if not all, the libraries of the same nature with this; and it would be very extraordinary indeed, if they should be excluded from this of Birmingham only, where it may well be supposed that more attention will be drawn to them. My controversy with the Jews also promises to be highly interesting, as it actually engages the attention of the Jewish nation in all parts of Europe, and is the only one that ever has done it.

VIII. The works that have been chiefly complained of, viz. the History of the Corruptions of Christianity," and that of “Early Opinions concerning Christ," are not of a temporary nature, but a collection of materials, which will be useful in future time, if they be of any use at present. In the former of them, there are not more than two articles, out of a great number, that can give the least offence to any Protestant who is not a Calvinist. And one part of it is a defence of Christianity, in answer to Mr. Gibbon, whose history is in the library.

IX. It is observed in the proposed motion, that if I had thought my own controversial writings proper for the library, I would have presented them to it. In answer to this I must say, that I should very readily have made a present of them, but that I thought it would be objected to, as a method of obtruding them upon the library. I also imagined that it was not the price of the books, but the books themselves, that were objected to.

So, far, however, have I been from being forward to introduce books of religious controversy, that for two years I prevented the introduction of my "History of the Corruptions of Christianity" into the library. This at that time gave offence to many, and it was said, that my motive for it was to promote the sale of the work in the town. At the same time I repeatedly said in the committee, that whenever the funds of the society should be sufficiently ample, (as they now certainly are,) I should have no objection to publications on any interesting controversy, provided the choice was impartial, so that no favour was shewn to any one party more than to another.

When the above-mentioned work was ordered, it was entirely unknown to me, and much against my will, by members of the Church of England. A particular friend of mine (Mr. Russell) being present, and knowing my wishes, voted against it.. I will add, that it is very possible I might have used my endeavours much longer to keep out of the library every book of this nature, if it had not been for the unreasonable offence that was taken at the ordering of that work by several of the clergy, their intemperate, and, I will take the liberty to say, their childish behaviour, on the occasion. Whether this change of my conduct, in these circumstances, was natural or justifiable, I appeal to the feelings of any man. I never took any measure to introduce any publication of mine except the Letters to Dr. Horne, &c., when they had been rejected, and the answer to them admitted, which I thought an uncandid and unfair proceeding. I also recommended the Theological Repository, of which I am the publisher: but this was necessary to the controversies already introduced. It is, besides, a work open to all parties. It contains several articles against Socinianism, and many others that must give

the greatest satisfaction to all the friends of Christianity, of every denomination.

When my work, contrary to my wishes, was introduced, I proposed Dr. Horsley's Answers; and I have constantly voted for every thing written against myself.

X. They who have objected the most to the introduction of books of controversy, are the clergy, no doubt thinking such books improper for the perusal of the subscribers to this library. But they distributed a pamphlet, entitled, A Preservative against Socinianism, to all who were confirmed at the late visitation. And, if controversial treatises be proper for the perusal of boys and girls, or of their parents, they certainly cannot be improper for the subscribers to this library. This conduct looks as if they were not controversial treatises in general that they objected to, but those only in which their peculiar opinions were opposed; and that they could not decently decide against those on one side of the question without rejecting all. I would not be uncandid; but I appeal to all that are candid, whether this be not the most natural construction of their conduct, and whether it does not betray a suspicion of the influence of reason and argument, and a dread of free inquiry.

XI. Others hate religious controversy because they hate religion, having no belief in Christianity. These will vote with the friends of the Established Church, whatever it be, in all such questions as these, but on very different principles. If there be any such among us, they ought, in decency, to decline giving any vote at all: otherwise their conduct will be the same with that of the dog in the manger. They will neither read any books relating to religion themselves, nor suffer others to read them.

XII. No objection was made to several books of controversy before my "History of the Corruptions of Christianity" was voted into the library, such as Mr. White's Sermons, and Mr. Howes's Observations on Books, which are all controversial. And both these writers are among my antagonists.

XIII. The committee will be unspeakably embarrassed by distinguishing books of controversy from others, and many works, highly valuable on other accounts, are in part so. If controversy be wholly excluded, we must even have no Reviews, and no Gentleman's Magazine.

Under the description of religious controversy may fall many publications which the subscribers in general would wish to see. If, for instance, Mr. Gibbon should resume his attack on the evidences of Christianity, and an English bishop, as has been the case, should undertake the defence of it, must such interesting publications be excluded from such a library as ours, because they are religious controversy? In such a case as this, (and many other such might be mentioned,) the law would either be repealed, or, which is always a bad thing, would be explained away and evaded.

This is a supposed case, but I shall mention two real ones, to shew how improper, if not impossible, it will be for any committee to act as the friends of the motion would have them. At

one of our late meetings, a clergyman, whom I truly respect, proposed to us Father Courayer's Declaration of his last Sentiments concerning Religion; and certainly a publication of so much curiosity, and so much talked of, was highly proper for our library. Accordingly it was voted unanimously. But it is, in fact, a book of controversial divinity (which is so much the bugbear at present), for the author gives his reasons for all his opinions, especially on the subject of the Trinity, and appears to have died an Unitarian.

On the other hand, at our last meeting, the second part of my "Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever," which I scruple not to say is one of the most valuable of all my publications, and the most proper for the library, was rejected, though it is a custom (and I believe was never departed from before) to admit all continuations of works once voted in, without any balloting at all, not to say that, in other similar institutions, it is a rule to receive any publication of a subscriber, whatever it be. I was present, and declined giving any vote on the occasion; only observing, that the book did not relate to the doctrine of the Trinity, and therefore that they did not need to be afraid of it. Fear, however, the fear of some lurking mischief, prevailed. No reasons were given, but a sufficient number of silent and decisive votes.

XIV. Some persons are, or affect to be, alarmed lest this dispute should break up the library. I have no such apprehensions. It is so well constituted as to be able to bear much more than this. Should the subscribers at large, after mature consideration, not only admit the motion, but repeal the most fundamental law of the constitution, by throwing out of the library any of the books that were regularly voted into it, I shall acquiesce; trusting, that in due time good temper and good sense, will resume their natural influence; for, though prejudice may have more apparent strength, and act with more violence, reason has better stamina, and will outlive it.

As some things are best illustrated by comparisons, I hope no offence will be taken at the following. Suppose a number of gentlemen agree to have an annual public dinner, and appoint stewards to conduct the entertainment. These officers, considering the number, and consequently the different tastes of those for whom they have to provide, besides such substantial boiled and roasted meat as suit every body, and also fish, venison and turtle, which many like, but seldom see, may think proper to add a dessert, consisting of ices, syllabubs, sweetmeats, &c., and likewise think it not amiss, on such an occasion, to introduce such things as olives, &c., which, though not generally relished, some fancy.

If, on seeing this dessert, any of the company should say, "I dislike these olives, and wish they might not be introduced;" would he not be thought very unreasonable? If he should say, he was confident that not one-tenth part of the company would taste them; might it not be said, that even a tenth, or a much smaller proportion of the company, had a right to be obliged in such a trifle? He might say, that olives were unwholesome, and unfit for any body to eat. But might it not be replied, that neither himself, nor any body else, was obliged to eat of them, and that others ought to judge for themselves? If he should say, "But my money is expended on this

absurd article, which I think a great hardship;" it might be replied, that the money of the rest of the company was expended on things that were agreeable to himself, and, perhaps, only a few others.

He might add, "Olives will do my wife or my children hurt, and I would not bring them into temptation." But it might be replied, "Sir, you must take the best care you can of your wife and children. This is not the only place in which they will be in danger of seeing olives, or hearing of them." Perhaps, heated by the altercation, he might add, "If these abominable olives be admitted, though they should not cost a groat, I and my friends will absolutely kick down the table, demolish the furniture of the room, and prevent any body from dining here any more;" would not a sensible friend tell him, that if this was a point on which he laid so much stress, he would do well to decline being of the party, and avoid all public dinners, where he would always be in danger of meeting with these offensive olives.

I would be far from insinuating by this comparison, that books of religious controversy resemble such a trifle as olives in a dessert, except with respect to the small expense attending them. Religious truth is, in itself, invaluable; and that the investigation of it is as pleasing to an ingenious mind as that of any philosophical truth, I appeal to those who are acquainted with both. Others cannot be competent judges in the case. They despise what they do not understand.

I shall conclude this address with observing, that it is merely as a friend to the library, and the reputation of it, (which I really think will be materially affected by any measure that would restrict the committee in the choice of books,) that I wish to prevent the motion from passing into a law. As the author of the publications principally objected to, I should be most gratified by their being excluded altogether, as this circumstance would draw much more attention upon them, and make them more generally read than they would otherwise be.

Submitting these observations to your candid attention,
I am, Gentlemen,

Birmingham, August 14, 1787.

Your humble servant,

J. PRIESTLEY.*

Si quid novisti rectius istis
Candidus imperti.

Till the whole of this part of my Appeal was printed off, I never read the Letter addressed to me on my Address to the Subscribers to the Birmingham Library, by SOMEBODY M. S. [see supra, pp. 361, 362], printed in 1787, and generally ascribed to Mr. Clutton, a clergyman in Birmingham, whose sermon on the subject of the Test Laws Mr. Madan laments was not published. Having had a copy of this Letter sent me, I have had the curiosity to read it through, aud have been not a little amused with the scurrility with which it abounds; and for the amusement of my readers, as well as to give them a specimen of the spirit which actuated the Birmingham clergy, or to enable them to judge of the tendency of their writings, and, no doubt, of their preaching and daily conversatiou, to inflame the minds of the common people against me, I shall quote some passages from it. But I wish that my readers would first peruse the Address which occasioned this extraordinary Letter, and also my "Appeal to the Professors of Christianity," to which it alludes. According to this Mr. Clutton, I am “a deluded visionary,” (p. 25,) “a proud

No. XXVI.

COPY OF THE FORGED LETTER FOUND AT DR. PRIESTLEY'S HOUSE, 16th JULY, 1791.

(See supra, pp. 379, 482, 559, Note.)

DEAR DOCTOR,

I AM now provided with every thing necessary, and will be ready at the time appointed to assist in endeavouring to attain that long looked for by us, and root out the constitutional men who have wielded the shield against our rights as free-men, and trust you will also exert yourself, and get all our friends to be ready at the same time, to make the grand push. In expectation of that and success, I am, dear Doctor,

Your true friend,

London, May 2, 1791.

WILLIAM RUSSELL.

No. XXVII.

MR. ABEL HUMPHRYS'S ADVERTISEMENT RELATING TO THE CALUMNY OF MR. WILLIAM GEM.

(See supra, p. 487.)

TO THE PUBLIC.

MR. WILLIAM GEM, resident with his father, in New Street, in this town, having had the effrontery to assert some time ago in pub

and haughty scorner," (p. 4,) and "a secret assassin" (p. 19). He accuses me both of" daring opposition, and subtle stratagem," (p. 21,) of "covered artifices to deceive the unwary," (p. 1,) and likewise of "outragious bellowing" (p. 25). My Appeal to the Professors of Christianity," he calls "poison, and an engine of sedition," (p. 5,) consisting of "plausible, but treacherous reasoning, subtle sophistry," nay, a murderous pamphlet" (p. 17). With respect to my general character, I am 66 a public nuisance," (p. 38,) and "must not expect to go unhorsewhipped." I have "forfeited all indulgence, and must expect every species of deserved retaliation, that those who have been injured by me, their friends and allies, can inflict❞ (p. 44).

My "attachment to Christianity," he says, is "ideal," (p. 13,) for I am "sunk into the gulph of Deism" (p. 36). He advises me to "go to a free country," (meaning, I suppose, either Frauce or America,) " which has no laws, no rulers, no religion." There," says he, "you may give the reins to your reason, gratify your appetites, and let loose all your lusts" (p. 40). But whether I go to this country or not," a hideous gulph" (by which he evidently means hell) "is gaping for me and my followers" (p. 39).

Besides more such language as this, which, as coming from a clergyman, must not be termed abuse, he introduces a long epitaph for me, of which the following is an extract: "The assumed meekness and simplicity of the dove, hiding the guile and subtlety of the serpent, smoothed his wrinkled front. The honey dew of rhetoric flowed from his tongue, and became the unsuspected vehicle of the poison of asps. Reason, he said, would teach us how to weaken the authority and force of scripture, &c. He beseeched us, for the credit of the human race, for the sake of truth, of conscience, and our immortal souls, to pay divine honours to his goddess," &c. &c. &c. (P. 13.)

It is some consolation to think, that whether I be able to find a grave or not, my enemies have already taken care to provide me with a sufficient number of epitaphs. (P.) Additions to Appeal, Pt. ii.