fermon preached before the king, laft Lent, fomething reflecting on, or alluding to, particular perfons or tranfactions of a recent date. Now the man who affirmed this to the doctor, (if any fuch there were) and the doctor who affirms it to the public, are infamous calumniators. It is well known to feveral perfons of confideration, that this very fermon, with every paffage, (and in the very words) which gave birth to the calumny, was written and preached, more than once, (and at court too) many years ago.'

On this note we have the following notes by the doctor. — • There is more abufe, &c. fays his lordfhip: an accufation, fays the doctor, of a most heinous and flagitious nature, founded on hear-fay; on the report probably of fome of his own creatures, whom he has all the reafon in the world to think prejudiced, and bad evidence, in this cafe: and of whofe veracity indeed he feems to have fome doubt; for he fpeaks with a caution and hesitation (if the account given him be true) which is not in his ufual manner. He advances this horrible charge on hearfay, against a printed and published letter, which he might at any time have read, to fee whether what was reported to him were true or not; and which, at the fame time that he accufes it as an infamous libel, he modeftly declares, that he has not read, and never will read. More abufe in the letter than in all his writings put together!Courage, my lord; never fear! YOUR writings fhall always ftand unrivaled in this refpect:

fume fuperbiam Quafitam meritis.

You have always valued yourself on your talent for abuse; and none fhall dare to difpute the palm with you. The Sifenna

Bb 4

and

and the Barri of antient times, the Aretines and the Scioppiufes of later date, fhall all vail the bonnet to you: and if any upftart ribald of the present age fhall dare to enter the lifts against you in this career; tell him with your usual spirit, that, at the long run, he fhall have no reason to applaud his fituation.

To after age THOU fhalt be writ the man,

That beft with bitter words could arm the tongue,
And dart the venom'd taunt with keenest rage.

To cite full and particular evidence of his lordship's fuperiour merits, in this way, would be an endless talk. To felet therefore one curious particular only; and that, from a piece in the panegyric ftrain: for he has the addrefs to exhibit his faculty upon every occafion, and to furprize us with the dif play of it, when leaft expected. In the dedication prefixed to the third volume of Divine Legation, he qualifies all thofe, whofoever they may be, who had controverted his opinions, many of them perfons of known probity, piety, and learning, as zealots and bigots; as madmen leading the blind; as belying a zeal for religion by a ridiculous TARTUFFISM; that is, by a fanctimonious hypocrify, put on as a mask to cover the most flagitious defigns. And he clofes the lift with the addition of a venerable archbishop of Canterbury, not long fince deceased; marking him out by the initial letter of his name, as the encourager of falfe zealots, and the head of the unbelieving politicians. In would be impertinent to enquire, how this well-judged and decent addrefs was received by the truly great and respectable perfon, to whom it was prefented, in quality of patron. But one may afk, as a queftion of law, what judgment the fame great magiftrate would probably have paffed upon it, in quality of Lord Chief Juftice of England; if it had been presented to him, as a libel, by information in the court of King's Bench? Let us now confider the remaining part of the note, containing a charge of an INFAMOUS CALUMNY.The profeffor has hinted at a famous fermon preached at court, which was univerfally understood by thofe who heard it to reflect on, or allude to, perfons or tranfactions of a recent date. In difproof of this it is alledged, that this very fermon, with every passage, and in the very words, was written and preached many years ago. Has the Pro. faid one word relating to any of thefe circumftances? Has he fo much as intimated, that the fermon was old, or new-vampt; that it was, or was not, preached before, with every paffage, and in the very words? He has nothing to do with thefe circumftances: be they true or falfe, his veracity is not in the leaft concerned: fit fides penes auctorem. But, was not fuch a fermon preached? It is not denied: are the fentiments, or even the words, of that fermon mifreported? It is pot pretended, that they are; was not fuch an interpretation of.

them