It is possible enough that this proceeding arose not so much from any wilful unfairness as from pure ignorance; for the ‘Vindiciae’ having been chiefly intended for foreign readers, may probably have had only a limited circulation at home; and persons of all parties are too apt, in most cases, to content themselves with the writers on their own side of the question. Independently of other more unworthy motives, self-love and indolence often lead to this one-sided study of an important subject. It is much easier to confine ourselves to those arguments which we are already disposed to think conclusive, and to go along with the stream, than to undertake the labour of examination and patient inquiry; not to add, that it is much more agreeable to find or believe ourselves in the right, than to be forced to acknowledge that we had been in the wrong. It is not much to be wondered at, therefore, that so few, comparatively speaking, run the risk of becoming exposed to this painful necessity. It is not at all unlikely that this clergyman was one of those who ‘never read dissenting divinity,’ and therefore had no suspicion that the book which he held forth as conclusive had already been fully answered. Mr. Peirce, finding that this work was much recommended to English readers, yielded to the solicitations of his friends, and published, in 1717, a translation of his former
