The picture that he represents me as having given of the clergy of Birmingham in particular, has no existence but in his own imagination, which, with respect to exaggerated charges, is sufficiently fruitful. "Dr. Priestley's account of the clergy," &c., he says, "is of that kind which makes the worst things he can say of them probable."*"The idea of the present clergy of Birmingham will but exhibit the detested image of a junto degraded by their vices from the rank not of ministers merely but even of men." "Either the clergy of Birmingham have forfeited their rank in society, and their claim on its protection, or Dr. Priestley has, in the face of his country, incurred the guilt of accusing the innocent, on the ground of invented facts, and of giving plausibility to the composition, by the affectation of candour and Christian meekness." "It is not permitted to the clergy of Birmingham, thus publicly arraigned, as the abettors of the late Riots, to throw in their mite of concern at the outrages that have been committed on property, on the feelings of individuals, on general science, and on the plainest dictates of humanity. These are interests in which, if our accuser may be credited, we can feel no concern. It seems, in the opinion of Dr. Priestley, that to be and to act as a man of principle in the Established Church, deprives a man, by a kind of professional necessity, of every claim to the character of humanity, and levels him at once to the condition of a brute." §

Now this frightful idea of the clergy of Birmingham is as far from having any countenance in my Appeal, as it is from my thoughts. I never had, or expressed, any worse idea of them than that some of them were bigots; and there are many very honest and worthy men, of whom it cannot be denied that they are so: that is, persons who are so fully persuaded, though without reason, of the truth of their own principles, that they think much too ill of those of others, and are thereby led to support their principles by methods which cannot be justified.

With respect to the Riot, the worst that I ever thought or expressed concerning the clergy of Birmingham was, that some of them had represented the Dissenters in general, and myself in particular, in such a light, as, considering the previous state of men's minds in that part of the country, could not but tend to inflame them against us, and prepare Ibid. p. 17. (P.)

Reply, p. 47. (P.) § Ibid. p. 101. (P.)

† Ibid. p. x. (P.)

them, though unintended by themselves, for the outrages that were committed afterwards; and of this I shall presently produce ample proof. If I have said any thing more than this, let my words be quoted, and their sense ascertained. But all that the reader has yet seen in the above extracts are the words of Mr. Burn, and not mine.

Mr. Burn, however, says, "The blame must, as usual, fall upon persons of better condition, and among these the clergy must of course be regarded as principals in the guilt of the above horrid transactions."* But what is still more unaccountable than this, he says, "He has commenced a regular attack upon four clergymen by name, whom he accuses, by the most direct implication, as having been the chief movers of the popular tumult and outrage, as incendiaries and pillagers of houses," &c., &c. "If the clergy," he says, "whose names have been brought forwards on this occasion really are, or should even be suspected to be, the wretches which Dr. Priestley represents them, their guilt must form an anomaly in the history of crimes."‡

Now I have been far from accusing any clergymen whatever as principals in promoting the Riot; and what Mr. Burn can mean by saying that I have " commenced an attack upon four clergymen by name," I am utterly unable to guess. I do not know that I have mentioned four of the clergy in any view, and certainly not as promoters of the Riot; and yet two of them, Mr. Curtis and Mr. Madan, make a separate defence of their conduct, as if they had been formally arraigned. It is easy to answer accusations invented on purpose to be answered; but of what consequence is this, except to those who are imposed upon by the exaggerated and false representation, reflecting blame upon the accuser, instead of answering the proper accusation? In all that I have quoted from Mr. Burn, he has only added to that calumny with which I have been already sufficiently loaded, and I publicly call upon him to vindicate himself from this charge.

I must, however, acknowledge that Mr. Burn's reply to my Appeal, considered as written with their concurrence, gives me a much worse opinion of the clergy of Birmingham than I was disposed to entertain before. It bears too evident marks of real malignity. It shews the unrelenting temper of those who have done an injury; and, on the whole, if I had my choice of the two, (harsh as is the censure Ibid. p. ix. (P.)

* Reply, p. 124. (P.)

t Ibid. p. xiii. (P.)

implied in what I am going to say,) I had rather go out of the world with the disposition of the brutal but ignorant Rioters, than with theirs.

savage;

66

It is equally untrue and unjust in Mr. Burn to insinuate, that I represented Mr. Madan as "an unprincipled ;" in consequence of which some persons, he says, having conceived this idea of him, were astonished when they were assured, that the urbanity of his manners, and the benevolence of his character, rendered him universally respected." For certainly, this is the very idea that I myself have given of Mr. Madan in my Familiar Letters; and my observation on it is, that if such a man as he can be so inveterate an enemy to the Dissenters, where are we to look for candour or justice? For any thing that appears to the contrary, Bonner and Gardiner might be polite, and even goodnatured men.

Mr. Burn seems to have imagined that my idea of himself and his brethren is such as he has conceived of me, and this is shocking enough. But, ill as I have been used, I think much better of them, and even of the Rioters themselves. In my next section I shall inform my reader what that idea is, and for this I shall not, like him, produce a picture from my own imagination, but quote his own words. It is not a little remarkable that, though Mr. Burn professes to write an answer to my Appeal, he expressly quotes very little of it, but replies to something which he gives his reader to understand is contained in it, but which it will be in vain for him to look for there. Many, however, will read his Reply who will neither read my Appeal, nor this defence of it; and with such readers his method of writing will answer well enough. This is not the way in which I treat Mr. Burn, or any of my opponents. Whether my replies be sufficient or not, at least I let my reader see what it is that I reply to, and in their own words. Of this fair method this defence of my Appeal will be a specimen.

When Mr. Burn says, that in his Reply to my Letters to him he answered my arguments, but passed by the abuse,† he quotes nothing, but leaves his reader to suppose that I had written something that might be termed abuse. I wish his readers would look into those Letters. They will be much at a loss to conjecture what it is that Mr. Burn meant to represent in that light. But I suppose that any thing that gives pain, from the difficulty of answering it, Mr. Burn

Reply, p. iv. (P.)

+ Ibid. p. 34. (P.)

will call abuse, as a libel is said to be no less a libel, though it be ever so true.

In that work of his to which my Letters were an answer, he thought himself at liberty to give the most unfavourable idea of my sentiments, evidently calculated to excite the resentment of his readers against me, ascribing to me the worst designs, as well as the grossest mistakes, and yet in him this must not be termed abuse. Though my only object in every thing that I wrote about the Person of Christ was to ascertain what the testimony of the apostles concerning him really was, and I constantly appealed to their testimony as decisive, he strangely represented me as denying the infallibility of their testimony, which he undertook to defend against me; and with as little pretence, though it served to excite an alarm at my principles, he described them as leading to all vice and wickedness. But there are readers with whom any representations from a clergyman, in such a cause, will have weight.

Abusive as Mr. Burn represents my polemical writings to be, I have never yet charged any of my opponents with bad intentions, or questioned the goodness of their understandings; but I have always imputed their mistakes to prejudice, the effect of early impressions; and if my own opinion, as I must suppose, be right, and consequently those of my opponents be wrong, what less offensive hypothesis could I frame for it?

One would think that Mr. Burn had never read my Appeal, to which he professes to reply, all his charges are so totally void of truth, or so shamefully exaggerated. Speaking of my observations on the address to the Rioters as friends and fellow-churchmen, he calls it "a transaction most shamefully represented by the author; and that, in consequence of the imposition contained in Dr. Priestley's statement, this transaction was brought forward in parliament."* "It is remark

able," he says, "that the obvious policy of seeming to coincide in sentiment with a mob, for the purpose of influencing their opinions, and controlling their conduct, should have been actually construed into a real design of promoting and inflaming their violence." After calling the Rioters the synagogue of Satan, he says, " If there be "If there be any thing doubtful remaining, it must appear to every impartial observer, to be the integrity of that man's motives, who can thus, to answer a purpose, make churchmen of rioters, and in the same

Reply, p. 63. (P.)

↑ Ibid. p. 65. (P.)

VOL. XIX,

2 G

breath too in which he declares it to be questionable whether such miscreants can be said to be of any church.”*

Now all that I have made of this circumstance was to shew that the Rioters were considered as Churchmen, and that their object was the destruction of Dissenters. I believe, indeed, and I shall prove, that there was positive encouragement given to the Rioters by Churchmen of better condition; but I do not say that their design in this particular part of their conduct was to promote and inflame their violence. Certainly, however, to address them without giving any intimation that what they had hitherto done was wrong, was not likely to prevent their proceeding farther.

SECTION II.

Of Mr. Burn's Accusation of me, and his challenging me to defend myself.

LET us now see what kind of language Mr. Burn makes use of in his Reply to my Appeal, which he will, no doubt, say, contains nothing that can properly be termed abuse.

Speaking of what I say of the clergy of Birmingham, he calls it "a malignant hypothesis." He speaks of “the unequalled malignity and injustice of my representations."+ He calls the language I hold with respect to my enemies, "the most complete insolence and abuse, that malignity itself could have suggested." According to him, I am "an accuser of the innocent, not merely without sufficient evidence, but in open defiance of the most palpable and uniform series of facts." Of my "Letter to the Inhabitants of Birmingham," he says, "it was as great an outrage upon character, as the conduct of the Rioters was upon property."¶

One of the most curious insinuations of Mr. Burn is his representing me as so overbearing, that it was an offence in the clergy of Birmingham to think for themselves without my permission.** This is the more extraordinary, as he says, "No man has done more than I have to invite, and even to provoke discussion."+t Would I have done this, if the controverting of my opinions had been so very offensive to me? But while Mr. Burn quotes nothing, and only gives his own idea of me and of my writings, he has no check