judge, though we cannot pretend to that qualification which might result from having read the whole of all his works; a qualification which one could not attain very early in life, if he attempted much else. And this suggests the remark, which every one seems disposed to make first, and in which we are impelled to join; viz. that Priestley wrote too fast and too much on Theology, or wrote too fast and published too much. The complete edition of his works consists of twenty-five octavo volumes of more than five hundred pages each. The catalogue at the end of this volume gives us about one hundred and fifty distinct publications, of which more than two thirds are theological. Many of these are of a character, as is well known, to require very extensive and careful research. And with all the changes and active duties of such a life, we need no other facts to be convinced that he could not have done himself or his subjec's full justice. The style and character of some of his writings confirm this opinion. We do not believe them to be essentially defective, as has been sometimes thought; we do not see reason for withholding general confidence from any of his works, from fear of great inaccuracy. But we see defects, particularly of style, which are not only unnecessary, but decidedly injurious both to the general reputation and the direct effect of his writings. He did not attach importance enough to style. But he did attach too much importance to the mere circumstance of coming out forthwith. We are inclined to say, too, that, as a general habit, he overrated the importance and probable. influence of his separate productions. He was eager, ardent, confident, burning with a noble zeal to be always doing and always useful, and hurried by his zeal into the belief that the one was identical with the other. He paid little attention to manner; the matter was all he wished to gain and all he aimed to give. He never polished, he hardly finished. We can scarcely recall a sentence, on whose language or construction he seems to have bestowed pains. To make his meaning clear, to state a fact or a truth so that no one need mistake it, was always his aim, but nothing beyond this. Indeed he appears to have feared too cautious a habit of writing, while conscious of being too careless. "I am too apt to write in a hurry," he says in one letter. In another, he wishes Belsham may be urged not to be too nice; "If

I had been so, I should have done nothing." He would have done nothing in comparison as regards the number of volumes. But we believe, after all that is to be said of the peculiarity of his time and the situations in which he was placed, that he would have done quite as much for the permanent good of society, and much more for his own name. We honor him for being willing to sacrifice, as it is evident he knew he was sacrificing, reputation to usefulness. We honor him for that remarkable simplicity of purpose, directness of thought, and clearness of expression, which render every sentence that he ever wrote as intelligible as words can make it. In this excellence, remembering the diversity and extent of his writings, he is unsurpassed. But to this might have been joined, and should have been, a care that would have added strength, and an ambition that would have looked beyond immediate to final effects.

This want of care, however, is most to be regretted in the expression of opinions. We do not speak of honesty and fearlessness in regard to opinions themselves, for these must always command respect where opinions have been carefully formed and are conscientiously held. We refer now to the manner of expressing opinions, those especially which we know will be startling and wounding to the honest religious feelings of many. Such feelings are always to be respected. Religious prejudices are always to be respected; and respected not only in fact, but in appearance, in language, in expression of whatever kind. In this, we must think, Priestley often erred. He did respect the fee ings of others, of all. No man had a higher resp ct for honest differences of feeling and judginent. But he took little pains, often. no pains, to save feelings and win judgment. He took no pains apparently (we speak only of his pen, not of his purpose) to avoid expressions totally unlike the received and approved expressions, or to avoid associations foreign to those most prevalent in religion, and deemed most sacred. Take for example, as we have not room to be more definite, one of his last productions, "Socrates and Jesus Compared." Its very title, and much of its plan and style, and his defences of it, are such as do unnecessary violence to the faith and feeling, right as well as wrong, of thousands. We know its purpose was excellent. There could not be a better purpose, or one more likely to con

VOL. XVI.

N. S. VOL. XI. NO. II.

21

found a favorite argument of infidelity, than to show, that Socrates, allowing all that any can claim for him, was immeasurably inferior to the least that can be thought of Jesus, if he is allowed to have existed at all. It is folly to say, that such modes of reasoning are not admissible, when such ground is taken by intelligent unbelievers. It is more than folly, it is faithlessness and wickedness, to call him the enemy of religion and God, who uses such weapons as Priestley used in this work and the controversy that ensued. Still we do think, that those weapons might have been better used by the same hands, better tempered, better shaped, and wielded more to the advantage of Christianity. It requires all our respect for his character, and an intimate knowledge and constant recollection of his singleness of heart and devotedness to truth and duty, to save us from suffering what we have suffered, and are sometimes in danger of suffering now, from many of his remarks and expressions. It may be weakness. It may be fastidiousness. We know it is not singularity. We believe it is not a trifle. And we say more upon this point than we otherwise should, because while it raises a serious obstacle to the usefulness of Priestley's writings, it appears in the writings of many others of his countrymen, and has not seemingly been viewed by them in that religious aspect and influence which truly belong to it.

We

Our objections to Priestley extend also to some of his opinions and speculations. That we differ from one so great and good, may not be of the least importance; but we should not be honest or consistent, if we did not express it. do marvel and grieve, at the manner in which he sometimes views and treats the most important and difficult questions. He does not seem to us to have been deficient in feeling. By no means. But there was something that prevented him from entering into the feelings of others. He did not appreciate all the sacredness and tenderness of religious associations. He did not, we think, enter fully into the beauties and glories, the hallowed and solemn grandeur, of our Saviour's character. Or, if he did, we cannot understand nor pardon the manner, in which he allows himself to speak and speculate on that and some other topics, as inspiration, regeneration, and eternity. There were other peculiarities in his Scriptural readings, which may affect no moral principle and be harmless, but which were singular as

connected with such a mind. We allude particularly to his confident expectation of Christ's second appearance in person, at no distant period. "You may probably live to see it; I shall not. It cannot, I think, be more than twenty years. So far was he from rejecting prophecy, as some have accused him, that he was an enthusiast in regard to it, and saw clearly, in passing events, the fulfilment of predictions in the Old Testament and the Apocalypse. He believed that England and France were soon to suffer in this cause, and that possibly Bonaparte was the deliverer promised to Egypt in Isaiah. These things are the more remarkable, as he certainly was not hasty in the adoption of opinions, nor did he like to see haste in others. "I am far from wishing to make ready converts, as they are seldom steady ones. Besides, I never was a ready convert to any thing myself; but in general a very slow one, thinking long before I decided."

If we have spoken freely our objections, we incline to express more freely and strongly our confidence and admiration. Priestley was a candid, humble, immovable, devout, and devoted Christian. If he was not, if his writings and life do not demonstrate it, we deny that it can be demonstrated of any man past or present. It is trifling with Christianity and with every-day facts, to send us to a man's creed in proof of his piety, while you refuse to admit the evidence of his character and life. It is as great an offence against the character and teaching of Christ, as any heresy you can broach. By their fruits ye shall know them."

We had marked several passages in the different works of Priestley, which show simply and clearly his Christian firmness and fervor. We are restrained from offering many of them, by the space already used, and by seeing that selections from his writings are soon to be given to the public, in a way that will do him more justice than he has yet received. He is not known. There are proofs, scattered through all his works, of uncommon faith and devotion. There is no subject that he has not touched; there is no branch of evidence that he has not illustrated; there is no institution or ordinance of religion that he has not maintained with his pen and his example. The authority of the Old Testament and of the New, miracles, prophecies, the Sabbath, public worship, private prayer, the Lord's supper, baptism, all found in him a believer, and, when assailed, a

vigorous defender. To heads of families he wrote earnestly on the duty of family worship, and always observed it in his own house. For children he labored incessantly in his parish and through the press. To young men he addressed considerations and warnings in regard to their most common vices, with a plainness which is much applauded in others.* For the duty, the pleasure, and the benefit of reading the Scriptures habitually, no man's precepts or life have pleaded more strongly. Look at one passage from his Sermon on the Duty of Mutual Exhortation, beside the incidental proofs which have been seen in his life.

"So strongly is my mind impressed with a sense of the importance of the habitual reading of the Scriptures, both from considering the nature of the thing, and from the best attention that I have been able to give to particular characters and facts, that I do not see how those persons who neglect it, and who have no satisfaction in habitually meditating on the infinitely important subjects to which they relate, can be said to have any thing of Christianity besides the name."

Observe too with what gratitude and sense of dependence and weakness, he speaks of the observance of the Sabbath and of religious forms.

"I own myself to be so far from Christian perfection, that I think myself happy in such a necessary mode of spending my time, especially on Sundays, as serves to keep up a constant attention to my situation as an accountable being, to my relation to God, and my dependence upon him, so that I cannot be long without being reminded of my destination to a future and everlasting state; as by this means I hope I am more in the way of acquiring those sentiments and habits which will qualify me for it. Let others fancy that they can do without these ordinary helps; I cannot but think there would be more wisdom in a greater distrust of themselves. Happy is he that feareth always." †

Of all the libels that have fallen upon Priestley, the most singular is that which accuses him of infidelity. We do not believe a more clear or assured believer can be found

* These "Considerations for the Use of Young Men," were published in Boston, in 1808, it is believed, by Mr. Buckminster, together with Zollikoffer's two Sermons on the "Sins of Unchastity"; a pamphlet that should not be lost.

Letters on Public Worship to a Young Man. Works, Vol. XX.