{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_75111/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_75111","id":"gutenberg_75111","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/75111","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Biographies","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Category: Science - Chemistry/Biochemistry","Chemists -- Great Britain -- Biography","Priestley, Joseph, 1733-1804"],"text":"MEMOIRS\n\n                                   OF\n\n                JOSEPH PRIESTLEY, L. L. D. F. R. S. &c.\n\n\n\n\n                                MEMOIRS\n\n                                   OF\n\n                         Dr. Joseph Priestley,\n\n                           TO THE YEAR 1795,\n\n                         _WRITTEN BY HIMSELF_:\n\n            WITH A CONTINUATION, TO THE TIME OF HIS DECEASE,\n\n                     BY HIS SON, JOSEPH PRIESTLEY:\n\n                  _AND OBSERVATIONS ON HIS WRITINGS_,\n\n                BY THOMAS COOPER, PRESIDENT JUDGE OF THE\n\n                 4TH. DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA: AND THE\n\n                         REV. WILLIAM CHRISTIE.\n\n\n                            NORTHUMBERLAND:\n                        _PRINTED BY JOHN BINNS_.\n\n                                 1806.\n\n\n\n\n_District of Pennsylvania, to wit_:\n\n\nBe it remembered, that on the twenty-eighth of December in the\nthirtieth year of the Independence of the United States of America, A.\nD. 1805, Joseph Priestley, of the said district, hath deposited in this\nOffice the Title of a Book, the right whereof he claims as Proprietor,\nin the Words following, to wit:\n\n \u201cMemoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley, to the year 1795, written by\n himself, with a continuation, to the time of his decease, by his Son\n Joseph Priestley, and observations on his writings, by Thomas Cooper,\n President Judge of the 4th district of Pennsylvania, and the Rev.\n William Christie.\u201d\n\nIn conformity to the Act of the Congress of the United States, intitled\n\u201cAn Act for the encouragement of learning by securing the copies of\nMaps, Charts, and Books to the authors and proprietors of such copies\nduring the times therein mentioned.\u201d And also to the Act entitled \u201cAn\nAct supplementary to an Act entitled \u201cAn Act for the encouragement\nof learning by securing the copies of Maps, Charts, and Books to\nthe authors and proprietors of such copies during the times therein\nmentioned.\u201d\u201d And extending the benefits, thereof to the Arts of\ndesigning, engraving, and etching, historical and other prints.\n\n                                                  D. CALDWELL,\n                                                  _Clerk of the District\n                                                  of Pennsylvania_.\n\n\n\n\n                          TABLE OF CONTENTS,\n\n                                  OF\n\n                               VOLUME I.\n\n\nPREFACE,                                                          PAGE i\n\nMemoirs with Notes,                                                    1\n\nContinuation of the Memoirs,                                         129\n\nAppendix No. I. An Account of Dr. Priestley\u2019s Discoveries in Chemistry,\nand of his writings on that, and other Scientific subjects,          223\n\n-- -- No. 2 An Account of his Metaphysical writings,                 294\n\n\n\n\n                               PREFACE.\n\n\nMy father, Dr. Priestley, having taken the trouble of writing down the\nprincipal occurrences of his life, to the period of his arrival in this\ncountry, that account is now presented to the public in the state in\nwhich he left it, one or two trifling alterations excepted. The simple\nunaffected manner in which it is written, will be deemed, I have no\ndoubt, far more interesting, than if the narrative itself had been made\nthe text of a more laboured composition.\n\nIndependent of the desire, so universal among mankind, to know somewhat\nof the private as well as the public history of those who have made\nthemselves eminent among their fellow citizens, the life of my father\nis likely to be more useful as well as more interesting than those of\nthe generality of literary men; not only as it is an account of great\nindustry combined with great abilities, successfully exerted for the\nextension of human improvement, but because it affords a striking proof\nof the value of rational Christianity, adopted upon mature reflection\nand practiced with habitual perseverance.\n\nFew men have had to struggle for so many years with circumstances more\nstraitened and precarious than my father; few men have ventured to\nattack so many or such inveterate prejudices respecting the prevalent\nreligion of his country, or have advanced bolder or more important\nopinions in opposition to the courtly politics of the powers that be;\nfew have had to encounter more able opponents in his literary career,\nor have been exposed to such incessant and vindictive obloquy, from\nmen of every description, in return for his unremitting exertions\nin the cause of truth; yet none have more uniformly proceeded with\na single eye, regardless of consequences, to act as his conviction\nimpelled him, and his conscience dictated. His conduct brought with it\nits own reward, reputation and respect from the most eminent of his\ncontemporaries, the affectionate attachment of most valuable friends,\nand a cheerfulness of disposition arising in part from conscious\nrectitude which no misfortunes could long repress. But to me it seems,\nthat conscious rectitude alone would hardly, of itself, have been\nable to support him under some of the afflictions he was doomed to\nbear. He had a farther resource, to him never failing and invaluable,\na firm persuasion of the benevolence of the Almighty towards all his\ncreatures, and the conviction that every part of his own life, like\nevery part of the whole system, was preordained for the best upon the\nwhole of existence. Had he entertained the gloomy notions of Calvinism\nin which he was brought up, this cheering source of contentment\nand resignation would probably have failed him, and irritation and\ndespondency would have gained an unhappy ascendancy. But by him the\ndeity was not regarded as an avenging tyrant, punishing, for the sake\nof punishing his weak and imperfect creatures, but as a wise and kind\nparent, inflicting those corrections only that are necessary to bring\nour dispositions to the proper temper, and to fit us for the highest\nstate of happiness of which our natures are ultimately capable.\n\nWith these views of the present and the future, it is no wonder that he\nsubmitted with perfect resignation to the inevitable vicissitudes of\nhuman life, and looked forward to futurity, as a period of existence\nwhen his capacity for receiving happiness would be greater because his\ncapacity for communicating it would be enlarged.\n\nMy father\u2019s narrative closing with his arrival in this country, where\nhe has done so much for the promotion of useful knowledge of all\nkinds, I have compleated the account of his life from that period to\nthe termination of it. The Notes have been added to the narrative as\ndesireable illustrations of the passages to which they refer.\n\nI have likewise thought it proper to add a review of my father\u2019s\nliterary labours, in order to give the reader a knowledge of his\nopinions on many important subjects, likewise, of the share in\nthe increase of human knowledge, which may be justly ascribed to\nhis exertions. The Appendices giving an account of his Chemical,\nPhilosophical, Metaphysical, Political and Miscellaneous writings, as\nwell as the Summary of his religious opinions, are written by my friend\nJudge Cooper, formerly of Manchester in England. For the Appendix\ncontaining an analysis of my father\u2019s Theological writings, I am\nindebted to the Rev. W. Christie, formerly of Montrose in Scotland.\n\nThe work might have been made more interesting as well as entertaining,\nhad I deemed myself at liberty to have published letters addressed\nto my father by persons of eminence in this country, as well as in\nEurope. But those communications that were intended to be private,\nshall remain so; as I do not think I have a right to amuse the public\neither against, or without, the inclinations of those who confided\ntheir correspondence to his care.\n\nI regret, that more of the present work is not the production of\nmy father\u2019s pen; and I hope the reader will make allowance for the\nimperfection of that portion of it, for which I have made myself\nresponsible.\n\n                                                       JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.\n\n                                           NORTHUMBERLAND, PENNSYLVANIA,\n                                           May 1st, 1805.\n\n\n\n\n                               _MEMOIRS_\n\n                                  OF\n\n                         DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.\n\n                         [WRITTEN BY HIMSELF.]\n\n\nHaving thought it right to leave behind me some account of my _friends_\nand _benefactors_, it is in a manner necessary that I also give some\naccount of _myself_; and as the like has been done by many persons, and\nfor reasons which posterity has approved, I make no farther apology for\nfollowing their example. If my writings in general have been useful\nto my cotemporaries, I hope that this account of myself will not be\nwithout its use to those who may come after me, and especially in\npromoting virtue and piety, which I hope I may say it has been my care\nto practice myself, as it has been my business to inculcate them upon\nothers.\n\nMy father, Jonas Priestley, was the youngest son of Joseph Priestley, a\nmaker and dresser of woollen cloth. His first wife, my mother, was the\nonly child of Joseph Swift, a farmer at Shafton, a village about six\nmiles south east of Wakefield. By this wife he had six children, four\nsons and two daughters. I, the oldest, was born on the thirteenth of\nMarch, old style 1733, at Fieldhead about six miles south west of Leeds\nin Yorkshire. My mother dying in 1740, my father married again in 1745,\nand by his second wife had three daughters.\n\nMy mother having children so fast, I was very soon committed to the\ncare of her father, and with him I continued with little interruption\ntill my mother\u2019s death.\n\nIt is but little that I can recollect of my mother. I remember,\nhowever, that she was careful to teach me the Assembly\u2019s Catechism, and\nto give me the best instructions the little time that I was at home.\nOnce in particular, when I was playing with a pin, she asked me where\nI got it; and on telling her that I found it at my uncle\u2019s, who lived\nvery near to my father, and where I had been playing with my cousins,\nshe made me carry it back again; no doubt to impress my mind, as it\ncould not fail to do, with a clear idea of the distinction of property,\nand of the importance of attending to it. She died in the hard winter\nof 1739, not long after being delivered of my youngest brother; and\nhaving dreamed a little before her death that she was in a delightful\nplace, which she particularly described, and imagined to be heaven, the\nlast words she spake, as my aunt informed me, were \u201cLet me go to that\nfine place.\u201d\n\nOn the death of my mother I was taken home, my brothers taking my\nplace, and was sent to school in the neighbourhood. But being without\na mother, and my father incumbered with a large family, a sister of my\nfather\u2019s, in the year 1742, relieved him of all care of me, by taking\nme entirely to herself, and considering me as her child, having none of\nher own. From this time she was truly a parent to me till her death in\n1764.\n\nMy aunt was married to a Mr. Keighly, a man who had distinguished\nhimself for his zeal for religion and for his public spirit. He was\nalso a man of considerable property, and dying soon after I went to\nthem, left the greatest part of his fortune to my aunt for life, and\nmuch of it at her disposal after her death.\n\nBy this truly pious and excellent woman, who knew no other use of\nwealth, or of talents of any kind, than to do good, and who never\nspared herself for this purpose, I was sent to several schools in the\nneighbourhood, especially to a large free school, under the care of a\nclergyman, Mr. Hague, under whom, at the age of twelve or fifteen, I\nfirst began to make any progress in the Latin Tongue, and acquired the\nelements of Greek. But about the same time that I began to learn Greek\nat this public school, I learned Hebrew on holidays of the dissenting\nminister of the place, Mr. Kirkby, and upon the removal of Mr. Hague\nfrom the free school, Mr. Kirkby opening a school of his own, I was\nwholly under his care. With this instruction I had acquired a pretty\ngood knowledge of the learned languages at the age of sixteen. But from\nthis time Mr. Kirkby\u2019s increasing infirmities obliged him to relinquish\nhis school, and beginning to be of a weakly consumptive habit, so\nthat it was not thought adviseable to send me to any other place of\neducation, I was left to conduct my studies as well as I could till I\nwent to the academy at Daventry in the year 1752.\n\nFrom the time I discovered any fondness for books my aunt entertained\nhopes of my being a minister, and I readily entered into her views.\nBut my ill health obliged me to turn my thoughts another way, and with\na view to trade, I learned the modern languages, French, Italian,\nand High Dutch without a master; and in the first and last of them I\ntranslated, and wrote letters, for an uncle of mine who was a merchant,\nand who intended to put me into a counting house in Lisbon. A house was\nactually engaged to receive me there, and every thing was nearly ready\nfor my undertaking the voyage. But getting better health my former\ndestination for the ministry was resumed, and I was sent to Daventry,\nto study under Mr. Ashworth, afterwards Dr. Ashworth.\n\nLooking back, as I often do, upon this period of my life, I see the\ngreatest reason to be thankful to God for the pious care of my parents\nand friends, in giving me religious instruction. My mother was a woman\nof exemplary piety, and my father also had a strong sense of religion,\npraying with his family morning and evening, and carefully teaching\nhis children and servants the Assembly\u2019s Catechism, which was all the\nsystem of which he had any knowledge. In the latter part of his life\nhe became very fond of Mr. Whitfield\u2019s writings, and other works of a\nsimilar kind, having been brought up in the principles of Calvinism,\nand adopting them, but without ever giving much attention to matters\nof speculation, and entertaining no bigotted aversion to those who\ndiffered from him on the subject.\n\nThe same was the case with my excellent aunt, she was truly Calvinistic\nin principle, but was far from confining salvation to those who thought\nas she did on religious subjects. Being left in good circumstances,\nher home was the resort of all the dissenting ministers in the\nneighbourhood without distinction, and those who were the most\nobnoxious on account of their heresy were almost as welcome to her, if\nshe thought them honest and good men, (which she was not unwilling to\ndo) as any others.\n\nThe most heretical ministers in the neighbourhood were Mr. Graham of\nHalifax, and Mr. Walker of Leeds, but they were frequently my Aunt\u2019s\nguests. With the former of these my intimacy grew with my years,\nbut chiefly after I became a preacher. We kept up a correspondence\nto the last, thinking alike on most subjects. To him I dedicated my\n_Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit_, and when he died, he left me his\nmanuscripts, his Polyglot bible, and two hundred pounds. Besides being\na rational Christian, he was an excellent classical scholar, and wrote\nLatin with great facility and elegance. He frequently wrote to me in\nthat language.\n\nThus I was brought up with sentiments of piety, but without bigotry,\nand having from my earliest years given much attention to the subject\nof religion, I was as much confirmed as I well could be in the\nprinciples of Calvinism, all the books that came in my way having that\ntendency.\n\nThe weakness of my constitution, which often led me to think that I\nshould not be long lived, contributed to give my mind a still more\nserious turn, and having read many books of _experiences_, and in\nconsequence believing that a _new birth_ produced by the immediate\nagency of the Spirit of God, was necessary to salvation, and not\nbeing able to satisfy myself that I _had_ experienced any thing of\nthe kind, I felt occasionally such distress of mind as it is not in\nmy power to describe, and which I still look back upon with horror.\nNotwithstanding I had nothing very material to reproach myself with,\nI often concluded that God had forsaken me, and that mine was like\nthe case of Francis Spira, to whom, as he imagined, repentance and\nsalvation were denied. In that state of mind I remember reading the\naccount of the man in the iron cage in the Pilgrim\u2019s Progress with the\ngreatest perturbation.\n\nI imagine that even these conflicts of mind were not without their\nuse, as they led me to think habitually of God and a future state.\nAnd though my feelings were then, no doubt, too full of terror, what\nremained of them was a deep reverence for divine things, and in time\na pleasing satisfaction which can never be effaced, and I hope, was\nstrengthened as I have advanced in life, and acquired more rational\nnotions of religion. The remembrance, however, of what I sometimes felt\nin that state of ignorance and darkness gives me a peculiar sense of\nthe value of rational principles of religion, and of which I can give\nbut an imperfect description to others.\n\nAs _truth_, we cannot doubt, must have an advantage over _error_, we\nmay conclude that the want of these peculiar feelings is compensated\nby something of greater value, which arises to others from always\nhaving seen things in a just and pleasing light; from having always\nconsidered the Supreme Being as the kind parent of all his offspring.\nThis, however, not having been my case, I cannot be so good a judge of\nthe effects of it. At all events, we ought always to inculcate just\nviews of things, assuring ourselves that _proper feelings and right\nconduct_ will be the consequence of them.\n\nIn the latter part of the interval between my leaving the grammar\nschool and going to the academy, which was something more than two\nyears, I attended two days in the week upon Mr. Haggerstone, a\ndissenting minister in the neighbourhood, who had been educated under\nMr. Maclaurin. Of him I learned Geometry, Algebra and various branches\nof Mathematics, theoretical and practical. And at the same time I read,\nbut with little assistance from him, Gravesend\u2019s Elements of Natural\nPhilosophy, Watt\u2019s Logic, Locke\u2019s Essay on the Human Understanding, &c,\nand made such a proficiency in other branches of learning, that when I\nwas admitted at the academy (which was on Coward\u2019s foundation) I was\nexcused all the studies of the first year, and a great part of those\nof the second.\n\nIn the same interval I spent the latter part of every week with Mr.\nThomas, a baptist minister now of Bristol but then of Gildersome,\na village about four miles from Leeds, who had had no learned\neducation. Him I instructed in Hebrew, and by that means made myself a\nconsiderable proficient in that language. At the same time I learned\nChaldee and Syriac, and just began to read Arabic. Upon the whole,\ngoing to the academy later than is usual, and being thereby better\nfurnished, I was qualified to appear there with greater advantage.\n\nBefore I went from home I was very desirous of being admitted a\ncommunicant in the congregation which I had always attended, and the\nold minister, as well as my Aunt, were as desirous of it as myself,\nbut the elders of the Church, who had the government of it, refused\nme, because, when they interrogated me on the subject of the _sin of\nAdam_, I appeared not to be quite orthodox, not thinking that all the\nhuman race (supposing them not to have any sin of their own) were\nliable to the wrath of God, and the pains of hell for ever, on account\nof that sin only; for such was the question that was put to me. Some\ntime before, having then no doubt of the truth of the doctrine, I\nwell remember being much distressed that I could not feel a proper\nrepentance for the sin of Adam; taking it for granted that without\n_this_ it could not be forgiven me. Mr. Haggerstone above mentioned,\nwas a little more liberal than the members of the congregation in\nwhich I was brought up, being what is called a _Baxterian_;[1] and\nhis general conversation had a liberal turn, and such as tended to\nundermine my prejudices. But what contributed to open my eyes still\nmore was the conversation of a Mr. Walker, from Ashton under line, who\npreached as a candidate when our old minister was superannuated. He was\nan avowed Baxterian, and being rejected on that account his opinions\nwere much canvassed, and he being a guest at the house of my Aunt, we\nsoon became very intimate, and I thought I saw much of reason in his\nsentiments. Thinking farther on these subjects, I was, before I went to\nthe academy, an Arminian, but had by no means rejected the doctrine of\nthe trinity, or that of atonement.\n\n[1] BAXTERIANS, The famous Non-conformist Richard Baxter who flourished\nabout the middle of the last Century, attempted a Coalition between the\ndoctrines of Calvin and Arminius. The former of these held that God\nfrom the beginning had elected a few of the human race to be saved,\nwithout reference to their good actions in this life, and had left the\nrest of mankind in a state of final and inevitable reprobation. The\nlatter was of opinion that the Christian dispensation furnished the\nmeans of final Salvation to all men, though the merits of the death\nof Christ would be ultimately advantageous to believers only. Baxter,\nthought with Calvin that some among mankind were from the beginning\nelected unto eternal life, and gifted from above with the saving grace\nnecessary in the first instance to the several steps of a believer\u2019s\nchristian character; but he thought also with Arminius that all men\nhad common grace imparted to them, sufficient to enable them if they\nchose, to attain unto final Salvation by using the means ordained by\nChrist and his Apostles. Calvin also held the final perseverance of the\nSaints, or as it has since been expressed that a believer might fall\nfoully but not finally, whereas Baxter seems to have thought that not\nevery one who had saving grace imparted to him would persevere to the\nend, or as the Arminian Methodists quaintly express it, he held that a\nbeliever may fall both foully and finally. The compromising doctrine of\nBaxter may be seen in his very learned and unintelligible work entitled\nCatholick Theology. He used to be an annual communicant in the Church\nof England by way of exemplying his accommodating opinions.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nThough after I saw reason to change my opinions I found myself\nincommoded by the rigour of the congregation with which I was\nconnected, I shall always acknowledge with great gratitude that I owe\nmuch to it. The business of religion was effectually attended to in\nit. We were all catechized in public \u2019till we were grown up, servants\nas well as others: the minister always expounded the scriptures with\nas much regularity as he preached, and there was hardly a day in the\nweek, in which there was not some meeting of one or other part of the\ncongregation. On one evening there was a meeting of the young men for\nconversation and prayer. This I constantly attended, praying extempore\nwith others when called upon.\n\nAt my Aunt\u2019s there was a monthly meeting of women, who acquitted\nthemselves in prayer as well as any of the men belonging to the\ncongregation. Being at first a child in the family, I was permitted to\nattend their meetings, and growing up insensibly, heard them after I\nwas capable of judging. My Aunt after the death of her husband, prayed\nevery morning and evening in her family, until I was about seventeen,\nwhen that duty devolved upon me.\n\nThe Lord\u2019s day was kept with peculiar strictness. No victuals were\ndressed on that day in any family. No member of it was permitted to\nwalk out for recreation, but the whole of the day was spent at the\npublic meeting, or at home in reading, meditation, and prayer, in the\nfamily or the closet.\n\nIt was my custom at that time to recollect as much as I could of the\nsermons I heard, and to commit it to writing. This practice I began\nvery early, and continued it until I was able from the heads of a\ndiscourse to supply the rest myself. For not troubling myself to commit\nto memory much of the amplification, and writing at home almost as\nmuch as I had heard, I insensibly acquired a habit of composing with\ngreat readiness; and from this practice I believe I have derived great\nadvantage through life; composition seldom employing so much time as\nwould be necessary to write in long hand any thing I have published.\n\nBy these means, not being disgusted with these strict forms of\nreligion as many persons of better health and spirits probably might\nhave been (and on which account I am far from recommending the same\nstrictness to others) I acquired in early life a serious turn of mind.\nAmong other things I had at this time a great aversion to _Plays\nand Romances_, so that I never read any works of this kind except\nRobinson Crusoe, until I went to the academy. I well remember seeing\nmy brother Timothy reading a book of Knight Errantry, and with great\nindignation I snatched it out of his hands, and threw it away. This\nbrother afterwards, when he had for some time followed my father\u2019s\nbusiness (which was that of a Cloth-dresser) became, if possible, more\nserious than I had been; and after an imperfect education, took up\nthe profession of a minister among the Independents, in which he now\ncontinues.\n\nWhile I was at the Grammar School I learned _Mr. Annet\u2019s Short hand_,\nand thinking I could suggest some improvements in it, I wrote to\nthe Author, and this was the beginning of a correspondence which\nlasted several years. He was, as I ever perceived, an unbeliever in\nChristianity and a necessarian. On this subject several letters,\nwritten with care on both sides, passed between us, and these Mr.\nAnnet often pressed me to give him leave to publish, but I constantly\nrefused. I had undertaken the defence of Philosophical Liberty, and\nthe correspondence was closed without my being convinced of the\nfallacy of my arguments, though upon studying the subject regularly,\nin the course of my academical education afterwards, I became a\nconfirmed Necessarian, and I have through life derived, as I imagine,\nthe greatest advantage from my full persuasion of the truth of that\ndoctrine.\n\nMy Aunt, and all my relations, being strict Calvinists, it was their\nintention to send me to the academy at _Mile-end_, then under the\ncare of Dr. Cawder. But, being at that time an Arminian, I resolutely\nopposed it, especially upon finding that if I went thither, besides\ngiving an _experience_, I must subscribe my assent to ten printed\narticles of the strictest calvinistic faith, and repeat it every six\nmonths. My opposition, however, would probable have been to no purpose,\nand I must have adopted some other mode of life, if Mr. Kirkby above\nmentioned had not interposed, and strongly recommended the academy of\nDr. Doddridge, on the idea that I should have a better chance of being\nmade a scholar. He had received a good education himself, was a good\nclassical scholar, and had no opinion of the mode of education among\nthe very orthodox Dissenters, and being fond of me, he was desirous\nof my having every advantage that could be procured for me. My good\nAunt, not being a bigotted Calvinist, entered into his views, and Dr.\nDoddridge being dead, I was sent to Daventry, and was the first pupil\nthat entered there. My Step-mother also, who was a woman of good sense,\nas well as of religion, had a high opinion of Dr. Doddridge, having\nbeen sometime housekeeper in his family. She had always recommended his\nAcademy, but died before I went thither.\n\nThree years, viz. from September 1752 to 1755, I spent at Daventry with\nthat peculiar satisfaction with which young persons of generous minds\nusually go through a course of liberal study, in the society of others\nengaged in the same pursuits, and free from the cares and anxieties\nwhich seldom fail to lay hold on them when they come out into the world.\n\nIn my time, the academy was in a state peculiarly favorable to the\nserious pursuit of truth, as the students were about equally divided\nupon every question of much importance, such as Liberty and Necessity,\nthe Sleep of the soul, and all the articles of theological orthodoxy\nand heresy; in consequence of which all these topics were the subject\nof continual discussion. Our tutors also were of different opinions;\nDr. Ashworth taking the orthodox side of every question, and Mr. Clark,\nthe sub-tutor, that of heresy, though always with the greatest modesty.\n\nBoth of our tutors being young, at least as tutors, and some of the\nsenior students excelling more than they could pretend to do in\nseveral branches of study, they indulged us in the greatest freedoms,\nso that our lectures had often the air of friendly conversations on\nthe subjects to which they related. We were permitted to ask whatever\nquestions, and to make whatever remarks, we pleased; and we did it with\nthe greatest, but without any offensive, freedom. The general plan of\nour studies, which may be seen in Dr. Doddridge\u2019s published lectures,\nwas exceedingly favourable to free enquiry, as we were referred to\nauthors on both sides of every question, and were even required to give\nan account of them. It was also expected that we should abridge the\nmost important of them for our future use. The public library contained\nall the books to which we were referred.\n\nIt was a reference to Dr. Hartley\u2019s Observations on Man in the\ncourse of our Lectures, that first brought me acquainted with that\nperformance, which immediately engaged my closest attention, and\nproduced the greatest, and in my opinion the most favourable effect\non my general turn of thinking thro\u2019 life. It established me in the\nbelief of the doctrine of Necessity, which I first learned from\nCollins; it greatly improved that disposition to piety which I brought\nto the academy, and freed it from that rigour with which it had been\ntinctured. Indeed, I do not know whether the consideration of Dr.\nHartley\u2019s theory contributes more to enlighten the mind, or improve the\nheart; it effects both in so super-eminent a degree.\n\nIn this situation, I saw reason to embrace what is generally called\nthe heterodox side of almost every question.[2] But notwithstanding\nthis, and though Dr. Ashworth was earnestly desirous to make me as\northodox as possible, yet, as my behaviour was unexceptionable, and as\nI generally took his part in some little things by which he often drew\nupon himself the ill-will of many of the students, I was upon the whole\na favourite with him. I kept up more or less of a correspondence with\nDr. Ashworth till the time of his death, though much more so with Mr.\nClark. This continued till the very week of his melancholy death by a\nfall from his horse at Birmingham, where he was minister.\n\n[2] It will be seen in the course of these memoirs that from time to\ntime as deeper reflection and more extensive reading incited him,\nhe saw reason to give up almost all the peculiar theological and\nmetaphysical opinions which he had imbibed in early youth; some of them\nwith considerable difficulty, and all of them at the evident risk of\nconsiderable obloquy from those whom he highly respected, as well as\nfrom those on whom his interest appeared to depend.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nNotwithstanding the great freedom of our speculations and debates, the\nextreme of heresy among us was Arianism; and all of us, I believe, left\nthe academy with a belief, more or less qualified, of the doctrine of\n_atonement_.\n\nWarm friendships never fail to be contracted at places of liberal\neducation; and when they are well chosen are of singular use; Such was\nmine with Mr. Alexander of Birmingham. We were in the same class, and\nduring the first year occupied the same room. By engagements between\nourselves we rose early, and dispatched many articles of business\nevery day. One of them, which continued all the time we were at the\nacademy, was to read every day ten folio pages in some Greek author,\nand generally a Greek play in the course of the week besides. By this\nmeans we became very well acquainted with that language, and with the\nmost valuable authors in it. This exercise we continued long after we\nleft the academy, communicating to each other by letter an account of\nwhat we read. My life becoming more occupied than his, he continued\nhis application to Greek longer than I did, so that before his death\nhe was, I imagine, one of the best Greek scholars in this or any\nother country. My attention was always more drawn to mathematical and\nphilosophical studies than his was.\n\nThese voluntary engagements were the more necessary, in the course\nof our academical studies, as there was then no provision made for\nteaching the learned languages. We had even no compositions, or\norations, in Latin. Our course of lectures was also defective in\ncontaining no lectures on the scriptures, or on ecclesiastical history,\nand by the students in general (and Mr. Alexander and myself were no\nexceptions) commentators in general and ecclesiastical history also,\nwere held in contempt. On leaving the academy he went to study under\nhis uncle Dr. Benson, and with him learned to value the critical study\nof the scriptures so much, that at length he almost confined his\nattention to them.\n\nMy other particular friends among my fellow students were Mr. Henry\nHolland, of my own class, Messrs. Whitehead, Smithson, Rotherham, and\nScholefield in that above me, and Mr. Taylor in that below me. With all\nthese I kept up more or less of a correspondence, and our friendship\nwas terminated only by the death of those who are now dead, viz. the\nthree first named of these six, and I hope it will subsist to the same\nperiod with those who now survive.\n\nAll the while I was at the academy I never lost sight of the great\nobject of my studies, which was the duties of a christian minister,\nand there it was that I laid the general plan which I have executed\nsince. Particularly I there composed the first copy of my _Institutes\nof Natural and Revealed Religion_, Mr. Clark, to whom I communicated my\nscheme, carefully perusing every section of it, and talking over the\nsubject of it with me.\n\nBut I was much discouraged even then with the _impediment in my\nspeech_, which I inherited from my family, and which still attends\nme. Sometimes I absolutely stammered, and my anxiety about it was the\ncause of much distress to me. However, like St. Paul\u2019s _thorn in the\nflesh_, I hope it has not been without its use. Without some such check\nas this, I might have been disputatious in company, or might have\nbeen seduced by the love of popular applause as a preacher: whereas\nmy conversation and my delivery in the pulpit having nothing in them\nthat was generally striking, I hope I have been more attentive to\nqualifications of a superior kind.\n\nIt is not, I believe, usual for young persons in dissenting academies\nto think much of their future situations in life. Indeed, we are\nhappily precluded from that by the impossibility of succeeding in any\napplication for particular places. We often, indeed, amused ourselves\nwith the idea of our dispersion in all parts of the kingdom after\nliving so happily together; and used to propose plans of meeting at\ncertain times, and smile at the different appearance we should probably\nmake after being ten or twenty years settled in the world. But nothing\nof this kind was ever seriously resolved upon by us. For my own part,\nI can truly say I had very little ambition, except to distinguish\nmyself by my application to the studies proper to my profession; and I\ncheerfully listened to the first proposal that my tutor made to me, in\nconsequence of an application made to him, to provide a minister for\nthe people of Needham Market in Suffolk, though it was very remote from\nmy friends in Yorkshire, and a very inconsiderable place.\n\nWhen I went to preach at Needham as a candidate, I found a small\ncongregation, about an hundred people; under a Mr. Meadows, who was\nsuperannuated. They had been without a minister the preceding year,\non account of the smallness of the salary; but there being some\nrespectable and agreeable families among them, I flattered myself that\nI should be useful and happy in the place, and therefore accepted the\nunanimous invitation to be assistant to Mr. Meadows, with a view to\nsucceed him when he died. He was a man of some fortune.\n\nThis congregation had been used to receive assistance from both the\nPresbyterian and Independent funds; but upon my telling them that I\ndid not chuse to have any thing to do with the Independents, and\nasking them whether they were able to make up the salary they promised\nme (which was forty pounds per annum) without any aid from the latter\nfund, they assured me they could. I soon, however, found that they\ndeceived themselves; for the most that I ever received from them was in\nthe proportion of about thirty pounds per annum, when the expence of my\nboard exceeded twenty pounds.\n\nNotwithstanding this, every thing else for the first half year appeared\nvery promising, and I was happy in the success of my schemes for\npromoting the interest of religion in the place. I catechised the\nchildren, though there were not many, using Dr. Watt\u2019s Catechism; and\nI opened my lectures on the theory of religion from the _institutes_,\nwhich I had composed at the academy, admitting all persons to attend\nthem without distinction of sex or age; but in this I soon found that\nI had acted imprudently. A minister in that neighbourhood had been\nobliged to leave his place on account of Arianism, and though nothing\nhad been said to me on the subject, and from the people so readily\nconsenting to give up the independent fund, I thought they could not\nhave much bigotry among them, I found that when I came to treat of\nthe _Unity of God_, merely as an article of religion, several of my\naudience were attentive to nothing but the soundness of my faith in the\ndoctrine of the Trinity.\n\nAlso, though I had made it a rule to myself to introduce nothing that\ncould lead to controversy into the pulpit; yet making no secret of my\nreal opinions in conversation, it was soon found that I was an Arian.\nFrom the time of this discovery my hearers fell off apace, especially\nas the old minister took a decided part against me. The principal\nfamilies, however, still continued with me; but notwithstanding this,\nmy salary fell far short of thirty pounds per annum, and if it had not\nbeen for Dr. Benson and Dr. Kippis, especially the former, procuring\nme now and then an extraordinary five pounds from different charities,\nI do not believe that I could have subsisted. I shall always remember\ntheir kindness to me, at a time when I stood in so much need of it.\n\nWhen I was in this situation, a neighbouring minister whose intimate\nfriend had conformed to the church of England, talked to me on that\nsubject. He himself, I perceived, had no great objection to it, but\nrejecting the proposal, as a thing that I could not think of, he never\nmentioned it to me any more.\n\nTo these difficulties, arising from the sentiments of my congregation,\nwas added that of the failure of all remittances from my aunt, owing in\npart to the ill offices of my orthodox relations; but chiefly to her\nbeing exhausted by her liberality to others, and thinking that when I\nwas settled in the world, I ought to be no longer burdensome to her.\nTogether with me she had brought up a niece, who was almost her only\ncompanion, and being deformed, could not have subsisted without the\ngreatest part, at least, of all she had to bequeath. In consequence\nof these circumstances, tho\u2019 my aunt had always assured me that,\nif I chose to be a minister, she would leave me independent of the\nprofession, I was satisfied she was not able to perform her promise,\nand freely consented to her leaving all she had to my cousin; I had\nonly a silver tankard as a token of her remembrance. She had spared no\nexpence in my education, and that was doing more for me than giving me\nan estate.\n\nBut what contributed greatly to my distress was the _impediment in my\nspeech_, which had increased so much as to make preaching very painful,\nand took from me all chance of recommending myself to any better place.\nIn this state, hearing of the proposal of one Mr. Angier to cure\nall defects of speech, I prevailed upon my aunt to enable me to pay\nhis price, which was twenty guineas; and this was the first occasion\nof my visiting London. Accordingly, I attended him about a month,\ntaking an oath not to reveal his method, and I received some temporary\nbenefit; but soon relapsed again, and spoke worse than ever. When I\nwent to London it was in company with Mr. Smithson, who was settled at\nHarlestown in Norfolk. By him I was introduced to Dr. Kippis and Dr.\nBenson, and by the latter to Dr. Price, but not at that time.\n\nAt Needham I felt the effect of a low despised situation, together\nwith that arising from the want of popular talents. There were several\nvacancies in congregations in that neighbourhood, where my sentiments\nwould have been no objection to me, but I was never thought of. Even my\nnext neighbours, whose sentiments were as free as my own, and known to\nbe so, declined making exchanges with me, which, when I left that part\nof the country, he acknowledged was not owing to any dislike his people\nhad to me as heretical, but for other reasons, the more genteel part\nof his hearers always absenting themselves when they heard I was to\npreach for him. But visiting that country some years afterwards, when\nI had raised myself to some degree of notice in the world, and being\ninvited to preach in that very pulpit, the same people crowded to hear\nme, though my elocution was not much improved, and they professed to\nadmire one of the same discourses they had formerly despised.\n\nNotwithstanding these unfavorable circumstances, I was far from being\nunhappy at Needham. I was boarded in a family from which I received\nmuch satisfaction, I firmly believed that a wise providence was\ndisposing every thing for the best, and I applied with great assiduity\nto my studies, which were classical, mathematical and theological.\nThese required but few books. As to Experimental Philosophy, I had\nalways cultivated an acquaintance with it, but I had not the means of\nprosecuting it.\n\nWith respect to miscellaneous reading, I was pretty well supplied by\nmeans of a library belonging to Mr. S. Alexander, a quaker,[3] to which\nI had the freest access. Here it was that I was first acquainted with\nany person of that persuasion; and I must acknowledge my obligation\nto many of them in every future stage of my life. I have met with the\nnoblest instances of liberality of sentiment and the truest generosity\namong them.\n\n[3] QUAKERS. That instances of liberality of sentiment with respect to\nreligious opinion are frequently to be found among the Quakers there\ncan be no doubt, but this is certainly no part of their character as a\nSect. Thomas Letchworth one of the most acute and ingenious of their\npreachers at Wandsworth near London, who from the writings of Dr.\nPriestley had become a firm convert to his Unitarian opinions, informed\nme that the expression of those opinions would be attended with certain\nexpulsion from the Society. Very lately Hannah Bernard, a female public\nfriend who went from America to England, was prohibited from preaching\nby the Society, on account of her Unitarian doctrines.\n\nThomas Letchworth has been dead many years. In the short contest on the\nquestion of liberty and necessity which was occasioned by Toplady\u2019s\nlife of Jerome Zanchius, he wrote a good defence of the doctrine\nof necessity signed Philaretes in answer to one from a disciple of\nFletcher\u2019s of Madely, under the signature of Philaleutheros. There is\na trifling account of him containing no information, by one William\nMatthews.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nMy studies however, were chiefly theological. Having left the academy,\nas I have observed, with a qualified belief of the doctrine of\n_Atonement_, such as is found in Mr. Tomkin\u2019s book, entitled, _Jesus\nChrist the Mediator_, I was desirous of getting some more definite\nideas on the subject, and with that view set myself to peruse the\nwhole of the old and new testament, and to collect from them all the\ntexts that appeared to me to have any relation to the subject. This\nI therefore did with the greatest care, arranging them under a great\nvariety of heads. At the same time I did not fail to note such _general\nconsiderations_ as occurred to me while I was thus employed. The\nconsequence of this was, what I had no apprehension of when I began the\nwork, viz. a full persuasion that the doctrine of Atonement, even in\nits most qualified sense, had no countenance either from scripture or\nreason. Satisfied of this, I proceeded to digest my observations into a\nregular treatise, which a friend of mine, without mentioning my name,\nsubmitted to the perusal of Dr. Fleming and Dr. Lardner. In consequence\nof this, I was urged by them to publish the greater part of what I had\nwritten. But being then about to leave Needham, I desired them to do\nwhatever they thought proper with respect to it, and they published\nabout half of my piece, under the title of the _Doctrine of Remission,\n&c._\n\nThis circumstance introduced me to the acquaintance of Dr. Lardner,\nwhom I always called upon when I visited London. The last time I saw\nhim, which was little more than a year before his death, having by\nletter requested him to give me some assistance with respect to the\nhistory I then prepared to write of the Corruptions of Christianity,\nand especially that article of it, he took down a large bundle of\npamphlets, and turning them over at length shewing me my own; said,\n\u201cThis contains my sentiments on the subject.\u201d He had then forgot that\nI wrote it, and on my remarking it, he shook his head, and said that\nhis memory began to fail him; and that he had taken me for another\nperson. He was then at the advanced age of ninety one. This anecdote is\ntrifling in itself, but it relates to a great and good man.\n\nI have observed that Dr. Lardner only wished to publish a part of\nthe treatise which my friend put into his hand. The other part of it\ncontained remarks on the reasoning of the apostle of Paul, which he\ncould not by any means approve. They were, therefore, omitted in this\npublication. But the attention which I gave to the writings of this\napostle at the time that I examined them, in order to collect passages\nrelating to the doctrine of atonement, satisfied me that his reasoning\nwas in many places far from being conclusive; and in a separate work\nI examined every passage in which his reasoning appeared to me to be\ndefective, or his conclusions ill supported; and I thought them to be\npretty numerous.\n\nAt that time I had not read any commentary on the scriptures, except\nthat of Mr. Henry when I was young. However, seeing so much reason\nto be dissatisfied with the apostle Paul as a reasoner, I read _Dr.\nTaylor\u2019s paraphrase on the epistle to the Romans_; but it gave me no\nsort of satisfaction; and his general _Key to the epistles_ still less.\nI therefore at that time wrote some remarks on it, which were a long\ntime after published in the _Theological Repository_ Vol. 4.\n\nAs I found that Dr. Lardner did not at all relish any of my\nobservations on the imperfections of the sacred writers, I did not put\nthis treatise into his hands; but I shewed it to some of my younger\nfriends, and also to Dr. Kippis; and he advised me to publish it under\nthe character of an unbeliever, in order to draw the more attention\nto it. This I did not chuse, having always had a great aversion to\nassume any character that was not my own, even so much as disputing\nfor the sake of discovering truth. I cannot ever say that I was quite\nreconciled to the idea of writing to a fictitious person, as in my\n_letters to a philosophical unbeliever_, though nothing can be more\ninnocent, or sometimes more proper; our Saviour\u2019s parables implying\na much greater departure from strict truth than those letters do.\nI therefore wrote the book with great freedom, indeed, but as a\nchristian, and an admirer of the apostle Paul, as I always was in other\nrespects.\n\nWhen I was at Nantwich I sent this treatise to the press; but when nine\nsheets were printed off, Dr. Kippis dissuaded me from proceeding, or\nfrom publishing any thing of the kind, until I should be more known,\nand my character better established. I therefore desisted; but when\nI opened the theological Repository, I inserted in that work every\nthing that was of much consequence in the other, in order to its being\nsubmitted to the examination of learned christians. Accordingly these\ncommunications were particularly animadverted upon by Mr. Willet of\nNewcastle, under the signature of W. W. But I cannot say that his\nremarks gave me much satisfaction.\n\nWhen I was at Needham I likewise drew up a treatise on the doctrine\nof _divine influence_, having collected a number of texts for that\npurpose, and arranged them under proper heads, as I had done those\nrelating to the doctrine of atonement. But I published nothing relating\nto it until I made use of some of the observations in my _sermon_ on\nthat subject, delivered at an ordination, and published many years\nafterwards.\n\nWhile I was in this retired situation, I had, in consequence of much\npains and thought, become persuaded of the falsity of the doctrine of\natonement, of the inspiration of the authors of the books of scripture\nas writers, and of all idea of supernatural influence, except for the\npurpose of miracles. But I was still an Arian, having never turned my\nattention to the Socinian doctrine, and contenting myself with seeing\nthe absurdity of the trinitarian system.\n\nAnother task that I imposed on myself, and in part executed at Needham,\nwas an accurate comparison of the Hebrew text of the hagiographa\nand the prophets with the version of the Septuagint, noting all\nthe variations, &c. This I had about half finished before I left\nthat place; and I never resumed it, except to do that occasionally\nfor particular passages, which I then began, though with many\ndisadvantages, with a design to go through the whole. I had no Polyglot\nBible, and could have little help from the labours of others.\n\nThe most learned of my acquaintance in this situation was Mr. Scott of\nIpswich, who was well versed in the Oriental languages, especially the\nArabic. But though he was far from being Calvinistical, he gave me no\nencouragement in the very free enquiries which I then entered upon.\nBeing excluded from all communication with the more orthodox ministers\nin that part of the country, all my acquaintance among the dissenting\nministers, besides Mr. Scott, were Mr. Taylor of Stow-market, Mr.\nDickinson of Diss, and Mr. Smithson of Harlestone; and it is rather\nremarkable, that we all left that country in the course of the same\nyear; Mr. Taylor removing to Carter\u2019s lane in London, Mr. Dickinson to\nSheffield, and Mr. Smithson to Nottingham.\n\nBut I was very happy in a great degree of intimacy with Mr. Chauvet,\nthe rector of Stow-market. He was descended of French parents; and\nI think was not born in England. Whilst he lived we were never long\nwithout seeing each other. But he was subject to great unevenness of\nspirits, sometimes the most chearful man living, and at other times\nmost deplorably low. In one of these fits he at length put an end to\nhis life. I heard afterwards that he had at one time been confined for\ninsanity, and had even made the same attempt some time before.\n\nLike most other young men of a liberal education, I had conceived\na great aversion to the business of a schoolmaster, and had often\nsaid, that I would have recourse to any thing else for a maintenance\nin preference to it. But having no other resource, I was at length\ncompelled by necessity to make some attempt in that way; and for\nthis purpose I printed and distributed _Proposals_, but without any\neffect. Not that I was thought to be unqualified for this employment,\nbut because I was not orthodox. I had proposed to teach the classics,\nmathematics, &c. for half a guinea per quarter, and to board the pupils\nin the house with myself for twelve guineas per annum.\n\nFinding this scheme not to answer, I proposed to give lectures to\ngrown persons in such branches of science as I could conveniently\nprocure the means of doing; and I began with reading about twelve\nlectures on the _use of the Globes_, at half a guinea. I had one course\nof ten hearers, which did something more than pay for my globes; and I\nshould have proceeded in this way, adding to my apparatus as I should\nhave been able to afford it, if I had not left that place, which was in\nthe following manner.\n\nMy situation being well known to my friends, Mr. Gill, a distant\nrelation by my mother, who had taken much notice of me before I\nwent to the academy, and had often lent me books, procured me an\ninvitation to preach as a candidate at Sheffield, on the resignation\nof Mr. Wadsworth. Accordingly I did preach as a candidate, but though\nmy opinions were no objection to me there, I was not approved. But\nMr. Haynes, the other minister, perceiving that I had no chance at\nSheffield, told me that he could recommend me to a congregation at\nNantwich in Cheshire, where he himself had been settled; and as it was\nat a great distance from Needham, he would endeavour to procure me\nan invitation to preach there for a year certain. This he did, and I\ngladly accepting of it, removed from Needham, going thence to London\nby sea, to save expence. This was in 1758, after having been at Needham\njust three years.[4]\n\n[4] It is about sixty miles from Needham to London, so that the roads\nmust have been in a bad state to render a water passage more eligible\nthan by land. The first turnpike in England was authorized by an act\nof Ch. II. 1663 but the system was not adopted with spirit until\nnear the middle of the last century. The manufacturing inland towns\nof Great Britain, such as Manchester, Leeds, Halifax, &c. chiefly\ncarried on their business through the medium of travelling pedlars, and\nafterwards on pack horses. The journey in this manner from Manchester\nto London occupied a fortnight; and it was not unusual for a trader\ngoing the first time himself on this expedition to take the prudent\nprecaution of making his will. At present the mail stage performs the\njourney in about a day and a half. In the beginning of this century\n(as Dr. Aikin in his history of Manchester observes) it was thought\na most arduous undertaking to make a public road over the hills that\nseparate Yorkshire and Lancashire; now, they are pierced by three\nnavigable canals. Indeed the prosperous state of British manufactures\nand commerce, seems to have originated and progressed with the adoption\nof turnpikes and canals. They facilitate not merely the carriage and\ninterchange of heavy materials necessary to machinery, but they make\npersonal intercourse cheap, speedy and universal; they thus furnish\nthe means of seeing and communicating improvements, and of observing\nin what way one manufacture may be brought to bear upon another widely\ndifferent in its kind. We are not yet sufficiently aware of their\nimportance in America, even to the interests of agriculture.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nAt Nantwich I found a good natured friendly people, with whom I lived\nthree years very happily; and in this situation I heard nothing\nof those controversies which had been the topics of almost every\nconversation in Suffolk; and the consequence was that I gave little\nattention to them myself. Indeed it was hardly in my power to do it,\non account of my engagement with a school, which I was soon able\nto establish, and to which I gave almost all my attention; and in\nthis employment, contrary to my expectations, I found the greatest\nsatisfaction, notwithstanding the confinement and labour attending it.\n\nMy school generally consisted of about thirty boys, and I had a\nseparate room for about half a dozen young ladies. Thus I was employed\nfrom seven in the morning untill four in the afternoon, without any\ninterval except one hour for dinner, and I never gave a holiday on\nany consideration, the red letter days, as they are called, excepted.\nImmediately after this employment in my own school rooms, I went to\nteach in the family of Mr. Tomkinson, an eminent attorney, and a man of\nlarge fortune, whose recommendation was of the greatest service to me;\nand here I continued until seven in the evening. I had therefore but\nlittle leisure for reading or for improving myself in any way, except\nwhat necessarily arose from my employment.\n\nBeing engaged in the business of a schoolmaster, I made it my study\nto regulate it in the best manner, and I think I may say with truth,\nthat in no school was more business done, or with more satisfaction,\neither to the master, or the scholars, than in this of mine. Many of my\nscholars are probably living and I am confident that they will say that\nthis is no vain boast.\n\nAt Needham I was barely able with the greatest economy to keep out of\ndebt (though this I always made a point of doing at all events) but at\nNantwich my school soon enabled me to purchase a few books, and some\nphilosophical instruments, as a small air pump, an electrical machine,\n&c. These I taught my scholars in the highest class to keep in order,\nand make use of, and by entertaining their parents and friends with\nexperiments, in which the scholars were generally the operators, and\nsometimes the lecturers too, I considerably extended the reputation of\nmy school; though I had no other object originally than gratifying my\nown taste. I had no leisure, however, to make any original experiments\nuntil many years after this time.\n\nAs there were few children in the congregation (which did not consist\nof more than sixty persons, and a great proportion of them travelling\nscotchmen) there was no scope for exertion with respect to my duty as\na minister. I therefore contented myself with giving the people what\nassistance I could at their own houses, where there were young persons;\nand I added very few sermons to these which I had composed at Needham,\nwhere I never failed to make at least one every week.\n\nBeing boarded with Mr. Eddowes, a very sociable and sensible man,\nand at the same time the person of the greatest property in the\ncongregation, and who was fond of music, I was induced to learn to play\na little on the English flute, as the easiest instrument; and though I\nwas never a proficient in it, my playing contributed more or less to my\namusement many years of my life. I would recommend the knowledge and\npractice of music to all studious persons; and it will be better for\nthem, if, like myself, they should have no very fine ear, or exquisite\ntaste; as by this means they will be more easily pleased, and be less\napt to be offended when the performances they hear are but indifferent.\n\nAt Nantwich I had hardly any literary acquaintance besides Mr.\nBrereton, a clergyman in the neighbourhood, who had a taste for\nastronomy, philosophy, and literature in general. I often slept at his\nhouse, in a room to which he gave my name. But his conduct afterwards\nwas unworthy of his profession.\n\nOf dissenting ministers I saw most of Mr. Keay of Whitchurch, and Dr.\nHarwood, who lived and had a school at Congleton, preaching alternately\nat Leek and Wheelock, the latter place about ten miles from Nantwich.\nBeing both of us schoolmasters, and having in some respect the same\npursuits, we made exchanges for the sake of spending a Sunday evening\ntogether every six weeks in the summer time. He was a good classical\nscholar, and a very entertaining companion.\n\nIn my congregation there was (out of the house in which I was boarded)\nhardly more than one family in which I could spend a leisure hour with\nmuch satisfaction, and that was Mr. James Caldwall\u2019s, a scotchman.\nIndeed, several of the travelling Scotchmen who frequented the place,\nbut made no long stay at any time, were men of very good sense; and\nwhat I thought extraordinary, not one of them was at all Calvinistical.\n\nMy engagements in teaching allowed me but little time for composing\nany thing while I was at Nantwich. There, however, I recomposed my\n_Observations on the character and reasoning of the apostle Paul_, as\nmentioned before. For the use of my school I then wrote an _English\ngrammar_[5] on a new plan, leaving out all such technical terms as were\nborrowed from other languages, and had no corresponding modifications\nin ours, as the future tense, &c. and to this I afterwards subjoined\n_Observations for the use of proficients in the language_,[6] from\nthe notes which I collected at Warrington; where, being tutor in the\nlanguages and Belles Letters, I gave particular attention to the\nEnglish language, and intended to have composed a large treatise on\nthe structure and present state of it. But dropping the scheme in\nanother situation, I lately gave such parts of my collection as I had\nmade no use of to Mr. Herbert Croft of Oxford, on his communicating to\nme his design of compiling a Dictionary and Grammar of our language.\n\n[5] Printed in 1761.\n\n[6] Printed in 1772 at London. His lectures on the Theory of Language\nand Universal Grammar were printed the same year at Warrington. David\nHume was made sensible of the Gallicisms and Peculiarities of his\nstile by reading this Grammar; He acknowledged it to Mr. Griffith the\nBookseller, who mentioned it to my father.\n\nThe academy at Warrington was instituted when I was at Needham, and Mr.\nClark knowing the attention that I had given to the learned languages\nwhen I was at Daventry, had then joined with Dr. Benson and Dr. Taylor\nin recommending me as tutor in the languages. But Mr. (afterward Dr.)\nAikin, whose qualifications were superior to mine, was justly preferred\nto me. However, on the death of Dr. Taylor, and the advancement of\nMr. Aikin to be tutor in divinity, I was invited to succeed him. This\nI accepted, though my school promised to be more gainful to me. But\nmy employment at Warrington would be more liberal, and less painful.\nIt was also a means of extending my connections. But, as I told\nthe persons who brought me the invitation, viz. Mr. Seddon and Mr.\nHolland of Bolton, I should have preferred the office of teaching the\nmathematics and natural philosophy, for which I had at that time a\ngreat predilection.\n\nMy removal to Warrington was in September, 1761, after a residence\nof just three years at Nantwich. In this new situation I continued\nsix years, and in the second year I married a daughter of Mr. Isaac\nWilkinson, an Ironmaster near Wrexham in Wales, with whose family\nI had became acquainted in consequence of having the youngest son,\nWilliam, at my school at Nantwich. This proved a very suitable and\nhappy connection, my wife being a woman of an excellent understanding,\nmuch improved by reading, of great fortitude and strength of mind, and\nof a temper in the highest degree affectionate and generous; feeling\nstrongly for others, and little for herself. Also, greatly excelling\nin every thing relating to household affairs, she entirely relieved\nme of all concern of that kind, which allowed me to give all my time\nto the prosecution of my studies, and the other duties of my station.\nAnd though, in consequence of her father becoming impoverished, and\nwholly dependent on his children, in the latter part of his life, I had\nlittle fortune with her, I unexpectedly found a great resource in her\ntwo brothers, who had become wealthy, especially the elder of them. At\nWarrington I had a daughter, Sarah, who was afterwards married to Mr.\nWilliam Finch of Heath-forge near Dudley.\n\nThough at the time of my removal to Warrington I had no particular\nfondness for the studies relating to my profession then, I applied to\nthem with great assiduity; and besides composing courses of _Lectures\non the theory of Language_, and on _Oratory and Criticism_, on which\nmy predecessor had lectured, I introduced lectures on _history and\ngeneral policy_, on the _laws and constitutions of England_, and on\nthe _history of England_. This I did in consequence of observing that,\nthough most of our pupils were young men designed for situations in\ncivil and active life, every article in the plan of their education was\nadapted to the learned professions.\n\nIn order to recommend such studies as I introduced, I composed an\n_essay on a course of liberal education for civil and active life_,\nwith _syllabuses_ of my three new courses of lectures; and Dr. Brown\nhaving just then published a plan of education, in which he recommended\nit to be undertaken by the state, I added some _remarks on his\ntreatise_, shewing how inimical it was to liberty, and the natural\nrights of parents. This leading me to consider the subject of civil\nand political liberty, I published my thoughts on it, in an _essay on\ngovernment_, which in a second edition I much enlarged, including in it\nwhat I wrote in answer to Dr. Balguy, on church authority, as well as\nmy animadversions on Dr. Brown.\n\nMy _Lectures on the theory of language and universal grammar_ were\nprinted for the use of the students, but they were not published. Those\non _Oratory and Criticism_ I published when I was with Lord Shelburne,\nand those on _History and general policy_ are now printed, and about to\nbe published.[7]\n\n[7] This work has been reprinted in Philadelphia with additions,\nparticularly of a chapter on the government of the United States.\n\nFinding no public exercises at Warrington, I introduced them there,\nso that afterwards every Saturday the tutors, all the students, and\noften strangers, were assembled to hear English and Latin compositions,\nand sometimes to hear the delivery of speeches, and the exhibition of\nscenes in plays. It was my province to teach elocution, and also Logic,\nand Hebrew. The first of these I retained; but after a year or two I\nexchanged the two last articles with Dr. Aikin for the civil law, and\none year I gave a course of lectures in anatomy.\n\nWith a view to lead the students to a facility in writing English, I\nencouraged them to write in verse. This I did not with any design to\nmake them poets, but to give them a greater facility in writing prose,\nand this method I would recommend to all tutors. I was myself far from\nhaving any pretension to the character of a poet; but in the early part\nof my life I was a great versifier, and this, I believe, as well as my\ncustom of writing after preachers, mentioned before, contributed to the\nease with which I always wrote prose. Mrs. Barbauld has told me that it\nwas the perusal of some verses of mine that first induced her to write\nany thing in verse, so that this country is in some measure indebted\nto me for one of the best poets it can boast of. Several of her first\npoems were written when she was in my house, on occasions that occurred\nwhile she was there.\n\nIt was while I was at Warrington that I published my _Chart of\nBiography_, though I had begun to construct it at Nantwich. Lord\nWilloughby of Parham, who lived in Lancashire, being pleased with the\nidea of it, I, with his consent, inscribed it to him; but he died\nbefore the publication of it: The _Chart of History_, corresponding to\nit, I drew up some time after at Leeds.\n\nI was in this situation when, going to London,[8] and being introduced\nto Dr. Price, Mr. Canton, Dr. Watson, (the Physician,) and Dr.\nFranklin, I was led to attend to the subject of experimental philosophy\nmore than I had done before; and having composed all the Lectures\nI had occasion to deliver and finding myself at liberty for any\nundertaking, I mentioned to Dr. Franklin an idea that had occurred to\nme of writing the history of discoveries in Electricity, which had\nbeen his favourite study. This I told him might be an useful work, and\nthat I would willingly undertake it, provided I could be furnished\nwith the books necessary for the purpose. This he readily undertook,\nand my other friends assisting him in it, I set about the work,\nwithout having the least idea of doing any thing more than writing a\ndistinct and methodical account of all that had been done by others.\nHaving, however, a pretty good machine, I was led, in the course of my\nwriting the history, to endeavour to ascertain several facts which were\ndisputed; and this led me by degrees into a large field of original\nexperiments, in which I spared no expence that I could possibly furnish.\n\n[8] He always spent one month in every year in London which was of\ngreat use to him. He saw and heard a great deal. He generally made\nadditions to his library and his chemical apparatus. A new turn was\nfrequently given to his ideas. New and useful acquaintances were\nformed, and old ones confirmed.\n\nThese experiments employed a great proportion of my leisure time; and\nyet before the complete expiration of the year in which I gave the plan\nof my work to Dr. Franklin, I sent him a copy of it in print. In the\nsame year five hours of every day were employed in lectures, public or\nprivate, and one two months vacation I spent chiefly at Bristol, on a\nvisit to my father-in-law.\n\nThis I do not mention as a subject of boasting. For many persons have\ndone more in the same time; but as an answer to those who have objected\nto some of my later writings, as hasty performances. For none of my\npublications were better received than this _History of Electricity_,\nwhich was the most hasty of them all. However, whether my publications\nhave taken up more or less time, I am confident that more would not\nhave contributed to their perfection, in any essential particular; and\nabout anything farther I have never been very solicitous. My object was\nnot to acquire the character of a fine writer, but of an useful one. I\ncan also truly say that gain was never the chief object of any of my\npublications. Several of them were written with the prospect of certain\nloss.\n\nDuring the course of my electrical experiments in this year I kept\nup a constant correspondence with Dr. Franklin, and the rest of my\nphilosophical friends in London; and my letters circulated among them\nall, as also every part of my History as it was transcribed. This\ncorrespondence would have made a considerable volume, and it took up\nmuch time; but it was of great use with respect to the accuracy of my\nexperiments, and the perfection of my work.\n\nAfter the publication of my Chart of Biography, Dr. Percival of\nManchester, then a student at Edinburgh, procured me the title of\nDoctor of laws from that university; and not long after my new\nexperiments in electricity were the means of introducing me into the\nRoyal Society, with the recommendation of Dr. Franklin, Dr. Watson, Mr.\nCanton, and Dr. Price.\n\nIn the whole time of my being at Warrington I was singularly happy in\nthe society of my fellow tutors,[9] and of Mr. Seddon, the minister of\nthe place. We drank tea together every Saturday, and our conversation\nwas equally instructive and pleasing. I often thought it not a little\nextraordinary, that four persons, who had no previous knowledge of each\nother, should have been brought to unite in conducting such a scheme as\nthis, and all be zealous necessarians, as we were. We were likewise all\nArians, and the only subject of much consequence on which we differed\nrespected the doctrine of atonement, concerning which Dr. Aikin held\nsome obscure notions. Accordingly, this was frequently the topic of our\nfriendly conversations. The only Socinian in the neighbourhood was Mr.\nSeddon of Manchester; and we all wondered at him. But then we never\nentered into any particular examination of the subject.\n\n[9] At Warrington he had for colleagues and successors, Dr. John\nTaylor, author of the Hebrew Concordance and of several other works, on\nOriginal Sin, Atonement, &c. Dr. Aikin the Elder, Dr. Reinhold Forster\nthe Naturalist and traveller, Dr. Enfield and Mr. Walker.\n\nReceiving some of the pupils into my own house, I was by this means\nled to form some valuable friendships, but especially with Mr. Samuel\nVaughan, a friendship which has continued hitherto, has in a manner\nconnected our families, and will, I doubt not, continue through life.\nThe two eldest of his sons were boarded with me.\n\nThe tutors having sufficient society among themselves, we had not\nmuch acquaintance out of the academy. Sometimes, however, I made an\nexcursion to the towns in the neighbourhood. At Liverpool I was always\nreceived by Mr. Bentley, afterwards partner with Mr. Wedgwood, a man of\nexcellent taste, improved understanding, and a good disposition, but an\nunbeliever in christianity, which was therefore often the subject of\nour conversation. He was then a widower, and we generally, and contrary\nto my usual custom, sat up late. At Manchester I was always the guest\nof Mr. Potter, whose son Thomas was boarded with me. He was one of\nthe worthiest men that ever lived. At Chowbent I was much acquainted\nwith Mr. Mort, a man equally distinguished by his chearfulness and\nliberality of sentiment.\n\nOf the ministers in the neighbourhood, I recollect with much\nsatisfaction the interviews I had with Mr. Godwin of Gataker, Mr.\nHolland of Bolton, and Dr. Enfield of Liverpool, afterwards tutor at\nWarrington.\n\nThough all the tutors in my time lived in the most perfect harmony,\nthough we all exerted ourselves to the utmost, and there was no\ncomplaint of want of discipline, the academy did not flourish. There\nhad been an unhappy difference between Dr. Taylor and the trustees,\nin consequence of which all his friends, who were numerous, were our\nenemies; and too many of the subscribers, being probably weary of the\nsubscription, were willing to lay hold of any pretence for dropping it,\nand of justifying their conduct afterwards.\n\nIt is possible that in time we might have overcome the prejudices\nwe laboured under, but there being no prospect of things being any\nbetter, and my wife having very bad health, on her account chiefly I\nwished for a removal, though nothing could be more agreeable to me at\nthe time than the whole of my employment, and all the laborious part\nof it was over. The terms also on which we took boarders, viz. 15 \u00a3.\nper annum, and my salary being only 100 _\u00a3_. per annum with a house,\nit was not possible, even living with the greatest frugality, to make\nany provision for a family. I was there six years, most laboriously\nemployed, for nothing more than a bare subsistence. I therefore\nlistened to an invitation to take the charge of the congregation of\nMill-hill chapel at Leeds, where I was pretty well known, and thither I\nremoved in September 1767.\n\nThough while I was at Warrington it was no part of my duty to preach,\nI had from choice continued the practice; and wishing to keep up the\ncharacter of a dissenting minister, I chose to be ordained while I\nwas there; and though I was far from having conquered my tendency to\nstammer, and probably never shall be able to do it effectually, I had,\nby taking much pains, improved my pronunciation some time before I left\nNantwich; where for the two first years this impediment had increased\nso much, that I once informed the people, that I must give up the\nbusiness of preaching, and confine myself to my school. However, by\nmaking a practice of reading very loud and very slow every day, I at\nlength succeeded in getting in some measure the better of this defect,\nbut I am still obliged occasionally to have recourse to the same\nexpedient.\n\nAt Leeds I continued six years very happy with a liberal, friendly,\nand harmonious congregation, to whom my services (of which I was not\nsparing) were very acceptable. Here I had no unreasonable prejudices\nto contend with, so that I had full scope for every kind of exertion;\nand I can truly say that I always considered the office of a christian\nminister as the most honourable of any upon earth, and in the studies\nproper to it I always took the greatest pleasure.\n\nIn this situation I naturally resumed my application to speculative\ntheology, which had occupied me at Needham, and which had been\ninterrupted by the business of teaching at Nantwich and Warrington. By\nreading with care Dr. _Lardner\u2019s letter on the logos_, I became what is\ncalled a Socinian soon after my settlement at Leeds; and after giving\nthe closest attention to the subject, I have seen more and more reason\nto be satisfied with that opinion to this day, and likewise to be more\nimpressed with the idea of its importance.\n\nOn reading Mr. _Mann\u2019s Dissertation on the times of the birth and death\nof Christ_, I was convinced that he was right in his opinion of our\nSaviour\u2019s ministry having continued little more than one year, and\non this plan I drew out a _Harmony of the gospels_, the outline of\nwhich I first published in the Theological Repository, and afterwards\nseparately and at large, both in Greek and English, with Notes, and\nan occasional Paraphrase. In the same work I published my _Essay on\nthe doctrine of Atonement_, improved from the tract published by Dr.\nLardner, and also my animadversions on the reasoning of the apostle\nPaul.\n\nThe plan of this _Repository_ occurred to me on seeing some notes that\nMr. Turner of Wakefield had drawn up on several passages of scripture,\nwhich I was concerned to think should be lost. He very much approved of\nmy proposal of an occasional publication, for the purpose of preserving\nsuch original observations as could otherwise probably never see the\nlight. Of this work I published three volumes while I was at Leeds, and\nhe never failed to give me an article for every number of which they\nwere composed.\n\nGiving particular attention to the duties of my office, I wrote\nseveral tracts for the use of my congregation, as two _Catechisms_, an\n_Address to masters of families on the subject of family prayer_,\na _discourse on the Lord\u2019s Supper_, and on _Church discipline_, and\n_Institutes of Natural and Revealed religion_. Here I formed three\nclasses of Catechumens, and took great pleasure in instructing them in\nthe principles of religion. In this respect I hope my example has been\nof use in other congregations.\n\nThe first of my controversial treatises was written here in reply\nto some angry remarks on my discourse on the Lord\u2019s Supper by Mr.\nVenn, a clergyman in the neighbourhood. I also wrote remarks on Dr.\n_Balguy\u2019s sermon on Church authority_, and on some paragraphs in\nJudge _Blackstone\u2019s Commentaries_ relating to the dissenters. To the\ntwo former no reply was made; but to the last the judge replied in\na small pamphlet; on which I addressed a letter to him in the St.\nJames\u2019s Chronicle. This controversy led me to print another pamphlet,\nentitled _The Principles and Conduct of the Dissenters with respect to\nthe civil and ecclesiastical constitution of this country_. With the\nencouragement of Dr. Price and Dr. Kippis, I also wrote an _Address to\nProtestant Dissenters as such_; but without my name. Several of these\npamphlets having been animadverted upon by an anonymous acquaintance,\nwho thought I had laid too much stress on the principles of the\nDissenters, I wrote a defence of my conduct in _Letters addressed to\nhim_.\n\nThe methodists being very numerous in Leeds, and many of the lower sort\nof my own hearers listening to them, I wrote an _Appeal to the serious\nprofessors of Christianity_, an _Illustration of particular texts_, and\nrepublished the _Trial of Elwall_, all in the cheapest manner possible.\nThose small tracts had a great effect in establishing my hearers in\nliberal principles of religion, and in a short time had a far more\nextensive influence than I could have imagined. By this time more than\nthirty thousand copies of the Appeal have been dispersed.\n\nBesides these theoretical and controversial pieces, I wrote while\nI was at Leeds my _Essay on Government_ mentioned before, my\n_English Grammar_ enlarged, a _familiar introduction to the study of\nelectricity_, a _treatise on perspective_, and my _Chart of History_,\nand also some anonymous pieces in favour of civil liberty during the\npersecution of Mr. Wilkes, the principal of which was _An Address to\nDissenters on the subject of the difference with America_, which I\nwrote at the request of Dr. Franklin, and Dr. Fothergil.\n\nBut nothing of a nature foreign to the duties of my profession engaged\nmy attention while I was at Leeds so much as the prosecution of my\nexperiments relating to _electricity_, and especially the doctrine of\n_air_. The last I was led into in consequence of inhabiting a house\nadjoining to a public brewery, where I at first amused myself with\nmaking experiments on the fixed air which I found ready made in the\nprocess of fermentation. When I removed from that house, I was under\nthe necessity of making the fixed air for myself; and one experiment\nleading to another, as I have distinctly and faithfully noted in\nmy various publications on the subject, I by degrees contrived a\nconvenient apparatus for the purpose, but of the cheapest kind.\n\nWhen I began these experiments I knew very little of _chemistry_, and\nhad in a manner no idea on the subject before I attended a course\nof chemical lectures delivered in the academy at Warrington by Dr.\nTurner[10] of Liverpool. But I have often thought that upon the whole,\nthis circumstance was no disadvantage to me; as in this situation I\nwas led to devise an apparatus, and processes of my own, adapted to\nmy peculiar views. Whereas, if I had been previously accustomed to\nthe usual chemical processes, I should not have so easily thought of\nany other; and without new modes of operation I should hardly have\ndiscovered any thing materially new.[11]\n\n[10] Dr. TURNER was a Physician at Liverpool: among his friends a\nprofessed Atheist. It was Dr. Turner who wrote the reply to Dr.\nPriestley\u2019s letters to a philosophical unbeliever under the feigned\nname of Hammon. He was in his day a good practical chemist. I believe\nit was Dr. Turner who first invented, or at least brought to tolerable\nperfection, the art of copying prints upon glass, by striking off\nimpressions with a coloured solution of silver and fixing them on the\nglass by baking on an iron plate in a heat sufficient to incorporate\nthe solution with the glass. Some of them are very neatly performed,\nproducing transparent copies in a bright yellow upon the clear glass.\n\nDr. Turner was not merely a whig but a republican. In a friendly\ndebating society at Liverpool about the close of the American war, he\nobserved in reply to a speaker who had been descanting on the honour\nGreat Britain had gained during the reign of his present Majesty, that\nit was true, we had lost the _Terra firma_ of the thirteen colonies in\nAmerica, but we ought to be satisfied with having gained in return,\nby the generalship of Dr. Herschel, a terra incognita of much greater\nextent _in nubibus_.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\n[11] This necessary attention to economy also aided the simplicity\nof his apparatus, and was the means in some degree of improving it\nin this important respect. This plainness of his apparatus rendered\nhis experiments easy to be repeated, and gave them accuracy. In this\nrespect he was like his great Cotemporary Scheele, whose discoveries\nwere made by means easy to be procured and at small expence. The French\nChemists have adopted a practice quite the reverse.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nMy first publication on the subject of air was in 1772. It was a small\npamphlet, on the method of impregnating water with fixed air; which\nbeing immediately translated into French, excited a great degree\nof attention to the subject, and this was much increased by the\npublication of my first paper of experiments in a large article of the\nPhilosophical Transactions the year following, for which I received the\ngold medal of the society. My method of impregnating water with fixed\nair was considered at a meeting of the College of Physicians, before\nwhom I made the experiments, and by them it was recommended to the\nLords of the Admiral (by whom they had been summoned for the purpose)\nas likely to be of use in the sea scurvy.\n\nThe only person in Leeds who gave much attention to my experiments\nwas Mr. Hay, a surgeon. He was a zealous methodist, and wrote answers\nto some of my theological tracts; but we always conversed with the\ngreatest freedom on philosophical subjects, without mentioning any\nthing relating to theology. When I left Leeds, he begged of me the\nearthen trough in which I had made all my experiments on air while I\nwas there. It was such an one as is there commonly used for washing\nlinnen.\n\nHaving succeeded so well in the History of Electricity, I was\ninduced to undertake the history of all the brandies of experimental\nphilosophy; and at Leeds I gave out proposals for that purpose,\nand published the _History of discoveries relating to vision light\nand colours_. This work, also, I believe I executed to general\nsatisfaction, and being an undertaking of great expence, I was under\nthe necessity of publishing it by subscription. The sale, however, was\nnot such as to encourage me to proceed with a work of so much labour\nand expence; so that after purchasing a great number of books, to\nenable me to finish my undertaking, I was obliged to abandon it, and to\napply wholly to original experiments.[12]\n\n[12] Many of the subscriptions remained unpaid.\n\nIn writing the History of discoveries relating to vision, I was\nmuch assisted by Mr. Michell, the discoverer of the method of making\nartificial magnets. Living at Thornhill, not very far from Leeds, I\nfrequently visited him, and was very happy in his society, as I also\nwas in that of Mr. Smeaton, who lived still nearer to me. He made me a\npresent of his excellent air pump, which I constantly use to this day.\nHaving strongly recommended his construction of this instrument, it is\nnow generally used; whereas before that hardly any had been made during\nthe twenty years which had elapsed after the account that he had given\nof it in the Philosophical Transactions.\n\nI was also instrumental in reviving the use of large electrical\nmachines, and batteries, in electricity, the generality of electrical\nmachines being little more than play things at the time that I began\nmy experiments. The first very large electrical machine was made by\nMr. Nairne in consequence of a request made to me by the Grand Duke of\nTuscany, to get him the best machine that we could make in England.\nThis, and another that he made for Mr. Vaughan, were constituted on a\nplan of my own. But afterwards Mr. Nairne made large machines on a more\nsimple and improved construction; and in consideration of the service\nwhich I had rendered him, he made me a present of a pretty large\nmachine of the same kind.\n\nThe review of my history of electricity by Mr. Bewley, who was\nacquainted with Mr. Michell, was the means of opening a correspondence\nbetween us, which was the source of much satisfaction to me as long\nas he lived. I instantly communicated to him an account of every new\nexperiment that I made, and, in return, was favoured with his remarks\nupon them. All that he published of his own were articles in the\n_Appendixes_ to my volumes on air, all of which are ingenious and\nvaluable. Always publishing in this manner, he used to call himself my\n_satellite_. There was a vein of pleasant wit and humour in all his\ncorrespondence, which added greatly to the value of it. His letters\nto me would have made several volumes, and mine to him still more.\nWhen he found himself dangerously ill, he made a point of paying me a\nvisit before he died; and he made a journey from Norfolk to Birmingham,\naccompanied by Mrs. Bewley, for that purpose; and after spending about\na week with me, he went to his friend Dr. Burney, and at his house he\ndied.\n\nWhile I was at Leeds a proposal was made to me to accompany Captain\nCook in his second voyage to the south seas. As the terms were very\nadvantageous, I consented to it, and the heads of my congregation had\nagreed to keep an assistant to supply my place during my absence. But\nMr. Banks informed me that I was objected to by some clergymen in the\nboard of longitude, who had the direction of this business, on account\nof my religious principles; and presently after I heard that Dr.\nForster, a person far better qualified for the purpose, had got the\nappointment. As I had barely acquiesced in the proposal, this was no\ndisappointment to me, and I was much better employed at home, even with\nrespect to my philosophical pursuits. My knowledge of natural history\nwas not sufficient for the undertaking; but at that time I should by\napplication have been able to supply my deficiency, though now I am\nsensible I could not do it.\n\nAt Leeds I was particularly happy in my intercourse with Mr. Turner of\nWakefield, and occasionally, with Mr. Cappe of York, and Mr. Graham\nof Halifax. And here it was that, in consequence of a visit which in\ncompany with Mr. Turner I made to the Archdeacon Blackburne at Richmond\n(with whom I had kept up a correspondence from the time that his son\nwas under my care at Warrington) I first met with Mr. Lindsey, then of\nCatterick, and a correspondence and intimacy commenced, which has been\nthe source of more real satisfaction to me than any other circumstance\nin my whole life. He soon discovered to me that he was uneasy in his\nsituation, and had thoughts of quitting it. At first I was not forward\nto encourage him in it, but rather advised him to make what alteration\nhe thought proper in the offices of the church, and leave it to his\nsuperiors to dismiss him if they chose. But his better judgment,\nand greater fortitude, led him to give up all connexion with the\nestablished church of his own accord.\n\nThis took place about the time of my leaving Leeds, and it was not\nuntil long after this that I was apprized of all the difficulties\nhe had to struggle with before he could accomplish his purpose. But\nthe opposition made to it by his nearest friends, and those who\nmight have been expected to approve of the step that he took, and to\nhave endeavoured to make it easy to him, was one of the greatest.\nNotwithstanding this he left Catterick, where he had lived in\naffluence idolized by his parish, and went to London without any\ncertain prospect; where he lived in two rooms of a ground floor, until\nby the assistance of his friends, he was able to pay for the use of the\nupper apartments, which the state of his health rendered necessary. In\nthis humble situation have I passed some of the most pleasing hours of\nmy life, when, in consequence of living with Lord Shelburne, I spent my\nwinters in London.\n\nOn this occasion it was that my intimacy with Mr. Lindsey was much\nimproved, and an entire concurrence in every thing that we thought\nto be for the interest of christianity gave fresh warmth to our\nfriendship. To his society I owe much of my zeal for the doctrine of\nthe divine unity, for which he made so great sacrifices, and in the\ndefence of which he so much distinguished himself, so as to occasion a\nnew \u00e6ra in the history of religion in this country.\n\nAs we became more intimate, confiding in his better taste and judgment,\nand also in that of Mrs. Lindsey, a woman of the same spirit and views,\nand in all respects a help meet for him, I never chose to publish\nany thing of moment relating to Theology without consulting him; and\nhardly ever ventured to insert any thing that they disapproved, being\nsensible that my disposition led to precipitancy, to which their\ncoolness was a seasonable check.\n\nAt Leeds began my intercourse with Mr. Lee of Lincoln\u2019s Inn. He was a\nnative of the place, and exactly one week older than myself. At that\ntime he was particularly connected with the congregation, and before he\nwas married spent his vacations with us. His friendship was a source of\nmuch greater satisfaction and advantage to me after I came to reside in\nLondon, and especially at the time of my leaving Lord Shelburne, when\nmy prospects wore rather a cloudy aspect.\n\nWhen I visited London, during my residence at Leeds, commenced my\nparticular friendship for Dr. Price, to whom I had been introduced\nseveral years before by Dr. Benson; our first interview having been\nat Mr. Brownsword\u2019s at Newington, where they were members of a small\nliterary society, in which they read various compositions. At that time\nDr. Benson read a paper which afterwards made a section in his _Life\nof Christ_. For the most amiable simplicity of character, equalled\nonly by that of Mr. Lindsey, a truly christian spirit, disinterested\npatriotism, and true candour, no man in my opinion ever exceeded Dr.\nPrice. His candour will appear the more extraordinary, considering\nhis warm attachments to the theological sentiments which he embraced\nin very early life. I shall ever reflect upon our friendship as\na circumstance highly honourable, as it was a source of peculiar\nsatisfaction, to me.\n\nI had two sons born to me at Leeds, Joseph and William, and though I\nwas very happy there, I was tempted to leave it after continuing there\nsix years, to go into the family of the Earl of Shelburne, now the\nMarquis of Lansdowne; he stipulating to give me 250 \u00a3. per annum, a\nhouse to live in, and a certainty for life in case of his death, or of\nmy separation from him; whereas at Leeds my salary was only one hundred\nguineas per annum, and a house, which was not quite sufficient for the\nsubsistence of my family, without a possibility of making a provision\nfor them after my death.\n\nI had been recommended to Lord Shelburne by Dr. Price, as a person\nqualified to be a literary companion to him. In this situation, my\nfamily being at Calne in Wiltshire, near to his Lordship\u2019s seat at\nBowood, I continued seven years, spending the summer with my family,\nand a great part of the winter in his Lordship\u2019s house in London. My\noffice was nominally that of _librarian_, but I had little employment\nas such, besides arranging his books, taking a catalogue of them, and\nof his manuscripts, which were numerous, and making an index to his\ncollection of private papers. In fact I was with him as a friend,\nand the second year made with him the tour of Flanders, Holland, and\nGermany, as far as Strasburgh; and after spending a month at Paris,\nreturned to England. This was in the year 1774.\n\nThis little excursion made me more sensible than I should otherwise\nhave been of the benefit of foreign travel, even without the\nadvantage of much conversation with foreigners. The very sight of new\ncountries, new buildings, new customs, &c. and the very hearing of an\nunintelligible new language, gives new ideas, and tends to enlarge the\nmind. To me this little time was extremely pleasing, especially as I\nsaw every thing to the greatest advantage, and without any anxiety or\ntrouble, and had an opportunity of seeing and conversing with every\nperson of eminence wherever we came; the political characters by\nhis Lordship\u2019s connections, and the literary ones by my own. I was\nsoon, however, tired of Paris, and chose to spend my evenings at the\nhotel, in company with a few literary friends. Fortunately for me,\nMr. Magellan[13] being at Paris, at the same time, spent most of the\nevenings with me; and as I chose to return before his Lordship, he\naccompanied me to London, and made the journey very pleasing to me; he\nbeing used to the country, the language, and the manners of it, which\nI was not. He had seen much of the world, and his conversation during\nour journey was particularly interesting to me. Indeed, in London,\nboth before and after this time, I always found him very friendly,\nespecially in every thing that related to my philosophical pursuits.\n\n[13] JOHN HYACINTH DE MAGELLAN a descendant of the famous Navigator\nMagellan, was a Portuguese Jesuit, but far more attached to Philosophy\nthan Christianity. He was much employed by his rich and noble\ncorrespondents abroad to procure philosophical Instruments from the\nArtists of Great Britain. He was a good judge of these, and being\nof a mechanical turn as well as a man of Science, he improved their\nconstruction in many instances. He was member of and attendant on\nalmost all the philosophical Clubs and Meetings in London, and\nwas generally furnished with early intelligence of philosophical\ndiscoveries from the continent. On the 17th of September 1785 he made\na donation of 200 guineas to the American Philosophical Society, the\ninterest whereof was to be appropriated annually as a premium for\nthe most useful discoveries or improvements in navigation or natural\nphilosophy, but to the exclusion of mere natural history. He died a\nfew years ago, leaving Mr. Nicholson and the late Dr. Crawford his\nExecutors. T. C.\n\nAs I was sufficiently apprized of the fact, I did not wonder, as I\notherwise should have done, to find all the philosophical persons\nto whom I was introduced at Paris unbelievers in christianity, and\neven professed Atheists. As I chose on all occasions to appear as a\nchristian, I was told by some of them, that I was the only person they\nhad ever met with, of whose understanding they had any opinion, who\nprofessed to believe christianity. But on interrogating them on the\nsubject, I soon found that they had given no proper attention to it,\nand did not really know what christianity was. This was also the case\nwith a great part of the company that I saw at Lord Shelburne\u2019s. But\nI hope that my always avowing myself to be a christian, and holding\nmyself ready on all occasions to defend the genuine principles of it,\nwas not without its use. Having conversed so much with unbelievers at\nhome and abroad, I thought I should be able to combat their prejudices\nwith some advantage, and with this view I wrote, while I was with\nLord Shelburne, the first part of my _Letters to a philosophical\nunbeliever_, in proof of the doctrines of a God and a providence, and\nto this I have added during my residence at Birmingham, a second part,\nin defence of the evidences of christianity. The first part being\nreplied to by a person who called himself Mr. Hammon, I wrote a reply\nto his piece, which has hitherto remained unanswered. I am happy to\nfind that this work of mine has done some good, and I hope that in due\ntime it will do more. I can truly say that the greatest satisfaction\nI receive from the success of my philosophical pursuits, arises from\nthe weight it may give to my attempts to defend christianity, and\nto free it from those corruptions which prevent its reception with\nphilosophical and thinking persons, whose influence with the vulgar,\nand the unthinking, is very great.\n\nWith Lord Shelburne I saw a great variety of characters, but, of our\nneighbours in Wiltshire, the person I had the most frequent opportunity\nof seeing was Dr. Frampton, a clergyman, whose history may serve as a\nlesson to many. No man perhaps was ever better qualified to please in a\nconvivial hour, or had greater talents for conversation and repartee;\nin consequence of which, though there were several things very\ndisgusting about him, his society was much courted, and many promises\nof preferment were made to him. To these, notwithstanding his knowledge\nof the world, and of high life, he gave too much credit; so that he\nspared no expence to gratify his taste and appetite, until he was\nuniversally involved in debt; and though his friends made some efforts\nto relieve him, he was confined a year in the county prison at a time\nwhen his bodily infirmities required the greatest indulgences; and he\nobtained his release but a short time before his death on condition of\nhis living on a scanty allowance; the income of his livings (amounting\nto more than 400 \u00a3. per annum) being in the hands of his creditors.\nSuch was the end of a man who kept the table in a roar.\n\nDr. Frampton being a high churchman, he could not at first conceal\nhis aversion to me, and endeavoured to do me some ill offices. But\nbeing a man of letters, and despising the clergy in his neighbourhood,\nhe became at last much attached to me; and in his distresses was\nsatisfied, I believe, that I was one of his most sincere friends. With\nsome great defects he had some considerable virtues, and uncommon\nabilities, which appeared more particularly in extempore speaking.\nHe always preached without notes, and when, on some occasions, he\ncomposed his sermons, he could, if he chose to do it, repeat the whole\n_verbatim_. He frequently extemporized in verse, in a great variety of\nmeasures.\n\nIn Lord Shelburne\u2019s family was Lady Arabella Denny, who is well known\nby her extensive charities. She is (for she is still living) a woman of\ngood understanding, and great piety. She had the care of his Lordship\u2019s\ntwo sons until they came under the care of Mr. Jervis, who was their\ntutor during my continuance in the family. His Lordship\u2019s younger son,\nwho died suddenly, had made astonishing attainments both in knowledge\nand piety, while very young, far beyond any thing that I had an\nopportunity of observing in my life.\n\nWhen I went to his Lordship, I had materials for one volume of\n_experiments on air_, which I soon after published, and inscribed to\nhim; and before I left him I published three volumes more, and had\nmaterials for a fourth, which I published immediately on my settling in\nBirmingham. He encouraged me in the prosecution of my philosophical\nenquiries, and allowed me 40 \u00a3. per annum for expences of that kind,\nand was pleased to see me make experiments to entertain his guests, and\nespecially foreigners.\n\nNotwithstanding the attention that I gave to philosophy in this\nsituation, I did not discontinue my other studies, especially in\ntheology and metaphysics. Here I wrote my _Miscellaneous Observations\nrelating to education_, and published my _Lectures on Oratory and\nCriticism_, which I dedicated to Lord Fitzmaurice, Lord Shelburne\u2019s\neldest son. Here also I published the third and last part of my\n_Institutes of Natural and Revealed religion_; and having in the\nPreface attacked the principles of Dr. Reid, Dr. Beattie, and Dr.\nOswald, with respect to their doctrine of _Common Sense_, which they\nmade to supercede all rational inquiry into the subject of religion,\nI was led to consider their system in a separate work, which, though\nwritten in a manner that I do not intirely approve, has, I hope, upon\nthe whole been of service to the cause of free inquiry and truth.[14]\n\n[14] This reply of Dr. Priestley to the Scotch Doctors, though not\nwritten in a manner that his maturer reflection approved, compleatly\nset at rest the question of Common Sense as denoting the intuitive\nevidence of a class of moral and religious propositions capable of\nsatisfactory proof, or of high probability from considerations _ab\nextra_. But Dr. Reid ought hardly to be classed with coadjutors so\ninferior as the Drs. Oswald and Beattie. The latter wrote something\nwhich he meant as a defence of the christian religion; but such\ndefenders of christianity as Dr. Beattie and Soame Jenyns, are well\ncalculated to bring it into contempt with men of reason and reflection.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nIn the preface I had expressed my belief of the doctrine of\n_Philosophical Necessity_, but without any design to pursue the\nsubject, and also my great admiration of Dr. Hartley\u2019s theory of\nthe human mind, as indeed I had taken many opportunities of doing\nbefore. This led me to publish that part of his _observations on\nman_ which related to the doctrine of association of ideas, detached\nfrom the doctrine of vibrations, prefixing _three dissertations_,\nexplanatory of his general system. In one of these I expressed some\ndoubt of the immateriality of the sentient principle in man; and the\noutcry that was made on what I casually expressed on that subject can\nhardly be imagined. In all the newspapers, and most of the periodical\npublications, I was represented as an unbeliever in revelation, and no\nbetter than an Atheist.\n\nThis led me to give the closest attention to the subject, and the\nconsequence was the firmest persuasion that man is wholly material, and\nthat our only prospect of immortality is from the christian doctrine\nof a resurrection. I therefore digested my thoughts on the subject,\nand published my _Disquisitions relating to matter and spirit_, also\nthe subjects of _Socinianism_ and _necessity_ being nearly connected\nwith the doctrine of the materiality of man, I advanced several\nconsiderations from the state of opinions in antient times in favour\nof the former; and in a separate volume discussed more at large what\nrelated to the latter, dedicating the first volume of this work to Mr.\nGraham, and the second to Dr. Jebb.\n\nIt being probable that this publication would be unpopular, and might\nbe a means of bringing odium on my patron, several attempts were made\nby his friends, though none by himself, to dissuade me from persisting\nin it. But being, as I thought, engaged in the cause of important\ntruth, I proceeded without regard to any consequences, assuring them\nthat this publication should not be injurious to his Lordship.\n\nIn order, however, to proceed with the greatest caution, in a business\nof such moment, I desired some of my learned friends, and especially\nDr. Price, to peruse the work before it was published; and the remarks\nthat he made upon it led to a free and friendly discussion of the\nseveral subjects of it, which we afterwards published jointly; and it\nremains a proof of the possibility of discussing subjects mutually\nconsidered as of the greatest importance, with the most perfect good\ntemper, and without the least diminution of friendship. This work I\ndedicated to our common friend Mr. Lee.\n\nIn this situation I published my _Harmony of the gospels_, on the idea\nof the public ministry of Jesus having continued little more than one\nyear, a scheme which I first proposed in the Theological Repository;\nand the Bishop of Waterford having in his _Harmony_ published a defence\nof the common hypothesis, viz. that of its having been three years, I\naddressed a _letter to him_ on the subject, and to this he made a reply\nin a separate work. The controversy proceeded to several publications\non both sides, in the most amicable manner, and the last _Postscript_\nwas published jointly by us both. Though my side of the question was\nwithout any advocates that I know of, and had only been adopted by\nMr. Mann, who seemed to have had no followers, there are few persons,\nI believe, who have attended to our discussion of the subject, who are\nnot satisfied that I have sufficiently proved what I had advanced. This\ncontroversy was not finished until after my removal to Birmingham.\n\nReflecting on the time that I spent with Lord Shelburne, being as a\nguest in the family, I can truly say that I was not at all fascinated\nwith that mode of life. Instead of looking back upon it with regret,\none of the greatest subjects of my present thankfulness is the change\nof that situation for the one in which I am now placed; and yet I was\nfar from being unhappy there, much less so than those who are born\nto such a state, and pass all their lives in it. These are generally\nunhappy from the want of _necessary_ employment, on which account\nchiefly there appears to be much more happiness in the middle classes\nof life, who are above the fear of want, and yet have a sufficient\nmotive for a constant exertion of their faculties; and who have always\nsome other object besides amusement.\n\nI used to make no scruple of maintaining, that there is not only\nmost virtue, and most happiness, but even most true politeness in the\nmiddle classes of life. For in proportion as men pass more of their\ntime in the society of their equals, they get a better established\nhabit of governing their tempers; they attend more to the feelings\nof others, and are more disposed to accommodate themselves to them.\nOn the other hand, the passions of persons in higher life, having\nbeen less controlled, are more apt to be inflamed; the idea of their\nrank and superiority to others seldom quits them; and though they\nare in the habit of concealing their feelings, and disguising their\npassions, it is not always so well done, but that persons of ordinary\ndiscernment may perceive what they inwardly suffer. On this account,\nthey are really intitled to compassion, it being the almost unavoidable\nconsequence of their education and mode of life. But when the mind is\nnot hurt in such a situation, when a person born to affluence can lose\nsight of himself, and truly feel and act for others, the character is\nso godlike, as shews that this inequality of condition is not without\nits use. Like the general discipline of life, it is for the present\nlost on the great mass, but on a few it produces what no other state\nof things could do.[15]\n\n[15] The account here given of Dr. Priestley\u2019s connection with Lord\nShelburne must be gratifying to every friend of science and literature,\nnotwithstanding the subsequent separation. To such persons the\ncharacter of a nobleman who like Lord Shelburne, devotes so much of\nhis time, and so much of his income to the pursuits of knowledge,\nand the encouragement of those who eminently contribute to enlighten\nmankind, cannot but be interesting. Had he behaved dishonourably\nor disrespectfully to a man of Dr. Priestley\u2019s high station in the\nliterary world, it would have been an argument that science and\nliterature were ineffectual to soften the pride of titled opulence and\nhereditary rank. But Ovid has observed justly, (_ingenuas didicisse\nfideliter Artes, emollit mores nec sinit esse feros_.)\n\nIt is right to mention an anecdote highly honourable to Lord Shelburne,\non the authority of Dr. Priestley. At the conclusion of the treaty\nof peace in 1783, negotiated by Lord Shelburne while he was in the\nministry, a strong opposition was expected, particularly from his\nformer coadjutors who soon after the death of Lord Rockingham had\nseceded from Lord Shelburne\u2019s administration. It was suggested to this\nnobleman, that it was customary for the minister for the time being\nto let it be understood among the mutes of the ministerial members,\nthat they might expect the usual douceur for their votes on such an\noccasion. Some light might be thrown on the nature and quantum of\nthis douceur, by the list of ministerial rewards distributed at the\nclose of each session, as stated publicly to the house of Commons\nby the late Sir George Saville. Lord Shelburne without hesitation\nrefused compliance; and declared that if his peace could not obtain\nthe unbought approbation of the house, it might take its chance. The\nconsequence was that although the address was carried in the Lords by\n72 to 59 it was lost in the Commons by 224 to 208.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nThe greatest part of the time that I spent with Lord Shelburne I passed\nwith much satisfaction, his Lordship always behaving to me with uniform\npoliteness, and his guests with respect. But about two years before I\nleft him, I perceived evident marks of dissatisfaction, though I never\nunderstood the cause of it; and until that time he had been even lavish\non all occasions in expressing his satisfaction in my society to our\ncommon friends. When I left him, I asked him whether he had any fault\nto find with my conduct, and he said _none_.\n\nAt length, however, he intimated to Dr. Price, that he wished to give\nme an establishment in Ireland, where he had large property. This gave\nme an opportunity of acquainting him, that if he chose to dissolve the\nconnexion, it should be on the terms expressed in the writings which we\nmutually signed when it was formed, in consequence of which I should\nbe entitled to an annuity of an hundred and fifty pounds, and then\nI would provide for myself, and to this he readily acceded. He told\nDr. Price that he wished our separation to be amicable, and I assured\nhim that nothing should be wanting on my part to make it truly so.\nAccordingly, I expected that he would receive my visits when I should\nbe occasionally in London, but he declined them.\n\nHowever, when I had been some years settled at Birmingham, he sent\nan especial messenger, and common friend, to engage me again in his\nservice, having, as that friend assured me, a deep sense of the loss\nof Lord Ashburton (Mr. Dunning) by death, and of Colonel Barre by\nhis becoming almost blind, and his want of some able and faithful\nfriend, such as he had experienced in me; with other expressions more\nflattering than those. I did not chuse, however, on any consideration,\nto leave the very eligible situation in which I now am, but expressed\nmy readiness to do him any service in my power. His Lordship\u2019s\nenemies have insinuated that he was not punctual in the payment of my\nannuity; but the contrary is true: Hitherto nothing could have been\nmore punctual, and I have no reason to suppose that it will ever be\notherwise.\n\nAt Calne I had another son born to me, whom, at Lord Shelburne\u2019s\nrequest, I called Henry.\n\nIt was at the time of my leaving Lord Shelburne that I found the\ngreat value of Mr. and Mrs. Lindsey\u2019s friendship, in such a manner as\nI certainly had no expectation of when our acquaintance commenced;\nespecially by their introducing me to the notice of Mrs. Rayner, one of\nhis hearers, and most zealous friends.\n\nNotwithstanding my allowance from Lord Shelburne was larger than that\nwhich I had at Leeds, yet my family growing up, and my expences, on\nthis and other accounts, increasing more than in proportion, I was\nbarely able to support my removal. But my situation being intimated to\nMrs. Rayner, besides smaller sums, with which she occasionally assisted\nme, she gave me an hundred guineas to defray the expence of my removal,\nand deposited with Mrs. Lindsey, which she soon after gave up to me,\nfour hundred guineas, and to this day has never failed giving me every\nyear marks of her friendship. Her\u2019s is, indeed, I seriously think,\none of the first christian characters that I was ever acquainted\nwith, having a cultivated comprehensive mind, equal to any subject\nof theology or metaphysics, intrepid in the cause of truth, and most\nrationally pious.\n\nSpending so much of my time in London was the means of increasing my\nintimacy with both Mr. Lindsey and Mr. Lee, our common friend; who\namidst the bustle of politics, always preserved his attachment to\ntheology, and the cause of truth. The Sunday I always spent with Mr.\nLindsey, attending the service of his chapel, and sometimes officiating\nfor him; and with him and Mrs. Lindsey I generally spent the evening of\nthat day at Mr. Lee\u2019s who then admitted no other company, and seldom\nhave I enjoyed society with more relish.\n\nMy winter\u2019s residence in London was the means of improving my\nacquaintance with Dr. Franklin. I was seldom many days without seeing\nhim, and being members of the same club, we constantly returned\ntogether. The difference with America breaking out at this time, our\nconversation was chiefly of a political nature; and I can bear witness,\nthat he was so far from promoting, as was generally supposed, that\nhe took every method in his power to prevent a rupture between the\ntwo countries. He urged so much the doctrine of forbearance, that for\nsome time he was unpopular with the Americans on that account, as too\nmuch a friend to Great Britain. His advice to them was to bear every\nthing for the present, as they were sure in time to out grow all their\ngrievances; as it could not be in the power of the mother country to\noppress them long.\n\nHe dreaded the war, and often said that, if the difference should come\nto an open rupture, it would be a war of _ten years_, and he should\nnot live to see the end of it. In reality the war lasted near eight\nyears but he did live to see the happy termination of it. That the\nissue would be favorable to America, he never doubted. The English,\nhe used to say, may take all our great towns, but that will not give\nthem possession of the country. The last day that he spent in England,\nhaving given out that he should leave London the day before, we passed\ntogether, without any other company; and much of the time was employed\nin reading American newspapers, especially accounts of the reception\nwhich the _Boston port bill_ met with in America; and as he read\nthe addresses to the inhabitants of Boston from the places in the\nneighbourhood, the tears trickled down his cheeks.[16]\n\nIt is much to be lamented, that a man of Dr. Franklin\u2019s general good\ncharacter, and great influence, should have been an unbeliever in\nchristianity, and also have done so much as he did to make others\nunbelievers. To me, however, he acknowledged that he had not given\nso much attention as he ought to have done to the evidences of\nchristianity, and desired me to recommend to him a few treatises on\nthe subject, such as I thought most deserving of his notice, but not\nof great length, promising to read them, and give me his sentiments\non them. Accordingly, I recommended to him Hartley\u2019s evidences of\nchristianity in his Observations on Man, and what I had then written\non the subject in my Institutes of natural and revealed religion. But\nthe American war breaking out soon after, I do not believe that he ever\nfound himself sufficiently at leisure for the discussion. I have kept\nup a correspondence with him occasionally ever since, and three of his\nletters to me were, with his consent, published in his Miscellaneous\nWorks, in quarto. The first of them, written immediately on his landing\nin America, is very striking.\n\n[16] For two letters written by my father relating to Dr. Franklin and\nMr. Burke see appendix No. 4.\n\nAbout three years before the dissolution of my connection with Lord\nShelburne, Dr. Fothergill, with whom I had always lived on terms of\nmuch intimacy, having observed, as he said, that many of my experiments\nhad not been carried to their proper extent on account of the expence\nthat would have attended them, proposed to me a subscription from\nhimself and some of his friends, to supply me with whatever sums I\nshould want for that purpose, and named a hundred pounds per annum.\nThis large subscription I declined, lest the discovery of it (by the\nuse that I should, of course, make of it) should give umbrage to Lord\nShelburne, but I consented to accept of 40 \u00a3. per annum, which from\nthat time he regularly paid me, from the contribution of himself, Sir\nTheodore Jansen, Mr. Constable, and Sir George Saville.\n\nOn my leaving Lord Shelburne, which was attended with the loss of\none half of my income, Dr. Fothergill proposed an enlargement of my\nallowance for my experiments, and likewise for my maintenance, without\nbeing under the necessity of giving my time to pupils, which I must\notherwise have done. And, considering the generosity with which this\nvoluntary offer was made by persons who could well afford it, and who\nthought me qualified to serve the interests of science, I thought it\nright to accept of it; and I preferred it to any pension from the\ncourt, offers of which were more than once made by persons who thought\nthey could have procured one for me.\n\nAs it was my wish to do what might be in my power to shew my gratitude\nto my friends and benefactors that suggested the idea of writing\nthese Memoirs, I shall subjoin a list of their names. Some of the\nsubscriptions were made with a view to defray the expence of my\nexperiments only; but the greater part of the subscribers were persons\nwho were equally friends to my theological studies.\n\nThe persons who made me this regular annual allowance were Dr. Watson\nand his son, Mr. Wedgwood, Mr. Moseley, Mr. S. Salte, Mr. Jeffries, Mr.\nRadcliffe, Mr. Remington, Mr. Strutt of Derby, Mr. Shore, Mr. Reynolds\nof Paxton, Messrs. Galton, father and son, and the Rev. Mr. Simpson.\n\nBesides the persons whose names appear in this list, as regular\nsubscribers, there were other persons who, without chusing to be known\nas such, contributed no less to my support, and some considerably more.\n\nMy chief benefactress was Mrs. Rayner, and next to her Dr. Heberden,\nequally distinguished for his love of religious truth, and his zeal\nto promote science. Such also is the character of Mr. Tayleur of\nShrewsbury, who has at different times remitted me considerable sums,\nchiefly to defray the expences incurred by my theological inquiries and\npublications.\n\nMr. Parker of Fleet street very generously supplied me with every\ninstrument that I wanted in glass, particularly a capital burning\nlens,[17] sixteen inches in diameter. All his benefactions in this way\nwould have amounted to a considerable sum. Mr. Wedgwood also, besides\nhis annual benefaction, supplied me with every thing that I wanted\nmade of pottery, such as retorts, tubes, &c. which the account of my\nexperiments will shew to have been of great use to me.\n\n[17] Though his sight was not much worse than before during the last ten\nyears of his life it had been much injured by his experiments with the\nburning Lens of which he made much use in summer time.\n\nOn my removal to Birmingham commenced my intimacy with Mr. William\nRussell, whose public spirit, and zeal in every good cause, can hardly\nbe exceeded. My obligations to him were various and constant, so as not\nto be estimated by sums of money. At his proposal I doubt not, some of\nthe heads of the congregation made me a present of two hundred pounds,\nto assist me in my theological publications.\n\nMr. Lee shewed himself particularly my friend at the time that I left\nLord Shelburne, assisting me in the difficulties with which I was\nthen pressed, and continuing to befriend me afterwards by seasonable\nbenefactions. By him it was hinted to me during the administration of\nLord Rockingham, with whom he had great influence, that I might have\na pension from the government, to assist in defraying the expence of\nmy experiments. Another hint of the same kind was given me in the\nbeginning of Mr. Pitt\u2019s administration by a Bishop in whose power\nit was to have procured it from him. But in both cases I declined\nthe overture, wishing to preserve myself independent of every thing\nconnected with the court, and preferring the assistance of generous and\nopulent individuals, lovers of science, and also lovers of liberty.\nWithout assistance I could not have carried on my experiments at all,\nexcept on a very small scale, and under great disadvantages.\n\nMr. Galton, before I had any opportunity of being personally\nacquainted with him, had, on the death of Dr. Fothergill, taken up his\nsubscription. His son did the same, and the friendship of the latter\nhas added much to the happiness of my situation here.[18] Seldom, if\never, have I known two persons of such cultivated minds, pleasing\nmanners, and liberal dispositions, as he and Mrs. Galton. The latter\nhad the greatest attachment imaginable to my wife.\n\n[18] Birmingham.\n\nMr. Salte was zealous in promoting the subscriptions to my experiments,\nand moreover proposed to take one of my sons as an apprentice without\nany fee. But my brother-in-law making the same offer, I gave it the\npreference: Mr. Wedgwood, who has distinguished himself by his\napplication to philosophical pursuits, as well as by his great success\nin the improvement of his manufactory, was very zealous to serve me,\nand urged me to accept of a much larger allowance than I chose.\n\nThe favours that I received from my two brothers-in-law deserve my most\ngrateful acknowledgments. They acted the part of kind and generous\nrelations, especially at the time when I most wanted assistance. It was\nin consequence of Mr. John Wilkinson\u2019s proposal, who wished to have us\nnearer to him, that, being undetermined where to settle, I fixed upon\nBirmingham, where he soon provided a house for me.\n\nMy apology for accepting of these large benefactions is, that besides\nthe great expence of my philosophical and even my theological studies,\nand the education of three sons and a daughter, the reputation I had,\njustly or unjustly, acquired brought on me a train of expences not\neasy to describe, to avoid or to estimate; so that without so much as\nkeeping a horse (which the kindness of Mr. Russel made unnecessary) the\nexpence of housekeeping, &c. was more than double the amount of any\nregular income that I had.\n\nI consider my settlement at Birmingham as the happiest event in\nmy life, being highly favorable to every object I had in view,\nphilosophical or theological. In the former respect I had the\nconvenience of good workmen of every kind, and the society of persons\neminent for their knowledge of chemistry, particularly Mr. Watt, Mr.\nKeir, and Dr. Withering. These with Mr. Boulton, and Dr. Darwin, who\nsoon left us by removing from Litchfield to Derby, Mr. Galton, and\nafterwards Mr. Johnson of Kenelworth and myself dined together every\nmonth, calling ourselves the _lunar society_, because the time of our\nmeeting was near the full moon.\n\nWith respect to theology, I had the society of Mr. Hawkes, Mr. Blyth,\nand Mr. Scholefield, and his assistant Mr. Coates, and, while he lived\nMr. Palmer, before of Macclesfield. We met and drank tea together,\nevery fortnight. At this meeting we read all the papers that were sent\nfor the Theological Repository, which I revived some time after my\ncoming hither, and in general our conversation was of the same cast as\nthat with my fellow tutors at Warrington.\n\nWithin a quarter of a year of my coming to reside at Birmingham,\nMr. Hawkes resigned, and I had an unanimous invitation to succeed\nhim, as colleague with Mr. Blyth, a man of a truly christian temper.\nThe congregation we serve is the most liberal, I believe, of any in\nEngland; and to this freedom the unwearied labours of Mr. Bourne had\neminently contributed.\n\nWith this congregation I greatly improved my plan of catechizing\nand lecturing, and my classes have been well attended. I have also\nintroduced the custom of expounding the scriptures as I read them,\nwhich I had never done before, but which I would earnestly recommend to\nall ministers. My time being much taken up with my philosophical and\nother studies, I agreed with the congregation to leave the business\nof baptizing, and visiting the sick, to Mr. Blyth, and to confine my\nservices to the Sundays. I have been minister here between seven and\neight years, without any interruption of my happiness; and for this I\nam sensible I am in a great measure indebted to the friendship of Mr.\nRussell.\n\nHere I have never long intermitted my philosophical pursuits, and I\nhave published two volumes of experiments, besides communications to\nthe Royal Society.\n\nIn theology I have completed my friendly controversy with the Bishop\nof Waterford on the duration of Christ\u2019s ministry, I have published a\nvariety of single sermons, which, with the addition of a few others,\nI have lately collected, and published in one volume, and I am now\nengaged in a controversy of great extent, and which promises to be of\nconsiderable consequence, relating to the person of Christ.\n\nThis was occasioned by my _History of the Corruptions of Christianity_,\nwhich I composed and published presently after my settlement at\nBirmingham, the first section of which being rudely attacked in\nthe Monthly Review,[19] then by Dr. Horsely, and afterwards by Mr.\nHowes, and other particular opponents, I undertook to collect from\nthe original writers the state of opinions on the subject in the age\nsucceeding that of the apostles, and I have published the result\nof my investigation in my _History of early opinions concerning\nJesus Christ_, in four volumes octavo. This work has brought me more\nantagonists, and I now write a pamphlet annually in defence of the\nunitarian doctrine against all my opponents.\n\n[19] Written by Mr. Badcock. Mr. Badcock was originally a dissenting\nminister. He came to pay his respects to my father at Calne, at which\ntime he agreed with him upon most subjects. He afterwards found reason\nto change his opinions, or at least his conduct, connecting himself\nwith the Clergy of the Church of England, and became my father\u2019s bitter\nenemy.\n\nMy only Arian antagonist is Dr. Price, with whom the discussion of the\nquestion has proceeded with perfect amity. But no Arian has as yet\nappeared upon the ground to which I wish to confine the controversy,\nviz. the state of opinions in the primitive times, as one means of\ncollecting what was the doctrine of the apostles, and the true sense of\nscripture on the subject.\n\nSome years ago I resumed the _Theological Repository_ in which I first\nadvanced my objections to the doctrine of the miraculous conception of\nJesus, and his natural fallibility and peccability. These opinions gave\nat first great alarm, even to my best friends; but that is now in a\ngreat measure subsided. For want of sufficient sale, I shall be obliged\nto discontinue this Repository for some time.\n\nAt present I thank God I can say that my prospects are better than they\nhave ever been before, and my own health, and that of my wife, better\nestablished, and my hopes as to the dispositions and future settlement\nof my children satisfactory.\n\nI shall now close this account of myself with some observations of a\ngeneral nature, but chiefly an account of those circumstances for which\nI have more particular reason to be thankful to that good being who has\nbrought me hitherto, and to whom I trust I habitually ascribe whatever\nmy partial friends think the world indebted to me for,\n\nI. Not to enlarge again on what has been mentioned already, on the\nfundamental blessings of a religious and liberal education, I have\nparticular reason to be thankful for a happy temperament of body and\nmind, both derived from my parents. My father, grand father, and\nseveral branches of the family, were remarkably healthy, and long\nlived; and though my constitution has been far from robust, and was\nmuch injured by a consumptive tendency, or rather an ulcer in my lungs,\nthe consequence of improper conduct of myself when I was at school\n(being often violently heated with exercise, and as often imprudently\nchilled by bathing, &c.) from which with great difficulty I recovered,\nit has been excellently adapted to that studious life which has fallen\nto my lot.\n\nI have never been subject to head-achs, or any other complaints that\nare peculiarly unfavourable to study. I have never found myself less\ndisposed, or less qualified, for mental exertions of any kind at one\ntime of the day more than another; but all seasons have been equal to\nme, early or late, before dinner or after, &c. And so far have I been\nfrom suffering by my application to study, (which however has never\nbeen so close or intense as some have imagined) that I have found my\nhealth improving from the age of eighteen to the present time; and\nnever have I found myself more free from any disorder than at present.\nI must, however, except a short time preceding and following my leaving\nLord Shelburne, when I laboured under a bilious complaint, in which I\nwas troubled with gall stones, which sometimes gave me exquisite pain.\nBut by confining myself to a vegetable diet, I perfectly recovered;\nand I have now been so long free from the disorder that I am under no\napprehension of its return.\n\nIt has been a singular happiness to me, and a proof, I believe, of a\nradically good constitution, that I have always slept well, and have\nawaked with my faculties perfectly vigorous, without any disposition\nto drowsiness. Also, whenever I have been fatigued with any kind of\nexertion, I could at any time sit down and sleep; and whatever cause of\nanxiety I may have had, I have almost always lost sight of it when I\nhave got to bed; and I have generally fallen asleep as soon as I have\nbeen warm.[20]\n\nI even think it an advantage to me, and am truly thankful for it, that\nmy health received the check that it did when I was young; since a\nmuscular habit from high health, and strong spirits, are not, I think,\nin general accompanied with that sensibility of mind, which is both\nfavourable to piety, and to speculative pursuits.[21]\n\n[20] My father was an early riser. He never slept more than six hours.\nHe said he did not remember having lost a whole night\u2019s sleep but once,\nthough when awake he often had to suffer much from pain and sickness as\nwell as from other circumstances of a very afflictive nature.\n\n[21] Though not a muscular man he went through great exertion at\nvarious times of his life with activity. He walked very firmly, and\nexpeditiously.\n\nTo a fundamentally good constitution of body, and the being who gave\nit me, I owe an even chearfulness of temper, which has had but few\ninterruptions. This I inherit from my father, who had uniformly better\nspirits than any man that I ever knew, and by this means was as happy\ntowards the close of life, when reduced to poverty, and dependent upon\nothers, as in his best days; and who, I am confident, would not have\nbeen unhappy, as I have frequently heard him say, in a workhouse.\n\nThough my readers will easily suppose that, in the course of a life so\nfull of vicissitude as mine has been, many things must have occurred to\nmortify and discompose me, nothing has ever depressed my mind beyond\na very short period. My spirits have never failed to recover their\nnatural level, and I have frequently observed, and at first with some\nsurprize, that the most perfect satisfaction I have ever felt has been\na day or two after an event that afflicted me the most, and without any\nchange having taken place in the state of things. Having found this to\nbe the case after many of my troubles, the persuasion that it _would_\nbe so, after a new cause of uneasiness, has never failed to lessen the\neffect of its first impression, and together with my firm belief of\nthe doctrine of necessity, (and consequently that of every thing being\nordered for the best) has contributed to that degree of composure\nwhich I have enjoyed through life, so that I have always considered\nmyself as one of the happiest of men.\n\nWhen I was a young author, (though I did not publish any thing until I\nwas about thirty) strictures on my writings gave me some disturbance,\nthough I believe even then less than they do most others; but after\nsome time, things of that kind hardly affected me at all, and on\nthis account I may be said to have been well formed for public\ncontroversy.[22] But what has always made me easy in any controversy\nin which I have been engaged, has been my fixed resolution frankly\nto acknowledge any mistake that I might perceive I had fallen into.\nThat I have never been in the least backward to do this in matters of\nphilosophy, can never be denied.\n\n[22] Though Dr. Priestley has been considered as fond of controversy\nand that his chief delight consisted in it, yet it is far from being\ntrue. He was more frequently the defendant than the assailant. His\ncontroversies as far as it depended upon himself were carried to with\ntemper and decency. He was never malicious nor even sarcastic or\nindignant unless provoked.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nAs I have not failed to attend to the phenomena of my own mind, as\nwell as to those of other parts of nature, I have not been insensible\nof some great defects, as well as some advantages, attending its\nconstitution; having from an early period been subject to a most\nhumbling failure of recollection, so that I have sometimes lost all\nideas of both persons and things, that I have been conversant with.\nI have so completely forgotten what I have myself published, that in\nreading my own writings, what I find in them often appears perfectly\nnew to me, and I have more than once made experiments the results of\nwhich had been published by me.\n\nI shall particularly mention one fact of this kind; as it alarmed\nme much at the time, as a symptom of all my mental powers totally\nfailing me, until I was relieved by the recollection of things of a\nsimilar nature having happened to me before. When I was composing the\n_Dissertations_ which are prefixed to my _Harmony of the gospels_,\nI had to ascertain something which had been the subject of much\ndiscussion relating to the Jewish passover (I have now forgotten what\nit was) and for that purpose had to consult, and compare several\nwriters. This I accordingly did, and digested the result in the compass\nof a few paragraphs, which I wrote in short hand. But having mislaid\nthe paper, and my attention having been drawn off to other things, in\nthe space of a fortnight, I did the same thing over again; and should\nnever have discovered that I had done it twice, if, after the second\npaper was transcribed for the press, I had not accidentally found the\nformer, which I viewed with a degree of terror.\n\nApprized of this defect, I never fail to note down as soon as possible\nevery thing that I wish not to forget. The same failing has led me to\ndevise, and have recourse to, a variety of mechanical expedients to\nsecure and arrange my thoughts, which have been of the greatest use to\nme in the composition of large and complex works; and what has excited\nthe wonder of some of my readers, would only have made them smile if\nthey had seen me at work. But by simple and mechanical methods one man\nshall do that in a month, which shall cost another, of equal ability,\nwhole years to execute. This methodical arrangement of a large work\nis greatly facilitated by mechanical methods, and nothing contributes\nmore to the perspicuity of a large work, than a good arrangement of its\nparts.\n\nWhat I have known with respect to myself has tended much to lessen\nboth my admiration, and my contempt, of others. Could we have entered\ninto the mind of Sir Isaac Newton, and have traced all the steps\nby which he produced his great works, we might see nothing very\nextraordinary in the process. And great powers with respect to some\nthings are generally attended with great defects in others; and these\nmay not appear in a man\u2019s writings. For this reason it seldom happens\nbut that our admiration of philosophers and writers is lessened by a\npersonal knowledge of them.\n\nAs great excellencies are often balanced by great, though not apparent,\ndefects, so great and apparent defects are often accompanied by\ngreat, though not apparent, excellencies. Thus my defect in point of\nrecollection, which may be owing to a want of sufficient coherence in\nthe association of ideas formerly impressed, may arise from a mental\nconstitution more favourable to new associations; so that what I have\nlost with respect to memory, may have been compensated by what is\ncalled invention, or new and original combinations of ideas. This is\na subject that deserves attention, as well as every thing else that\nrelates to the affections of the mind.\n\nThough I have often composed much in a little time, it by no means\nfollows that I could have done much in a given time. For whenever I\nhave done much business in a short time, it has always been with the\nidea of having time more than sufficient to do it in; so that I have\nalways felt myself at ease, and I could have done nothing, as many can,\nif I had been hurried.\n\nKnowing the necessity of this state of my mind to the dispatch of\nbusiness, I have never put off any thing to the last moment; and\ninstead of doing that on the morrow which ought to be done to day,\nI have often blamed myself for doing to day what had better have\nbeen put off until to morrow; precipitancy being more my fault than\nprocrastination.\n\nIt has been a great advantage to me that I have never been under the\nnecessity of retiring from company in order to compose any thing. Being\nfond of domestic life, I got a habit of writing on any subject by the\nparlour fire, with my wife and children about me, and occasionally\ntalking to them, without experiencing any inconvenience from such\ninterruptions. Nothing but reading, or speaking without interruption,\nhas been any obstruction to me. For I could not help attending (as\nsome can) when others spoke in my hearing. These are useful habits,\nwhich studious persons in general might acquire, if they would; and\nmany persons greatly distress themselves, and others, by the idea that\nthey can do nothing except in perfect solitude or silence.\n\nAnother great subject of my thankfulness to a good providence is my\nperfect freedom from any embarrassment in my circumstances, so that,\nwithout any anxiety on the subject, my supplies have always been\nequal to my wants; and now that my expences are increased to a degree\nthat I had no conception of some years ago, I am a richer man than\nI was, and without laying myself out for the purpose. What is more,\nthis indifference about an increase of fortune has been the means of\nattaining it. When I began my experiments, I expended on them all the\nmoney I could possibly raise, carried on by my ardour in philosophical\ninvestigations, and entirely regardless of consequences, except so far\nas never to contract any debt; and if this had been without success,\nmy imprudence would have been manifest. But having succeeded, I was in\ntime more than indemnified for all that I had expended.\n\nMy theological studies, especially those which made it necessary for\nme to consult the Christian Fathers, &c. have also been expensive to\nme. But I have found my theological friends even more liberal than my\nphilosophical ones, and all beyond my expectations.\n\nIn reflecting on my past life I have often thought of two sayings of\nJacob. When he had lost one of his sons, and thought of other things\nthat were afflictions to him, he said, \u201call these things are against\nme,\u201d at the same time that they were in reality making for him. So\nthe impediment in my speech, and the difficulties of my situation at\nNeedham, I now see as much cause to be thankful for, as for the most\nbrilliant scenes in my life.\n\nI have also applied to myself what Jacob said on his return from Padan\nAram. \u201cWith my staff I went over this Jordan, and now I am become\ntwo bands;\u201d when I consider how little I carried with me to Needham\nand Nantwich, how much more I had to carry to Warrington, how much\nmore still to Leeds, how much more than that to Calne, and then to\nBirmingham.\n\nYet, frequently as I have changed my situation, and always for the\nbetter, I can truly say that I never wished for any change on my own\naccount. I should have been contented even at Needham, if I could have\nbeen unmolested, and had bare necessaries. This freedom from anxiety\nwas remarkable in my father, and therefore is in a manner hereditary\nto me; but it has been much increased by reflection; having frequently\nobserved, especially with respect to christian ministers, how often it\nhas contributed to embitter their lives, without being of any use to\nthem. Some attention to the improvement of a man\u2019s circumstances is,\nno doubt, right, because no man can tell what occasion he may have for\nmoney, especially if he have children, and therefore I do not recommend\nmy example to others. But I am thankful to that good providence which\nalways took more care of me than I ever took of myself.\n\nHitherto I have had great reason to be thankful with respect to my\nchildren, as they have a prospect of enjoying a good share of health,\nand a sufficient capacity for performing the duties of their stations.\nThey have also good dispositions, and as much as could be expected\nat their age, a sense of religion. But as I hope they will live to\nsee this work, I say the less on this subject, and I hope they\nwill consider what I say in their favour as an incitement to exert\nthemselves to act a christian and useful part in life; that the care\nthat I and their mother have taken of their instruction may not be lost\nupon them, and that they may secure a happy meeting with us in a better\nworld.\n\nI esteem it a singular happiness to have lived in an age and country,\nin which I have been at full liberty both to investigate, and by\npreaching and writing to propagate, religious truth; that though the\nfreedom I have used for this purpose was for some time disadvantageous\nto me, it was not long so, and that my present situation is such that\nI can with the greatest openness urge whatever appears to me to be\nthe truth of the gospel, not only without giving the least offence,\nbut with the intire approbation of those with whom I am particularly\nconnected.\n\nAs to the dislike which I have drawn upon myself by my writings,\nwhether that of the Calvinistic party, in or out of the church of\nEngland, those who rank with rational dissenters (but who have been\nexceedingly offended at my carrying my inquiries farther than they\nwished any person to do) or whether they be unbelievers, I am thankful\nthat it gives less disturbance to me than it does to themselves; and\nthat their dislike is much more than compensated by the cordial esteem\nand approbation of my conduct by a few, whose minds are congenial to my\nown, and especially that the number of such persons increases.\n\n                                                    [_Birmingham_, 1787.\n\n\n _A Continuation of the Memoirs, written at Northumberland in America\n in the beginning of the year 1795._\n\nWhen I wrote the preceding part of these Memoirs I was happy as must\nhave appeared in the course of them, in the prospect of spending the\nremainder of my life at Birmingham, where I had every advantage for\npursuing my studies, both philosophical and theological; but it pleased\nthe sovereign disposer of all things to appoint for me other removals,\nand the manner in which they were brought about were more painful to me\nthan the removals themselves. I am far, however, from questioning the\nwisdom or the goodness of the appointments respecting myself or others.\n\nTo resume the account of my pursuits where the former part of the\nMemoirs left it, I must observe that, in the prosecution of my\n_experiments_, I was led to maintain the doctrine of phlogiston against\nMr. Lavoisier and other chemists in France, whose opinions were adopted\nnot only by almost all the philosophers of that country, but by those\nin England and Scotland also. My friends, however, of the lunar society\nwere never satisfied with the Anti-phlogistic doctrine. My experiments\nand observations on this subject were published in various papers\nin the Philosophical Transactions. At Birmingham I also published a\nnew edition of my publications on the subject of _air_, and others\nconnected with it, reducing the six volumes to three, which, with his\nconsent, I dedicated to the prince of Wales.\n\nIn theology I continued my _defences of Unitarianism_, until it\nappeared to myself and my friends that my antagonists produced nothing\nto which it was of any consequence to reply. But I did not, as I had\nproposed, publish any address to the bishops, or to the legislature,\non the subject. The former I wrote, but did not publish. I left it,\nhowever, in the hands of Mr. Belsham when I came to America, that he\nmight dispose of it as he should think proper.\n\nThe pains that I took to ascertain the state of early opinions\nconcerning Jesus Christ, and the great misapprehensions I perceived\nin all the ecclesiastical historians, led me to undertake a _General\nHistory of the christian church to the fall of the Western empire_,\nwhich accordingly I wrote in two volumes octavo, and dedicated to Mr.\nShore. This work I mean to continue.\n\nAt Birmingham I wrote the _second_ part of my _Letters to a\nphilosophical Unbeliever_, and dedicated the whole to Mr. Tayleur\nof Shrewsbury, who had afforded me most material assistance in the\npublication of many of my theological works, without which, the sale\nbeing inconsiderable, I should not have been able to publish them at\nall.\n\nBefore I left Birmingham I preached a funeral sermon for my friend Dr.\nPrice, and another for Mr. Robinson of Cambridge, who died with us on a\nvisit to preach our annual charity school sermon. I also preached the\nlast annual sermon to the friends of the college at Hackney. All these\nthree sermons were published.\n\nAbout two years before I left Birmingham the question about the _test\nact_ was much agitated both in and out of parliament. This, however,\nwas altogether without any concurrence of mine. I only delivered, and\npublished, a sermon on the 5th of November 1789, recommending the\nmost peaceable method of pursuing our object. Mr. Madan, however, the\nmost respectable clergyman in the town, preaching and publishing a\nmost inflammatory sermon on the subject, inveighing in the bitterest\nmanner against the Dissenters in general, and myself in particular,\nI addressed a number of _familiar letters to the inhabitants of\nBirmingham_ in our defence. This produced a reply from him, and other\nletters from me. All mine were written in an ironical and rather a\npleasant manner, and in some of the last of them I introduced a farther\nreply to Mr. Burn, another clergyman in Birmingham, who had addressed\nto me _letters on the infallibility of the testimony of the Apostles\nconcerning the person of Christ_, after replying to his first set of\nLetters, in a separate publication.\n\nFrom these small pieces I was far from expecting any serious\nconsequences. But the Dissenters in general being very obnoxious to\nthe court, and it being imagined, though without any reason, that I\nhad been the chief promoter of the measures which gave them offence,\nthe clergy, not only in Birmingham, but through all England, seemed to\nmake it their business, by writing in the public papers, by preaching,\nand other methods, to inflame the minds of the people against me.\nAnd on occasion of the celebration of the anniversary of the French\nrevolution on July 14th, 1791, by several of my friends, but with which\nI had little to do, a mob encouraged by some persons in power, first\nburned the meeting house in which I preached, then another meeting\nhouse in the town, and then my dwelling house, demolishing my library,\napparatus, and, as far as they could, every thing belonging to me. They\nalso burned, or much damaged, the houses of many Dissenters, chiefly\nmy friends; the particulars of which I need not recite, as they will\nbe found in two _Appeals_ which I published on the subject written\npresently after the riots.\n\nBeing in some personal danger on this occasion, I went to London; and\nso violent was the spirit of party which then prevailed, that I believe\nI could hardly have been safe in any other place. There, however, I\nwas perfectly so, though I continued to be an object of troublesome\nattention until I left the country altogether. It shewed no small\ndegree of courage and friendship in Mr. William Vaughan to receive me\ninto his house, and also in Mr. Salte, with whom I spent a month at\nTottenham. But it shewed more in Dr. Price\u2019s congregation at Hackney,\nto invite me to succeed him, which they did, though not unanimously,\nsome time after my arrival in London.\n\nIn this situation I found myself as happy as I had been at Birmingham,\nand contrary to general expectation, I opened my lectures to young\npersons with great success, being attended by many from London; and\nthough I lost some of the hearers, I left the congregation in a better\nsituation than that in which I found it.\n\nOn the whole, I spent my time even more happily at Hackney than ever\nI had done before; having every advantage for my philosophical and\ntheological studies, in some respect superior to what I had enjoyed\nat Birmingham, especially from my easy access to Mr. Lindsey, and my\nfrequent intercourse with Mr. Belsham, professor of divinity in the\nNew College, near which I lived. Never, on this side the grave, do\nI expect to enjoy myself so much as I did by the fire side of Mr.\nLindsey, conversing with him and Mrs. Lindsey on theological and other\nsubjects, or in my frequent walks with Mr. Belsham, whose views of most\nimportant subjects were, like Mr. Lindsey\u2019s, the same with my own.\n\nI found, however, my society much restricted with respect to my\nphilosophical acquaintance; most of the members of the Royal Society\nshunning me on account of my religious or political opinions, so that I\nat length withdrew myself from them, and gave my reasons for so doing\nin the Preface to my _Observations and Experiments on the generation of\nair from water_, which I published at Hackney. For, with the assistance\nof my friends, I had in a great measure replaced my Apparatus, and had\nresumed my experiments, though after the loss of near two years.\n\nLiving in the neighbourhood of the New College, I voluntarily undertook\nto deliver the lectures to the pupils on the subject of _History and\nGeneral policy_, which I had composed at Warrington, and also on\n_Experimental Philosophy and Chemistry_, the _Heads_ of which I drew up\nfor this purpose, and afterwards published. In being useful to this\nInstitution I found a source of considerable satisfaction to myself.\nIndeed, I have always had a high degree of enjoyment in lecturing to\nyoung persons, though more on theological subjects than on any other.\n\nAfter the riots in Birmingham I wrote _an Appeal to the Public_ on\nthe subject, and that being replied to by the clergy of the place, I\nwrote a _second part_, to which, though they had pledged themselves\nto do it, they made no reply; so that, in fact the criminality of the\nmagistrates, and other principal High-church men at Birmingham, in\npromoting the riot, remains acknowledged. Indeed, many circumstances,\nwhich have appeared since that time, shew that the friends of the\ncourt, if not the prime ministers themselves, were the favourers of\nthat riot; having, no doubt, thought to intimidate the friends of\nliberty by the measure.\n\nTo my Appeal I subjoined various _Addresses_[23] that were sent to me\nfrom several descriptions of persons in England, and abroad; and from\nthem I will not deny that I received much satisfaction, as it appeared\nthat the friends of liberty, civil and religious, were of opinion that\nI was a sufferer in that cause. From France I received a considerable\nnumber of Addresses; and when the present _National Convention_ was\ncalled, I was invited by many of the departments to be a member of it.\nBut I thought myself more usefully employed at home, and that I was\nbut ill qualified for a business which required knowledge which none\nbut a native of the country could possess; and therefore declined the\nhonour that was proposed to me.\n\n[23] Many of these addresses have been published already. In the\nappendix to the present life (No. 7.) will be given an arranged list\nof the addresses to Dr. Priestley from various bodies of men at\nvarious times of his life; they illustrate the following positions so\nhonourable to his character, and so necessary to a just view of it.\n1st That wherever he officiated as a dissenting minister, he never\nquitted his situation but with the sincere regrets of those among whom\nhe had resided, and with parting testimonies of their affectionate\napprobation of his conduct. 2dly. That the riots at Birmingham called\nforth such abundant testimonies in favour of his moral conduct and\neminent usefulness; that the promoters of those riots whether in church\nor state can have no palliation in the eye of a discerning public for\ntheir proceedings, so far as he was the object of them. Those only use\nviolence in opposition to argument who have no argument to use. 3dly.\nThat his quitting England for America, was regarded as a national loss\nto Great Britain, and the circumstances which induced it, a national\ndisgrace. 4thly. That his reception in this country was as honourable\nas his friends had reason to expect: And his demeanour since his\nresidence here, has been such as to gain him encreased reputation and\nrespect, among those who knew nothing of him personally before his\narrival.\n\n                                                                   T. C.\n\n\nBut no addresses gave me so much satisfaction as those from my late\ncongregation, and especially of the young persons belonging to it, who\nhad attended my lectures. They are a standing testimony of the zeal and\nfidelity with which I did my duty with respect to them, and which I\nvalue highly.\n\nBesides congratulatory addresses, I received much pecuniary assistance\nfrom various persons, and bodies of men, which more than compensated\nfor my pecuniary losses, though what was awarded me at the Assizes\nfell two thousand pounds short of them. But my brother-in-law, Mr.\nJohn Wilkinson, from whom I had not at that time any expectation, in\nconsequence of my son\u2019s leaving his employment, was the most generous\non the occasion. Without any solicitation, he immediately sent me\nfive hundred pounds, and afterwards transferred to me ten thousand\npounds which he had deposited in the French funds, and until that be\nproductive, he allows me two hundred pounds per annum.\n\nAfter the riots, I published my _Letters to the Swedenborgian Society_,\nwhich I had composed, and prepared for the press just before.\n\nMr. Wakefield living in the neighbourhood of the College, and\npublishing at this time his objections to _public worship_, they made\na great impression on many of our young men, and in his Preface he\nreflected much on the character of Dr. Price. On both these accounts\nI thought myself called upon to reply to him, which I did in a series\nof _Letters to a young man_. But though he made several angry replies,\nI never noticed any of them. In this situation I also answered Mr.\nEvanson\u2019s _Observations on the dissonance of the Evangelists_ in\na _second set of Letters to a young man_. He also replied to me,\nbut I was satisfied with what I had done, and did not continue the\ncontroversy.\n\nBesides the _sermon_ which I delivered on my acceptance of the\ninvitation to the meeting at Hackney, in the preface to which I gave a\ndetailed account of my _system of catechizing_, I published two _Fast\nsermons_ for the years 1793 and 1794, in the latter of which I gave my\nideas of antient prophecies compared with the then state of Europe, and\nin the preface to it I gave an account of my reasons for leaving the\ncountry. I also published a _Farewell sermon_.[24]\n\nBut the most important of my publications in this situation were a\nseries of _Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of France on the\nsubject of Religion_. I thought that the light in which I then stood\nin that country gave me some advantage in my attempts to enforce the\nevidence of natural and revealed religion. I also published a set of\n_sermons on the evidences of revelation_, which I first delivered by\npublic notice, and the delivery of which was attended by great numbers.\nThey were printed just before I left England.\n\n[24] These reasons, as shewing the progress and state of his mind that\ninduced this new \u00e6ra of his life, will be inserted hereafter.\n\nAs the reasons for this step in my conduct are given at large in the\npreface to my Fast sermon, I shall not dwell upon them here. The\nbigotry of the country in general made it impossible for me to place\nmy sons in it to any advantage. William had been some time in France,\nand on the breaking out of the troubles in that country he had embarked\nfor America, where his two brothers met him. My own situation, if\nnot hazardous, was become unpleasant, so that I thought my removal\nwould be of more service to the cause of truth than my longer stay in\nEngland. At length, therefore, with the approbation of all my friends,\nwithout exception, but with great reluctance on my own part, I came to\nthat resolution; I being at a time of life in which I could not expect\nmuch satisfaction as to friends and society, comparable to that which\nI left, in which the resumption of my philosophical pursuits must be\nattended with great disadvantage, and in which success in my still more\nfavourite pursuit, the propagation of unitarianism, was still more\nuncertain. It was also painful to me to leave my daughter, Mr. Finch\nhaving the greatest aversion to leave his relations and friends in\nEngland.\n\nAt the time of my leaving England my son in conjunction with Mr.\nCooper, and other English emigrants, had a scheme for a large\nsettlement for the friends of liberty in general near the head of\nthe Susquehanna in Pennsylvania. And taking it for granted that it\nwould be carried into effect, after landing at New-York, I went to\nPhiladelphia, and thence came to Northumberland, a town the nearest to\nthe proposed settlement, thinking to reside there until some progress\nhad been made in it. The settlement was given up; but being here, and\nmy wife and myself liking the place, I have determined to take up my\nresidence here, though subject to many disadvantages. Philadelphia\nwas excessively expensive, and this comparatively a cheap place; and\nmy son\u2019s, settling in the neighbourhood, will be less exposed to\ntemptation, and more likely to form habits of sobriety and industry.\nThey will also be settled at much less expence than in or near a\nlarge town. We hope, after some time, to be joined by a few of our\nfriends from England, that a readier communication will be opened with\nPhiladelphia, and that the place will improve, and become more eligible\nin other respects.\n\nWhen I was at sea, I wrote _some observations on the cause of the\npresent prevalence of infidelity_, which I published, and prefixed to\na new edition of the _Letters to the Philosophers and Politicians of\nFrance_. I have also published my _Fast and Farewell sermons_, and\nmy _small tracts_ in defence of unitarianism, also a _Continuation\nof those Letters_, and a _third part of Letters to a Philosophical\nUnbeliever_, in answer to _Mr. Paine\u2019s Age of Reason_.\n\nThe observations on the prevalence of infidelity I have much enlarged,\nand intend soon to print; but I am chiefly employed on the Continuation\nof my History of the christian church.\n\nNorthumberland, March 24, 1795, in which I have completed the sixty\nsecond year of my age.\n\n\n\n\n                                   A\n\n                              CONTINUATION\n\n                                 OF THE\n\n                               _MEMOIRS_\n\n                                   OF\n\n                         DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY.\n\n                [_Written by his Son Joseph Priestley._]\n\n\nThus far the narrative is from my father\u2019s manuscript, and I regret\nextremely, with the reader, that it falls to my lot to give an account\nof the latter period of his valuable life.\n\nI entertained hopes at one time, that he would have continued it\nhimself; and he was frequently requested to do so, by me and many of\nhis friends in the course of the year preceding his death. He had then\nnearly compleated all the literary works he had in view, he had arrived\nat that period of life when, in imitation of his friend Mr. Lindsey,\nhe had determined not to preach again in public, and beyond which he\nprobably would not have ventured to publish any work without first\nsubjecting it to the inspection of some judicious friend.\n\nHe was requested also, in imitation of Courayer, to add at the close\nof his Memoirs a summary of his religious opinions. This would have\ncounteracted the suspicions entertained by some, that they had\nundergone a considerable change since his coming to America; and it\nwas thought by his friends, that such a brief and simple statement\nof all that appeared to him essential to the christian belief, and\nthe christian character, would attract the attention of many readers\npreviously indisposed to religion altogether, from not understanding\nits real nature, and judging of it only from the corrupt, adulterated,\nand complicated state, in which it is professed in all countries called\nchristian. Unbelievers in general have no conception of the perfect\ncoincidence of christianity with rational philosophy, of the sublime\nviews it affords of the divine benevolence, and how powerfully it acts\nto promote the pleasures and lessen the evils of the present life, at\nthe same time that it holds out to us a certain prospect of a future\nand endless state of enjoyment. It was suggested to him also, that as\nhis society through life had been singularly varied and extensive, and\nhis opportunities of attaining a general knowledge of the world, and\na particular knowledge of eminent political and literary characters,\nvery great, it would contribute much to the instruction and amusement\nof those into whose hands his Memoirs should fall, if they were\naccompanied with anecdotes of the principal characters with whom he\nhad been acquainted. For he had a fund of anecdote which he was never\nbackward to produce for the amusement of his friends, as occasions\nserved for introducing it. But his relations were never sarcastic or\nironical, or tended to disparage the characters of the persons spoken\nof, unless on subjects of manifest importance to the interests of\nsociety.\n\nHe meant to have complied with the above suggestions, but being at\nthat time very busily employed about his Comparison, and thinking his\nMemoirs of little value compared with the works about which he was then\nengaged, he put off the completion of his narrative, until his other\nworks should be ready for the press. Unfortunately this was too late.\nThe work he had in hand was not compleated until the 22d January, when\nhe was very weak and suffered greatly from his disorder, and he died on\nthe 6th of February following:\n\nThe reader will therefore make allowance for the difference between\nwhat these Memoirs might have been, and what they now are; and\nparticularly for the part which I venture to lay before the public as a\ncontinuation of his own account.\n\nThe reasons that induced him to quit England, and the progress of his\nopinions and inclinations respecting that last important \u00e6ra in his\nlife, have been but briefly stated in the preceding pages by himself.\nBut as many may peruse these Memoirs, into whose hands his appeal to\nthe public, occasioned by the riots at Birmingham, and his Fast sermon,\nin which he assigns at length his reasons for leaving his native\ncountry, are not likely to fall; I think it right to present to the\nreaders, in his own words the history of the motives that impelled him\nto exchange his residence in England for one in this country.\n\nThe disgraceful riots at Birmingham were certainly the chief cause that\nfirst induced my father to think of leaving England, though at the\ntime of his writing the second part of the Appeal, in August 1792, he\nhad not come to any determination on the subject. This appears from the\nfollowing passage which as it shews the progress of his discontent,\nand likewise the true state of his political opinions, particularly in\nrelation to the English form of government I shall quote.--\n\n\u201cIn this almost universal prevalence of a spirit so extremely hostile\nto me and my friends, and which would be gratified by my destruction,\nit cannot be any matter of surprise, that a son of mine should wish to\nabandon a country in which his father has been used as I have been,\nespecially when it is considered that this son was present at the riot\nin Birmingham, exerting himself all the dreadful night of the 14th\nof July, to save what he could of my most valuable property; that in\nconsequence of this his life was in imminent danger, and another young\nman was nearly killed because he was mistaken for him. This would\nprobably have been his fate, if a friend had not almost perforce kept\nhim concealed some days, so that neither myself nor his mother knew\nwhat was become of him. I had not, however, the ambition to court the\nhonour that has been shewn him by the national assembly of France,\nand even declined the proposal of his naturalization. At the most,\nI supposed it would have been done without any _eclat_; and I knew\nnothing of its being done in so very honourable a way until I saw the\naccount in the public newspapers. To whatever country this son of mine\nshall choose to attach himself, I trust that, from the good principles,\nand the spirit, that he has hitherto shewn, he will discharge the\nduties of a good citizen.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs to myself, I cannot be supposed to feel much attachment to a\ncountry in which I have neither found protection, nor redress. But\nI am too old, and my habits too fixed, to remove, as I own I should\notherwise have been disposed to do, to France, or America. The little\nthat I am capable of doing must be in England, where I shall therefore\ncontinue, as long as it shall please the supreme Disposer of all things\nto permit me[25].\n\n[25] \u201cSince this was written, I have myself, without any solicitation on\nmy part, been made a citizen of France, and moreover elected a member\nof the present Conventional Assembly. These, I scruple not to avow, I\nconsider as the greatest of honours; though, for the reasons which are\nnow made public, I have declined accepting the latter.\u201d\n\nIt might have been thought that, having written so much in defence of\nrevelation, and of Christianity in general, more perhaps than all the\nclergy of the church of England now living; this defence of a _common\ncause_ would have been received as some atonement for my demerits in\nwriting against civil establishments of christianity, and particular\ndoctrines. But had I been an open enemy of all religion, the animosity\nagainst me could not have been greater than it is. Neither Mr. Hume nor\nMr. Gibbon was a thousandth part so obnoxious to the clergy as I am; so\nlittle respect have my enemies for christianity itself, compared with\nwhat they have for their emoluments from it.\u201d\n\n\u201cAs to my supposed hostility to the principles of the civil\nconstitution of this country, there has been no pretence whatever for\ncharging me with any thing of the kind. Besides that the very catalogue\nof my publications will prove that my life has been devoted to\nliterature, and chiefly to natural philosophy and theology, which have\nnot left me any leisure for factious politics; in the few things that I\nhave written of a political nature, I have been an avowed advocate for\nour mixed government by _King, Lords, and Commons_; but because I have\nobjected to the ecclesiastical part of it, and to particular religious\ntenets, I have been industriously represented as openly seditious, and\nendeavouring the overthrow of every thing that is _fixed_, the enemy of\nall order, and of all government.\u201d\n\n\u201cEvery publication which bears my name is in favour of our present\nform of government. But if I had not thought so highly of it, and had\nseen reason for preferring a more republican form, and had openly\nadvanced that opinion; I do not know that the proposing to free\ndiscussion a system of government different from that of England, even\nto Englishmen, is any crime, according to the existing laws of this\ncountry. It has always been thought, at least, that our constitution\nauthorises the free proposal, and discussion, of all theoretical\nprinciples whatever, political ones not excepted. And though I might\nnow recommend a very different form of government to a people who had\nno previous prejudices or habits, the case is very different with\nrespect to one that _has_; and it is the duty of every good citizen\nto maintain that government of any country which the majority of its\ninhabitants approve, whether he himself should otherwise prefer it, or\nnot.\u201d\n\n\u201cThis, however, is all that can in reason be required of any man. To\ndemand more would be as absurd as to oblige every man, by the law of\nmarriage, to maintain that his particular wife was absolutely the\nhandsomest, and best tempered woman in the world; whereas it is surely\nsufficient if a man behave well to his wife, and discharge the duties\nof a good husband.\u201d\n\n\u201cA very great majority of Englishmen, I am well persuaded, are friends\nto what are called _high maxims of government_. They would choose to\nhave the power of the crown rather enlarged than reduced, and would\nrather see all the Dissenters banished than any reformation made in the\nchurch. A dread of every thing tending to _republicanism_ is manifestly\nincreased of late years, and is likely to increase still more. The very\nterm is become one of the most opprobrious in the English language.\nThe clergy (whose near alliance with the court, and the present royal\nfamily, after having been almost a century hostile to them, is a\nremarkable event in the present reign) have contributed not a little\nto that leaning to arbitrary power in the crown which has lately been\ngrowing upon us. They preach up the doctrine of passive obedience\nand non-resistance with as little disguise as their ancestors did in\nthe reign of the Stuarts, and their adulation of the king and of the\nminister is abject in the extreme. Both Mr. Madan\u2019s sermon and Mr.\nBurn\u2019s reply to my Appeal discover the same spirit; and any sentiment\nin favour of liberty that is at all bold and manly, such as, till of\nlate, was deemed becoming Englishmen and the disciples of Mr. Locke, is\nnow reprobated as seditious.\u201d\n\n\u201cIn these circumstances, it would be nothing less than madness\nseriously to attempt a change in the constitution, and I hope I am\nnot absolutely insane. I sincerely wish my countrymen, as part of the\nhuman race (though, I own, I now feel no particular attachment to\nthem on any other ground) the undisturbed enjoyment of that form of\ngovernment which they so evidently approve; and as I have no favour to\nask of them, or of their governors, besides mere protection, as to a\nstranger, while I violate no known law, and have not this to ask for\nany long term, I hope it will be granted me. If not, I must, like many\nothers, in all ages and all nations, submit to whatever the supreme\nBeing, whose eye is upon us all, and who I believe intends, and will in\nhis own time bring about, the good of all, shall appoint, and by their\nmeans execute.\u201d [_Appeal part II page 109. &c._]\n\nThe rising disinclination which the preceding passage shews had taken\nplace in my father\u2019s mind towards a longer residence in England, became\nconfirmed by various circumstances, particularly the determination of\nhis sons to emigrate to America. These, together with other reasons,\nthat finally influenced his conduct on the subject of removing to this\ncountry, are stated at large as I have before observed in the preface\nto his Fast sermon for the year 1794 and I cannot so properly give them\nas in his own words.\n\n\u201cThis discourse, and those on the _Evidences of Divine Revelation_,\nwhich will be published about the same time, being the last of my\nlabours in this country, I hope my friends, and the public, will\nindulge me while I give the reasons of their _being_ the last, in\nconsequence of my having at length, after much hesitation, and now\nwith reluctance, come to a resolution to leave this kingdom.\n\nAfter the riots in Birmingham, it was the expectation, and evidently\nthe wish, of many persons, that I should immediately fly to France,\nor America. But I had no consciousness of guilt to induce me to\nfly my country[26]. On the contrary, I came directly to London, and\ninstantly, by means of my friend Mr. Russell, signified to the king\u2019s\nministers, that I _was_ there, and ready, if they thought proper, to\nbe interrogated on the subject of the riot. But no notice was taken of\nthe message.\n\n[26] If, instead of flying from lawless violence, I had been flying\nfrom public justice, I could not have been pursued with more rancour,\nnor could my friends have been more anxious for my safety. One man,\nwho happened to see me on horseback on one of the nights in which I\nescaped from Birmingham, expressed his regret that he had not taken me,\nexpecting probably some considerable reward, as he said, it was so easy\nfor him to have done it. My friends earnestly advised me to disguise\nmyself as I was going to London. But all that was done in that way was\ntaking a place for me in the mail coach, which I entered at Worcester,\nin another name than my own. However, the friend who had the courage to\nreceive me in London had thought it necessary to provide a dress that\nshould disguise me, and also a method of making my escape, in case the\nhouse should have been attacked on my account; and for some time my\nfriends would not suffer me to appear in the streets.\n\nIll treated as I thought I had been, not merely by the populace of\nBirmingham, for they were the mere tools of their superiors, but by\nthe country in general, which evidently exulted in our sufferings, and\nafterwards by the representatives of the nation, who refused to inquire\ninto the cause of them, I own I was not without deliberating upon the\nsubject of emigration; and several flattering proposals were made me,\nespecially from France, which was then at peace within itself, and with\nall the world; and I was at one time much inclined to go thither, on\naccount of its nearness to England, the agreeableness of its climate,\nand my having many friends there.\n\nBut I likewise considered that, if I went thither I should have no\nemployment of the kind to which I had been accustomed; and the season\nof active life not being, according to the course of nature, quite\nover, I wished to make as much use of it as I could. I therefore\ndetermined to continue in England, exposed as I was not only to\nunbounded obloquy and insult, but to every kind of outrage; and after\nmy invitation to succeed my friend Dr. Price, I had no hesitation\nabout it. Accordingly I took up my residence where I now am, though\nso prevalent was the idea of my insecurity, that I was not able to\ntake the house in my own name; and when a friend of mine took it in\n_his_, it was with much difficulty that, after some time, the landlord\nwas prevailed upon to transfer the lease to me. He expressed his\napprehensions, not only of the house that I occupied, being demolished,\nbut also a capital house in which he himself resides, at the distance\nof no less than twenty miles from London, whither he supposed the\nrioters would go next, merely for suffering me to live in a house of\n_his_.\n\nBut even this does not give such an idea of the danger that not only\nmyself, but every person, and every thing, that had the slightest\nconnection with me, were supposed to be in, as the following. The\nmanagers of one of the principal charities among the Dissenters applied\nto me to preach their annual sermon, and I had consented. But the\ntreasurer a man of fortune, who knew nothing more of me than my name,\nwas so much alarmed at it, that he declared he could not sleep. I\ntherefore, to his great relief, declined preaching at all.\n\nWhen it was known that I was settled where I now am, several of my\nfriends, who lived near me, were seriously advised to remove their\npapers, and other most valuable effects, to some place of greater\nsafety in London. On the 14th of July, 1792, it was taken for granted\nby many of the neighbours, that my house was to come down, just as\nat Birmingham the year before. When the Hackney association was\nformed, several servants in the neighbourhood actually removed their\ngoods; and when there was some political meeting at the house of Mr.\nBreillat, though about two miles from my house, a woman whose daughter\nwas servant in the house contiguous to mine, came to her mistress,\nto entreat that she might be out of the way; and it was not without\nmuch difficulty that she was pacified, and prevailed upon to let her\ncontinue in the house, her mistress saying that she was as safe as\nherself.\n\nOn several other occasions the neighbourhood has been greatly alarmed\non account of my being so near them. Nor was this without apparent\nreason. I could name a person, and to appearance a reputable tradesman,\nwho, in the company of his friends, and in the hearing of one of my\nlate congregation at Birmingham, but without knowing him to be such,\ndeclared that, in case of any disturbance, they would immediately come\nto Hackney, evidently, for the purpose of mischief. In this state of\nthings, it is not to be wondered at, that of many servants who were\nrecommended to me, and some that were actually hired, very few could,\nfor a long time, be prevailed upon to live with me.\n\nThese facts not only shew how general was the idea of my particular\ninsecurity in this country; but what is of much more consequence, and\nhighly interesting to the country at large, an idea of the general\ndisposition to rioting and violence that prevails in it, and that the\nDissenters are the objects of it. Mr. Pitt very justly observed, in\nhis speech on the subject of the riots at Birmingham, that it was \u201cthe\neffervescence of the public mind.\u201d Indeed the effervescible matter\nhas existed in this country ever since the civil wars in the time of\nCharles I. and it was particularly apparent in the reign of Queen Anne.\nBut the power of government under the former princes of the House of\nHanover prevented its doing any mischief. The late events shew that\nthis power is no longer exerted as it used to be, but that, on the\ncontrary there prevails an idea, well or ill founded, that tumultuary\nproceedings against Dissenters will not receive any effectual\ndiscouragement. After what has taken place with respect to Birmingham,\nall idea of much hazard for insulting and abusing the Dissenters is\nentirely vanished; whereas the disposition to injure the Catholics was\neffectually checked by the proceedings of the year 1780. From that time\n_they_ have been safe, and I rejoice in it. But from the year 1791, the\nDissenters have been more exposed to insult and outrage than ever.\n\nHaving fixed myself at Clapton; unhinged as I had been, and having lost\nthe labour of several years; yet flattering myself that I should end my\ndays here, I took a long lease of my house, and expended a considerable\nsum in improving it. I also determined, with the assistance of my\nfriends, to resume my philosophical and other pursuits; and after an\ninterruption amounting to about two years, it was with a pleasure that\nI cannot describe, that I entered my new laboratory, and began the most\ncommon preparatory processes, with a view to some original inquiries.\nWith what success I have laboured, the public has already in some\nmeasure seen, and may see more hereafter.\n\nBut though I did not choose (notwithstanding I found myself exposed to\ncontinual insult) to leave my native country, I found it necessary to\nprovide for my sons elsewhere. My eldest son was settled in a business,\nwhich promised to be very advantageous, at Manchester; but his partner\nthough a man of liberality himself, informed him, on perceiving\nthe general prevalence of the spirit which produced the riots in\nBirmingham, that, owing to his relationship to _me_, he was under the\nnecessity of proposing a separation, which accordingly took place.\n\nOn this he had an invitation to join another connexion, in a business\nin which the spirit of party could not have much affected him; but he\ndeclined it. And after he had been present at the assizes at Warwick,\nhe conceived such an idea of this country, that I do not believe any\nproposal, however advantageous, would have induced him to continue in\nit; so much was he affected on perceiving his father treated as I had\nbeen.\n\nDetermining to go to America, where he had no prospect but that of\nbeing a farmer, he wished to spend a short time with a person who had\ngreatly distinguished himself in that way, and one who from his own\ngeneral principles, and his friendship for myself, would have given him\nthe best advice and assistance in his power. He, however, declined it,\nand acknowledged some time after, that had it been known, as it must\nhave been, to his landlord, that he had a son of _mine_ with him, he\nfeared he should have been turned out of his farm.\n\nMy second son who was present both at the riot, and the assizes, felt\nmore indignation still, and willingly listened to a proposal to settle\nin France; and there his reception was but too flattering. However, on\nthe breaking out of the war with this country, all mercantile prospects\nbeing suspended, he wished to go to America. There his eldest and\nyoungest brother have joined him, and they are now looking out for a\nsettlement, having as yet no fixed views.\n\nThe necessity I was under of sending my sons out of this country,\nwas my principal inducement to send the little property that I had\nout of it too; so that I had nothing in England besides my library,\napparatus, and household goods. By this, I felt myself greatly\nrelieved, it being of little consequence where a man already turned\nsixty ends his days. Whatever good or evil I have been capable of, is\nnow chiefly done; and I trust that the same consciousness of integrity,\nwhich has supported me hitherto, will carry me through any thing that\nmay yet be reserved for me. Seeing, however, no great prospect of doing\nmuch good, or having much enjoyment, here, I am now preparing to follow\nmy sons; hoping to be of some use to them in their present unsettled\nstate, and that Providence may yet, advancing in years as I am, find me\nsome sphere of usefulness along with them.\n\nAs to the great odium that I have incurred, the charge of _sedition_,\nor my being an enemy to the constitution or peace of my country, is\na mere pretence for it; though it has been so much urged, that it is\nnow generally believed, and all attempts to undeceive the public with\nrespect to it avail nothing at all. The whole course of my studies,\nfrom early life, shews how little _politics_ of any kind have been my\nobject. Indeed to have written so much as I have in _theology_, and to\nhave done so much in _experimental philosophy_, and at the same time\nto have had my mind occupied, as it is supposed to have been, with\nfactious politics, I must have had faculties more than human. Let any\nperson only cast his eye over the long list of my publications, and he\nwill see that they relate almost wholly to theology, philosophy, or\ngeneral literature.\n\nI did, however, when I was a younger man, and before it was in my\npower to give much attention to philosophical pursuits, write a\nsmall anonymous political pamphlet, on the _State of Liberty in this\nCountry_, about the time of Mr. Wilkes\u2019s election for Middlesex, which\ngained me the acquaintance, and I may say the friendship, of Sir George\nSavile, and which I had the happiness to enjoy as long as he lived.\n\nAt the request also of Dr. Franklin and Dr. Fothergill, I wrote an\naddress to the Dissenters on the subject of the approaching rupture\nwith America, a pamphlet which Sir George Savile, and my other friends,\ncirculated in great numbers, and it was thought with some effect.\n\nAfter this I entirely ceased to write any thing on the subject of\npolitics, except as far as the business of the _Test Act_, and of\n_Civil Establishments of Religion_, had a connection with politics. And\nthough, at the recommendation of Dr. Price, I was presently after this\ntaken into the family of the Marquis of Landsdowne, and I entered into\nalmost all his views, as thinking them just and liberal, I never wrote\na single political pamphlet, or even a paragraph in a newspaper, all\nthe time that I was with him, which was seven years.\n\nI never preached a political sermon in my life; unless such as, I\nbelieve all Dissenters usually preach on the fifth of November, in\nfavour of _civil and religious liberty_, may be said to be political.\nAnd on these occasions, I am confident, that I never advanced any\nsentiment but such as, until of late years, would have tended to\nrecommend, rather than render me obnoxious, to those who direct the\nadministration of this country. And the doctrines which I adopted when\nyoung, and which were even popular then (except with the clergy, who\nwere at that time generally disaffected to the family on the throne)\nI cannot abandon, merely because the times are so changed, that they\nare now become unpopular, and the expression and communication of them\nhazardous.\n\nFarther, though I by no means disapprove of societies for political\ninformation, such as are now every where discountenanced, and generally\nsuppressed, I never was a member of any of them; nor, indeed, did I\never attend any public meeting, if I could decently avoid it, owing to\nhabits acquired in studious and retired life.\n\nFrom a mistake of my talents and disposition, I was invited by many of\nthe departments in France, to represent them in the present National\nConvention, after I had been made a citizen of France, on account of my\nbeing considered as one who had been persecuted for my attachment to\nthe cause of liberty here. But though the invitation was repeated with\nthe most flattering importunity, I never hesitated about declining it.\n\nI can farther say with respect to politics, concerning which I believe\nevery Englishman has some opinion or other (and at present, owing to\nthe peculiar nature of the present war, it is almost the only topic of\ngeneral conversation) that, except in company, I hardly ever think of\nthe subject, my reading, meditation, and writing, being almost wholly\nengrossed by theology, and philosophy; and of late, as for many years\nbefore the riots in Birmingham, I have spent a very great proportion of\nmy time, as my friends well know, in my laboratory.\n\nIf, then, my real crime has not been _sedition_, or _treason_, what\nhas it been? For every _effect_ must have some adequate _cause_, and\ntherefore the odium that I have incurred must have been owing to\nsomething in my declared sentiments, or conduct, that has exposed me to\nit. In my opinion, it cannot have been any thing but my open hostility\nto the doctrines of the established church, and more especially to all\ncivil establishments of religion whatever. This has brought upon me the\nimplacable resentment of the great body of the clergy; and they have\nfound other methods of opposing me besides _argument_, and that use\nof the _press_ which is equally open to us all. They have also found\nan able ally and champion in Mr. Burke, who (without any provocation\nexcept that of answering his book on the French Revolution) has taken\nseveral opportunities of inveighing against me, in a place where he\nknows I cannot reply to him, and from which he also knows that his\naccusation will reach every corner of the country, and consequently\nthousands of persons who will never read any writings of mine[27].\nThey have had another, and still more effectual vehicle of their\nabuse in what are called the _treasury newspapers_, and other popular\npublications.\n\n[27] Mr. Burke having said in the House of Commons, that \u201cI was made\na citizen of France on account of my declared hostility to the\nconstitution of this country,\u201d I, in the public papers, denied the\ncharge, and called upon him for the proofs of it. As he made no reply,\nI said, in the preface to my Fast Sermon of the last year, p. 9, that\n\u201cit sufficiently appeared that he had neither ability to maintain his\ncharge, nor virtue to retract it.\u201d A year more of silence on his part\nhaving now elapsed, this is become more evident than before.\n\nBy these and others means, the same party spirit which was the cause\nof the riots in Birmingham, has been increasing ever since, especially\nin that neighbourhood. A remarkable instance of this may be seen in\na _Letter_ addressed, but not sent, to me from _Mr. Foley, rector\nof Stourbridge_, who acknowledges the satisfaction that he and his\nbrethren have received from one of the grossest and coarsest pieces\nof abuse of me that has yet appeared, which, as a curious specimen of\nthe kind, I inserted in the _Appendix of my Appeal_, and in which I am\nrepresented as no better than Guy Fawkes, or the devil himself. This\nvery Christian divine recommends to the members of the established\nchurch to decline all commercial dealings with the Dissenters, as an\neffectual method of exterminating them. This method has been actually\nadopted in many parts of England. Also great numbers of the best\nfarmers and artizans in England have been dismissed because they\nwould not go to the established church. _Defoe\u2019s Shortest Way with\nthe Dissenters_[28] would have taught the friends of the church a more\neffectual method still. And yet this Mr. Foley, whom I never saw, and\nwho could not have had any particular cause of enmity to me, had, like\nMr. Madan of Birmingham, a character for liberality. What, then, have\nwe to expect from others, when we find so much bigotry and rancour in\nsuch men as these?\n\nMany times, by the encouragement of persons from whom better things\nmight have been expected, I have been burned in effigy along with Mr.\nPaine; and numberless insulting and threatening letters have been sent\nto me from all parts of the kingdom.[29] It is not possible for any\nman to have conducted himself more peaceably than I have done all the\ntime that I have lived at Clapton, yet it has not exempted me not only\nfrom the worst suspicions, but very gross insults. A very friendly\nand innocent club, which I found in the place, has been considered as\n_Jacobin_ chiefly on my account; and at one time there was cause of\napprehension that I should have been brought into danger for lending\none of Mr. Paine\u2019s books. But with some difficulty the neighbourhood\nwas satisfied that I was innocent.\n\n[28] A tract written in a grave ironical stile, advising to hang them\nall.\n\n[29] In one of these I was threatened with being burned alive before a\nslow fire.\n\nAs nothing had been paid to me on account of damages in the riot,\nwhen I published the second part of my _Appeal_ to the public on the\nsubject, it may be proper to say, that it was paid some time in the\nbeginning of the year 1793, with interest only from the first of\nJanuary of the same year, though the injury was received in July, 1791;\nwhen equity evidently required, that it ought to have been allowed from\nthe time of the riot, especially as, in all the cases, the allowance\nwas far short of the loss. In my case it fell short, as I have shewn,\nnot less than two thousand pounds. And the losses sustained by the\nother sufferers far exceeded mine. Public justice also required that,\nif the forms of law, local enmity or any other cause, had prevented\nour receiving full indemnification, it should have been made up to us\nfrom the public treasury; the great end of all civil government being\nprotection from violence, or an indemnification for it. Whatever we\nmight in equity claim, the country owes us, and, if it be just, will\nsome time or other pay, and with interest.\n\nI would farther observe, that since, in a variety of cases, money is\nallowed where the injury is not of a pecuniary nature, merely because\nno other compensation can be given, the same should have been done with\nrespect to me, on account of the destruction of my manuscripts, the\ninterruption of my pursuits, the loss of a pleasing and advantageous\nsituation, &c. &c. and had the injury been sustained by a _clergyman_,\nhe would, I doubt not, have claimed, and been allowed, very large\ndamages on this account. So far, however, was there from being any\nidea of the kind in _my_ favour, that my counsel advised me to make no\nmention of my manuscript _Lectures on the Constitution of England_,\na work about as large as that of Blackstone (as may be seen by the\nsyllabus of the particular lectures, sixty-three in all, published in\nthe first edition of my _Essay on a Course of liberal Education for\ncivil and active Life_) because it would be taken for granted that they\nwere of a seditious nature, and would therefore have been of disservice\nto me with the jury. Accordingly they were, in the account of my\nlosses, included in the article of so much _paper_. After these losses,\nhad I had nothing but the justice of my country to look to, I must have\nsunk under the burden, incapable of any farther exertions. It was the\nseasonable generosity of my friends that prevented this, and put it in\nmy power, though with the unavoidable loss of near two years, to resume\nmy former pursuits.\n\nA farther proof of the excessive bigotry of this country is, that,\nthough the clergy of Birmingham resenting what I advanced in the first\npart of my _Appeal_, replied to it, and pledged themselves to go\nthrough with the enquiry along with me, till the whole truth should\nbe investigated, they have made no reply to the _Second Part of my\nAppeal_, in which I brought specific charges against themselves, and\nother persons by name, proving them to have been the promoters and\nabettors of the riot; and yet they have as much respect shown to them\nas ever, and the country at large pays no attention to it. Had the\nclergy been the injured persons, and Dissenters the rioters, unable to\nanswer the charges brought against them, so great would have been the\ngeneral indignation at their conduct, that I am persuaded it would not\nhave been possible for them to continue in the country.\n\nI could, if I were so disposed, give my readers many more instances of\nthe bigotry of the clergy of the church of England with respect to me,\nwhich could not fail to excite, in generous minds, equal indignation\nand contempt; but I forbear.[30] Had I, however, foreseen what I am now\nwitness to, I certainly should not have made any attempt to replace\nmy library or apparatus, and I soon repented of having done it.\nBut this being done, I was willing to make some use of both before\nanother interruption of my pursuits. I began to philosophize, and make\nexperiments, rather late in life, being near forty, for want of the\nnecessary means of doing any thing in this way; and my pursuits have\nbeen much interrupted by removals (never indeed chosen by myself, but\nrendered necessary by circumstances) and my time being now short, I\nhoped to have had no occasion for more than one, and that a final,\nremove. But the circumstances above mentioned have induced me, though\nwith great and sincere regret, to undertake another, and to a greater\ndistance than any that I have hitherto made.\n\n[30] At a dinner of all the Prebendaries of a cathedral church, the\nconversation turning on the riots in Birmingham, and on a clergyman\nhaving said that if I were mounted on a pile of my publications, he\nwould set fire to them, and burn me alive, they all declared that they\nwould be ready to do the same.\n\nI profess not to be unmoved by the aspect of things exhibited in this\ndiscourse. But notwithstanding this, I should willingly have awaited my\nfate in my native country, whatever it had been, if I had not had sons\nin America, and if I did not think that a field of public usefulness,\nwhich is evidently closing upon me here, might open to more advantage\nthere.\n\nI own also that I am not unaffected by such unexampled punishments\nas those of Mr. Muir and my friend Mr. Palmer, for offences, which,\nif, in the eye of reason, they be any at all, are slight, and very\ninsufficiently proved; a measure so subversive of that freedom of\nspeaking and acting, which has hitherto been the great pride of\nBritons. But the sentence of Mr. Winterbotham, for delivering from\nthe pulpit what I am persuaded he never did deliver, and which,\nsimilar evidence might have drawn upon myself, or any other dissenting\nminister, who was an object of general dislike, has something in it\nstill more alarming[31]. But I trust that conscious innocence would\nsupport me as it does him, under whatever prejudiced and violent men\nmight _do_ to me, as well as _say_ of me. But I see no occasion to\nexpose myself to danger without any prospect of doing good, or to\ncontinue any longer in a country in which I am so unjustly become the\nobject of general dislike, and not retire to another, where I have\nreason to think I shall be better received. And I trust that the same\ngood Providence which has attended me hitherto, and made me happy in my\npresent situation, and all my former ones, will attend and bless me in\nwhat may still be before me. In all events, _The will of God be done_.\n\n[31] I trust that the friends of liberty, especially among the\nDissenters, will not fail to do every thing in their power to make\nMr. Winterbotham\u2019s confinement, and also the sufferings of Mr. Palmer\nand his companions, as easy to them as possible. Having been assisted\nin a season of persecution myself, I should be very ill deserving\nof the favours I have received, if I was not particularly desirous\nof recommending such cases as theirs to general consideration. Here\ndifference in religious sentiment is least of all to be attended to.\nOn the contrary, let those who in this respect differ the most from\nMr. Winterbotham, which is my own case, exert themselves the most in\nhis favour. When men of unquestionable integrity and piety suffer in\nconsequence of acting (as such persons always will do) from a principle\nof _conscience_, they must command the respect even of their enemies,\nif they also act from principle, though they be thereby led to proceed\nin an opposite direction.\n\nThe case of men of education and reflection (and who act from the best\nintentions with respect to the community) committing what only _state\npolicy_ requires to be considered as _crimes_, but which are allowed\non all hands to imply no moral turpitude, so as to render them unfit\nfor heaven and happiness hereafter, is not to be confounded with that\nof common felons. There was nothing in the conduct of Louis XIV. and\nhis ministers, that appeared so shocking, so contrary to all ideas of\njustice, humanity and decency, and that has contributed more to render\ntheir memory execrated, than sending such men as Mr. Marolles, and\nother eminent Protestants, who are now revered as saints and martyrs,\nto the galleys, along with the vilest miscreants. Compared with this,\nthe punishment of death would be mercy. I trust that, the Scots in\ngeneral will think these measures a disgrace to their country.\n\nI cannot refrain from repeating again, that I leave my native country\nwith real regret, never expecting to find any where else society so\nsuited to my disposition and habits, such friends as I have here (whose\nattachment has been more than a balance to all the abuse I have met\nwith from others) and especially to replace one particular Christian\nfriend, in whose absence I shall, for some time at least, find all\nthe world a blank. Still less can I expect to resume my favourite\npursuits, with any thing like the advantages I enjoy here. In leaving\nthis country I also abandon a source of maintenance, which I can but\nill bear to lose. I can, however truly say, that I leave it without\nany resentment, or ill-will. On the contrary, I sincerely wish my\ncountrymen all happiness; and when the time for reflection (which my\nabsence may accelerate) shall come, they will, I am confident, do me\nmore justice. They will be convinced that every suspicion they have\nbeen led to entertain to my disadvantage has been ill founded, and\nthat I have even some claim to their gratitude and esteem. In this\ncase, I shall look with satisfaction to the time when, if my life be\nprolonged, I may visit my friends in this country; and perhaps I may,\nnotwithstanding my removal for the present, find a grave (as I believe\nis naturally the wish of every man) in the land that gave me birth.\u201d\n\nOn the 8th day of April 1794, my father set sail from London, and\narrived at New-York on the 4th of June, where he staid about a\nfortnight. Many persons went to meet him upon his landing, and while\nhe staid at New-York he received addresses from various Societies, and\ngreat attention from many of the most respectable persons in the place.\nFrom thence he proceeded to Philadelphia, where he received an address\nfrom the American Philosophical Society. Independent of the above marks\nof respect, he was chosen by an unanimous vote of the Trustees of the\nUniversity of Philadelphia, professor of Chemistry. He was likewise\ninvited to return and stay at New-York, and open an Unitarian place\nof worship, which was to have been provided for him, and also to give\nLectures on Experimental Philosophy to one hundred subscribers at ten\ndollars each. These invitations indeed he did not receive until he had\nbeen settled some little time at Northumberland. These are sufficient\nproofs that the citizens of this country were not insensible to his\nmerit as a Philosopher, and that they esteemed him for the part he took\nin the politics of Europe. That he was not invited immediately on his\narrival to preach either at New-York or Philadelphia, was not from any\nwant of respect for his character, but because Unitarianism was in a\nmanner unknown, and by many ignorantly supposed to have some connection\nwith infidelity. The proper evidences of christianity, the corruptions\nit has suffered, the monstrous additions that have been engrafted\non its primitive simplicity, and the real state of the opinions of\nchristians in the first ages of the church, were subjects that had\nhardly ever been discussed in this country. The controversies that\nhad been carried on in England had not awakened attention here, and\ntherefore though my father was known as having suffered in consequence\nof his opposition to the established religion of his country, yet his\nparticular opinions were little understood. As his religious tenets\nbecame more known, these prejudices wore away, and independent of the\nproposal to open a place of Unitarian worship at New-York, mentioned\nabove, I shall have occasion to state the great reason he had to be\nsatisfied with the testimonies of respect paid to him, by the most\neminent persons in the country, not merely in his character as a\nPhilosopher, but as a preacher of the Gospel.\n\nAbout the middle of July 1794 my father left Philadelphia for\nNorthumberland, a town situated at the confluence of the North-East\nand West branches of the Susquehanna, and about 130 miles North-West\nof Philadelphia. I, and some other English gentlemen, had projected a\nsettlement of 300,000 acres of land, about fifty miles distant from\nNorthumberland. The subscription was filled chiefly by persons in\nEngland. Northumberland being at that time the nearest town to the\nproposed settlement, my father wished to see the place, and ascertain\nwhat conveniencies it would afford should he incline either to fix\nthere permanently, or only until the settlement should be sufficiently\nadvanced for his accommodation; he was induced likewise to retreat, at\nleast for the summer months, into the country, fearing the effects of\nthe hot weather in such a city as Philadelphia. He had not, as has been\nerroneously reported, the least concern in the projected settlement. He\nwas not consulted in the formation of the plan of it, nor had he come\nto any determination to join it had it been carried into effect.\n\nThe scheme of settlement was not confined to any particular class or\ncharacter of men, religious, or political. It was set on foot to be\nas it were a rallying point for the English, who were at that time\nemigrating to America in great numbers, and who it was thought, would\nbe more happy in society of the kind they had been accustomed to, than\nthey would be, dispersed, as they now are, through the whole of the\nUnited States. It was farther thought, that by the union of industry\nand capital, the wilderness would soon become cultivated and equal to\nany other part of the country in every thing necessary to the enjoyment\nof life. To promote this as much as possible, the original projectors\nof that scheme reserved only a few shares for themselves, for which\nthey paid the same as those who had no trouble or expence either in\nforming the plan, or carrying it into execution. This they did, with a\nview to take away all source of jealousy, and to increase the facility\nof settlement, by increasing the proportion of settlers to the quantity\nof land to be settled. Fortunately for the original proposers, the\nscheme was abandoned. It might and would have answered in a pecuniary\npoint of view, as the land now sells at double and treble the price\nthen asked for it, without the advantages which that settlement would\nhave given rise to; but the generality of Englishmen come to this\ncountry with such erroneous ideas, and, unless previously accustomed\nto a life of labour, are so ill qualified to commence cultivation in a\nwilderness, that the projectors would most probably have been subject\nto still more unfounded abuse than they have been, for their well meant\nendeavours to promote the interests of their countrymen.\n\nThe scheme of settlement thus failing, for reasons which it is not\nnecessary now to state, my father, struck with the beauty of the\nsituation of Northumberland, which is universally allowed to be equal\nif not superior to any in the state; believing that, from the nature of\nits situation, it was likely to become a great thoroughfare, and having\nreason to consider it as healthy as it was pleasant, the intermittents\nto which it has latterly been subject being then unknown, determined\nto settle there. Before he came to this resolution however, he had\nthe offer of the Professorship of Chemistry in the University of\nPennsylvania, before mentioned, which would probably have yielded him\n3000 dollars per annum, there being generally about 200 students in\nMedicine of whom about 150 attend the Chemical Lectures; as likewise\nthe offer of a situation as Unitarian Preacher and Lecturer in Natural\nPhilosophy as I have likewise mentioned before. At that time he had no\ninducement to settle at Northumberland contrary to his inclination,\nas his books and apparatus were still at Philadelphia, his sons had\nnot fixed upon any place of settlement for themselves, and neither\nhe, nor they, had purchased a single foot of land in the town or the\nneighbourhood of it.\n\nThe following reasons among others induced him to prefer a country to a\ncity life. He thought that if he undertook the duties of a professor,\nhe should not be so much at liberty to follow his favourite pursuits\nas he could wish, and that the expence of living at Philadelphia\nor New-York would counterbalance the advantages resulting from his\nsalary; and indeed, at that time he had no occasion to attend to any\npecuniary considerations, as he believed his income, calculating upon\nhis property in the French funds (which however from circumstances not\nnecessary to be stated in this place, never produced him any thing,)\nto be more than equal to his wants; but what had greater weight with\nhim than any thing else was that my mother, who had been harrassed in\nher mind ever since the riots at Birmingham, thought that by living in\nthe country, at a distance from the cities, she should be more likely\nto obtain that quiet of which she stood so much in need.\n\nSoon after his settlement at Northumberland, many persons, with a\nview that his qualifications as an instructor of youth should not be\nwholly lost to the country, concurred in a plan for the establishment\nof a college at Northumberland. To this scheme several subscribed from\nthis motive alone. Many of the principal landholders, partly from the\nabove and partly from motives of interest, contributed largely both\nin money and land, and there was a fair prospect, from the liberal\nprinciples upon which it was founded, that it would have been of very\ngreat advantage to the country. My father was requested to draw up a\nplan of the course of study he would recommend, as well as the rules\nfor the internal management of the institution, and he was appointed\nPresident. He however declined receiving any emolument, and proposed\ngiving such lectures as he was best qualified for, _gratis_; in the\nsame manner as he had done at Hackney, and he meant to have given\nto the institution the use of his library and apparatus, until the\nstudents could have been furnished with them by means of the funds\nof the college. In consequence of the unexpected failure of some of\nthe principal contributors, the scheme fell through at that time, and\nlittle more was done during my father\u2019s life time than to raise the\nshell of a convenient building.\n\nI shall in this place state, though I shall anticipate, in so doing,\nthat in the year 1803 a vacancy occurred in the University of\nPennsylvania, by the death of Dr. Euen, Principal of that institution.\nIt was intimated to my father by many of the Trustees, that in\ncase he would accept of the appointment, there was little doubt of\nhis obtaining it; Mr. M\u2019Kean, the present governor of the State of\nPennsylvania, being among others particularly anxious that he should\naccept of it. In addition to the reasons that had induced him to\ndecline the offer of the Professorship of Chemistry were to be added\nthe weak state of his health, which would have made the idea of his\nhaving any serious engagement to fulfil, very irksome to him; he\naccordingly declined it.\n\nHe had frequent intimations of other proposals of a similar nature that\nwould have been made to him, had it not become generally known, that he\ncould not accede to them from their being inconsistent with the plan of\nlife he had laid down for himself.\n\nI have been thus particular in the account of his reasons for settling\nat Northumberland, and of the different inducements offered to him to\nfix elsewhere, to do away the erroneous reports respecting the former,\nand likewise to counteract the idea that has been so industriously\ncirculated in England, that his abilities were undervalued, that the\nbigotry and prejudice he had to encounter in this country, were greater\nthan were opposed to him in England; that his life was in consequence\nrendered uncomfortable, and that if he could, he would have been\nglad to have returned to his native country, but was restrained by\na sense of shame. Some colour was given to these reports by many of\nhis countrymen who, from motives best known to themselves, perhaps\nthinking thereby to excuse the inconsistency of their own conduct,\ncorroborated the accounts, though many of them had never seen my\nfather in this country, and had no authority whatever for assertions\nwhich were entirely calumnies. Some currency was also given to the\nstatement, by the false and injurious accounts published by the Duke de\nLiancourt, whose book if I may judge of it by that part which treats of\nPennsylvania, and of this neighbourhood in particular, is not entitled\nto the least credit, being false in almost every particular. This my\nfather himself has stated in a letter addressed to him.\n\nThe writer, understanding the language of the country but very\nimperfectly, must necessarily have been liable to many mistakes; nor\nis it to be wondered at that a man who details all the tittle tattle\nof every table to which he is invited, and who can basely convert the\nhospitable reception he meets with in a strange country, into the means\nof turning into ridicule those who shewed him attention and meant to\nserve him, should be even capable of fabricating and circulating gross\nand injurious falsehoods respecting individuals. I should disgrace\nmyself, in my opinion, and still more should I disgrace the high\nsituation which my father held in the esteem of the public, were I in\nthis work to enter into any further consideration of his attack on\nmy father\u2019s character, satisfied that it is beyond the reach of his\nfalsehoods and unprovoked malevolence.\n\nMy father would, no doubt, have been glad to have returned to England,\nand have enjoyed the society of his old and much valued friends; he\nwould have rejoiced to have been nearer the centre of the Arts and\nSciences; to have been joined again to his congregation and resumed his\nduties as a Christian Preacher; he would have been glad at the close of\nlife, as he expresses himself, \u201cto have found a grave in the land that\ngave him birth;\u201d but this was impossible: and no person can read the\npreface to his Fast Sermon, quoted above, but must be convinced of it.\nThough he raised the credit of his native country by the brilliancy,\nthe extent and the usefulness of his discoveries in different branches\nof science; though during his whole life he inculcated principles\nof virtue and religion, which the government pretended at least to\nbelieve were necessary to the well being of the state; though in no\none single act of his life had he violated any law of his country or\nencouraged others to do so, what was the treatment he met with in that\nland of boasted civilization, and at the close of the 18th Century?\nIt is sufficiently known, and will, as it ought to do, affect the\ncharacter of the nation at large. Therefore, though he could have\nforgotten and forgiven all that was past, though the above mentioned\nmotives would have had great weight in inducing him to return, yet\nthere was no reason to expect that he should meet hereafter with better\ntreatment than he had already experienced; and in consequence of this\nfixed persuasion he never entertained the idea of returning to live\nin England. He frequently talked indeed of returning to visit his\nfriends; but when peace took place and he could have gone with safety,\nso comfortably was he settled in this country, and such was his opinion\nof the state of things in England, that he abandoned even the idea of a\ntemporary journey thither, altogether.\n\nBut supposing the above obstacles had not existed to his return to his\nnative country, he had no reason to be, nor was he, dissatisfied with\nhis reception here. Independent of the attentions paid to him upon\nhis first arrival in this country, he continued to receive marks of\nrespect from bodies of men, and from individuals of various opinions in\nreligion and politics, to whom he had been all his life before an utter\nstranger. Little reason therefore have his countrymen to represent\nhis reception in America as unequal to his merits, or to calumniate\nthe general character of the people here. His discoveries did not add\nto the credit of America as they had done to that of England, yet he\nwas not obliged to withdraw his name from its Philosophical Society,\ndisgusted with its illiberal treatment of himself and his friends.\nThe Americans, comparatively speaking, had little opportunity of\njudging of his zeal for the real interests of religion, yet he was\nsuffered to live in peace; and this country has not been disgraced by\nthe destruction of a library and apparatus uniformly dedicated to the\npromotion of Science, and the good of mankind. It will be said that\nthere were not such interests to oppose in America as in England. It\nis true, and it proves that the Americans have done well not to create\nsuch interests, and that the placing all the religious sects upon\nthe same footing with respect to the government of the country, has\neffectually secured the peace of the community, at the same time that\nit has essentially promoted the interests of truth and virtue.\n\nBeing now settled at Northumberland with his mind at peace, and at ease\nin his circumstances, he seriously applied himself to those studies\nwhich he had long been compelled to desist from, and which he had but\nimperfectly attended to while he resided at Hackney. It is true that\nhe spent his time there very agreeably, in a society of highly valued\nfriends; but he did little compared to what he effected while he was at\nBirmingham, or what he has done during his residence here, owing to his\ntime being very much broken in upon at Hackney by company. To prove how\nmuch he did in this country it is only necessary to refer to the list\nof the publications which he presented to the world in various branches\nof science, in theology and general literature. Here as in England,\nthough more at leisure than formerly, he continued to apportion his\ntime to the various occupations in which he was engaged, and strictly\nadhered to a regular plan of alternate study and relaxation, from which\nhe never materially deviated.\n\nIt was while my father was at the academy that he commenced a practice\nwhich he continued until within three or four days of his death, of\nkeeping a diary, in which he put down the occurrences of the day; what\nhe was employed about, where he had been, and particularly an exact\naccount of what he had been reading, mentioning the names of the\nauthors, and the number of pages he read, which was generally a fixed\nnumber, previously determined upon in his own mind. He likewise noted\ndown any hints suggested by what he read in the course of the day. It\nwas his custom at the beginning of each year to arrange the plan of\nstudy that he meant to pursue that year, and to review the general\nsituation of his affairs, and at the end of the year he took an account\nof the progress he had made, how far he had executed the plan he had\nlaid down, and whether his situation exceeded or fell short of the\nexpectations he had formed.\n\nThis practice was a source of great satisfaction to him through life.\nIt was at first adopted as a mode of regulating his studies, and\nafterwards continued from the pleasure it gave him. The greater part\nof his diaries were destroyed at the riots at Birmingham, but there\nare still extant those for the year 1754, 1755 and several of the\nsubsequent years.\n\nAs it will serve to shew the regularity with which he pursued his\nstudies, and may possibly be instructive as well as amusing to the\nreader, I shall give a specimen of the manner in which he spent a year\nwhile he was at the academy, at Daventry, and for that purpose shall\nselect his diary for the year 1755 when he was in his 22d year. The\ndiary contains a particular account of what he read and wrote each\nday, and at different periods of the year he sums up in the following\nmanner, the progress he had made in improvement, which I give as\nentered at the end of the diary.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nBusiness done in January, February and March.\n\n\n_Practical._\n\nHowe\u2019s blessedness of the righteous; Bennet\u2019s pastoral care; Norris\u2019s\nletters and some sermons.\n\n\n_Controversial._\n\nTaylor on Atonement; Hampton\u2019s Answer; Sherlock\u2019s discourses Vol. 1;\nChristianity not founded in Argument; Doddridge\u2019s Answer; Warburton\u2019s\ndivine legation; Benson on the first planting of Christianity; King\u2019s\nConstitution of the Primitive Church.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nJosephus, Vol. 1, from page 390 to 770; Ovid\u2019s Metamorphoses to page\n139; Tacitus\u2019s History, Life of Agricola, and Manners of the Germans.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nJohn the Evangelist, the Acts of the Apostles, the Epistles to the\nRomans, Galatians, Ephesians, 1st and 2d Corinthians, in Greek; Isaiah\nto the 8th chapter, in Hebrew.\n\n\n_Mathematics._\n\nMaclaurin\u2019s Algebra to part 2d.\n\n\n_Entertaining._\n\nIrene; Prince Arthur; Ecclesiastical characters; Dryden\u2019s fables;\nPeruvian tales; Voyage round the world; Oriental tales; Massey\u2019s\ntravels; Life of Hai Ebn Yokdam; History of Abdallah.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\nA Sermon on the Wisdom of God; An Oration on the means of Virtue; 1st\nVol. of the Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion.\n\nBusiness done from April 1st to June 23d.\n\n\n_Practical._\n\nWatts\u2019s Catechism, and discourses on Catechizing; Fenelon\u2019s spiritual\nworks Vol. 1st and half of Vol. 2d; Saurin\u2019s Sermons a few; Thomas a\nKempis Book 1st to ch. 21; Cotton Mather\u2019s life; Jenning\u2019s on preaching\nChristianity.\n\n\n_Controversial._\n\nTowgood, Gill and Breckell on Baptism; Le Clerc on Inspiration;\nWhiston\u2019s Historical preface; Emlyn\u2019s narrative and humble enquiry;\nApostolical Constitutions; Newton on the prophecies; Winder\u2019s History\nof knowledge; Hoadly on the Sacrament; Lowman on the Revelation; Moral\nPhilosopher; Hume\u2019s Political discourses; Middleton\u2019s fathers of the\nfour first centuries; Middleton and Waterland\u2019s controversy. ---- on\nthe Demoniacs; Goodrich\u2019s display of Human Nature.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nCicero\u2019s 1st. Phillippic.\n\n\n_Historical._\n\nUniversal History Vol. 15 and 16 and to page 488 of the 17th.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\nSecond Vol. of the Institutes of Natural and Revealed Religion; wrote\nan article on Edwards\u2019s translation of the Psalms for the review.\n\n\nFrom June 23d to September 1.\n\n_Practical Writers._\n\nThomas a Kempis from Ch. 21 of Book 1st; Hartley on Man vol. 2d. May\u2019s\nPrayers. Holland\u2019s Sermons.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nFrom the 1st Epistle of Timothy to the Revelations, and the Gospels of\nMatthew, Mark, and Luke, in the Greek Testament; The books of Genesis,\nExodus, and Leviticus, in the Hebrew Bible.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nOvid from Book 9th; Demosthenes 1st Phillippic and 3 Olynthiacs;\nHerodotus Book 1st; Homer\u2019s Iliad, Book 1, 2, 3; Sallust.\n\n\n_History._\n\nUniversal History from Vol. 17 p. 488 to the end of Vol. 18. Neal\u2019s\nHistory of the Puritans 4 Volumes.\n\n\n_Philosophy._\n\nThe Anatomical Articles in the Universal Dictionary, several principal\nAlgebraic ones, and all the letter A.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\n12 Sermons.\n\n\nBusiness done in September.\n\n_Practical._\n\nHolland\u2019s Sermons, Vol. 2d; Doddridge\u2019s family Expositor Vol. 1.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nJohn the Evangelist, in Greek.\n\nNumbers, and to the 16th Chapter in Deuteronomy in Hebrew.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nHomer\u2019s Iliad, 12 books.\n\n\n_Mathematical._\n\nEuclid, Lib. 1, 2, 3.\n\n\n_History._\n\nUniversal History, Vol. 19th.\n\n\n_Miscellaneous._\n\nMason\u2019s Student; One of Shakespeare\u2019s plays.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\n4 Sermons.\n\n\nBusiness done in October.\n\n_Practical._\n\nDoddridge\u2019s Expositor Vol. 2d; Common Prayer Book; Fordyce\u2019s Sermons on\npublic Institutions.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nDeuteronomy from Ch. 16 to the end; Ecclesiastes and Solomon\u2019s Song in\nHebrew and Greek.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nHomer\u2019s Iliad, Book P to the end.\n\n\n_Mathematical._\n\nEuclid, Lib, 4, 5, 6.\n\n\n_Historical._\n\nUniversal History, Vol. 20th.\n\n\n_Miscellaneous._\n\n5 Shakespeare\u2019s Plays.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\n3 Sermons.\n\n\nBusiness done in November.\n\n_Practical._\n\nAbernethy\u2019s Practical Sermons.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nJob, in Hebrew and the Septuagint.\n\n\n_Philosophy, Mathematics and Chemistry._\n\nEuclid Lib. 11 and 12 slightly; Boerhave\u2019s Theory of Chemistry a good\npart of Vol. 1st; Rowning\u2019s Philosophy half of Vol. 1st.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nFrancis\u2019s Horace, Odes 4 books.\n\n\n_History._\n\nUniversal History part of Vol. 3d; Jewish Antiquities. History of the\nCouncil of Trent to page 133. Anson\u2019s voyage by Walter.\n\n\n_Plays._\n\n4 of Shakespeare\u2019s plays.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\n2 Sermons.\n\n\nBusiness done in December.\n\n_Practical._\n\nAbernethy\u2019s Posthumous sermons Vol. 2d; Clarke\u2019s sermons Vol. 1st.\nPatric on Ecclesiastes.\n\n\n_Scriptures._\n\nPsalms, in the Hebrew and Septuagint.\n\n\n_Philosophy._\n\nRowning\u2019s Philosophy part 2d and 3d.\n\n\n_Classics._\n\nFrancis\u2019s Horace Vol. 2 and 3.\n\n\n_Miscellaneous and Entertaining._\n\nMalcolm on Music, half; 4 Shakespeare\u2019s plays.\n\nHalf of the 1st Vol. of the Rambler.\n\nPopes Ethic Epistles, a few.\n\n\n_History._\n\nPaul\u2019s Council of Trent, to page 476; Life of the Duke of Marlborough.\n\n\n_Composition._\n\n4 Sermons.\n\nIt will be seen by this extract from his diary, that his studies were\nvery varied, which, as he was always persuaded, enabled him to do\nso much. This he constantly attended to through life; his chemical\nand philosophical pursuits serving as a kind of relaxation from his\ntheological studies. His miscellaneous reading, which was at all\ntimes very extensive, comprizing even novels and plays, still served\nto increase the variety. For many years of his life, he never spent\nless than two or three hours a day in games of amusement, as cards and\nbackgammon; but particularly chess--at which he and my mother played\nregularly three games after dinner, and as many after supper. As his\nchildren grew up, chess was laid aside for whist or some round game at\ncards, which he enjoyed as much as any of the company. It is hardly\nnecessary to state that he never played for money, even for the most\ntrifling sum.\n\nTo all these modes of relieving the mind, he added bodily exercise.\nIndependent of his laboratory furnishing him with a good deal, as he\nnever employed an operator, and never allowed any one even to light a\nfire, he generally lived in situations which required his walking a\ngood deal, as at Calne, Birmingham and Hackney. Of that exercise he was\nvery fond. He walked well, and his regular pace was four miles an hour.\nIn situations where the necessity of walking was not imposed upon him,\nhe worked in his garden as at Calne, when he had not occasion to go to\nBowood; at Northumberland in America, he was particularly attached to\nthis exercise.\n\nBut what principally enabled him to do so much was regularity, for it\ndoes not appear that at any period of his life he spent more than six\nor eight hours per day in business that required much mental exertion.\nI find in the same diary, which I have quoted from above, that he\nlaid down the following daily arrangement of time for a minister\u2019s\nstudies: Studying the Scriptures 1 hour. Practical writers 1-2 an hour.\nPhilosophy and History 2 hours. Classics 1-2 an hour. Composition 1\nhour--in all 5 hours. He adds below \u201cAll which may be conveniently\ndispatched before dinner, which leaves the afternoon for visiting and\ncompany, and the evening for exceeding in any article if there be\noccasion. Six hours not too much, nor seven.\u201d\n\nIt appears by his diary that he followed this plan at that period of\nhis life. He generally walked out in the afternoon or spent it in\ncompany. At that time there was a society or club that assembled twice\na week, at which the members debated questions, or took it in turn to\ndeliver orations, or read essays of their own composition. When not\nattending these meetings, he most generally appears to have spent the\nevening in company with some of the students in their chambers.\n\nIt was by the regularity and variety of his studies, more than by\nintenseness of application, that he performed so much more than even\nstudious men generally do. At the time he was engaged about the\nmost important works, and when he was not busily employed in making\nexperiments, he always had leisure for company, of which he was fond.\nHe never appeared hurried or behind hand. He however never carried\nhis complaisance so far as to neglect the daily task he had imposed\nupon himself; but as he was uniformly an early riser, and dispatched\nhis more serious pursuits in the morning, it rarely happened but that\nhe could accomplish the labours assigned for the day, without having\noccasion to withdraw from visitors at home, or society abroad, or\ngiving reason to suppose that the company of others was a restraint\nupon his pursuits.\n\nThis habit of regularity, extended itself to every thing that he read,\nand every thing he did that was susceptible of it. He never read a\nbook without determining in his own mind when he would finish it. Had\nhe a work to transcribe, he would fix a time for its completion. This\nhabit increased upon him as he grew in years, and his diary was kept\nupon the plan I have before described, till within a few days of his\ndeath.\n\nTo the regularity and variety of his studies, must be added a\nconsiderable degree of Mechanical contrivance, which greatly\nfacilitated the execution of many of his compositions. It was however\nmost apparent in his laboratory, and displayed in the simplicity and\nneatness of his apparatus, which was the great cause of the accuracy\nof his experiments, and of the fair character which he acquired as an\nexperimental chemist. This was the result in the first instance of a\nnecessary attention to \u0153conomy in all his pursuits, and was afterwards\ncontinued from choice, when the necessity no longer existed. I return\nfrom this digression which I thought necessary to give the reader a\ngeneral view of my father\u2019s occupations, and his manner of spending his\ntime, to the circumstances attending the remaining years of his life.\n\nAt his first settling at Northumberland, there was no house to be\nprocured that would furnish him with the conveniencies of a library and\nlaboratory in addition to the room necessary for a family. Hence in\nthe beginning of the year 1795, being then fixed in his determination\nto move no more, he resolved upon building a house convenient for his\npursuits. During the time the house was building, he had no convenience\nfor making experiments more than a common room afforded, and he was\nthereby prevented from doing much in this way. Still, he ascertained\nseveral facts of importance in the year 1795 on the Analysis of\nAtmospheric Air, and also some in continuation of those on the\ngeneration of air from water.\n\nHe had however leisure and opportunity for his other studies and in\n1795 he published observations on the increase of infidelity and he\ncontinued his Church History from the fall of the Western Empire to the\nreformation.\n\nIn the spring of 1796 he spent three months at Philadelphia and\ndelivered there a set of discourses on the Evidences of Revelation,\nwhich he composed with a view to counteract the effect produced by the\nwritings of unbelievers, which, as might be expected, was very great\nin a country where rational opinions in religion were but little known,\nand where the evidences of revelation had been but little attended to.\nIt was a source of great satisfaction to him, and what he had little\nprevious reason to expect, that his lectures were attended by very\ncrowded audiences, including most of the members of the congress of\nthe United States at that time assembled at Philadelphia, and of the\nexecutive officers of the government. These discourses which, in a\nregular and connected series, placed Christianity, and the evidences\nof its truth, in a more clear and satisfactory point of view than it\nhad been usually considered in this country, attracted much attention,\nand created an interest in the subject which there is reason to believe\nhas produced lasting effects. My father received assurances from many\nof the most respectable persons in the country, that they viewed the\nsubject in a totally different light from what they had before done,\nand that could they attend places of worship, where such rational\ndoctrines were inculcated, they should do it with satisfaction.\n\nAs my father had through life considered the office of a Christian\nminister as the most useful and honourable of any, and had always\nderived the greatest satisfaction from fulfilling its duties,\nparticularly from catechizing young persons, the greatest source of\nuneasiness therefore to him at Northumberland was, that there was no\nsufficient opportunity of being useful in that way. Though he was\nuniformly treated with kindness and respect by the people of the place,\nyet their sentiments in religion were so different from his own, and\nthe nature and tendency of his opinions were so little understood, that\nthe establishment of a place of Unitarian worship perfectly free from\nany calvinistic or Arian tenet, was next to impossible. All therefore\nthat he could do in that way was, for the two or three first years,\nto read a service either at his own or at my house, at which a few\n(perhaps a dozen) English persons were usually present, and in time, as\ntheir numbers increased he made use of a school room near his house,\nwhere from twenty to thirty regularly attended, and among them some of\nthe inhabitants of the place, who by degrees began to divest themselves\nof their prejudices with respect to his opinions. However small the\nnumber of persons attending, he administered the Lord\u2019s supper, a rite\nupon which he always laid particular stress.\n\nIn the Autumn of 1795 he had the misfortune to lose his youngest son,\nof whom being much younger than any of his other children, and having\nentertained the hopes of his succeeding him in his Theological and\nPhilosophical pursuits he was remarkably fond. He felt this misfortune\nthe more severely as it was the first of the kind he had experienced,\nand particularly as it had a visible effect upon my mother\u2019s health and\nspirits. He was however so constantly in the habit of viewing the hand\nof God in all things, and of considering every occurrence as leading\nto good, that his mind soon recovered its accustomed serenity, and his\njourney to Philadelphia mentioned above and the success which attended\nhis first exertions in the cause of, what he deemed, pure and genuine\nchristianity, led him to look forward with cheerfulness to the future,\nand gave him an energy in his pursuits, which was never exceeded in any\npart of his life. It was the same habit of viewing God as the author of\nall events, and producing good out of seeming evil, that enabled him\nto support himself so well under the greatest affliction that could\npossibly have befallen him, viz. the loss of his wife, my mother; who\nthrough life had been truly a help meet for him; supporting him under\nall his trials and sufferings with a constancy and perseverance truly\npraise worthy, and who as he himself, in noting the event in his diary,\njustly observes, \u201cwas of a noble and generous mind and cared much for\nothers and little for herself through life.\u201d\n\nIn the period between the above very afflicting events, though his\nconveniences for experimenting were not increased, owing to his house,\nand particularly his laboratory not being finished, he wrote a small\ntreatise in defence of the doctrine of Phlogiston, addressed to the\nPhilosophers in France. He likewise composed a second set of discourses\nof a similar kind to those delivered in Philadelphia the preceding\nwinter. He preached and printed a sermon in defence of Unitarianism,\nand printed the first set of discourses; he compleated his Church\nHistory; he made additional observations on the increase of infidelity\nchiefly in answer to Mr. Volney; and drew up an Outline of all the\nEvidences in favour of Revelation.\n\nIn the spring of 1797 he again spent two or three months in\nPhiladelphia, and delivered a second set of discourses, but partly from\nthe novelty of the thing being done away, partly from the prejudices\nthat began to be excited against him on account of his supposed\npolitical opinions, (for high-toned politics began then to prevail in\nthe fashionable circles) and partly owing to the discourses not being\nso well adapted for a public audience, though necessary to set the\ncomparative excellence of Christianity in its true light, they were but\nthinly attended in comparison to his former set. This induced him to\ngive up the idea of preaching any more regular sets of discourses. He\nhowever printed them, as likewise a sermon he preached in favour of the\nEmigrants. He also composed at this time a third and enlarged edition\nof his Observations on the increase of infidelity, a controversy with\nMr. Volney, a tract on the Knowledge of a Future state among the\nHebrews, which, with the works he composed the year before, he printed\nas he found means and opportunity. He revised his Church History, began\nhis Notes on the Scriptures, and his Comparison of the Institutions of\nMoses with those of the Hindoos.\n\nTowards the end of 1797 and not before, his library and laboratory were\nfinished. None but men devoted to literature can imagine the pleasure\nhe derived from being able to renew his experiments with every\npossible convenience, and from having his books once more arranged. His\nhouse was situated in a garden, commanding a prospect equal, if not\nsuperior, to any on the river Susquehanna, so justly celebrated for\nthe picturesque views its banks afford. It was a singularly fortunate\ncircumstance that he found at Northumberland several excellent workmen\nin metals, who could repair his instruments, make all the new articles\nhe wanted in the course of his experimenting, as well as, he used to\nsay, if not in some respects better than, he could have got them done\nin Birmingham; and in the society of Mr. Frederick Antis, the brother\nof Mr. Antis in England, and uncle of Mr. Latrobe the engineer, he\nderived great satisfaction. Mr. Antis was a man of mild and amiable\nmanners, he possessed a very good knowledge of Mechanics the result\nof his own observation and reflection, and a fund of knowledge of\nmany things which my father frequently found useful to resort to. The\nsituation of Northumberland became abundantly more convenient than it\nwas when he first came to the place. From there being no regular public\npost, there was now established a post twice a week to Philadelphia,\nand answers could be received to letters within a week, and the\ncommunication so much increased between the two places, that the price\nof the carriage of goods was reduced from 11_s._-3_d._ to 6_s._ per\nCwt. the distance being 132 miles.\n\nThus conveniently situated, he resumed the same kind of life he led\nat Birmingham, experimenting the greater part of the day, the result\nof which he published in the Medical repository of New-York. Having\ncompleated his Church History, he finished his Comparison of the\nInstitutions of Moses with those of the Hindoos. He likewise proceeded\nas far as Leviticus in the design he had formed of writing Notes on\nall the books of Scripture, and made some remarks on the origin of all\nreligions by Dupuis, but the greater part of the time that he spent\nin theology this year, was employed in recomposing the Notes on the\nNew-Testament, which were destroyed at the riots.\n\nIn the course of the year 1799, he finished his Notes on all the books\nof Scripture, he published his Comparison of the Institutions of Moses\nwith those of the Hindoos, he likewise printed his Defence of the\ndoctrine of Phlogiston above mentioned, and the greater part of each\nday in the summer was employed in making the additional experiments he\nhad projected.\n\nIt was in the year 1799, during Mr. Adams\u2019s administration, that my\nfather had occasion to write any thing on the subject of politics in\nthis country. It is well known to all his friends, that politics were\nalways a subject of secondary importance with him. He however took part\noccasionally in the conversations on that subject; which every person\nhas a right to do, and which, about the time my father left England, no\nperson could avoid doing, as the subject engrossed so large a part of\nthe conversation in almost every company. He always argued on the side\nof liberty. He was however in favour only of those changes that could\nbe brought about by fair argument, and his speculations on the subject\nof British politics did not go further than a reform in Parliament, and\nno way tended, in his opinion, to affect the form of government, or the\nconstitution of the kingdom, as vested in Kings, Lords and Commons. He\nused frequently to say, and it was said to him, that though he was an\nUnitarian in Religion he was in that country a Trinitarian in politics.\n\nWhen he came to America, he found reason to change his opinions, and\nhe became a decided friend to the general principles and practice of a\ncompleatly representative government, founded upon universal suffrage,\nand excluding hereditary privileges, as it exists in this country.\nThis change was naturally produced by observing the ease and happiness\nwith which the people lived, and the unexampled prosperity of the\ncountry, of which no European, unless he has resided in it some time,\nand has observed the interior part of it, can be a competent judge.\nBut with respect to England, he still remained anxious for its peace\nand prosperity, and though he had been so hardly used, and though he\nconsidered the administration of the country, if not instigating at\nleast conniving at the riots, no resentment existed in his breast\nagainst the nation. In his feelings he was still an Englishman. Though\nhe might speculatively consider that the mass of evil and misery had\narisen to such a height in England, and in other European countries,\nthat there was no longer any hope of a peaceable and gradual reform,\nyet, considering at the same time that the great body of the people,\nlike the Negroes in the West-Indies, were unprepared for the enjoyment\nof liberty in its full extent, and contemplating the evils necessarily\nattendant upon a violent change, he dreaded a revolution.\n\nWith respect to America he had never interfered publicly in politics,\nand never wrote an article that could be considered in that light in\nany respect, except one published in a newspaper called the _Aurora_,\nsigned a _Quaker in Politics_, published on the 26th and 27th of\nFebruary, 1798, and entitled Maxims of Political Arithmetic,[32] and\nso little did he interest himself in the politics of this country,\nthat he seldom if ever perused the debates in Congress, nor was he\nmuch acquainted with any of the leading political characters except\nthree or four, and with these he never corresponded but with Mr. Adams\nprior to his being chosen president, and Mr. Jefferson. He never\nwas naturalized, nor did he take part directly or indirectly in any\nelection. He persevered in the same sentiments even when he was under\nreasonable apprehension that he should be banished as an Alien: and\nthough he advised his sons to be naturalized, saying it was what was\ndaily done by persons who could not be suspected of wishing any ill to\ntheir native country, yet he would not; but said, that as he had been\nborn and had lived an Englishman, he would die one let what might be\nthe consequence.\n\n[32] See Appendix, No. IV.\n\nAbout the year 1799, the friends of liberty in America were greatly\nalarmed by the advancement of principles disgraceful to America, and\nby a practice less liberal in many respects than under the monarchical\nform of the British government. Nothing else was the subject of\nconversation and my father who though never active in politics, at\nthe same time never concealed his sentiments, uttered them freely in\nconversation, and they were of course opposed to the proceedings of the\nadministration at the time. Added to this Mr. Thomas Cooper formerly\nof Manchester, and who at that time had undertaken for a short period,\nat the request of the printer, to edit a newspaper then printed at\nNorthumberland, had published some very severe strictures on the\nconduct of the administration, which were soon after published in a\npamphlet, under the title of Political Essays.\n\nBy many my father might be ignorantly supposed as the prompter on the\noccasion, as Mr. Cooper lived at that time with my father, and by those\nwho knew better, it was made the ostensible ground of objection to my\nfather, to conceal the real one. In truth he saw none of the essays\nuntil they were printed, nor was he consulted by Mr. Cooper upon any\npart of them. The consequence was, that all the bigotry and party zeal\nof that violent period was employed to injure him, and misrepresent\nhis words and actions. He was represented as intriguing for offices\nfor himself and his friend, and as an enemy to the government which\nthey said protected him, while men who were themselves but newly\nnaturalized, or the immediate descendants of foreigners, bestowed\nupon him the epithet of Alien, an epithet then used by the government\nparty as a term of reproach, though the country was principally\nindebted to the capital, industry and enterprize of foreigners for the\nmany improvements then carrying on. Such was the effect of all these\nslanderous reports, and such was the character of the administration,\nthat it was intimated to my father, from Mr. Adams himself, that he\nwished he would abstain from saying any thing on politics, lest he\nshould get into difficulty. The Alien law which was passed under that\nadministration, was at that time in operation, and a man without being\nconvicted of, or even positively charged with, any offence, might have\nbeen sent out of the country at a moment\u2019s warning, not only without a\ntrial, but without the right of remonstrance. It was likewise hinted\nto my father as he has himself stated, that he was one of the persons\ncontemplated when the law was passed, so little did they know of his\nreal character and disposition. This occasioned my father to write\na set of letters to the inhabitants of Northumberland; in which he\nexpressed his sentiments fully on all the political questions at that\ntime under discussion. They had the effect of removing the unfavourable\nimpressions that had been made on the minds of the liberal and candid,\nand procured him many friends. Fortunately however the violent\nmeasures then adopted produced a compleat change in the minds of the\npeople, and in consequence of it in the representation, proving by the\npeaceableness of it, the excellence of this form of government, and\nproving also that my father\u2019s sentiments, as well as Mr. Cooper\u2019s, were\napproved of by nine tenths of the people of the United States.\n\nIt is but justice however to mention that in the above remarks which\nhave been made to represent my father\u2019s political character in its true\nlight, and to account for his writing on the subject of politics, I do\nnot mean to reflect on all the federalists, and that though my father\nconsidered them all as in error, yet he acknowledged himself indebted\nto many of that party for the most sincere marks of friendship which he\nhad received in this country, and that not only from his opponents in\npolitics, but likewise from many of the principal clergymen of various\ndenominations in Philadelphia, and particularly during his severe\nillness in that city, when party spirit was at the highest, it being at\nthe time of Mr. Jefferson\u2019s first election to the presidency.\n\nAs my father has given an account of those friends to whose kindness\nand generosity he was principally indebted from the commencement of\nhis literary career, to the time of his coming to America, I think\nit my duty to follow his example, and to make on his part those\nacknowledgements which had he lived, he would have taken pleasure in\nmaking himself. To the Revd. Theophilus Lindsey, independent of the\nmany marks of the most sincere friendship, which he was constantly\nreceiving, he was occasionally indebted for pecuniary assistance at\ntimes when it was most wanting. Independent of 50 \u00a3. per annum, which\nMrs. Elizabeth Rayner allowed him from the time he left England, she\nleft him by her will \u00a32000 in the 4 per cents. Mr. Michael Dodson who\nis well known as the translator of Isaiah left him \u00a3500, and Mr. Samuel\nSalte left him 100 \u00a3. The Duke of Grafton remitted him annually 40\n\u00a3. Therefore though his expences were far greater than he expected,\nand though his house cost him double the sum he had contemplated, the\ngenerosity of his friends made him perfectly easy in his mind with\nrespect to pecuniary affairs; and by freeing him from all care and\nanxiety on this head contributed greatly to his happiness, and to his\nsuccessful endeavours in the cause of truth. Besides these instances\nof friendly attention, the different branches of his family have been,\nin various ways, benefited, in consequence of the respect paid to my\nfather\u2019s character, and the affectionate regard shewn by his friends to\nall who were connected with him.\n\nBut what gave my father most real pleasure was the subscription, set\non foot by his friends in England, to enable him to print his Church\nHistory, and his Notes on all the Books of Scripture. The whole was\ndone without his knowledge, and the first information he received on\nthe subject was, that there was a sum raised sufficient to cover the\nwhole expence.\n\nAbout the time he died, some of his friends in England understood that\nhe was likely to suffer a loss in point of income of \u00a3. 200 per annum.\nWithout any solicitation, about forty of them raised the sum of \u00a3.\n450, which was meant to have been continued annually while he lived.\nHe did not live to know of this kind exertion in his favour. It is my\nduty however to record this instance of generosity, and I do it with\npleasure and with gratitude. It likewise proves that though my father\nby the fearless avowal of his opinions, created many enemies, yet that\nthe honesty and independence of his conduct procured him many friends.\n\nThe first year\u2019s subscription has been transmitted to America, to\ndefray the expence of publishing his posthumous works.\n\nIn the year 1800 he was chiefly employed in experiments, and writing\nan account of them for various publications. In this year also he\npublished his treatise in defence of Phlogiston, he revised his\nChurch History, the two first volumes of which are now reprinted with\nconsiderable additions, and he added to and improved his Notes on the\nScriptures.\n\nHe spent some time in the spring of 1801 in Philadelphia, during\nhis stay there he had a violent attack of fever which weakened\nhim exceedingly, and from the effects of which he never perfectly\nrecovered. Added to this the fever and ague prevailed at Northumberland\nand the neighbourhood, for the first time since his settlement at the\nplace. He had two or three attacks of this disorder; which though they\nwere not very severe, as he had never more than three fits at a time,\nretarded his recovery very much. He perceived the effect of his illness\nin the diminution of his strength, and his not being able to take as\nmuch exercise as he used to do. His spirits however were good, and he\nwas very assiduous in making experiments, chiefly on the pile of Volta,\nthe result of which he sent an account of to Nicholson\u2019s Journal and\nthe Medical Repository.\n\nIn 1802 he began to print his Church History, in consequence of the\nsubscription raised by his friends in England as before stated.\nBesides printing three volumes of that work, he wrote and printed a\ntreatise on Baptism, chiefly in answer to the observations of Mr.\nRobinson on the subject. He likewise made some experiments, and replied\nto some remarks of Mr. Cruikshank in defence of the Antiphlogistic\ntheory.\n\nI am now to describe the last scene of his life, which deserves the\nreader\u2019s most serious consideration, as it shews the powerful effect\nof his religious principles. They made him, not resigned to quit a\nworld in which he no longer had any delight, and in which no hope of\nfuture enjoyment presented itself, but chearful in the certainty of\napproaching dissolution, and under circumstances that would by the\nworld in general have been considered as highly enviable. They led\nhim to consider death as the labourer does sleep at night as being\nnecessary to renew his mental and corporeal powers, and fit him for a\nfuture state of activity and happiness. For though since his illness\nin Philadelphia in 1801 he had never recovered his former good state\nof health, yet he had never been confined to his bed a whole day by\nsickness in America until within two days of his death, and was never\nincapacitated for any pursuit that he had been accustomed to. He took\ngreat delight in his garden, and in viewing the little improvements\ngoing forward in and about the town. The rapidly increasing prosperity\nof the country, whether as it regarded its agriculture, manufactures,\nand commerce, or the increasing taste for science and literature, were\nall of them to him a source of the purest pleasure. For the last four\nyears of his life he lived under an administration, the principles and\npractice of which he perfectly approved, and with Mr. Jefferson, the\nhead of that administration, he frequently corresponded, and they had\nfor each other a mutual regard and esteem. He enjoyed the esteem of\nthe wisest and best men in the country, particularly at Philadelphia,\nwhere his religion and his politics did not prevent his being kindly\nand cheerfully received by great numbers of opposite opinions in both,\nwho thus paid homage to his knowledge and virtue. At home he was\nbeloved; and besides the advantages of an excellent library, to which\nhe was continually making additions, and of a laboratory that was amply\nprovided with every thing necessary for an experimental chemist,\nhe was perfectly freed, as he had happily been through life, in\nconsequence of my mother\u2019s ability and attention, from any attention to\nworldly concerns; considering himself, as he used to express himself,\nmerely as a lodger, having all his time to devote to his theological\nand philosophical pursuits. He had the satisfaction of witnessing the\ngradual spread of his religious opinions, and the fullest conviction\nthat he should prevail over his opponents in chemistry. He looked\nforward with the greatest pleasure to future exertions in both these\nfields, and had within the last month or six weeks been projecting many\nimprovements in his apparatus, which he meant to make use of upon the\nreturn of warm weather in the spring. Notwithstanding, therefore, the\nmany trials he underwent in this country, he had still great sources of\nhappiness left, unalloyed by any apprehension of any material defect\nin any of his senses, or any abatement of the vigour of his mind.\nConsistent with the above was his declaration that, excepting the want\nof the society of Mr. L, Mr. B. and two or three other particular\nfriends, which however was made up to him, in some, though in a small\ndegree by their regular correspondence, he had never upon the whole\nspent any part of his life more happily, nor, he believed, more\nusefully.\n\nThe first part of his illness, independent of his general weakness,\nthe result of his illness in Philadelphia in 1801, was a constant\nindigestion, and a difficulty of swallowing meat or any kind of solid\nfood unless previously reduced by mastication to a perfect pulp. This\ngradually increased upon him till he could swallow liquids but very\nslowly, and led him to suspect, which he did to the last, that there\nmust be some stoppage in the \u0153sophagus. Latterly he lived almost\nentirely upon tea, chocolate, soups, sago, custard puddings, and the\nlike. During all this time of general and increasing debility, he was\nbusily employed in printing his Church History, and the first volume\nof the Notes on Scripture; and in making new and original experiments,\nan account of which he sent to the American Philosophical Society in\ntwo numbers, one in answer to Dr. Darwin\u2019s observations on Spontaneous\ngeneration, and the other on the unexpected conversion of a quantity\nof the marine acid into the nitrous. During this period, likewise, he\nwrote his pamphlet of Jesus and Socrates compared, and re-printed his\nEssay on Phlogiston. He would not suffer any one to do for him what he\nhad been accustomed to do himself; nor did he alter his former mode of\nlife in any respect, excepting that he no longer worked in his garden,\nand that he read more books of a miscellaneous nature than he had been\nused to do when he could work more in his laboratory, which had always\nserved him as a relaxation from his other studies.\n\nFrom about the beginning of November 1803, to the middle of January\n1804, his complaint grew more serious. He was once incapable of\nswallowing any thing for near thirty hours; and there being some\nsymptoms of inflammation at his stomach, blisters were applied, which\nafforded him relief; and by very great attention to his diet, riding\nout in a chair when the weather would permit, and living chiefly on\nthe soft parts of oysters, he seemed if not gaining ground, at least\nnot getting worse; and we had reason to hope that if he held out until\nspring as he was, the same attention to his diet with more exercise,\nwhich it was impossible for him to take on account of the cold weather,\nwould restore him to health. He, however, considered his life as very\nprecarious, and used to tell the physician who attended him, that if\nhe could but patch him up for six months longer he should be perfectly\nsatisfied, as he should in that time be able to complete printing\nhis works. The swelling of his feet, an alarming symptom of general\ndebility, began about this time.\n\nTo give some idea of the exertions he made even at this time, it is\nonly necessary for me to say, that besides his miscellaneous reading,\nwhich was at all times very great, he read through all the works quoted\nin his comparison of the different systems of the Grecian Philosophers\nwith christianity, composed that work, and transcribed the whole of\nit in less than three months. He took the precaution of transcribing\none day in long hand what he had composed the day before in short\nhand, that he might by that means leave the work complete as far as it\nwent, should he not live to complete the whole. During this period he\ncomposed in a day his second reply to Dr. Linn.\n\nAbout this time he ceased performing divine service, which he said he\nhad never before known himself incapable of performing, notwithstanding\nhe had been a preacher so many years. He likewise now suffered me to\nrake his fire, rub his feet with a flesh-brush, and occasionally help\nhim to bed. In the mornings likewise he had his fire made for him,\nwhich he always used to do himself, and generally before any of the\nfamily was stirring.\n\nIn the last fortnight in January he was troubled with alarming fits of\nindigestion; his legs swelled nearly to his knees, and his weakness\nincreased very much. I wrote for him, while he dictated, the concluding\nsection of his New Comparison, and the Preface and Dedication. The\nfinishing this work was a source of great satisfaction to him, as he\nconsidered it as a work of as much consequence as any he had ever\nundertaken. The first alarming symptom of approaching dissolution\nwas his being unable to speak to me upon my entering his room on\nTuesday morning the 31st of January. In his Diary I find he stated his\nsituation as follows: \u201cIll all day--Not able to speak for near three\nhours.\u201d When he was able to speak he told me he had slept well, as he\nuniformly had done through the whole of his illness; so that he never\nwould suffer me, though I frequently requested he would do it, to sleep\nin the same room with him; that he felt as well as possible; that he\ngot up and shaved himself, which he never omitted doing every morning\ntill within two days of his death; that he went to his laboratory, and\nthen found his weakness very great; that he got back with difficulty;\nthat just afterward his grand-daughter, a child of about six or seven\nyears old, came to him to claim the fulfilment of a promise he had\nmade her the evening before, to give her a fivepenny bit. He gave her\nthe money, and was going to speak to her, but found himself unable.\nHe informed me of this, speaking very slowly a word at a time; and\nadded, that he had never felt more pleasantly in his whole life than\nhe did during the time he was unable to speak. After he had taken his\nmedicine, which was bark and laudanum, and drank a bason of strong\nmutton broth, he recovered surprizingly, and talked with cheerfulness\nto all who called upon him, but as though he was fully sensible that\nhe had not long to live. He consented for the first time that I should\nsleep in the room with him.\n\nOn Wednesday, February 1, he writes, \u201cI was at times much better in\nthe morning: capable of some business: continued better all day.\u201d He\nspake this morning as strong as usual, and took in the course of the\nday a good deal of nourishment with pleasure. He said, that he felt a\nreturn of strength, and with it there was a duty to perform. He read a\ngood deal in Newcome\u2019s Translation of the New Testament, and Stevens\u2019s\nHistory of the War. In the afternoon he gave me some directions how to\nproceed with the printing his work in case he should die. He gave me\ndirections to stop the printing of the second volume, and to begin upon\nthe third, that he might see how it was begun, and that it might serve\nas a pattern to me to proceed by.\n\nOn Thursday, the 2d, he wrote thus for the last time in his Diary:\n\u201cMuch worse: incapable of business: Mr. Kennedy came to receive\ninstructions about printing in case of my death.\u201d He sat up, however,\na great part of the day, was cheerful, and gave Mr. Cooper and myself\nsome directions, with the same composure as though he had only been\nabout to leave home for a short time. Though it was fatiguing to him to\ntalk, he read a good deal in the works above mentioned.\n\nOn Friday he was much better. He sat up a good part of the day reading\nNewcome; Dr. Disney\u2019s Translation of the Psalms; and some chapters\nin the Greek Testament, which was his daily practice. He corrected a\nproof-sheet of the Notes on Isaiah. When he went to bed he was not so\nwell: he had an idea he should not live another day. At prayer-time\nhe wished to have the children kneel by his bedside, saying, it gave\nhim great pleasure to see the little things kneel; and, thinking he\npossibly might not see them again, he gave them his blessing.\n\nOn Saturday, the 4th, my father got up for about an hour while his\nbed was made. He said he felt more comfortable in bed than up. He\nread a good deal, and looked over the first sheet of the third volume\nof the Notes, that he might see how we were likely to go on with it;\nand having examined the Greek and Hebrew quotations, and finding them\nright, he said he was satisfied we should finish the work very well. In\nthe course of the day, he expressed his gratitude in being permitted\nto die quietly in his family, without pain, with every convenience and\ncomfort he could wish for. He dwelt upon the peculiarly happy situation\nin which it had pleased the Divine Being to place him in life; and the\ngreat advantage he had enjoyed in the acquaintance and friendship of\nsome of the best and wisest men in the age in which he lived, and the\nsatisfaction he derived from having led an useful as well as a happy\nlife.\n\nOn Sunday he was much weaker, and only sat up in an armed chair while\nhis bed was made. He desired me to read to him the eleventh chapter\nof John. I was going on to read to the end of the chapter, but he\nstopped me at the 45th verse. He dwelt for some time on the advantage\nhe had derived from reading the scriptures daily, and advised me to\ndo the same; saying, that it would prove to me, as it had done to\nhim, a source of the purest pleasure. He desired me to reach him a\npamphlet which was at his bed\u2019s head, Simpson on the Duration of\nfuture Punishment. \u201cIt will be a source of satisfaction to you to read\nthat pamphlet,\u201d said he, giving it to me. \u201cIt contains my sentiments,\nand a belief in them will be a support to you in the most trying\ncircumstances, as it has been to me. We shall all meet finally: we\nonly require different degrees of discipline, suited to our different\ntempers, to prepare us for final happiness.\u201d Upon Mr. ---- coming\ninto his room, he said, \u201cYou see, Sir, I am still living.\u201d Mr. ----\nobserved, he would always live. \u201cYes,\u201d said he, \u201cI believe I shall; and\nwe shall all meet again in another and a better world.\u201d He said this\nwith great animation, laying hold on Mr. ----\u2019s hand in both his.\n\nBefore prayers he desired me to reach him three publications, about\nwhich he would give me some directions next morning. His weakness would\nnot permit him to do it at that time.\n\nAt prayers he had all the children brought to his bed-side as before.\nAfter prayers they wished him a good night, and were leaving the room.\nHe desired them to stay, spoke to them each separately. He exhorted\nthem all to continue to love each other. \u201cAnd you, little thing,\u201d\nspeaking to Eliza, \u201cremember the hymn you learned; \u2018Birds in their\nlittle nests agree,\u2019 &c. I am going to sleep as well as you: for death\nis only a good long sound sleep in the grave, and we shall meet again.\u201d\nHe congratulated us on the dispositions of our children; said it was\na satisfaction to see them likely to turn out well; and continued for\nsome time to express his confidence in a happy immortality, and in a\nfuture state, which would afford us an ample field for the exertion of\nour faculties.\n\nOn Monday morning, the 6th of February, after having lain perfectly\nstill till four o\u2019clock in the morning, he called to me, but in a\nfainter tone than usual, to give him some wine and tincture of bark.\nI asked him how he felt. He answered, he had no pain, but appeared\nfainting away gradually. About an hour after, he asked me for some\nchicken broth, of which he took a tea-cup full. His pulse was quick,\nweak, and fluttering, his breathing, though easy, short. About eight\no\u2019clock, he asked me to give him some egg and wine. After this he lay\nquite still till ten o\u2019clock, when he desired me and Mr. Cooper to\nbring him the pamphlets we had looked out the evening before. He then\ndictated as clearly and distinctly as he had ever done in his life the\nadditions and alterations he wished to have made in each. Mr. Cooper\ntook down the substance of what he said, which, when he had done, I\nread to him. He said Mr. Cooper had put it in his own language; he\nwished it to be put in his. I then took a pen and ink to his bed-side.\nHe then repeated over again, nearly word for word, what he had before\nsaid; and when I had done, I read it over to him. \u201cThat is right; I\nhave now done.\u201d About half an hour after he desired, in a faint voice,\nthat we would move him from the bed on which he lay to a cot, that he\nmight lie with his lower limbs horizontal, and his head upright. He\ndied in about ten minutes after we had moved him, but breathed his last\nso easy, that neither myself or my wife, who were both sitting close to\nhim, perceived it at the time. He had put his hand to his face, which\nprevented our observing it.\n\nThe above account, which conveys but a very inadequate idea of the\ncomposure and chearfulness of his last moments deserves the attention\nof unbelievers in general, particularly of Philosophical Unbelievers.\nThey have known him to be zealous and active in the pursuit of\nPhilosophical truths and to be ever ready to acknowledge any mistakes\nhe may have fallen into. By the perusal of these Memoirs they have\nfound that he gradually, and after much thought and reflection\nabandoned all those opinions which disgrace what is usually called\nchristianity in the eyes of rational men and whose inconsistency\nwith reason and common sense has most probably been the cause of\ntheir infidelity and of their total inattention to the evidences of\nchristianity. These opinions he abandoned, because he could not find\nthem supported either in the Scriptures or in the genuine writings of\nthe early Christians. They must be sensible that the same desire for\ntruth and the same fearless spirit of enquiry and the same courage in\nthe open avowal of the most obnoxious tenets would have led him to have\ndiscarded religion altogether had he seen reason so to do, and there is\nlittle doubt but that he would have been subject to less obloquy by so\ndoing than by exposing the various corruptions of christianity in the\nmanner he did. They have seen however that in proportion as he attended\nto the subject his faith in christianity increased and produced that\nhappy disposition of mind described in these Memoirs. The subject is\ntherefore well deserving of their attention and they should be induced\nfrom so fair an example, and the weight due to my father\u2019s opinions,\nto make themselves fully acquainted with the arguments in favour of\nchristianity before they reject it as an idle fable.\n\nMany unbelievers have, no doubt, borne with great patience severe\ncalamities; they have suffered death with great fortitude when engaged\nin a good cause, and many have courted death to serve their friends\nor their country. It must however be allowed that there is no great\nmerit in meeting death with fortitude when it cannot be avoided, and\nlikewise that the above cases cannot be absolutely calculated upon, as\nthere is no sufficient motive to account for their conduct. But upon a\ntruly practical christian there is the greatest dependance to be placed\nfor acting well in all the situations in which he may be found, his\nhighest interest being connected with the performance of the greatest\nduties; and even supposing that many persons, who are not christians,\nfrom favourable circumstances attendant upon their birth and education,\nand from a naturally happy temperament of body and mind, may, and, it\nmust be allowed do acquire a habit of disinterested benevolence and may\nin general be depended upon to act uniformly well in life, still the\nchristian has a decided advantage over them in the hour of death, as\nto consider death as necessary to his entering upon a new and enlarged\nsphere of activity and enjoyment, is a privilege that belongs to him\nalone.\n\n\n\n\n                           APPENDIX, NO. 1.\n\n     _Of the discoveries in factitious Airs before the time of Dr.\n               Priestley, and of those made by himself._\n\n\nDr. Priestley has given a general though brief account[33] of what\nhad been done by his predecessors in this department of experimental\nPhilosophy, and Sir John Pringle in his discourse before the Royal\nSociety on occasion of presenting Dr. Priestley with the Copley Medal\nin 1772[34] has entered expressly, and more fully into the history of\npneumatic discoveries. The same subject was taken up about three years\nafter by Mr. Lavoisier still more at large, in the introduction to his\nfirst Vol. of Physical and Chemical Essays, of which a translation was\npublished by Mr. Henry of Manchester in 1776. It is unnecessary to\ndetail here what they have written on the history of these discoveries.\nIt may be observed that no mention is made by any of these gentlemen\nof an experiment of Mr. John Maud, in July 1736[35], who procured (and\nconfined) inflammable air from a solution of Iron in the vitriolic\nacid. Inflammable air had been procured from the White Haven coal\nmines, and exhibited to the Royal Society by Mr. James Lowther, but\nI do not recollect any notice of its having been collected from a\nsolution of metals in acids, and its character ascertained before Mr.\nMaud\u2019s experiment; for Hales, though he procured both inflammable and\nnitrous air, did not examine their properties. But it is much more\nextraordinary that neither Sir John Pringle who was a Physician, or\nMr. Lavoisier who was so much occupied under government, respecting\nthe Theory of the formation, and the practice of manufacturing\nSaltpetre from Nitre beds, should not have known, or have noticed the\nfive treatises of Mayow on chemical, phisiological and pathological\nsubjects, published a century preceding. Mayow is quoted by Hales,[36]\nby Lemery,[37] and by Brownrigg,[38] but though they appear to have\nread his work, it is evident that they knew not how to appreciate, or\nto profit by it. Haller[39] also refers to him, and he is respectfully\nquoted by Blumenbach[40]: but his book nevertheless long remained\nin comparative obscurity. From their time Mayow has been neglected\nuntil his writings were noticed by Dr. Forster, in 1780,[41] and again\nannounced as almost a discovery in the chemical world, by Dr. Beddoes\nin the year 1790. His doctrines touch so nearly on the subsequent\ndiscoveries of Priestley, Scheele, Lavoisier, Crawford, Goodwin, &c.\nthat it seems absolutely necessary to discuss his pretensions, before\nthose of his successors can be accurately admitted. As I am acquainted\nwith Dr. Beddoes\u2019s pamphlet on Mayow, from the analytical review of it\nonly, (V. vi.) and have no opportunity here of consulting it, I shall\ntake up Mayow\u2019s book, and give an account of his tenets, from the work\nitself.\n\n[33] In the beginning of his first vol. of experiments: it is an\nabridgment of Sir J. Pringle\u2019s discourse.\n\n[34] Discourses p. 4.\n\n[35] Martyn\u2019s abridgment of the Philosophical transactions v. 9. p. 396.\nI think Maud\u2019s experiment in 1736 likely to have suggested those of Mr.\nCavendish in 1766.\n\n[36] Vegetable Statics v. 2. p. 234.\n\n[37] Mem. de l\u2019Acad. Royale 1717 p. 48. On ne dit pourtant point\ntrop sous quelle forme ce nitre se contient dans l\u2019air, et Mayou,\nAuteur Anglois et grand defenseur du Nitre-A\u00e8rien voulant \u00e8claircir\ncette difficult\u00e8, suppose l\u2019air impregn\u00e8 par tout d\u2019une espece de\nnitre metaphysique, qui ne merite pas trop d\u2019\u00e8tre refut\u00e8, quoi-qu\u2019il\nl\u2019\u00e0it cependant \u00e8t\u00e8 suffisamment par Barchusen et par Schelhamer. Le\nfondement de l\u2019opinion du Nitre a\u00e8rien, c\u2019est comme le rapporte Mayou\nlui m\u00e8me, qu\u2019apres avoir enlev\u00e8 \u00e0 une terre tout le Nitre qu\u2019elle\ncontenoit, si on l\u2019expose ensuite \u00e0 l\u2019air pendant un certain tems\nelle en reprend de nouveau: il est vrai que si l\u2019observation \u00e8toit\nparfaitement telle qu\u2019elle vient d\u2019\u00e8tre rapport\u00e8e, on auroit une plus\ngrande raison qu\u2019on n\u2019en a, de supposer dans l\u2019air une tr\u00e8s-grande\nquantite de nitre, et de mettre sur le compte de ce nitre a\u00e8rien un\ngrand nombre d\u2019effets auquels il n\u2019a certainement aucune part.\n\nThe experiment of Lemery mentioned in Dr. Watson\u2019s Essay on Nitre, is\nin p. 54 of the Mem. de l\u2019acad. royale for 1717 not for 1731.\n\nIt sometimes happens to men whose genius far transcends the level of\ntheir day, to be from that very circumstance neither understood nor\nbelieved by their contemporaries. Until the discoveries of modern\nchemistry, who would have given Sir Isaac Newton credit for his\nconjecture that the Diamond was an inflammable substance? The fact\nwhich Lemery sneers at, the reproduction of nitre in the earth, is\nestablished beyond contradiction by the authors quoted by Dr. Watson\n(Chem. Ess. v. 1. p. 318-321) and in Bowle\u2019s account of the nitre\nearths in Spain, and in Andreossi\u2019s memoir on the Saltpetre of Egypt.\nThough it is far from improbable that after lixiviation these earths\nmay again become gradually impregnated with putrefying animal or\nvegetable matter to serve for the future crops of nitre.\n\n[38] Philosophical transactions v. 55 p. 232.\n\n[39] Dr. Priestley in his preliminary account of the discoveries and\ntheories on respiration (Exp. on air v. 3 p. 356. abridged edit.)\nquotes Haller\u2019s great work on Physiology. Haller quotes Mayow in three\nor four places; but it is no wonder the quotations did not strike\nDr. Priestley with any curiosity to examine Mayow\u2019s book, for Haller\ncertainly did not understand his theory. For instance Lib. 8. \u00a7 13.\nNitrum aereum. Si ad verum sensum nitri aerei hypothesis revocata\nfuisset parum utique ab e\u00e0 differt quam novissim\u00e8 proposuimus.\nNitrum quidem ipsum incautiosius olim Physiologi in aere obvolitare\nscripserunt, et ex pluvi\u00e0 et nive colligi; idemque passim ex rupibus\nefflorescere (Sprat ex Henshaw p. 264 major cal. hum.) exque plantis et\nstercoribus educi (Fludd Niewentydt, 563-4. Mayow de nitro aereo. Lower\nde Corde c. 3. Thurston 52. 53. Besse Analyse tom 1 et en lettre en\nreponse \u00e0 M. Helvet. 114.) id nitrum aiunt in pulmonibus ad sanguinem\nvenire, et ab eo ruborem illum elegantem, et fermentationem (Mayow,\nThurston penult. ess. T. 3 p. 265) et calorem sanguinis accedere aut\nvicissim sanguinem condensari.\n\nCertainly the id nitrum, is not Mayow\u2019s. M. Rosel seems first to have\nascertained the existence of nitre in plants. A late experiment of Dr.\nPriestley\u2019s, of which he gave an account in a letter to Dr. Wistar,\nseems to make it probable that there may be nitre in snow.\n\n[40] Blumenbach\u2019s Physiology, Caldwell\u2019s translation, Philadelphia,\n1795. \u00a7 162. Speaking of the theories of animal heat, \u201cBut all these\nhypotheses are embarrassed with innumerable difficulties; whereas on\nthe other hand the utmost simplicity, and an entire correspondence with\nthe phenomena of nature combine in recommending and confirming that\ndoctrine in which the lungs are considered as the focus or fire place\nwhere animal heat is generated, and the deplogisticated part of the air\nwhich we breathe as the fuel that supports the vital flame. That justly\ncelebrated character Jo. Mayow sketched out formerly the leading traces\nand the first great outlines of this doctrine which in our times has\nbeen greatly improved, extended and farther elucidated by the labours\nof the illustrious Crawford.\u201d\n\nDr. Darwin however is certainly right in supposing that heat is evolved\nin many other processes of the animal economy, beside inspiration.\n\n[41] See the translation of Scheele by Dr. John Reinhold Forster 1780 p.\nXIII.\n\nIn p. 437 of v. 5 of the analytical review of Hopson\u2019s Chemistry,\nbefore Dr. Beddoes\u2019s account of Mayow in 1790 the latter is stated as\nthe author of discoveries that might have given rise to the present\nsystem of pneumatic Chemistry.\n\nTwo of Mayow\u2019s Essays, viz. de Respiratione and de Rachitide, appear\nto have been published at Leyden, in 1671, the author who died at the\nage of 34, being then 26 years old. The propositions which I have\nthought it necessary to extract from Mayow\u2019s work, (ed. of 1674,\nOxford,) and which I shall insert, will give a concise, but faithful\nview of his discoveries and conjectures in pneumatic Chemistry.[42]\nThe abridgements of Beddoes and Fourcroy, I have no opportunity to\nconsult, and as Mayow\u2019s book is far from being common, I have deemed\nit by no means an unnecessary labour to give the reader an opportunity\nof judging for himself, what is the precise extent of the claim, which\nthe patrons of Mayow\u2019s reputation may fairly set up. It is also, of the\nmore importance in a history of this subject, to notice the pretensions\nof this writer, as it appears that Boyle\u2019s experiments on artificial\nair, in his physico-mechanical experiments were not made until the\nyear 1767 et seq. Though the first edition of that treatise repeatedly\nquoted by Mayow was in 1661. Mayow\u2019s experiments therefore ought to\nhave been, and probably were known to Boyle at the publication of his\nlast edition.[43]\n\n[42] I believe Dr. Beddoes gives no more than the heads of each chapter\nand, a brief analysis of the contents. Dr. Beddoes in his remarks on\nFourcroy\u2019s account of Mayow, Ann. de Chimie. No. 85, Nich. Jour. v. 3\nquarto p. 108 states Mayow at the time of his death to have been only\n27 and 28: but he was born in 1645 and died in 1769. Biog. Dict. 8vo.\ned. of 1798.\n\n[43] I do not find that Boyle quotes Mayow, though their labours in the\nsame field were contemporary. But Boyle in his hidden qualities of the\nair published in 1674 has an observation that looks as if derived from\nMayow. \u201cAnd this undestroyed springiness of the air, with the necessity\nof fresh air to the life of hot animals, suggests a great suspicion of\nsome vital substance if I may so call it, diffused through the air,\nwhether it be a volatile nitre or rather some anonymous substance,\nsidereal or subterraneal, though not improperly of kin to that which\nseems so necessary to the maintenance of other flames.\u201d\n\nThe following is an analysis of Mayow\u2019s essays, so far as relates to\nhis chemical Philosophy.\n\nCHAP. _1st. Of Nitre._ The air is impregnated with a vital, igneous,\nand highly fermentative spirit of a nitro-saline nature, p. 1.\n\nNitre is a salt consisting of an acid and an alkaline part, as appears\nby the Analysis, and by the generation of nitre; for if this salt be\ndeflagrated with sulphur, the acid spirit will fly off, and may be\ncollected by means of a tubulated retort and a receiver: and so if it\nbe deflagrated with tartar, the residuum will be equal in weight to the\ntartar employed, though much of that, is of a f\u0153tid oily nature. This\nappears also from the composition of nitre, by the addition of spirit\nof nitre to an alcali, p. 2-4. The fixed part of nitre is obtained from\nthe earth; pure earth being probably a compound of salt and sulphur.\np. 8.\n\nCHAP. _2d. On the aereal and fiery spirit of nitre._\n\nThe air seems to contain an acid, as appears from the regeneration\nof vitriolic acid after the calcination of Vitriol, and from the\nrusting of steel filings in a moist air; p. 10. A component part of\nthe acid of nitre, is derived from the air, which evidently contains\nsomething necessary to the support of flame. But this aereal pabulum of\nflame, is not air itself, for air remains when the confined taper is\nextinguished: nor is it as vulgarly supposed, the salt called nitre, p.\n12. But that these fire-air particles exist also in nitre is evident,\nsince this salt will support the combustion of sulphur in vacuo. Fill a\ntube with gunpowder slightly moistened, and it will burn out in vacuo,\nor with its mouth inverted over water. Hence the aereal part of nitre,\nis the same with the fire-air particles of the atmosphere, and is one\ncomponent part of the acid spirit of nitre: the other being (like the\nfixed part) obtained from the earth, p. 17. 18. The fiery particles\nthus common to nitre and to the air, he denominates nitro-aereal. It\nis these that give causticity to spirit of nitre, and occasion the\nred fumes observed in distilling it, p. 18. They do not take fire of\nthemselves in nitre, because they are inveloped with moisture; but when\ncombined with salt of tartar, and thrown on the fire in a dry state\nthey inflame, p. 20.\n\nCHAP. _3d. Of the nature of the nitro-aereal and fiery spirit._ Fire\nhe conceives to consist of these nitro-aereal particles set in violent\nmotion by means of sulphureous bodies, in the cases of culinary fire:\nbut by some other means, in the cases of the solar rays collected by a\nburning glass, and of the celestial fires. The corrosive and caustic\nnature both of fire and nitrous acid, seems to argue that it proceeds\nin both from the nitro-aereal particles they contain, 22-24. That fire\nis not of a sulphureous nature is evident, for nitre will not take fire\nin an ignited crucible; but oil thrown in, takes fire immediately. So\nif a piece of metal be held over a candle, the fire particles pass\nthrough the metal, but the sulphureous smoke adheres to the under side.\np. 27.\n\nThat the heat occasioned by a burning glass, consists of these\nnitro-aereal particles is evident, for diaphoretic antimony may be\nmade, either first by calcination with a lens, or secondly, by the\nrepeated affusion of nitrous acid, or thirdly, by the deflagration\nof nitre on the antimony. Diaphoretic antimony made by calcination,\nincreases on weight,[44] by means of the nitro-aereal particles fixed in\nit by the process. p. 28, 29.\n\n[44] It was first observed by John Rey in 1630 that metals calcined,\ngain weight by the absorption of air. See an account of his book by M.\nBayen Journ. de Rozier 1775 v. 1 p. 48. There are also some experiments\nby Boyle that shew the accession of weight on the calcination of\nmetals, but he does not seem aware of the theory. Shaw\u2019s Boyle, Fire\nand Flame weighed v. 2 p. 394, &c.\n\nCHAP. _4th. On the origin of acid liquors, and the earthy part of\nSpirits of nitre._ From p. 34, it appears that he knew nothing of\nthe absorption and combination of his nitro-aereal particles in the\nvitriolic acid, during the combustion of sulphur, but explains the\nwhole mechanically by the saline portion of the sulphur being broken\ndown into minute pointed particles, by the violent attrition of the\nnitro-aereal particles, and so becoming fluid and sharpened. He seems\ntoo, not to know that the colcothar of martial vitriol is no component\npart of sulphur, p. 37. The same mechanical explanation he applies\nto the formation of the ligneous acids, and to the impregnation\nof the caput mortuum or colcothar of vitriol, with fresh acid by\nexposure of air. In the succeeding paragraph, p. 39, he supposes that\nmarchasite (martial pyrites) imbibes the nitro-aereal particles from\nthe atmosphere, and thus acid is formed. In like manner he explains the\nformation of acids produced by fermentation, by the collision between\nthe nitro-aereal, and the sulphureo-saline particles of the mass. p.\n41. So also he supposes nitrous acid to be produced by the detention\nof his nitro-aereal particles by the terrene saline particles found\nin the earth, p. 43. Hence he concludes generally, p. 43, that acid\nsalts are formed from a saline basis brought into fusion or fluidity\nby the nitro-aereal part of the air: and sums up his theory of nitre,\nby stating it to be a triple salt, composed of nitro-aereal particles,\nunited to a terrene basis forming the acid, which then unites to the\nfixed basis, supplied also by the earth.\n\nCHAP. _5th. On Fermentation._ He gives in this chapter his theory\nof fermentation, as arising from the conflict of his nitro-aereal\nprinciple which he thinks may be termed mercury, and the sulphureous\nprinciple: evidently meaning by the latter, the Phlogiston of Stahl:\nand he states broadly, p. 60. that pure sulphur can never admit of\naccension, but by means of the nitro-aereal particles obtained from the\natmosphere. The rest of his reasoning in this chapter, does not seem\ndeserving of further notice.\n\nCHAP. _6th. On the nitro-aereal spirit as the cause of rigidity and\nelasticity._ These he explains by the fixation and state of his\nnitro-aereal particles in bodies endowed with these properties. In p.\n69 he endeavours to account why boiled water freezes sooner than that\nwhich has not been boiled; a fact which Dr. Black has made the subject\nof a paper in the 45th vol. of the Philosophical transactions. But his\nreasonings throughout this chapter are not calculated to add to his\nreputation, or to the mass of knowledge of the present day.\n\nCHAP. _7th. The elastic force of the Air depends on its nitro-aereal\nparticles. In what way exhausted air is reimpregnated with them. Of the\nelements of Heat and Cold._ This chapter contains experiments to shew\nthat the elasticity of the air is owing to the nitro-aereal particles\ncontained in it: which may be destroyed by the burning of a candle or\nother combustible substances, and also by the breathing of animals.\nWhen the atmospheric air contained in a glass jar inverted over water,\nwill no longer support flame or animal life, the water rises in the\njar, owing to the diminished elasticity of the air, not being able to\ncounteract the pressure of the surrounding atmosphere on the water p.\n100. He finds p. 101 that the diminution by burning a taper in a given\nquantity of the air, is about one thirtieth of the whole, and by the\nbreathing of mice and other animals about one fourteenth. Thence he\nconcludes p. 106 that by means of respiration the elastic part of the\nair enters into the blood, and that the sole use of the lungs is not as\nsome suppose, to break down the blood in its passage into very minute\nparticles. That combustion and respiration have similar effects on\natmospherical air, he concludes, p. 108, from the fact, that a candle\nand a small animal inclosed together in a glass jar over water, the one\nwill not burn, nor the other remain alive above half the time that they\nwould if alone. Mayow however, did not consider his nitro-igneous and\nelastic particles to be either pure air, or even a component part of\nthe common air, as air, notwithstanding the ambiguity of the passages\nin p. 114 and 118; but as particles of a different nature, attached\nto and fixed in the atmospheric particles; and detached (_excussas_)\nby the means above mentioned, p. 118 and 121. His explanation of\nelasticity generally in this chap. and of the difficulty arising from\nthe obvious resistance to the Atmosphere, and the expansibility of the\nair in which a taper has been extinguished, or an animal died, seem\ntoo obscure and unintelligible to merit transcribing. It is evident\nhowever upon the whole from p. 123 compared with p. 100 and 135 that\nhe conceived the diminution of such air to arise from diminished\nelasticity, but he supposes it to be denser than common air 123. In a\nsubsequent part of this chapter p. 128 et seq. he states his theory\nof the manner in which deteriorated air recovers its loss, viz. that\nthe nitro-aereal particles being lighter than the atmospherical, float\nabundantly in the higher regions; and that the part of the atmosphere\ndeprived of them below, being forced upward by the pressure of the\natmosphere above, obtains a renewal of these particles by mixture with\nthe strata where they abound.\n\nThe element of fire, he supposes to reside in the body of the Sun,\nwhich is no other than a mass of nitro-aereal particles driven in\nperpetual gyration with immense velocity. Cold, which he considers as\nsome thing positive (p. 130) he thinks consists in these particles\nassuming a pointed form, and moving not in gyration but strait forward.\nMuch of his reasoning indeed throughout the book, savours greatly of\nthe mechanical and corpuscular philosophy prevalent in his day.\n\nCHAP. _8th. On the nitro-aereal spirit as inspired by animals._\nFormerly he thought that in respiration the nitro-aereal particles\nwere rubbed or shaken off (_atterere_, _excutere_ 146) from the common\nair by the action of the lungs, at present he thinks the air itself\nenters the mass of the blood, is there deprived of these particles,\nand of part of its elasticity. To prove this he produces an experiment\nof the diminution of air by the vapours from iron dissolved in nitrous\nacid: but the beautiful deductions of Dr. Priestley from a similar\nexperiment, never occurred to him; on the contrary he expressly states\nthat it is an Aura, but not Air p. 145 and though afterward in chap. 9\np. 163, 164 he inclines to doubt, yet again in p. 168 he denies it that\ncharacter.\n\nIn p. 146 he proceeds to state the uses of these nitro-aereal\nparticles, which (147) he considers as the principle of life and\nmotion both in animals and vegetables. By the mutual action of the\nnitro-aereal, with the sulphureo-saline particles contained in the\nblood, a fermentation is excited necessary to animal life, and to\nthe warm fluid circulation of the blood (_ad sanguinis \u00e6stum_.) To\nthese particles imbibed from the air, he attributes the difference\nin colour between the venous and arterial blood; and he shews this,\nfrom the numerous air bubbles arising in an exhausted receiver from\nwarm arterial blood: but his experiment to illustrate the difference,\nfrom the colour produced by the nitrous acid with vol. alk. seems very\nlittle to the purpose p. 150.\n\nTo the fermentation arising from this mixture of nitro-aereal particles\nwith the blood, he ascribes animal heat, and accounts satisfactorily\nfor the increased heat of the body during strong exercise, from the\nmore frequent inspirations occasioned by the exertion (p. 152, 306:)\nbut his replies to the objections of Dr. Willis, drawn from the\nphenomena of fermenting mixtures, are very inconclusive.\n\nCHAP. _9th. Whether air can be generated anew._ He repeats the\nexperiment of dissolving iron in dilute nitrous acid, and finds\nthat though some of the vapour be absorbed, a portion still remains\nuncondensible even by severe cold. On substituting dilute vitr. for\nnitr. acid he finds an aura which is hardly absorbed or condensed\nat all. Hence he doubts whether these aur\u00e6 be not entitled to the\nappellation of air, especially as by subsequent experiment he shews\nthat they are equally expansible with common air. In making this last\nexperiment he exhibits the method of transferring air from one vessel\nto another (Tab. 5. Fig. 5.) much in the manner afterwards described\nby Mr. Cavendish in 1766.[45] From the inability of these aur\u00e6 to\nsupport animal life (Tab. 5. Fig. 6.) he concludes finally that they\nare not air, though not very dissimilar p. 171. The succeeding five\nchapters do not seem to contain any facts or conjectures that can add\nto Mayow\u2019s reputation. His Hypotheses are completely superceded by\nthe more accurate knowledge of the present day. In his tract on quick\nlime p. 225 he seems to have forestalled the acidum pingue of Dr. Meyer\npublished exactly a century afterward. It may be noted that in his\ntreatise on the Bath waters p. 259, he describes fishes as collecting\nvital air from the water, and respiring like land animals. (Aereum\naliquod vitale ab aqu\u00e0, veluti ali\u00e0s ab aur\u00e0 secretum et in cruoris\nmassam trajiciatur.) The air bladder he considers rather as a reservoir\nof air to be inspired, than a receptacle for excreted air; though the\nlatter opinion is made probable by Dr. Priestley.[46]\n\n[45] Boyle had invented an apparatus for transferring air from one\nreceiver of an air-pump to another, but not under water.\n\n[46] See Nich. Journ. v. 3 p. 119 on the probability of fishes\nseparating oxygen from the water they inhabit.\n\nThe first part of his _Treatises on Respiration_ is chiefly anatomical.\nIn p. 300 et seq. he states more fully his opinion, that vital air,\nis of a nitro-saline nature: that it is the principle of life, both\nin Animals and Vegetables: that combined with the sulphureo-saline\nparticles in the blood, it is the stimulus to the muscular fibre, and\nof course to the heart as a muscle, p. 305; but that the fermentation\noccasioned by the introduction of these particles into the blood, is\nnot confined to the left ventricle of the heart, but commences, in the\npassage of the blood through the lungs, and continues in the Arteries.\nThis evidently approaches the theory, advanced by Dr. Goodwyn in his\ntract on the Connection of life with respiration about sixteen years\nago, viz. that the pure air combined with the blood is the stimulus\nto the left ventricle of the heart, and produces the alternate\ncontraction, and dilation on which the circulation depends. Dr. Lower,\nin his treatise de motu sanguinis, and Fracassati, and Dr. Frederick\nSlare attributed the change of the colour of venous blood into a florid\nred, to the combination of the air with it. Lower I believe preceded\nMayow, who quotes him, p. 148; the date of Fracassati\u2019s and Dr.\nSlare\u2019s\u2019 observations I have not been able to ascertain, but they must\nhave been near the time of Mayow. Lowth. Ab. v. iii. p. 237.\n\nIn his third treatise on respiration, he explains the Animal \u0153conomy\nof the f\u0153tus in utero, by suggesting that the f\u0153tus is supplied by\nthe placenta, not with venous, but with arterial blood brought\nby the umbilical Arteries; so that the required stimulus of the\nnitro-aereal particles being thus conveyed, supercedes the necessity\nof the lungs for the purpose. This he ingeniously illustrates by the\nknown experiment, that a dog into whom arterial blood is infused,\nthough respiring with great difficulty before, hardly respires at all.\nA similar theory he applies to the life of the chick in ovo. This\ntreatise seems to have suggested Dr. Beddoes\u2019s illustration of his\ntheory of consumption from the state of pregnancy.\n\nIn a subsequent Essay on animal spirits, he conceives them to be, if\nnot the same with the nitro-aereal part of the atmosphere, yet to\nconsist of this, so far as they are necessary to the production of\nmuscular motion, which he attributes entirely as before to nitro-aereal\nparticles, p. 24 and 40, of chap. 4, on the animal spirits.\n\nI do not observe any thing else in Mayow\u2019s book worth noting on the\npresent occasion; or sufficiently connected with pneumatic Chemistry.\n\nFrom the analysis thus given of[47] what Mayow has advanced, it\nappears, that he clearly comprehended the atmosphere to consist of\na mixture of two parts, the one the efficient cause of life and of\ncombustion, the other not of itself necessary to either.\n\n[47] At the time this was written neither Dr. Bostock\u2019s treatise on\nrespiration or the books therein quoted p. 200 had arrived here. Nor\nhave I had an opportunity of consulting the references there made to\nProf. Robinson, Dr. Thompson, Dr. Yeates, or Fourcroy\u2019s account of\nMayow.\n\nThat the vital part of the air, was also a constituent part of nitre,\nthe effects of both being in essential particulars the same.[48]\n\nThat the vital part of the atmosphere entering the blood through the\nvessels in the lungs, is conveyed to the left ventricle of the heart,\nand becomes the stimulus to the contractions of that muscle, and is\nequally essential to the whole system of muscular contraction.\n\n[48] Mr. Ray wrote \u201cA dissertation (in 1696) about respiration,\u201d in\nwhich he supposes the air to pass from the bronchia and lungs into\nthe substance of the blood, and there (pabuli instar) it foments and\nmaintains the vital flame which he supposes to be in the sulphureous\nparts of the blood, as the air foments the common flame of a candle,\nand that the nitre has nothing to do with it. See Durham\u2019s collection\nof Ray\u2019s letters.\n\nThat the vital part of the atmosphere thus combined with the blood\nbecomes also the source of animal heat.\n\nThat this vital part is equally necessary to the f\u0153tus in utero as\nto the adult, and that the use of the lungs in the former case is\nsuperceded by the functions of the umbilical artery and placenta;\nby means of which, blood already impregnated with the vital air, is\nconveyed to the f\u0153tus.\n\nThat the respiration of fishes, is dependant on the particles of air\nmixed with watery element they inhabited.\n\nThat heat, flame, and combustion, depend on two universal principles,\nand the gentleness or violence of their mutual conflict: the one being\na principle of inflammability universally diffused in combustible\nbodies, and the other the vital or igneous part of the atmosphere.\n\nThese propositions evidently touch upon the most brilliant of the\npneumatic discoveries of the authors already quoted; and not a little\nextraordinary it is, that they should have remained so long unknown,\nunnoticed, and not understood.\n\nThe sulphur of Mayow is decidedly the Phlogiston of Stahl; the fire\nair of the former is the fire air of Scheele, the dephlogisticated air\nof Priestley, and the Oxygen of Lavoisier.\n\nThe combination of oxygen with the blood by means of respiration, first\ndiscovered as was thought by Lavoisier, is clearly stated by Mayow; who\nhas also forestalled the elaborate theories of Crawford on animal heat,\nof Goodwyn, on muscular stimulus, and of Beddoes on the succedaneum for\nrespiration in the f\u0153tus.\n\nBoyle, though he must certainly have known of Mayow, neither quotes\nhim, nor uses, or improves on his experiments; though as I have\nalready remarked, he seems to have had notions of the atmosphere much\nlike those adopted by Mayow. Whether this neglect arose from the\npride of birth, or the pride of knowledge, or the pride of age, (for\nBoyle was almost twice the age of Mayow) or from jealousy of Mayow\u2019s\nabilities, cannot now be ascertained. From that time until Hales\npublished his statics in 1726, pneumatic experiments were neglected,\nand the mathematical philosophy which Newton\u2019s discoveries rendered\nfashionable, absorbed for many years the attention of men of Science,\nparticularly in England. The way in which Lemery, Hales and Brownrigg\nspeak of Mayow, evidently shews that his theories were not understood,\nnor his merits appreciated.\n\nThat Mayow was unknown to Black and Cavendish until of late years, is\nhighly probable at least, if not absolutely certain. Neither these\nphilosophers, nor Dr. Priestley, could have passed over Mayow\u2019s book,\nwithout being struck with his ideas, and publicly referring to them in\ntheir chemical works.\n\nThat Dr. Priestley was unacquainted with Mayow is certain, from the\nlimited extent of his reading at the early period of his experiments\n(from 1770 to 1776 or 1777,) in books of chemistry and theoretic\nphysiology: from Mayow, not being quoted by any of the writers whose\nworks Dr. Priestley would be likely to consult except Hales and\nBrownrigg, and not by them in a manner to induce any farther curiosity:\nfrom their being unnoticed by Black, Cavendish, Sir John Pringle,\nand Lavoisier, in particular: from the custom that Dr. Priestley had\nof acknowledging the sources of his ideas in all cases where they\noriginated from the discoveries of others, as in his references to\nHales, Brownrigg, Cavendish, &c; and from his making no mention of\nMayow in his express account of the labours of his predecessors on the\nsubject of animal respiration. That both he and Sir John Pringle before\nthe Royal Society in 1772 and 1776 should expressly treat the _history_\nof discoveries in which Mayow bore so distinguished a part, and omit\nnoticing him altogether, had they known of his works, is incredible. It\nis evident that he was then an obscure writer, and not in repute, or\nhe would have occurred to them; or some of their philosophical friends\nwould have suggested the propriety of referring to his publications.\n\nNeither is it likely that Scheele would have been acquainted with\nMayow\u2019s writings, though it is singular that he escaped the notice\nof Lavoisier who I believe was employed under government in the\ncollection of essays on the theory and manufacture of saltpetre and\nin the superintendance of the saltpetre works, especially as Mayow\nwas mentioned though disrespectfully by Lemery, in his paper on nitre\nbefore referred to. But there certainly is no evidence that Lavoisier\nobtained his ideas of oxygen and its combination with the blood from\nMayow, or his theory of metallic calcination from Jean Rey, though his\nobligations to Dr. Priestley have not been always acknowledged with the\ncandour and liberality that men of science would expect from Lavoisier.\n\nMayow had more than ordinary discernment in comparing known facts,\nand drawing conclusions from them, but he does not appear to have had\nthe talent of imagining decisive experiments, of varying them, of\nobserving and noting all the natural phenomena attendant upon them,\nor sufficient industry in pursuing them. It is one thing to make\na plausible conjecture, and another to verify it. Those alone are\nentitled to the honour of discoveries who not merely start the theory,\nbut take the pains of pursuing it by experiments and resting it on the\nbasis of well conceived and accurately ascertained facts, sufficiently\nnumerous and varied to obviate the most prominent objections. Mayow\nhas reasoned with great acuteness and conjectured with singular\nfelicity, but he added little to the mass of philosophical KNOWLEDGE\nin his day. He composed and decomposed nitre and ascertained the\nexistence of vital air in this substance as well as in the atmosphere,\nbut he did not collect, exhibit, and examine it. He knew how to make\nartificial air from nitrous acid and iron, but all the extraordinary\nproperties of this gas, remained unobserved by him as well as by others\nuntil collected and imprisoned by Dr. Priestley, and exposed to the\nquestion under his scrutinizing eye. Indeed as an experimentalist Dr.\nPriestley stands unrivalled. The multiplicity of his experiments,\ntheir ingenuity, their bearings upon the point in question, their\ngeneral importance, and their fidelity, were never equalled upon the\nwhole, before or since. Nor is it any detraction from their merit\nwith those who are accustomed to experiment, that they hold out no\npretensions to that suspicious accuracy, which has too often depended\nmore upon arithmetical calculations than upon actual weight and\nmeasure. The many kinds of aeriform fluids discovered by Dr. Priestley,\nthe many methods of procuring them, the skilfull investigation of\ntheir properties, the foundation he laid for the labours of others,\nthe simplicity, the novelty, the neatness, and the cheapness of his\napparatus, and his unequalled industry, have deservedly placed him at\nthe head of pneumatic Chemistry. Nor should it be forgotten that while\nhe thus outstripped his predecessors and contemporaries in the field\nof experiment, it formed not as with them the business of his life,\nbut (among other branches of literature and philosophy successfully\ncultivated) the occupation of his leisure hours, the relaxation from\nwhat he deemed more important, more laborious, and more obligatory\npursuits.\n\nBefore his time (excluding Mayow) Boyle had discovered that air\nmight be generated, fatal to animal life. It was known that common\nair would only serve a certain time for the purposes of combustion\nand respiration. The mephitic exhalations from natural Grottoes had\nbeen remarked. Inflammable air both natural and artificial had been\nexhibited before the royal society. Hales had ascertained the presence\nof air in a great number of substances where it was not commonly\nsuspected though he had not the skill to examine the properties of\nthe air produced. Black had ascertained the presence of fixed air in\nlimestone, and Brownrigg, Lane, and Venel had illustrated the theory\nof mineral waters. But it was the paper of Cavendish in 1766 on fixed\nand inflammable air produced from various substances by means of\nacids, fermentation and putrefaction, that first introduced a stile\nof experimenting in pneumatic chemistry, more neat, more precise, and\nscientific than had hitherto been known.\n\nThe attention of Dr. Priestley, however to these subjects was not\noriginally excited by the works of his predecessors, but by the\n_accident_ of his proximity to a brew-house at Leeds, where of course\nfixed air (a subject that had attracted much attention about that time)\nwould be produced in a large way. It was thus that one experiment led\nto another, until the fruits of his amusements were the discoveries on\nwhich his philosophical reputation is principally founded. It is no\nmore than justice to his character to mention in this place, that of\nall men living he was the freest from literary deception and the vanity\nof authorship. He never claims the merit of profound investigation or\ngreat foresight, for discoveries that might easily have been so stated\nas if they had been the pure result of those qualifications, but which\nwere in reality the offspring of accident and circumstance. He excites\nothers to patient labour in the field of experiment, from observing\nthat success does not depend so much on great abilities or extensive\nknowledge, as on patient attention, and perseverance; and that much of\nhis own reputation was owing to the discovery of facts that arose in\nthe course of his pursuits, the result of no previous theory, unlooked\nfor and unexpected. In v. 3 p. 282 of his experiments on air he says\n\u201cFew persons I believe have met with so much unexpected good success as\nmyself in the course of my philosophical pursuits. My narrative will\nshew that the first hints at least of almost every thing that I have\ndiscovered of much importance have occurred to me in this manner. In\nlooking for one thing I have general found another, and sometimes a\nthing of much more value than that which I was in quest of. But none of\nthese unexpected discoveries appear to me to have been so extraordinary\nas that I am about to relate (viz. the spontaneous emission of\ndephlogisticated air from water containing a green vegetating matter)\nand it may serve to admonish all persons who are engaged in similar\npursuits, not to overlook any circumstance relating to an experiment,\nbut to keep their eyes open to every new appearance and to give due\nattention to it however inconsiderable it may seem.\u201d[49] To this\ncandour of disposition, and the readiness with which he acknowledged\nhis mistakes and his oversights, even those who opposed his opinions\nbear honourable testimony. \u201cThe celebrated Priestley himself (says M.\nBerthollet in his reply to Kirwan on Phlogiston p. 124 of the Eng.\ntranslation) often sets us the example, by rectifying the results of\nsome of his numerous experiments.\u201d\n\n[49] See also the 1st, vol. of his early edition of experiments on air\np. 29.\n\nNumerous indeed those experiments were as well as important: far too\nnumerous to be particularised here; though it may not be improper to\ncall to the recollection of the reader some of the more interesting\nfacts which we owe to Dr. Priestley, and the times of their discovery\nand communication.\n\nThe first of his _publications_ on pneumatic chemistry was in 1772,\nannouncing the method of impregnating water with fixed air, and on\nthe preparation and medicinal uses of artificial mineral waters; a\ndiscovery that domesticated much of the knowledge that had heretofore\nbeen disclosed only in the works of learned societies; and that\nbeautifully exemplified how much of the health and the pleasure of\ncommon life, might depend on the ingenious researches of men of\nscience. Though this was the first publication of Dr. Priestley on\nthe chemistry of the airs, he had certainly commenced his experiments\nin this branch of Science, soon after his arrival at Leeds, and as\nearly at least, as 1768. In the year 1771 he had already procured good\nair from saltpetre; he had ascertained the use of agitation, and of\nvegitation as the means employed by nature in purifying the atmosphere\ndestined to the support of animal life, and that air vitiated by animal\nrespiration was a pabulum to vegetable life; he had procured factitious\nair in a much greater variety of ways than had been known before, and\nhe had been in the habit of substituting quicksilver in lieu of water,\nfor the purpose of many of his experiments. In his paper before the\nRoyal Society, in the spring of 1772, which deservedly obtained him the\nhonour of the Copley Medal, he gives an account of these discoveries.\nIn the same paper he announces the discovery of that singular fluid\nnitrous air,[50] and its beautiful application as a test of the purity\nor fitness for respiration of airs generally. In the same paper he\nshews the use of a burning lens in pneumatic experiments, he relates\nthe discovery and properties of marine acid air; he adds much to\nthe little of what had been heretofore known of the airs generated\nby putrefactive processes, and by vegetable fermentations, and he\ndetermines many facts relating to the diminution and deterioration of\nair, by the combustion of Charcoal, and the calcination of metals.\n\n[50] Honestly referring to Dr. Hales and Mr. Cavendish for any idea that\nmight have remotely led to this discovery (See Obs. on air 1st ed. v. 1\np. 108) the discovery however was completely his own.\n\nDr. Priestley seems always to have thought nitrous air as convenient\na substance for eudiometrical experiments as any of the later\nsubstitutes, viz. the liquid sulphurets and the combustion of\nphosphorus. The foundation of Mr. Davy\u2019s substitute, muriat or sulphat\nof iron saturated with nitrous air, was as Mr. Davy acknowledges first\ndiscovered by Dr. Priestley himself. See Nich. Journ. for Jan. 1802\np. 41. The different states of the solutions of iron in vitriolic\nacid have been ingeniously applied to the analysis of mixed gasses by\nHumboldt and Vauquelin.\n\nSoon after this, in confirmation of Sir John Pringle\u2019s theory of\nintermittents and low fevers being generally owing to moist miasma\nwhen people are exposed to its influence, he ascertained by means of\nhis nitrous test that the air of marshes was inferior in purity to the\ncommon air of the atmosphere.[51]\n\nHe had obtained very good air from saltpetre in 1771, but his full\ndiscovery of dephlogisticated air, seems not to have been made until\nJune or July, 1774,[52] when he procured it from precipitate per se,\nand from red lead. This was publicly mentioned by him at the table\nof Mr. and Madame Lavoisier, at Paris, in October 1774, to whom the\nphenomena were until then unknown. The experiments on the production of\ndephlogisticated air, he made before the scientific chemists at Paris\nabout the same time, at Mr. Trudaine\u2019s. This hitherto secret source\nof animal life and animal heat, of which Mayow had but a faint and\nconjectural glimpse, was certainly first exhibited by Dr. Priestley,\nand about the same time, (unknown to each other) by Mr. Scheele of\nSweden. For the honour of science, it were much to be wished that the\npretensions of Mr. Lavoisier were equally well founded. He has done\nsufficient and been praised sufficiently for what he has done, to\nsatisfy a mind the most avaricious of fame; he is deservedly placed\nin the first rank among the philosophers of his day, and he ought not\nto have thrown a shade over his well earned reputation, by claiming\nfor himself the honour of those discoveries which he had learned from\nanother.\n\n[51] Phil. trans. v. 54 p. 92.\n\n[52] See Doctrine of Phlog. established p. 119.\n\nFrom this brief account of the first stage of Dr. Priestley\u2019s chemical\nlabours, it appears that during the short period of two years, he\nannounced to the world more facts of real importance, and extensive\napplication, and more enlarged and extensive views of the \u0153conomy of\nnature, than all his predecessors in pneumatic Chemistry had made known\nbefore.\n\nIn 1776 his observations on respiration were read before the Royal\nSociety; in which he clearly discovered that the common air inspired,\nwas diminished in quantity, and deteriorated in quality, by the action\nof the blood on it _through the blood vessels of the lungs_; and that\nthe florid red colour of arterial blood, was communicated by the\ncontact of air through the containing vessels. His experiments on the\nchange of colour in blood confined in a bladder, took away all doubt\nof the probability of this mode of action. I cannot help thinking\nthat the circumstance of Dr. Priestley\u2019s mind being so much occupied\nwith the prevailing theory of Phlogiston, was the reason why he did\nnot observe that the diminution of the air, and the florid colour of\nthe arterial blood was owing to the absorption of the pure part of the\natmosphere, _rather_ than to any thing emitted from the blood itself.\nThis part of the theory of respiration Mr. Lavoisier has certainly\nestablished; though it is by no means ascertained as yet whether the\nvital part of the atmosphere inspired, is wholly and alone absorbed,\nor whether in reality something is not contributed in the lungs to the\nformation of the fixed air found after expiration.[53]\n\n[53] That azote is absorbed during respiration as Dr. Priestley supposed\ncontrary to Mr. Lavoisier\u2019s opinion, is made extremely probable by the\nexperiments of Mr. Davy, whose accuracy is well known. Researches,\np. 434. The formation of water in this process, is certainly no more\nthan conjecture as yet. Dr. Bostock has lately published a very useful\nand laborious history of discoveries relating to respiration, both\nanatomical and pneumatical.\n\nIn 1778 Dr. Priestley pursued his experiments on the property of\nvegetables growing in the light to correct impure air, and the use\nof vegetation in this part of the \u0153conomy of nature. A discovery\nwhich was announced to several men of science in England previous\nto the publication of the same ideas by Dr. Ingenhouz.[54] Indeed\nfrom its having been communicated to M. Magellan whose pleasure\nand whose occupation it was, to give information of new facts to\nhis philosophical correspondents, and of this in particular to Dr.\nIngenhouz then engaged in similar researches, there is hardly a doubt\nbut the latter knew of the experiments then pending on the subject by\nDr. Priestley.\n\n[54] Doctrine of Phlogiston established, p. 107, et. seq. The theory\nof the amelioration of impure air by the absorption and excretion of\nvegetables growing in the light, has been doubted by Dr. Darwin in his\nPhytologia, and opposed by Count Rumford in a paper published in the\ntransactions of the Royal Society, for 1787: also by Dr. Woodhouse of\nPhiladelphia, Nicholson\u2019s Journal, for July 1802, and by Mr. Robert\nHarrup, Nicholson\u2019s Journal, for July 1803.\n\nIt is painful to notice these aberrations from propriety in the conduct\nof men highly respectable in the philosophical world, arising from an\nover anxious avarice of literary fame, and an improper jealousy of\nthe reputation of another. Not that it derogates from the character\nof a philosopher to wish for the applause of those who know how to\nappreciate his merit, or who are benefited by his exertions; such\nan anxiety is laudable when it does not lead to encroachments on\nthe literary rights of others; nor is it at all desireable under\nthe present circumstances of human nature, to expect from men of\nscience an attention to their pursuits arising from motives of pure\nbenevolence alone, and excluding all views, hopes, and expectations of\nthe gratifying tribute of public approbation. I believe no man ever\nlaboured with a more single eye to public utility than Dr. Priestley.\nBut consideration in society, and the respectability attendant upon\ngreat talents, and great industry, successfully employed for the\nbenefit of mankind, is a motive to useful exertion so universal, so\nhonest, so laudable, and withal so powerful, that it is the common\ninterest, as well as the duty of society, to bestow it liberally where\nit has been earned faithfully, and to concede it to those only, who\nhave really deserved this honourable reward.\n\nFrom this period Dr. Priestley seems to have attended to his pneumatic\nexperiments as an occupation; devoting to them a regular portion of\nhis time. To this attention, among a prodigious variety of facts\ntending to shew the various substances from which the gasses may be\nprocured; the methods of producing them; their influence on each other,\nand their probable composition, we owe the discovery of vitriolic\nacid air, of fluor acid air, of vegetable acid air, of alkaline air,\nand of dephlogisticated nitrous air, or gazeous oxide of azote as\nit has been called, the subject of so many curious experiments by\nMr. Davy. To these we may add the production of the various kinds of\ninflammable air by numerous processes that had escaped the observation\nof Mr. Cavendish; in particular the formation of it by the electric\nspark taken in oils, in spirits of wine and in alkaline air; the\nmethod of procuring it by passing steam through hot iron filings,\nand the phenomena of that hitherto undetermined substance the finery\ncinder, and its alliance to steel. To Dr. Priestley we owe the very\nfine experiment of reviving metallic calces in inflammable air and\nits absorption in toto, apparently at least, undecomposed. He first\nascertained the necessity of water to the formation of the gasses, and\nthe endless production of air from water itself.\n\nDr. Priestley\u2019s experiments on this subject, to wit: the generation\nof air from water, opened a new field for reflection, and deserves\nmore minute notice. No theory has yet been proposed adequate to the\nexplanation of the facts. He had before remarked that water was\nnecessary to the generation of every species of air, but the unceasing\nproduct of air from water had never been before observed.\n\nIn his first set of experiments he procured air, by converting the\nwhole of a quantity of water into steam: then, to obviate the objection\nto the water having imbibed air from the atmosphere he put the water\non mercury in long glass tubes immersed in mercury: in a third process\nhe used no heat, but merely took off the pressure of the atmosphere.\nIn all these cases a bubble of air was extricated from the water,\nwhich being separated by inclining the tube, another bubble was again\nproduced on each repetition of the experiment. That this could not be\nair imbibed from the atmosphere appeared from this, that though the\nfirst portions were generally purer than atmospheric air, the next\nbecame less pure, and at length wholly phlogisticated.\n\nIt did not appear that the addition of acids, enabled the water to\nyield more air, nor did he succeed in attempting to convert the whole\nof a given quantity of water into air, although exposing the water\nconfined over mercury to heat, and separating the air produced, it\nstill continued to produce more air for twenty or thirty repetitions\nof the experiments. When a certain proportion of air was thus produced\nat any one time, no continuance of the experiment would encrease the\nquantity until it was separated. Hence he concludes that the longest\ncontinuance of water in the state of vapour would not convert it\ninto air. The water used was pure distilled water previously boiled to\nseparate any adventitious air that might have been imbibed from the\natmosphere. The precautions he used, and the replies to such objections\nas he foresaw the experiment would be liable to, are detailed in\nthe papers he published on the subject, to wit, a separate pamphlet\npublished in England in 1793, and a communication in the Am. Ph. trans,\nv. IV. p. 11-20.\n\nIn the last mentioned paper, he proceeds also to give an account of\nsome experiments on the property of water to imbibe different kinds of\nair, and the conversion of sp. of wine, into inflammable air.\n\nThis paper inserted in the American transactions, was read before that\nsociety in Feb. 1796. In Ap. 1800 another paper was read before the\nsame society on the production of air by the freezing of water Am. Ph.\ntrans. v. V. p. 36. In this paper he recapitulates the general result\nof his former experiments on the generation of air from water, namely\n\u201cthat after all air had been extracted from any quantity of water by\nheat or by taking off the pressure of the atmosphere, whenever any\nportion of it was converted into vapour, a bubble of permanent air\nwas formed, and this was always phlogisticated. The process with the\nTorricellian vacuum (he says) I continued for some years and found the\nproduction of air equable to the last. The necessary inference from\nthis experiment is, that water is convertible into phlogisticated air,\nor that it contains more of this air intimately combined with it than\ncan be extricated from these processes in any reasonable time.\u201d\n\nHe proceeds to state his imperfect attempts to procure air from water\nby freezing, until he procured cylindrical iron vessels seven or eight\ninches high and near three inches wide at the bottom, the upper orifice\nclosed with a cork and cement, in the centre of which was a glass tube\nabout one fifteenth of an inch in diameter. In this apparatus the water\nin the iron vessel was frozen by means of snow and salt, the vessel\nbeing immersed in mercury, and the water contained over the mercury.\nThe quantity of water was about three ounces. The experiment was\nrepeated nine times without changing the water, and the last portion of\nair procured in this manner was as great as any of the preceding; so\nthat there remained no reasonable doubt but that air might be produced\nfrom the same water in this manner ad libitum. Having obtained near\ntwo inches of air in the glass tube, Dr. Priestley put an end to the\nexperiment, and examining the air found it wholly phlogisticated, not\nbeing affected by nitrous air, and having nothing inflammable in it.\n\nThe inference drawn by the Doctor from those experiments is, that\nwater when reduced by _any means_ into the state of vapour, is in part\nconverted into phlogisticated air; and this is one of the methods\nprovided by nature for keeping up the equilibrium of the atmosphere,\nas the influence of light on growing vegetables is the means of\nrecruiting the other part; both of them being subject to absorption\nand diminution in several natural processes. And he thinks that they\nstrengthen also the opinion, that water is the basis of every kind\nof air, instead of being itself a compound of hydrogen and oxygen\naccording to the new theory. At all events the experiments themselves\nmust be considered as extremely curious, as well as new.\n\nThe water and the salt thus made use of gave rise to another experiment\nof the most important nature to the present theory of chemistry, if it\nshould on future repetition be ultimately verified. This experiment\nrelated by Dr. Priestley in a letter to Dr. Wiston is in substance\nas follows. Having repeatedly used as above mentioned a freezing\nmixture of common salt and snow, the experiment being finished, he\nevaporated the snow water in an iron vessel and recovered the salt.\nThe salt thus recovered contained some calx of iron. He put it by in\na bottle and labelled it, according to his usual practice. In October\n1803, he wanted to procure some marine acid, and took the salt thus\nprocured by evaporating the snow water, for the purpose. On commencing\nthe distillation, he was surprized to find the receiver full of the\ncharacteristic red fumes of the nitrous acid. The vitriolic acid used\nfor the purpose was diluted with about an equal quantity of water. On\nfinishing the process, he took some of the acid in the receiver, and\ndissolved copper in it, and thus procured good nitrous air. He was\nhimself perfectly persuaded that no nitre had been used in the freezing\nmixture, nor had any by accident or design been mixed with the salt.\nHe was not unacquainted with the common mode of clearing black oil of\nvitriol by the addition of nitre. So that no means of accounting for\nthis curious fact remained, but the snow or the iron: he seemed to\nthink that should this experiment be fully verified hereafter, it would\nconfirm the vulgar hypothesis of snow containing nitre, and account\nfor the fertilizing quality usually attributed to snow. He had no\nopportunity in that winter of repeating the experiment as he died in\nabout three months after, and his previous illness had compelled him to\nforsake his laboratory.\n\nOf the almost discarded theory of Phlogiston Dr. Priestley to his death\nremained the strenuous advocate, and almost the sole supporter; _ipse\nAgmen_. Beautiful and elegant as the simplicity of the new doctrine\nappears, many facts yet remain to be explained, to which the old\nsystem will apply, and the French theory is inadequate. These are\ncollected with an ingenuity of arrangement, and a force of reasoning in\nthe last pamphlet published by the Doctor on the subject,[55] which no\nman as yet unprejudiced can peruse, without hesitating on the truth of\nthe fashionable theory of the day.\n\n[55] The doctrine of phlogiston established 1803.\n\nCertainly, it has not yet been sufficiently explained on the new\ntheory, what becomes of the Oxygen from the decomposed water in the\nsolution of metals in acids; nor why inflammable air is produced\nwhen one metal in solution is precipitated by another; nor why\ndephlogisticated air is hardly to be procured from finery cinder, if at\nall; nor why this substance so abounding in oxygen according to the new\ntheory, will not oxygenate the muriatic acid; nor why it should answer\nall the purposes of water in the production of inflammable air from\ncharcoal; nor why water in abundance should be produced when finery\ncinder is heated in inflammable air, and none when red precipitate is\nexposed to the same process; nor what becomes of the oxygen of the\ndecomposed water when steam is sent over red hot Zinc, and inflammable\nair is produced without any addition in weight to the Zinc employed;\nnor why there should be a copious production of inflammable air when\nhot filings of Zinc are added to hot mercury in a hot retort and\nexposed to a common furnace heat, which I believe is an unreported\nexperiment of Mr. Kirwan\u2019s; nor why sulphur and phosphorus are formed\nby heating their acids in inflammable air without our being able to\ndetect the oxygen which on the new theory ought to be separated, nor\nwhy water should be produced by the combustion of inflammable air\nwith ,47 of oxygen, and nitrous acid when ,51 of oxygen is employed,\nfor this experiment can now no more be doubted than explained; nor\nwhy on the new doctrine the addition of phlogisticated air, should\nmake no alteration in the quantity of acid thus obtained; nor why red\nhot charcoal slowly supplied with steam, should furnish inflammable\nair only and not fixed or carbonic acid air; nor why nothing but pure\nfixed air should be produced by heating the carbonated Barytes in the\nsame way; nor why fixed air should be formed under circumstances when\nit cannot be pretended that Carbon is present, as when gold, silver,\nplatina, copper, lead, tin and bismuth are heated by a lens in common\nair over lime water; or why the grey and yellow calces of lead should\nfurnish carbonic acid and azote, and no oxygen; nor why the residuum\nof red lead when all its oxygen is driven off by heat should be either\nmassicot or glass of lead according to the degree of heat, and not\nlead in its metalline state; nor why plumbago with steam should yield\ninflammable and not fixed air; nor why minium and precipitate per se\nheated in inflammable air should produce fixed air; nor why on the\nevaporation of a diamond in oxygen, the fixed air produced should far\nexceed the weight of the diamond employed, if some of the oxygen had\nnot entered into the composition of the carbonic acid so formed; nor\nwhy there should be a constant residuum of phlogisticated air (or\nazote) after the firing of dephlogisticated and inflammable airs, if it\nbe not formed in the process; nor why phlogisticated air if a simple\nsubstance, should be so evidently formed in the various processes\nenumerated by Dr. Priestley in the 13th section of the pamphlet of\nwhich I have made the foregoing abstract? whether the doctrine of\nphlogiston is still to be used as the key to the gate of chemical\ntheory, or whether it be properly thrown aside for the elegant\nsubstitute of the French chemists, can hardly be ascertained, until the\npreceding difficulties are cleared up on the new doctrine, for on the\nold theory they are sufficiently explicable. The summary of arguments\nin favour of Phlogiston, published by Dr. Priestley, in 1803, are\nevidently too important, and too difficult of reply, to be slighted by\nthose who adopt the opposite opinions. _Non nostri est tantas componere\nlites._ Should the old theory ultimately fall, it maybe fairly said of\nits respectable supporter, _si Pergama dextra defendi potuit, etiam hac\ndefensa fuisset_.\n\nThis was almost the last of Dr. Priestley\u2019s chemical publications,[56]\nthrough all which, his characteristic talent as an author has been\neminently preserved, that of not only adding greatly to the existing\nstock of knowledge, but exciting others to exertion and reflection in\nthe same line of pursuit. Nor can I help thinking that much of the\nlabours of the French philosophers in this department of science would\nnever have been undertaken, if they had not been called forth by the\nprevious discoveries, not of Lemery, Margraaf, Bayen, Macquer, and\nBeaum\u00e8, but of Hales, Black, and Macbride; of Cavendish and Priestley\nand Scheele.[57] Would to God there were no other object of contest\nbetween the rival nations of Great Britain and France, but which should\nadd most to the sum of human knowledge, and contribute most to the\nmeans of human happiness.\n\n[56] To the end of this Appendix will be subjoined a list of the\nscattered papers on Philosophical subjects which Dr. Priestley\npublished in periodical collections, besides those which are inserted\nin the Philosophical transactions.\n\n[57] I do not mean to deny the tribute of praise to Marriotte and Venel,\nany more than to Brownrigg and Lane, and it is certain that Lavoisier\nwas engaged in pneumatic experiments, previous to 1774.\n\nIt is impossible to conclude the preceding account better than by the\nfollowing extract of a letter to Mr. Lindsey from a man[58] well able\nto appreciate the labours of Dr. Priestley; and the late testimony in\nfavour of his discernment by Dr. Bostock. \u201cTo enumerate Dr. Priestley\u2019s\ndiscoveries, would in fact be to enter into a detail of most of those\nthat have been made within the last 15 years. How many invisible fluids\nwhose existence evaded the sagacity of foregoing ages has he made\nknown to us? The very air we breathe, he has taught us to analyze,\nto examine, to improve: a substance so little known, that even the\nprecise effect of respiration was an enigma until he explained it.\nHe first made known to us the proper food of vegetables, and in what\nthe difference between these and animal substances consisted. To him\nPharmacy is indebted for the method of making artificial mineral\nwaters, as well as for a shorter method of preparing other medicines;\nmetallurgy for more powerful and cheap solvents; and chemistry for such\na variety of discoveries as it would be tedious to recite: discoveries\nwhich have new modelled that science, and drawn to it and to this\ncountry, the attention of all Europe. It is certain that since the year\n1773, the eye and regards of all the learned bodies in Europe have been\ndirected to this country by his means. In every philosophical treatise,\nhis name is to be found, and in almost every page. They all own that\nmost of their discoveries are due either to the repetition of his\ndiscoveries, or to the hints scattered through his works.\u201d[59]\n\n[58] Richard Kirwan, Esqr.\n\n[59] Vindici\u00e6 Priestlian\u00e6, p. 68.\n\n\u201cThis is not the only instance\u201d (says Dr. Bostock,[60] speaking of Mr.\nJurin\u2019s opinion that azote was generated, instead of being absorbed,\nin the process of respiration as Dr. Priestley, and after him Mr. Davy\nhad supposed,) \u201cin which, after the conclusions of Dr. Priestley have\nbeen controverted by his contemporaries, a more accurate investigation\nof the question, has ultimately decided in his favour. The complicated\napparatus, and imposing air of minuteness which characterize the\noperations of the French chemists, irresistibly engage the assent of\nthe reader, and scarcely permit him to examine the stability of the\nfoundation upon which the structure is erected. The simplicity of the\nprocesses employed by Dr. Priestley, the apparent ease with which his\nexperiments were performed, and the unaffected conversational stile\nin which they are related have, on the contrary been mistaken for the\neffects of haste and inaccuracy. Something must also be ascribed to the\ntheoretical language which pervades, and obscures the chemical writings\nof this Philosopher, in consequence of his unfortunate attachment to\nthe doctrine of Phlogiston.\u201d\n\n[60] Essay on respiration, p. 208.\n\nWhen the operose experiment of the French chemists on the formation\nof water, shall have been sufficiently repeated, and verified by\nother experiments to the same point, less complex, less tedious, less\nexpensive, and easy to be repeated; when the water thus supposed to\nbe formed is sufficiently distinguished from the water absolutely\nnecessary to the generation of all airs, and attendant upon them[61]\nboth in a state of mixture and combination; and when the difficulties\nenumerated a page or two back, as attendant on the modern theory shall\nbe explained on the new system, as well as on that of Stahl, then, and\nnot until then, will it be time to lament Dr. Priestley\u2019s unfortunate\nattachment to the doctrine of Phlogiston.\n\n[61] Mr. Kirwan found that common inflammable air from iron, and\nvitriolic-acid, contained about 2-3 of its weight of water mixed with\nit; which might be separated from the air by means of concentrated\nvitriolic-acid in a watch glass over mercury, without diminishing the\nquantity or altering the characteristic properties of the air thus\ntreated.\n\n\n             _Of Dr. Priestley\u2019s other Scientific Works._\n\n\nThe other philosophical labours of Dr. Priestley consist of his history\nof electricity, his history of the discoveries relating to light and\ncolour, and his popular introductions to perspective, electricity and\nnatural philosophy.\n\nIt appears that after the publication of his history of electricity,\nhe intended to have pursued the plan, by composing similar histories\nof every branch of science: a magnificent idea, and which none but\na man conscious of uncommon powers could have contemplated. Few men\nindeed were so capable of such an undertaking as Dr. Priestley; for\nindependant of his habits of patient and regular industry in his\nliterary pursuits, and the wide field of his attention to scientific\nobjects, he had a facility of perusing, abstracting, and arranging the\nworks of others, not commonly attendant even upon equal abilities in\nother respects. This great undertaking of Dr. Priestley to embrace\nthe various departments of philosophy, appears a labour sufficient\nfor one life; and had due encouragement been afforded, this projected\nseries of histories would in all probability have been compleated,\nusefully to the world, and reputably to himself. But he proposed this\nundertaking laborious as it was, without designing that it should\noccupy the whole or the principal portion of his time, but his leisure\nhours only; for at no period did he postpone his professional duties,\nor his theological studies, to any other object whatever. The life of\nDr. Priestley is almost a perpetual illustration of a seeming paradox,\nrespecting mental energy, that men of talents, uncommonly laborious,\nand who appear to get through more business than one person could be\nsupposed equal to, have usually more leisure time at their disposal,\nthan those who have little to do: so much does the habit encrease\nthe power of exertion. Nor was any man less averse to the innocent\npleasures of social enjoyment than Dr. Priestley, or better calculated\nas well as more inclined to contribute to the common stock of amusing,\nand instructive conversation. It cannot indeed be truly said of him,\nas Dr. Johnson[62] once related of himself, that he had never refused an\ninvitation to dinner on account of business but once in his life, yet\nno man more readily found leisure for social intercourse. This arose\nfrom his habit of dividing his time into certain portions appropriated\nto his respective pursuits, and determining to perform a certain\nquantity of literary duty, within the assigned period.\n\n[62] On that day, (Dr. Johnson said) as it was an unusual deprivation,\nhe found himself disinclined, and unable to attend steadily to the work\nthat led him to refuse the invitation. He walked about his library\noccasionally looking over first one book and then another until about\nfour o\u2019clock when weary of staying within he went to a tavern to dine.\nDr. Johnson had for a long time a dislike to Dr. Priestley who bore two\nof the characters most in disrepute with Dr. Johnson, that of a whig\nand a dissenter. Dr. Priestley\u2019s pursuits also consisting so largely\nof heterodox theology, which Dr. Johnson abominated, and experimental\nphilosophy which he heartily despised, they had hardly a common point\nof union. Toward the latter part of Johnson\u2019s life, they met; and upon\nthe friendly terms that ought to obtain between two men, who, each in\ntheir way, deserved so well of the republic of letters.\n\nThe first edition of his history of Electricity, was in 1767: it\nwent through another edition in 1769, and a third in 1775. It was\npublished at a very happy time, when electricity was a favourite object\nof attention to many respectable men of science then living, and it\ncontributed in a great degree to turn the public attention toward\nthe study of these phenomena. Very much of what has been done since\nmay be fairly attributed to the popularity given to this branch of\nexperimental philosophy by Dr. Priestley. Nor did he confine himself to\na mere narration of the labours of others; the second volume contains\nmany new experiments of his own, and some of them form very curious\nand important additions to the stock of electrical knowledge.[63]\nThe discoveries of the last thirty years, particularly including\nthose of Galvanic Electricity, are so numerous, and so dispersed in\nvolumes difficult to be procured, that a continuation of this history\nis a desideratum in the scientific world; at one time there was an\nexpectation of seeing it from the pen of Mr. Nicholson, whose general\nknowledge, and industry, as well as his attention to this branch of\nphilosophy in particular, render him peculiarly qualified for the task.\nBut the proposals he communicated to Dr. Priestley, on the subject,\nwere not pursued to effect.[64]\n\n[63] Dr. Priestley among his other experiments on electricity first\nascertained the conducting power of charcoal and the calcination and\nvitrification even of the most perfect metals by the electric spark. He\nseems first to have used large batteries, which M. Van Marum and his\nassociates have carried to such extent.\n\nThe solutions of the metals, the gasses produced and the circumstances\nwhich accelerate and prevent these effects in Galvanic processes with\nthe pile of Volta, as detailed by Dr. Priestley in his paper on this\nsubject in Nich. Journ. for March 1802 p. 198 form very important\nadditions to the mass of knowledge respecting the Galvanic fluid. Nor\nare his discoveries in pneumatic electricity, of the conversion of\noils, spirit of wine and the alkaline gass into inflammable air or\nhydrogen of less moment.\n\n[64] Dr. Bostock, who seems to have many requisites to qualify him as\nthe historian of particular branches of science, has published a good\nattempt toward the history of Galvanism in Nicholson\u2019s Journal.\n\nThese histories of detached branches of Science, would not only be\nhighly useful, but they may be considered as in some measure necessary\nto the accurate pursuit, and advancement of science itself. They are\nnot only useful for the purpose of shewing the discoveries that have\nbeen made, and the time of their publication, the ideas that appear to\nhave suggested them, the persons to whom we are indebted for them, and\ntheir effect on the spirit of enquiry at the time, but they prevent a\nman of science from being led into mistakes, from doing what has been\nalready done, from suggesting what has been already published, and\nfrom ignorantly claiming to himself the merit due to the labours of\na predecessor. Books are now so multiplied, in languages so various,\nobtained with so much difficulty, and at an expence so far exceeding\nthe usual means of scientific men, that those who like Dr. Priestley\nfully and faithfully execute a work of this description are real\nbenefactors to mankind.[65]\n\n[65] The transactions of the various academies and philosophical\nsocieties in Europe amount at least to 1000 volumes in quarto. The\nroyal society of England in 1665 led the way to similar institutions.\n\nThe history of ELECTRICITY was composed by Dr. Priestley in one year.\nThe three editions of the work in less than eight or nine years\nsufficiently shew that, in the opinion of men of science, it was well\ncomposed: otherwise the celerity of its composition, would no doubt\nderogate from, instead of adding to, the well earned reputation of\nthe author; and rather tend to shew that he was too careless or too\nconceited to take the necessary pains and employ the necessary time to\nmake it fit for public inspection. Every man owes to the public, that\nif he professes to instruct them, he should dedicate as much labour as\nthe subject demands, or at least as much time as it is in his power to\ndevote to it. I fully accede to the ingenious correction of the _nonum\nprematur in Annum_, suggested by the witty Dr. Byrom of Manchester; but\nsomething of the _Lim\u00e6 Labor_, respect for the tribunal of the public\ndemands of every man who appears before them in the character of an\nauthor. Dr. Priestley has in more instances than one, been accused of\nunnecessary if not of culpable rapidity in his literary compositions:\nbut he never professed to be a fine writer; he never sought after the\nbeauties of stile; and his common language was sufficiently neat and\nexpressive, to communicate the facts and the arguments upon which\nit was employed. It is also to be remarked, that the facility of\ncomposition which he acquired from long practice, made that labour\nlight to him, which would have been too much for a less skilful and\na less experienced composer. In many instances indeed of his rapid\npublications, he had not to _seek_ for arguments, but to express in his\nunornamented and unaffected manner, the ideas that forced themselves\nupon him relating to a subject previously considered and upon which he\nhad long made up his mind.\n\nThe History of Discoveries respecting LIGHT and COLOURS published\nin 1772 was a more difficult task, nor did it meet with equal\nencouragement. Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s important labours in this branch\nof science, could not be fully comprehended without a portion of\nmathematical knowledge not even then so common as formerly, among\nthe philosophers of the day. Mathematical studies seem to have in\nthemselves very little to interest, compared with other literary\npursuits; although by long attention and habit, that interest may be\nexcited and kept up. It was about this time that the popular phenomena\nof chemistry and electricity more decidedly took their stand in the\nfield of science, and irresistably seized hold on the attention of the\nworld: phenomena, highly amusing in themselves, strongly attractive\nfrom their novelty, of evident and immediate application, and that\npromised an incalculable harvest of honourable and useful discovery,\nto such as would become their votaries. Little had been done in this\ndepartment of philosophy, little previous knowledge was required to\ncomprehend all that was known, and those who were unable to read a\npage of Sir Isaac Newton with profit, could easily mix an acid and an\nalkali, or turn the wheel of an electrical apparatus.\n\nBy this time too, it had been discovered, that there were other powers\nin nature that must be called in to explain appearances, which the\nmechanical and corpuscular philosophy had endeavoured to elucidate in\nvain. Such were magnetism, electricity and chemistry. It began to be\nfound out, that the science of calculation, was but an aukward handmaid\nto their sister branches of natural philosophy, while physiology,\nlaughed outright at the clumsy addresses of her mathematical admirers,\nfrom Borelli to Keill.\n\nThe discoveries therefore relating to light and colours, at the time\nwhen Dr. Priestley proposed his history, being intimately associated\nwith the study of the mathematics, and the profound investigations\nof Sir Isaac Newton, were out of the beat of the less laborious, but\nmore fashionable philosophy of the day; and were not so generally\ninteresting to the Sciolists and Amateurs. Hence the work in question,\nthough treated in a very entertaining and popular manner, and by no\nmeans crouded with reference to Diagrams or abstruse discussions, was\nnot popular even among that class of readers, who might reasonably be\ncalculated on, as the purchasers of such a performance. The subscribers\nindeed were sufficiently numerous, and respectable, but by far the\nmajority were defaulters in respect of payment. It did not pay the\nbookseller: and of course still less did it recompence Dr. Priestley in\na pecuniary point of view, especially as he had gone to considerable\nexpence with a view to the completion of his extended plan. To him\nindeed, though pecuniary loss was a serious evil, pecuniary profit\nwas a consideration of small importance: his motives to literary\nlabour seem uniformly to have arranged themselves as follows, utility,\nreputation, profit.\n\nThe work in question is certainly too brief, considering the importance\nof the subject: many parts of it, the theory of Huygens, Euler, and\nFranklin for instance, seem to have merited more discussion. That all\nthe phenomena of light depend on the Sun, as the reservoir, whence all\nthe emanations of that fluid to the various parts of the system are\nsupplied, the lighting of a candle is alone sufficient to refute. The\nfacts discovered to us by modern Chemistry will suggest a great many\nother doubts of the doctrines respecting light, which were regarded\nas well established when Dr. Priestley\u2019s book was written. But it was\na faithful account of the knowledge of the day, and an unprejudiced\ntribute to the reputation of those philosophers who had from time to\ntime extended the boundaries of science on the subjects treated of.\n\nNot a little has been added to the mass of facts then published, by\nthe subsequent experiments of Dr. Priestley himself, and his fellow\nlabourers in the Chemistry of the Gasses: and notwithstanding the\nexperiments of Sir Isaac Newton and his predecessors, the theory of\nlight and colours is not yet rested upon facts sufficiently numerous,\nand decisive to satisfy the enquiries dictated by the present state of\nknowledge.\n\nBut with all these disadvantages, the work has nevertheless maintained\nits ground, for we have no where else so systematic, and compleat,\nthough brief an account of what had been made known to the world on\nthis important branch of scientific inquiry. It will always remain a\nvaluable performance; and to the author an honourable one, from the\nknowledge and ability required in its compilation, from the fairness\nof the account it gives, and the entertaining statement of facts and\nsuggestions interspersed through the book.\n\nIt is greatly indeed to be wished, that these histories should be\ncontinued on the plan which Dr. Priestley has adopted. So that all the\nprominent facts should be collected in the order of their discovery,\nand a full view be given of the ground already gone over. Abridgments,\ndo not answer this purpose; the theories that dictated the experiments\nare not detailed, their truth or their fallacy cannot be judged of, and\nsufficient merit is not attributed to the labours of the discoverer,\nor the bearings of his facts on his theory, sufficiently explained. To\nattain gradually to the summit of the temple of science, we must not\nonly build on the foundations of our predecessors, but know somewhat of\ntheir intentions at the time of laying them.\n\nThe minor treatises of Dr. Priestley on electricity, perspective and\nnatural philosophy, have this discrimination of character, that they\nare more calculated to allure young people to the study of those\nsubjects than almost any of the introductions which have either\npreceded or succeeded. Philosophy is made, not an abstruse science, but\na delightful amusement. Indeed it was the fort of Dr. Priestley to make\nknowledge intelligible and popular, and treat it in such a way, as to\ninvite rather than deter, those who were inclined to enter upon these\ndelightful pursuits. The plainness and simplicity of his syllabus,\nthe amusing complexion of the Phenomena, by which he illustrates his\ndoctrines, and the facility with which the one can be made, and the\nother comprehended, affords a very useful example to those who may have\nthe same object hereafter in view. This was doubtless, owing to his\nlong experience as a teacher: and his success in that capacity among\nhis pupils, with the electrical machine, and the air pump, is full\nevidence of the practical utility of his plans of instruction.\n\n\n_Catalogue of Dr. Priestley\u2019s smaller pamphlets and uncollected papers\non philosophical subjects._\n\n_Nicholson\u2019s_   }\n  _Journal._    }\n _new series._  }\n\nV. 1 p. 181.    Reply to Mr. Cruikshank\u2019s.\nIbid 198.       Experiments on the Pile of Volta.\nV. 2 p. 233.    On the conversion of iron into steel.\nV. 3 p. 52.     On air from finery cinder and charcoal.\nV. 4 p. 65.     Farther reply to Mr. Cruikshank\u2019s.\n\n_Amer. Trans._\n\nV. 4 p. 1.      Experiments and observations relating\n                to the analysis of atmospherical\n                air.\nV. 4 p. 11.     Farther experiments relating to the\n                generation of air from water.\nIbid p. 382.    Appendix to the above articles.\n\n_Ib. Vol._ V.  {p. 1. Experiments on the transmission\n               {      of acids and other liquors in the\n               {      form of vapours over several substances\n               {      in a hot earthen tube.\n Republished   {\n               {p. 14. Experiments on the change of\n               {       place in different kinds of air\n               {       through several interposing substances.\n               { 21. Experiments relating to the absorption\n               { of air by water.\n               {\n               { 28. Miscellaneous experiments relating\n               { to the doctrine of phlogiston.\ntogether.      {\n               { 36. Experiments on the production of\n               { air by the freezing of water.\n               {\n               { 42. Experiments on air exposed to\n               { heat in metallic tubes.\n\n_New-York Med. Repos._     _Title and Date._\n\nVol. 1 p. 221.   Considerations on the doctrine of\n                 Phlog. and the Decomp. of water.\n                 (Pamphlet) 1796.\nIbid p. 541.     Part 2d of do. (Pamphlet 1797.)\nVol. 2 p. 48.    (Pamphlet) to Dr. Mitchell.\nIbid p. 163.     (Pamphlet) on Red Precipitate of\n                 Mercury as favourable to the doctrine\n                 of Phlogiston, July 20, 1798.\nIbid p. 263.     Experiments relating to the calces of\n                 metals communicated in a fifth letter\n                 to Dr. Mitchell. October 11,\n                 1798. (Pamphlet.)\nIbid p. 269.     Of some experiments made with\n                 ivory black and also with diamonds.\n                 (Pamphlet) 11 October, 1798.\n\nIbid p. 383.    On the phlogistic theory, January 17,\n                1799. (Pamphlet.)\n\nIbid p. 388.    On the same subject. February 1,\n                1799.\n\nVol. 3 p. 116.  A reply to his antiphlogistian opponents,\n                No. 1.\n\nVol. 4 p. 17.   Experiments on the production of\n                air by the freezing of water.\n\nIbid p. 135.    Experiments on heating Manganese\n                in inflammable air.\n\nIbid p. 247.    Some observations relating to the\n                sense of hearing.\n\nVol. 5 p. 32.   Remarks on the work entitled \u201cA\n                brief history of epidemic and pestilential\n                diseases,\u201d May 4, 1801.\n\nIbid p. 125.    Some thoughts concerning dreams.\n\nIbid p. 264.    Miscellaneous observations relating\n                to the doctrine of air, July 30,\n                1801.\n\nIbid p. 390.    A reply to Mr. Cruikshank\u2019s observations\n                in defence of the new system\n                of chemistry, 5 Vol. Nicholson\u2019s\n                Journal p. 1, &c.\n\nVol. 6 p. 24.   Remarks on Mr. Cruikshank\u2019s experiments\n                upon finery cinder and\n                charcoal.\n\nIbid p. 158.    Observations on the conversion of\n                iron into steel.\n\nIbid p. 271.    Additional remarks on Mr. Cruikshank\u2019s\n                experiments on finery cinder\n                and charcoal, November 15\n                1802.\n\n\n\n\n                           APPENDIX, NO. 2.\n\n              _Of Dr. Priestley\u2019s Metaphysical Writings._\n\n\nThe principal source of objection to Dr. Priestley in England,\ncertainly arose from his being a dissenter; from his opposition to the\nhierarchy, and to the preposterous alliance, between Church and State:\nan alliance, by which the contracting parties seem tacitly agreed to\nsupport the pretensions of each other, the one to keep the people in\nreligious, and the other in civil bondage. His socinian doctrines in\ntheology, and the heterodoxy of his metaphysical opinions, though they\nadded much to the popular outcry raised against him, were not less\nobnoxious to the generality of Dissenters, than to the Clergy of the\nChurch of England. Nor is it a slight proof of the integrity of his\ncharacter, and his boldness in the pursuit of truth, that he did not\nhesitate to step forward the avowed advocate of opinions, which his\nintimate and most valuable friends, and the many who looked up to him\nas the ornament of the dissenting interest, regarded with sentiments of\nhorror, as equally destructive of civil society and true religion.\n\nThe extreme difference observable between the apparent properties of\nanimal and inanimate matter, easily led to the opinion of something\nmore as necessary to thought, and the phenomena of mind, than mere\njuxta position of the elements, whereof our bodies are composed.\nThe very antient opinion also of a state of existence after death,\nprevalent in the most uncivilized as well as enlightened states of\nsociety, confirmed this opinion of a separate and immortal part of the\nhuman system: for it was sufficiently evident, that no satisfactory\nhopes of a futurity after death, could be founded on the perishable\nbasis of the human body. It is only of late days, and from the\nextension of anatomical and physiological knowledge, that the theory,\nand the facts of animal organization have been at all understood; and\nwithout the conjunction of physiology with metaphysics, the latter\nwould have remained to eternity, as it has continued for ages, a mere\ncollection of sophisms, and a science of grammatical quibbling. The\ndoctrine of a future state, and that of an immaterial and immortal\nsoul, became therefore mutual supports to each other; and herein the\ncivil power willingly joined in aid of the dogmas of metaphysical\ntheology, from observing the convenience that might arise in the\ngovernment of civil societies, from inculcating a more complete\nsanction of rewards and punishments for actions in this life, by means\nof the dispensations in a life to come. Other causes also gave an\nuniversal preponderance to the theory of the human soul. It became,\nfor the reasons above mentioned, not only a favourite doctrine with\nchurchmen and statesmen, but the self delusions among the vulgar,\nrespecting supposed appearances after death, rendered it also a\n_popular_ doctrine. Indeed, in every age, and in every country, the\npriesthood have found it so powerful an engine of influence over the\nminds of the people, and in too many cases, so, fruitful a source of\nlucrative imposture, that its prevalence is not to be wondered at,\nwherever artificial theology has been engrafted on the simplicity of\ntrue religion, and supported by an established clergy. Of Popery,\nwhich yet remains the prevailing system of the christian world, it\nis doubtless the corner stone; and even under every form of ignorant\nand idolatrous worship throughout the globe, it is the main source\nof power and profit to that class of society, which regulates the\nreligious opinions, rites and ceremonies of the country. Not that\nI would insinuate, that the belief of a separate soul, like some\nother opinions that might be mentioned, has been generally taught by\nprofessors who disbelieve it; for plausible arguments are not wanting,\nto give it that currency which it has so long received among the wisest\nand the best of men: nor that an established priesthood of any age or\ncountry, or of any religion, is a mere compound of fraud and imposture,\nfor I well know that the wise and the good are abundant in this class\nof society, as well as in others. But even such men are liable to the\ncommon infirmities of human nature; they cannot be indifferent to their\nrank in society, or the means of their subsistence; it is not every\ncollege youth, that is able or willing to weigh \u201cthe difficulties and\ndiscouragements attending the study of the Scriptures,\u201d so forcibly\npointed out in the melancholy pamphlet of Bishop Hare: nor is it\nevery professor of Christianity, who doubts of the doctrines he has\nundertaken to teach, that has fortitude enough to follow the noble\nexample of Theophilus Lindsey, and John Disney. Hence we may take\nfor granted, that those opinions will be admitted the most readily,\nand enforced the most willingly, which contribute to the influence\nof that order, which the professors have been induced by choice, or\ncompelled by necessity, to wed for life. Choice indeed, at least that\nkind of choice, which depends on a well-grounded conviction of the\nobject chosen being the means of superior usefulness, has little to\ndo in this business. For though the clergy of the church of England\nseverally declare that they are moved by the Holy Ghost to take upon\nthem the clerical character, is there one among them in the present\nday (Bishop Horsely perhaps excepted) who would venture to defend this\ndeclaration in the sense originally intended? It is a fact notorious,\nthat the candidates for holy orders, regard the profession of Divinity\nas they would that of Physic or Law, a fair and reputable means of\ngaining a livelihood, by performing those duties which are considered\nas necessary to the well being of society. It is a fact too, equally\nnotorious, that wherever theological opinions (like that of the human\nsoul) have been fit and liable to be made subservient to the temporal\nprofit or influence of the clergy, that use has been so made of them\nby the ambitious and designing part of the profession, and the rights\nof the people have been encroached upon, to serve the interest of the\nHierarchy. Nor is it the established clergy alone that some of the\npreceding remarks will apply to: much bigotry among the clergy of the\ndissenting interest, may fairly be ascribed to similar causes, though\nby no means operating in the same degree.\n\nBut important as this doctrine is to the clerical order in political\nsocieties, some latitude of doubt and even of denial, has been conceded\nin England to the known friends and adherents of the established system\nin that country. This is the more to be wondered at, as they have\ngenerally considered a dissonance of opinion among their own order,\nmore fatal to the common interest, than the attacks of their avowed\nenemies. Thus, more notice was taken of the Arian heterodoxy of Dr.\nClarke, than of the avowed infidelity of Collins, Tindal, Toland,\nCoward, and other writers of that class, who published about the same\nperiod.\n\nThe learned Mr. Henry Dodwell as he is usually called, and who is\na pregnant instance that learning does not always persuade good\nsense to inhabit the same abode, took great pains to shew that the\nsoul was naturally mortal, but might be immortalized by those who\nhad the gift of conferring on it this precious attribute. This power\nhe ascribed to the Bishops. Dodwell, though he would not at first\njoin the establishment, changed his opinion and his conduct in this\nrespect afterward. Bishop Sherlock denied that the existence of the\nsoul could be made evident from the light of nature. (Disc. 2 p.\n86. disc. 3 p. 114) Of the same opinion was Dr. Law who quotes him.\nArchbishop Tillotson declares (v. 12 serm. 2.) that he cannot find\nthe doctrine of the immortality of the soul expressly delivered in\nscripture. Dr. Warburton wrote his \u201cDivine legation\u201d to prove that\nMoses and the Jews neither believed in, nor knew of a future state.\nDr. Law, afterward Bishop of Carlisle, in the appendix to the third\nedition of his \u201cConsiderations on the theory of religion,\u201d compleatly\noverthrows the whole doctrine of a separate soul as founded on the\nscripture, by a critical examination of every text usually adduced in\nits support. Dr. Watson the present Bishop of Landaff in the preface\nto his collection of theological tracts dedicated to young divines\nfor whose use it was compiled, expressly declares that the question\nrespecting the materiality or immateriality of the human soul, ranks\namong those subjects on which the _academicorum_ \u03b5\u03c0\u03bf\u03c7\u03b7 may be admitted,\nwithout injuring the foundations of religion. It should seem therefore,\nthat it is not heterodoxy in mere speculative points of theology,\nthat constitutes the sin against the holy Ghost with an established\nclergy, but heterodoxy on the subject of church authority and the grand\nalliance. It is in this spirit that the then Archdeacon of St. Albans,\nDr. Horsely complains of Dr. Priestley\u2019s history of the corruptions of\nchristianity. \u201cYou will easily conjecture (says the Archdeacon in his\nanimadversions on that work p. 5) what has led me to these reflections,\nis the extraordinary attempt which has lately been made to _unsettle\nthe faith and break up the constitution of every ecclesiastical\nestablishment in Christendom_. Such is the avowed object of a recent\npublication which bears the title of a history of the corruptions of\nchristianity, among which the catholic doctrine of the trinity holds a\nprincipal place.\u201d\n\nThis is an unfortunate exposure of the cloven foot of Hierarchy. It was\nnot the wish to detect error or to establish truth--it was not from\nanxiety to fix upon a firm footing, some great and leading principle\nof christianity--it was not the benevolent design of communicating\nuseful information on a litigated topic of speculative theology--it\nwas not the meek and gentle spirit of sincere and patient enquiry\nthat dictated those animadversions--all these motives would not only\nhave borne with patience, but would have welcomed and exulted in a\ntemperate discussion of unsettled opinions, before the tribunal of\nthe public; for by such discussions alone, can the cause of truth be\npermanently and essentially promoted. No: these were not the motives\nthat influenced the Archdeacon of St. Albans. It was the nefarious\nand unpardonable attempt to unsettle the faith of established creeds;\nhowever founded that faith might be, on ignorance or prejudice, on\npardonable misapprehension, or culpable misrepresentation, on fallacy,\non falsehood, or on fraud. These \u201cAnimadversions,\u201d proceeded from the\nmorbid irritability of an expectant ecclesiastic; from a prudent and\na prescient indulgence of the _esprit de corps_; from a dread too\nperhaps, lest the tottering structure of church establishment, with all\nits envied accompaniments of sees and benefices, of deaconries and\narchdeaconries, and canonries, and prebendaries, and all the pomp and\npride of artificial rank, and all the pleasures of temporal authority,\nand lucrative sinecure connected with it, might be too rudely shaken\nby sectarian attacks. But enough for the present, respecting these\nlearned labours of the Archdeacon of St. Albans; which like those\nof Archdeacon Travis may well be considered as having sufficiently\nanswered the _main_ purpose of their respective authors, in spite of\nthe wicked replies of Priestley and Porson. Let us say with the public,\n_requiescant in pace_.\n\nTo return however to the more immediate subject of the present section.\nHobbes seems to have been the first writer of repute (in England at\nleast) who denied the doctrine of an immaterial and naturally immortal\nsoul. This was a necessary consequence of his faith being apparently\nconfined to corporeal existence, an opinion deducible in fact from\nthe old maxim of the antients and of the schools, _nil unquam fuit\nin Intellectu, quod non prius erat in Sensu_. Hobbes\u2019s Leviathan was\npublished about 1650 or 1651. Spinosa who published after Hobbes was\nrather an Atheist than a Materialist, a character to which though\nHobbes\u2019s opinions might lead, he does not assume. In 1678 Blount sent\nforward to the public his \u201c_Anima Mundi_\u201d, or an historical narration of\nthe \u201copinions of the antients concerning man\u2019s soul after this life\naccording to unenlightened nature,\u201d which met with much opposition and\nsome persecution; as was likely, for it is by no means destitute of\nmerit.\n\nIn 1702 appeared a book entitled \u201csecond thoughts concerning the\nhuman soul, demonstrating the notion of a human soul as believed to\nbe a spiritual and immortal substance united to a human, to be an\ninvention of the heathens and not consonant to the principles of\nphilosophy, reason, or religion by E. P. or Estibius Philalethes.\u201d The\nyear following a supplement was published entitled \u201cFarther Thoughts,\n&c.\u201d The author, Dr. Coward, preoccupies a path subsequently taken by\nDr. Law and Dr. Priestley, and endeavours to shew at length that the\nnotion of an immaterial, immortal soul, is not countenanced by the\ntexts of scripture usually adduced in favour of that opinion. These\ntexts he criticises individually with a reference to the original words\nused. The author appears in the character of a sincere Christian. A\nsecond edition of this book was published 1704. In 1706 Mr. Dodwell\nbefore mentioned, a learned and laborious but weak man, and bigotted\nto the hierarchy, published his \u201cEpistolary discourse proving from the\nscriptures and the first fathers that the soul is a principle naturally\nmortal, but immortalized actually by the pleasure of God, to punishment\nor reward; by its union with the divine baptismal spirit. Wherein is\nproved that none have the power of giving this divine immortalizing\nspirit since the apostles, but only the bishops.\u201d This gave rise to\nthe controversy between Clarke and Collins on the immortality of the\nsoul. Dodwell\u2019s book was attacked by Chishull, Norris and Clarke. He\nreplied in three several publications, 1st. \u201cA preliminary defence\nof the epistolary discourse concerning the distinction between soul\nand spirit, 1707. 2nd. The scripture account of the eternal rewards\nor punishments of all that hear of the gospel, without an immortality\nnecessarily resulting from the nature of souls themselves that are\nconcerned in those rewards and punishments, 1703. 3d. The natural\nmortality of human souls clearly demonstrated from the holy scriptures\nand the concurrent testimonies of the primitive writers.\u201d 1708.\n\nAbout this time Toland in his letters to Serena, (1704) gives an \u201cEssay\non the history of the soul\u2019s immortality among the Heathens,\u201d deducing\nthat doctrine from popular traditions supported by poetical fictions,\nand at length adopted and defended among the philosophers. Concluding\nfrom hence, (preface) that divine authority was the surest anchor of\nour hope and the best if not the only demonstration of the soul\u2019s\nimmortality; an indirect denial of the whole doctrine as coming from\nToland, who was certainly no friend to christianity and no believer in\nthe divine authority of the scriptures.\n\nIn the same year (1704) but somewhat previous to Toland, Dr. Coward had\npublished his \u201cGrand Essay, or a vindication of reason and religion\nagainst impostures of philosophy; proving according to those ideas and\nconceptions of things human understanding is capable of forming itself.\n1st. That the existence of an immaterial substance is a philosophic\nimposture and impossible to be conceived. 2ndly That all matter has\noriginally created in it, a principle of internal or self motion.\n3rdly That matter and motion must be the foundation of thought in men\nand brutes.\u201d Dodwell and Toland had learning enough and so had Blount\nto throw some light on the history of this question, and the author of\nsecond thoughts has many observations well adapted to the question he\ndiscusses, but very little is to be gained from a perusal of Coward\u2019s\nbook.\n\nDr. Hartley\u2019s great work, (great, not from the bulk, but the importance\nof it) was first published in 1749. The direct and manifest tendency of\nthe whole of his first volume is to destroy the common hypothesis of\nan immaterial soul: and this he does with a mass of fact and a force\nof reasoning irresistible. He shews clearly how all the faculties\nascribed to the soul, thought, reflection, judgement, memory, and\nall the passions selfish and benevolent, may be resolved into one\nsimple undeniable law of animal organization, without the necessity\nof any hypothesis such as that of a separate soul. Yet he does not\nappear distinctly to have seen the full weight and tendency of his own\nreasoning, and he adopts a theory on the subject, loaded with more\ndifficulties and absurdities, than even the common hypothesis.\n\nIn 1757 was published a philosophical and scriptural inquiry into\nthe nature and constitution \u201cof mankind considered only as rational\nbeings, wherein the antient opinion asserting the human soul to be an\nimmaterial, immortal and thinking substance is found to be quite false\nand erroneous, and the true nature state and manner of existence of the\npower of thinking in mankind is evidently demonstrated by reason and\nthe sacred scriptures.\u201d Author J. R. M. I. Who this author really was\nI know not. But from the perusal of his book it is probable that he\nwas a physician, and had been travelling. The above work he terms the\nphilosophic or first part, and refers to a longer work of his own in\nmanuscript which it seems he could not procure to be published. There\nis very little new in the book so far as I could judge.\n\nI do not recollect any other treatise relating to the subject that\nexcited public attention in England. In France and Holland La Mettrie\nbegan the controversy by his Histoire naturelle de L\u2019Ame, published at\nthe Hague in 1745 as a translation from the English of Mr. Charp;[66]\nit is a book containing many forcible remarks, and did credit to the\nside of the question which La Mettrie had adopted. Soon after this La\nMettrie published L\u2019Homme machine which was burnt in Holland in 1748.\nThis was an honour not due to the formidable character of the work\nitself, which though it contains some of the common arguments drawn\nfrom the physiology and pathology of the human system, is by no means\nof first rate merit. He whimsically attributes the fierceness of the\nEnglish, to their eating their meat more raw than other nations. This\nbook was translated and published in London in 1750.\n\n[66] This is probably one of the innumerable instances of the\ncarelessness of French authors in quoting English names. La Mettrie\nmost likely meant to ascribe this to Mr. Sharp the Surgeon, with whose\nreputation he must have been acquainted. I remember Arthur Young\nEsq. in one of his annals of agriculture complains that a paper of\nhis translated into French was given to Artor Jionge ecuier. Some\nyears ago Mr. Charles Taylor of Manchester (lately secretary to the\nsociety of Arts in London) was requested by Lord Hawkesbury to make\nsome experiments to ascertain the value of East India Indigo when\ncompared with the Spanish. Mr. Taylor did ascertain that the former\nyielded more colour for the same money at the current prices than the\nlatter by above one fourth. In a paper I believe by M. D\u2019Ijonval these\nexperiments are quoted in a note as made by Le Chevalier Charles Tadkos\ncelebre manufacturier de Manchester.\n\nFrom Mr. Hallet\u2019s discoveries the last volume of which was published\nin 1736 Dr. Priestley has extracted for himself and quoted what he\ndeemed necessary on this question. I do not notice as part of the\nhistory of the question Materialism in England, the foreign atheistical\npublications, such as _Le Systeme de la nature_ attributed to Mirabeau\nthe father, _Le vrai sens du Systeme de l\u2019univers_ a posthumous work\nascribed to Helvetius, _Le Bon Sens_ by Meslier, and others whose\ntitles do not now occur to me, because until within these few years,\nthey were hardly known in England, and excited no discussion of\nthe subject there, previous to the work of Dr. Priestley now under\nconsideration.\n\nThe Doctor himself says in his preface to the disquisitions on matter\nand spirit, first published in 1777, that though he had entertained\noccasional doubts on the intimate union of two substances, so entirely\nheterogeneous as the Soul and the Body, the objections to the common\nhypothesis, did not impressively occur to him, until the publication\nof his treatise against the Scotch Doctors, which was in 1774. Those\ndoubts indeed could hardly avoid occurring to any person who had\ncarefully perused Hartley\u2019s Essay on Man, first published in 1749, and\nDr. Law\u2019s appendix before mentioned in 1755.\n\nDr. Hartley has shewn with a weight of fact and argument amounting\nto demonstration, that all the phenomena of mind, may be accounted\nfor from the known properties and laws of animal organization;\nand notwithstanding, that for some reason or other he has so far\naccommodated his work to vulgar prejudice, as to adopt the theory of\na separate Soul, though in a very objectionable form, it is evidently\na clog upon his system, and unnecessary to any part of his reasoning.\nSubstitute PERCEPTION, and his theory is compleat. Nor indeed is it\npossible to reject this. Constant concomitance is the sole foundation\non which we build out; inference of necessary connection: we have _no_\nevidence of the latter, but the former. Perception manifestly arises\nfrom, and accompanies animal organization; the facts are of perpetual\noccurrence, and the proof from induction is compleat.\n\nHartley having laid a sufficient foundation to conclude (as Dr.\nPriestley has done) that the natural appearances of the human system\nmight be fully explained by means of Perception and Association,\nwithout the redundant introduction of the common hypothesis, Dr. Law\na few years afterward compleatly proved to the christian world that\nthough Life and Immortality were brought to light by the christian\ndispensation, the common theory of a separate immaterial and immortal\nsoul, was not necessary to, or countenanced by the christian doctrine.\nDr. Law seems by his preface, to have been fearful of the consequences\nof expressing the whole of his opinion on this abstruse subject, and\nconfines himself in his appendix to the examination of the passages\nof Scripture usually referred to in favour of the Soul\u2019s immortality.\nThis appendix I believe was first added to the _third_ edition of his\nConsiderations on the Theory of Religion, published in 1755.\n\nAgainst Dr. Priestley, any ground of popular obloquy would be eagerly\nlaid hold of by the Bigots of the day. The doubts expressed in the\nexamination of Drs. Reid, Oswald, and Beattie, excited so much obloquy,\nas to render it necessary for Dr. Priestley to review his opinions, and\nrenounce or defend them. The result was, the disquisition on matter and\nspirit, the first volume containing a discussion of the question of\nmaterialism, the second that of liberty and necessity.\n\nIn discussing the former hypothesis, Dr. Priestley denies not only the\nexistence of spirit as having no relation to extension or space, but\nalso the common definition of matter, as a substance possessing only\nthe inert properties of extension, and solidity or impenetrability. The\nlatter he defines in conformity with the more accurate observations of\nlater physics, a substance possessing the property of extension and\nthe active powers of attraction and repulsion. With Boscovich and Mr.\nMichell, he admits of the penetrability of matter, and replies to the\nobjections that may be drawn from this view of the subject.\n\nIt must be acknowledged that highly curious as this preliminary\ndisquisition is, it is not only unnecessary to the main argument, but\nleaves the definition of matter open to the question whether there be\nany substratum or subject in which the essential properties or powers\nof attracting and repelling inhere. That these powers really belong to\nmatter, whatever else matter may be, is evident from the reflection\nof light, previous to contact with the reflecting substance and its\ninflection afterward from the electric spark, visible along a suspended\nchain, from the phenomena of the metallic pyrometers, from the rain\ndrop on a cabbage leaf, &c. And that matter is permeable, at least to\nlight, is sufficiently evident from every case of tranparency. Still\nhowever it cannot consist of properties alone; a property must be the\nproperty of something. But the proper and direct train of argument in\nfavour of materialism is, that every phenomenon from which the notion\nof a soul is deduced, is resolveable into some affection of the brain,\nperceived. That all thought, reflection, choice, judgment, memory, the\npassions and affections, &c. consist only of ideas or sensations,(i.\ne. motions within that organ) perceived at the time. Though, judgment,\nmemory, being words, denoting different kinds of internal perceptions,\nrelating only to, and consisting of, ideas and sensations.[67] That\nsensations and ideas themselves, arise only in consequence of the\nimpressions of external objects on our senses, which impressions are\nliable to be recalled afterward by the recurrence of others with\nwhich they were originally associated, agreeably to the necessary and\ninevitable law of the animal system. That this is evident in as much as\nthere can be no ideas peculiar to any of the senses where there is a\nwant of the necessary bodily organ, as of hearing, sight, &c. inasmuch\nas all these ideas commence with the body, grow with its growth,\nand decrease with its decline. That they can be suspended, altered,\ndestroyed, by artificial means, by accident, by disease. That all these\nproperties of mind, viz. thought, judgment, memory, passions, and\naffections, are as evident in brutes as in men; and though the degree\nbe different, it is always accompanied with a proportionate difference\nof organization. That perception is clearly the result of organization,\nbeing always found with it, and never without it: as clearly so in\nother animals as in the human species; and probably in vegetables\nthough in a still lower degree.[68] That as all the common phenomena of\nmind, can be accounted for from the known facts of organized matter\nwithout the souls, and as none of them can possibly be attributed\nto the soul without the body, there is no necessity to recur to any\ngratuitous theory in addition to the visible corporeal frame. That the\ndoctrine of the soul originated in ignorance, and has been supported\nby imposture; that it involves gross contradictions and insuperable\ndifficulties, and is no more countenanced by true religion than by true\nphilosophy.\n\n[67] A _Sensation_ is an impression made by some external object on the\nSenses; the motion thus excited is propagated along the appropriate\nnerve, until it reaches the Sensory in the Brain, and it is there and\nthere only, felt or _perceived_.\n\nAn _Idea_, is a motion in the Brain, excited there either by the laws\nof association to which that organ is subject, or by some accidental\nstate of the system in general, or that organ in particular, without\nthe intervention of an impression on the Senses ab extra as the cause\nof it. Such a motion being similar to a sensation formerly excited, and\nbeing also felt or perceived is the correspondent _Idea_.\n\n[68] Dr. Percival, Dr. Bell in the Manchester Transactions, and Dr.\nWatson in the last volume of his essays, have made this opinion highly\nprobable. Many additional observations are to be found in Dr. Darwin\u2019s\nworks. I consider it as a theory established.\n\nAll this has been shewn with great force of argument and ingenuity\nby Dr. Priestley in these disquisitions, to which it may safely be\naffirmed nothing like a satisfactory answer has yet been given, or is\never likely to be given. True metaphysics, like every other branch of\nphilosophy can only be founded on an accurate observation of facts,\nand as these become gradually substituted for mere names, our real\nknowledge will improve. It is to physiology perhaps that the question\nof the materiality of the human soul, and even that of liberty and\nnecessity will owe the compleatest elucidation. Until medical writers\nbrought into view the _facts_ relating to animal life, the metaphysical\ndisquisitions on these subjects were involved in an endless confusion\nof words without precise meaning, and almost always including in their\ndefinition a _petitio principii_. Indeed we are not yet fully apprized\neither in Law, Physic or Divinity any more than in Metaphysics, that\nthe _species intelligibiles_ of the old schoolmen, and the whole class\nof abstract ideas of the new schoolmen with Locke at their head,\nare not things, but names. They are not even either sensations or\nideas; they are words, convenient indeed for classification, and used\nartificially like the signs of Algebra, but they have no archetype.\nThis is a subject which will probably be better understood ere long by\nthe labours of Mr. Horne Tooke.\n\nDr. Priestley therefore considered the question of a future state,\nas now rested on the basis which to a christian is or ought to be\nperfectly satisfactory; on the promises and declarations of our\nSaviour, exemplified by his own resurrection from the dead. Indeed the\ncircumstances of the whole question of futurity depending on the truth\nof the christian scriptures and on them alone, is calculated to give\nthem a peculiar and inestimable value in the eyes of those who look\nforward with anxious hope[69] to a continued and more perfect state of\nexistence after death. Nor is it of any consequence to the christian,\nthat the manner how this will be effected is not plainly revealed;\nfor it is sufficient that the Being who first gave animation to the\nhuman frame, will at his own time and in his own manner for the wisest\nand best of purposes, again exert the same act of almighty power in\nfavour of the human race, and in fulfillment of his promise through\nJesus Christ. Such at least was the view of the subject habitually\nentertained by our author.\n\n[69] There are some persons who do not seem to entertain this anxious\nhope. Mr. Gray the poet seems an instance, from the following passage\nin his ode Barbaras \u00c6des aditure mecum (Letters V. 2 p. 44) though I do\nnot recollect that the sentiment has been noticed before.\n\n    Oh ego felix, vice si (nec unquam\n    Surgerem rursus) simili cadentem\n    Parca me lenis sineret quieto\n                    Fallere Letho.\n    Multa flagranti radiisque cincto\n    Integris, ah quam nihil inviderem,\n    Cum Dei ardentes medius quadrigas\n                    Sentit Olympus!\n\nI wonder whether Gray ever perused the following lines written by his\nfriend and Biographer the Revd: Mr. Mason.\n\n    \u2018Is this the _Bigot\u2019s_ rant? Away ye vain!\u2019\n    Your hopes your fears, in doubt, in dulness steep!\n    Go sooth your souls in sickness, grief, or pain,\n    With the sad solace of, _eternal sleep_.\n    Yet know ye Sceptics, know, the Almighty mind\n    Who breath\u2019d on man a portion of his fire,\n    Bad his free soul by earth nor time confin\u2019d\n    To heav\u2019n, to immortality aspire.\n    Nor shall the pile of hope his mercy rear\u2019d,\n    By vain philosophy be e\u2019er destroy\u2019d;\n    Eternity! by all or wish\u2019d or fear\u2019d,\n    Shall be by all, or suffer\u2019d or enjoy\u2019d.\n\n                                                                _Mason._\n\nIt is still more singular that Dr. Beattie with all his professions of\nchristianity, should not have been aware of the atheistical complexion\nof the following passage in his \u201cHermit.\u201d\n\n    Nor yet for the ravage of winter I mourn,\n    Kind nature the embryo blossom shall save;\n    But when shall spring visit the mouldering urn!\n    Oh, when shall it dawn on the night of the grave!\n\n\nIndeed, the natural evidences of a future state were never conceived\nby any reasonable defender of the doctrine, to be of themselves\nsatisfactory and conclusive.[70] They were never deemed of more value\nthan to produce a _probable expectation_ of a state of future rewards\nand punishments, and they are certainly contradicted by the known facts\nrelating to the origin, the growth, and decline of the human faculties.\nBishop Porteus has collected these arguments, and stated them with\nas much force as his moderate abilities would permit; but by far the\nbest summary of what has been urged on this as well as on almost every\nimportant question of morals and metaphysics, will be found in Mr.\nBelsham\u2019s Elements of the Philosophy of Mind. An excellent compendium,\nby a gentleman, to whom next to Mr. Lindsey, Dr. Priestley appears to\nhave been more attached than to any other.\n\n[70] Dr. Priestley in his observations on the increase of infidelity\npublished at Northumberland, has a passage which would seem to intimate\nthat a future state might be clearly made out by the light of nature\n(p. 59, 60) but this is certainly inadvertency, and by no means\nconformable to his constant, deliberate, sentiments on that subject as\nexpressed particularly in his Institutes.\n\nThe SECOND part of the Disquisitions on Matter and Spirit, contains a\ndiscussion of the long contested and confused question of Liberty and\nNecessity.\n\nDr. Priestley is right in his opinion that this question was not\nunderstood by the ancients, nor perhaps before the time of Hobbes: Long\nago it appeared to me, that the only writer among the schoolmen who\nhad touched upon it, was Bradwardine in his Book De caus\u00e0 Dei, which\nI regret that I have no opportunity of consulting here. Many of his\nobservations are extracted by Toplady in his treatise on Liberty and\nNecessity, and in his life of Zanchius; but Toplady like Edwards, did\nnot completely understand the question; they connected the doctrine of\nnecessity with all the bigotry of Calvinism.\n\nHobbes in his Leviathan, and in his reply to Bramhall on liberty and\nnecessity in his Tripos, first truly stated the subject, and shewed\nthat the question was, not whether we can do what we will, but whether\nthe will itself, (i. e. choice, preference, inclination, desire,\naversion,) is not inevitably determined by motives not in the power or\ncontroul of the agent.\n\nHartley\u2019s book, however, shews, or rather leads to the conclusion,\nthat these motives are twofold, _ab extra_ and _ab intra_. The action\ndepending on the compound force of the motives ab extra, and the\nphysical state of the animal organs at the moment. For the latter is\nfrequently of itself an immediate cause of voluntary action.\n\nBut previous to Dr. Hartley\u2019s great work, the question of liberty and\nnecessity had been discussed between Collins and Clark, and Clark\nand Leibnitz.[71] Collins\u2019s Philosophical inquiry into human liberty,\nfirst published in 1715 was the only book on the subject worth reading\nbetween the times of Hobbes and Hartley, and a masterly and decisive\nwork it is. This appears to have been translated and repeatedly\nprinted on the continent; Dr. Priestley, who republished it in London,\nmentioning a second edition in 1756 at Paris, and a third edition when\nhe was there in 1774. The controversy was kept alive in Collins\u2019s\nlife time by Leibnitz; but he like Dr. Edwards who afterwards wrote\nin defence of the same side of the question in his treatise on Free\nwill, was too much given to expand his ideas, and obscure the sense\nby the multiplicity of words which he used to express it. The letters\nof Theodic\u00e8e contain many passages well conceived, but the book\nis insupportably tedious. Hobbes could condense more argument and\ninformation in a page, than would serve Leibnitz for a volume.\n\n[71] I do not find that the controversy about the Soul occasioned by the\npublications of Blount, Coward, Dodwell, &c. involved the question of\nLiberty and Necessity, though they touch so nearly. It escaped me a few\npages back, that Dr. Coward, was also the author of \u201cSecond Thoughts\nconcerning the human Soul.\u201d (Estibius Psycalethes) as well as of the\nGrand Essay.\n\nTo this treatise of Collins, plainly and popularly written, no\nsufficient answer was or could be given. It must have satisfied the\nmind of every reader capable of understanding the question, though it\nomitted to notice many objections which were afterwards taken up and\nfully answered by Dr. Priestley. Collins in his preface takes pains to\nhave it understood that he writes in defence of _moral_ necessity only,\nand not of _physical_ necessity. A distinction without a difference,\nthough taken by all who have succeeded him.\n\nI do not dwell on the controversy between Jackson on the one side in\ndefence of human liberty, and Gordon and Trenchard in Cato\u2019s letters,\nbecause little was added to the sum of knowledge, on either side.\nJackson had learning and industry, but he did not understand the\nquestion, and had no pretensions to that species of distinguishing\nacuteness, so necessary to a good metaphysician.\n\nDr. Priestley, following the enlarged and cheering views of the\nfuture happiness of all mankind, first connected by Hartley with this\nquestion, shews completely that the doctrine under consideration\nhas nothing to do with the strict calvinistic hypothesis. That it\nis sufficiently conformable to popular opinion. That it is the only\npractical doctrine which in fact is, or indeed can be acted upon with\nrespect to the application of reasoning and argument, reward and\npunishment. That the formation of character and disposition, the actual\ninferences we make from, and the dependence we place upon them, rest\nentirely on the truth of this opinion. That from the nature of cause\nand effect, every volition must be the necessary result of previous\ncircumstances. That the _scientia contingentium_, the great and\ninsuperable difficulty of God\u2019s pretended foreknowledge of uncertain\nevents, can on no other hypothesis be avoided, and that the doctrine\nof necessity is perfectly consistent with the great plan of divine\nbenevolence, in the present state, and future destination, of the human\nrace.\n\nThese subjects called forth remarks by Dr. Price, Mr. Palmer, Mr.\nBryant, Dr. Kenrick, Mr. Whitehead, Dr. Horsely and others; to all of\nwhom, answers were given by Dr. Priestley.\n\nThe controversy with Dr. Price is a pleasing specimen of the manner\nin which an important subject can be amicably discussed between two\nfriends, and made interesting too, by the manner as well as the matter,\nwithout any thing of that \u201cseasoning of controversy\u201d which Dr. Horsely\nafterward thought so necessary to keep alive the public attention, and\nwhich he strews over his polemics with so unsparing a hand. The Bishop\nhad not yet however adopted that stile of arrogance by which he has\nsince been so disgracefully distinguished; and it is to be regretted\nfor the sake of his own character as a gentleman and as a writer,\nthat he adopted it at all. Dr. Horsely should recollect, that those\nwho emulate the insolence of Warburton ought at least to give proofs\nof equal learning and acuteness; and that bigotry and intolerance in\ndefence of opinions which, though a man may profess to believe, he can\nhardly profess to understand, will do no credit to his religious, his\nmoral, or his literary character in the present state of knowledge. But\ncharacter as a writer, may be a secondary consideration, to one who is\ndetermined to verify the saying, that godliness is great gain.[72]\n\n[72] Dr. Horseley\u2019s polemic strictures on Dr. Priestley\u2019s writings,\nexhibit a singular compound of insolence and absurdity. But he is\ncontented, I presume, if he rises in the church, as he sinks in\nreputation. Some of his opinions are truly diverting. His theory of\ndivine generation by the Father contemplating his own perfections,\nand his grave suggestion of the three persons of the Godhead meeting\ntogether in consultation, stand a fair chance of being noticed by some\nwicked wit, who may wish to expose the infirmities of orthodoxy real or\npretended.\n\nIt has been a misfortune to this question, that it has seldom been\ntreated by persons who knew any thing of the organization or physiology\nof the human frame; and that it has been complicated with all the\nprejudice arising from the theological tenets of those who opposed the\ndoctrine of necessity. Every physician knows, though metaphysicians\nknow little about it, that the laws which govern the animal machine,\nare as certain and invariable as those which guide the planetary\nsystem, and are as little within the controul of the human being\nwho is subject to them. Every sensation therefore, and every idea\ndependent on, or resulting from the state of the sensory, is the\nnecessary effect of the laws of organization by which that state was\nproduced. But we neither have nor can have any sensation or any idea,\nbut what is so dependent, or but what thus results; for we can neither\nfeel nor think without the brain. The words we use for the Phenomena\ntermed mental, are mere terms of classification and arrangement of the\nsensations and ideas thus produced, and their combinations. Hence it\nfollows, that all these phenomena depend on the laws which regulate\nthe animal system, and are the necessary, inevitable result of those\nlaws. The obscurity which has enveloped this question, has arisen from\nwant of due attention to that state of mind (or rather of body) which\nwe call, the will; and from the power that animals seem to have over\nthe voluntary muscles. But every Physiologist knows that the state of\nthe system which calls into action the voluntary muscles, that is, a\nstate of want, desire or inclination, whether to act or to abstain, is\nthe result of previous circumstances to which the animal is exposed;\nand the action of the voluntary muscles, is equally the result of\nnecessary laws, as those of the involuntary.\n\nThe great object of terror to the Divines in this question about\nNecessity, was the consequence resulting, that God is the author of\nSin. Many and subtile were the distinctions made upon this subject\nby the necessarian theologists among the schoolmen, and down to the\nmiddle of the seventeenth century. Richard Baxter the peace-maker, in\nhis Christian Directory, his Catholic Theologie and some other works,\nhas briefly reviewed them all, and as usual distinguished upon them so\nacutely, that what was not quite clear before, he has most effectually\nobscured. The prevailing opinion, however, seems to have been, not that\nGod permitted the sinful act (for the reply was unanswerable, that God\nmust be considered, as willing that which he does not prevent when he\ncan,) but that God, in the common course of nature as pre-ordained\nby him, permitted the action itself to come to pass, but not the\nintention or quo animo of the actor, in which the sin consists; or as\nGale expresses it in the quaint language of the time, it is \u201cGod\u2019s\npre-determinate concurse to the entitative act.\u201d\n\nIndeed, I do not see with the orthodox notions then prevalent, how it\nwas possible on the hypothesis of God\u2019s foreknowing and pre-ordaining\nall that comes to pass, to avoid considering God Almighty as the author\nof Sin; and to feel repugnance toward a system, which makes the deity\ninflict eternal punishment on a creature, whose actions he might have\ncontrouled, and whose existence he could have prevented. Such manifest\ninjustice might be viewed without horror, by the brutal bigotry of\nCalvin, but the tenets that drew after them such a consequence, could\nnot be adopted without hesitation and regret, by any, but the most\nthorough going, unfeeling zealot.\n\n_Origen\u2019s_ doctrine of Universal Restitution, was first advanced in\nEngland (so far as I know) by Rust, Bishop of Dromore, and Jeremy\nWhite, who I believe had been Chaplain to Cromwell. Since that, the\nlabours of Stonehouse, Petitpierre, Newton, Winchester, Chauncey\nand Simpson, have furnished ground enough for us to adopt it as the\ndoctrine of scripture as well as of common sense. By connecting\nthis doctrine with that of necessity, Dr. Hartley and Dr. Priestley\nhave been enabled to give a full and satisfactory reply to all the\nobjections that can be drawn from the theory of necessity, making God\nthe author of Sin. Indeed, unless God\u2019s foreknowledge be denied, the\nsame difficulty must occur on either scheme: for he has knowingly and\nvoluntarily adopted a system, in which the existence of evil if not\nnecessary, is at least undeniable.\n\nGranting the goodness of God, it follows according to Dr. Priestley,\nthat he has adopted that system which is most conducive to general, and\nindividual happiness upon the whole; and that the moral evil of which\nfor the best purposes he has permitted human creatures to be guilty,\nand the physical evil, which here or hereafter will be the inevitable\nconsequence of that conduct, are necessary to produce the greatest sum\nof good to the system at large, and to each human being individually,\nconsidering the situation in which he has been necessarily placed\nin respect to the whole system. Indeed, moral evil is of no farther\nconsequence than as it produces physical evil to the agent, or to\nothers. And as we see in the system of inanimate nature, that general\ngood is the result of partial and temporary evil, and that though the\none follows necessarily from general laws as the result of the other,\nthe good manifestly predominates, so in the moral system, we have a\nright from analogy to predict, that good will be the ultimate result\nof the apparent evil we observe in it: that we shall be the wiser for\nknowing what is to be avoided; the better for corrected dispositions;\nand that the power, and the wish to receive and communicate happiness,\nwill be enlarged through each successive stage of our existence, by\nthe experience of those that have preceded. So at least thought Dr.\nPriestley.\n\nLeibnitz states some of these ideas with great force in the following\npassage, which I am tempted to transcribe entire from his _Essais de\nTheodic\u00e8e; sur la Bont\u00e8 de Dieu, la libert\u00e8 de l\u2019homme, et l\u2019origine du\nmal_, first published in 1710. (Prem. partie Sec. 7, 8, 9.)[73]\n\n[73] _Dieu_ est _la premiere Raison des choses_: car celles qui\nsont born\u00e8es, comme tout ce que nous voyons et experimentons,\nsont contingentes, & n\u2019ont rien en elles qui rende leur existence\nnecessaire; \u00e8tant manifeste que le tems, l\u2019espace & la mati\u00e8re\nunies & uniformes en elles-m\u00e8mes, & indifferentes \u00e0 tout, pouvoient\nrecevoir de tout autres mouvemens & figures, & dans un autre ordre.\nIl faut donc chercher _la raison de l\u2019existence du monde_, qui est\nl\u2019assemblage entier des choses _contingentes_; & il faut la chercher\ndans _la substance qui porte la raison de son existence avec elle_, &\nlaquelle par consequent est _necessaire_ & \u00e9ternelle. Il faut aussi\nque cette cause soit _intelligente_; car ce Monde qui existe \u00e9tant\ncontingent, & une infinit\u00e8 d\u2019autres Mondes \u00e9tant \u00e9galement possibles\n& \u00e9galement pr\u00e9tendans \u00e0 l\u2019existence, pour ainsi dire, aussi bien que\nlui, il faut que la cause du monde ait eu \u00e9gard ou relation \u00e0 tous ces\nMondes possibles pour en d\u00e9terminer un. Et cet \u00e9gard on rapport d\u2019une\nsubstance existante \u00e0 de simples possibilit\u00e9s, ne peut etre autre\nchose que _l\u2019entendement_ qui en a les id\u00e9es; & en d\u00e9terminer une, ne\npeut etre autre chose que l\u2019acte de _la volont\u00e9_ qui choisit. Et c\u2019est\n_la puissance_ de cette substance qui en rend la volont\u00e9 efficace.\nLa puissance va \u00e0 l\u2019_etre_, la sagesse ou l\u2019entendement _au vrai_, &\nla volont\u00e9 _au bien_. Et cette cause intelligente doit etre infinie\nde toutes les manieres, & absolument parfaite _en puissance_, en\n_sagesse_ & en _bont\u00e9_, puisqu\u2019elle va \u00e0 tout ce qui est possible. Et\ncomme tout est li\u00e9, il n\u2019y a pas lieu d\u2019en admettre plus d\u2019_une_. Son\nentendement est la source des _essences_, & sa volont\u00e9 est l\u2019origine\ndes _existances_. Voil\u00e0 en peu de mots la preuve d\u2019un Dieu unique avec\nses perfections, & par lui l\u2019origine des choses.\n\n8. Or cette supr\u00eame sagesse jointe \u00e0 une bont\u00e9 qui n\u2019est pas moins\ninfinie qu\u2019elle, n\u2019a pu manquer de choisir le meilleur. Car comme un\nmoindre mal est une espece de bien; de m\u00eame un moindre bien est une\nespece de mal, s\u2019il fait obstacle \u00e0 un bien plus grand: & il y auroit\nquelque chose \u00e0 corriger dans les actions de Dieu, s\u2019il y avoit moyen\nde mieux faire. Et comme dans les Math\u00e9matiques, quand il n\u2019y a point\nde _maximum_ ni de _minimum_, rien enfin de distingu\u00e9, tout se fait\n\u00e9galement; ou quand cela ne se peut, il ne se fait rien du tout; on\npeut dire de m\u00eame en mati\u00e8re de parfaite sagesse, qui n\u2019est pas moins\nregl\u00e9e que les Math\u00e9matiques, que s\u2019il n\u2019y avoit pas le meilleur\n(_optimum_) parmi tous les Mondes possibles, Dieu n\u2019en auroit produit\naucun. J\u2019appelle _Monde_ toute la suite & toute la collection de toutes\nles choses existantes, afin qu\u2019on ne dire point que plusieurs Mondes\npouvoient exister en differens temps & differens lieux. Car il faudroit\nles compter tous ensemble pour un Monde, ou si vous voulez pour un\n_Univers_. Et quand on rempliroit tous les tems & tous les lieux; il\ndemeure toujours vrai qu\u2019on les auroit pu remplir d\u2019une infinit\u00e9 de\nmani\u00e8res, & qu\u2019il y a une infinit\u00e9 de Mondes possibles, dont il faut\nque Dieu ait choisi le meilleur; puisqu\u2019il ne fait rien sans agir\nsuivant la supr\u00eame Raison.\n\n9. Quelque adversaire ne pouvant r\u00e9pondre \u00e0 cet argument, r\u00e9pondra\npeut-\u00eatre \u00e0 la conclusion par un argument contraire, en disant que le\nMonde auroit pu \u00eatre sans le p\u00e9ch\u00e9 & sans les souffrances: mais je nie\nqu\u2019alors il auroit \u00e9t\u00e9 _meilleur_. Car il faut savoir que tout est\n_li\u00e9_ dans chacun des mondes possibles: l\u2019Univers, quel qu\u2019il puisse\n\u00eatre, est tout d\u2019une pi\u00e8ce, comme un Oc\u00e9an; le moindre mouvement y\n\u00e9tend son effet \u00e0 quelque distance que ce soit, quoique cet effet\ndevienne moins sensible \u00e0 proportion de la distance, de sorte que\nDieu y a tout r\u00e9gl\u00e9 par avance une fois pour toutes, ayant pr\u00e9vu les\npri\u00e8res, les bonnes & les mauvaises actions, & tout le reste; & chaque\nchose a contribu\u00e9 _id\u00e9alement_ avant son existence a la resolution qui\na \u00e9t\u00e9 prise sur l\u2019existence de toutes les choses. De sorte que rien ne\npeut \u00eatre chang\u00e9 dans l\u2019Univers (non plus que dans un nombre) sauf son\nessence, ou si vous voulez, sauf son _individualit\u00e9 num\u00e9rique_. Ainsi,\nsi le moindre mal qui arrive dans le Monde y manquoit, ce ne seroit\nplus ce Monde; qui tout compte\u00e9, tout rabattu, a \u00e9t\u00e9 trouv\u00e9 le meilleur\npar le Cr\u00e9ateur qui l\u2019a choisi.\n\nAccording to this opinion of Leibnitz, the operative motive in the\nchoice of the present system being the attribute of Benevolence in the\nAlmighty, the existence of all that we term _evil_, is with respect\nto him, and his preordination of it, _good_; for the whole intention\nand motive of its permission is founded in perfect goodness guided\nby perfect wisdom. With respect to the finite beings, by whom evil is\npermitted to take place, there can be no doubt on this scheme, but the\nbalance of existence will be happiness even to them, whenever by proper\ndiscipline they are fitted to enjoy it. Perhaps it may be doubted\nwithout infringing on the reverence due to the supreme disposer of all\nevents, whether it would be consistent with his justice, knowingly and\nvoluntarily to bring into existence, a sentient being, destined to be\npermanently miserable.\n\nThe question of Materialism, has been discussed since the disquisition\nof Dr. Priestley, by Mr. Cooper, who adopts the same side. Dr. Ferriar\nof Manchester, has rendered it dubious how far the sentient principle\nought to be confined to the brain, though the facts he adduces, apply\nwith equal force against the common hypothesis of a separate soul,\nacting by means of the body. The doctrine of Necessity has been opposed\nby Dr. Gregory of Edinburgh, but with a weakness of argument, and a\npetulance of language, that places his work in the lowest rank among\nthe writers who have adopted the same side of the question. It hardly\ndeserved the notice of so good an advocate as Dr. Crombie, who has been\nthe latest author on the subject.\n\nIndeed, the question must now be considered as settled; for those who\ncan resist Collins\u2019s philosophical enquiry, the section of Dr. Hartley\non the Mechanism of the mind, and the review of the subject taken by\nDr. Priestley and his opponents, are not to be reasoned with. _Interest\nreipublic\u00e6 ut denique sit finis litium_, is a maxim of technical law.\nIt will apply equally to the republic of letters; and the time seems\nto have arrived, when the separate existence of the human soul, the\nfreedom of the will, and the eternal duration of future punishment,\nlike the doctrines of the Trinity, and Transubstantiation, may be\nregarded as no longer entitled to public discussion.\n\nIt is for this reason that I have paid no attention to the hypothesis\nof the Scotch Doctors, Reid, Beattie and Oswald, and have given no\ndetailed account of Dr. Priestley\u2019s examination of their writings.\nIndeed the perfect oblivion into which these writers have fallen, and\nthe utter insufficiency of such young gentlemen and lady\u2019s philosophy\nas they have adopted, has secured them from further animadversion.\nThe facility with which ignorance can refer all difficulties relating\nto the phenomena of mind, to instinctive principles and common sense,\nmight answer the purpose of popular declamation for a while, but it\ncould not last; and these writers have fallen into merited obscurity,\nnotwithstanding the national prejudice in favour of each other, so\nprevalent among the Literati of North Britain.\n\nSome passages in Dr. Reid, however ought to exempt him from the\ncontempt which is due to the common system advanced by him and his\ncoadjutors: and his last book on the Active powers of man, is a work\nof undeniable merit on a very important subject, which has not yet\nbeen discussed with half the labour it so eminently deserves. The\nSynthesis and Analysis of our ideas, the history and process of their\nformation, and the detail of facts attending and connected with their\nrise and progress, is comparatively a new subject. Des Cartes, Buffier\nand Condillac among the French, Locke, Berkeley and Hartley among the\nEnglish, and Hume, Reid, and Adam Smith among the Scotch, are almost\nthe only authors worth notice who have treated it expressly, and most\nof them only partially.[74] Something may be found to the purpose in\nHobbes, and in the first part of Dr. Priestley\u2019s examination of Reid,\nOswald and Beattie, and more in the first volume of Zoonomia, \u00a7 14 and\n15.[75] The common sense of Dr. Reid and Co. seems to have been employed\nas the _clavis universalis on_ this subject by Buffier, in his \u201cFirst\nTruths.\u201d Hutcheson\u2019s theory of the Moral Sense hardly merits notice,\nnor does that of Dr. Price promise to add much to the stock of real\nknowledge. We have had enough (_sat superque_) of occult principles,\ninnate principles, and instinctive principles, which illustrate\nnothing, but the ignorance of those who employ them.\n\n[74] Dr. Dugal Stewart in Scotland, and the Revd. Mr. Belsham in\nEngland, have published Elements of the Philosophy of the mind, the\nfirst inclining to the Scotch School of Metaphysics, the latter to the\nSystem of Hartley; both of them of merit in their way, particularly (as\nI think that of Mr. Belsham).\n\n[75] I cannot help thinking Dr. Darwin\u2019s obligations to Dr. Hartley\nand Dr. Brown ought to have dictated more acknowledgement than he has\ncondescended to make.\n\nFor my own part, I am persuaded that no Theory of the mind can be\nsatisfactory, which is not founded on the history of the Body. I\nknow of no legitimate passport to Metaphysics but Physiology. Hence\nI cannot estimate highly the writings of the Scotch Metaphysicians.\nThere is one other feature also common to this School, which satisfies\nme of their incompetence to this subject; their slight notice, and\nambiguous approbation of a man so superior as Dr. Hartley, and their\nutter ignorance or neglect of the theory he has advanced. On every\nsubject relating to the phenomena of mind, Dr. Hartley\u2019s book must be\nadopted as the ground work of the reasoning, or his principles must be\npreviously and distinctly confuted.[76]\n\n[76] Dr. Reid in his last work has given a critique on Dr. Hartley\u2019s\ntheory without understanding it, or even touching on the important\npoints. That theory in substance is this: an external object (a peach\nfor instance) makes an impression at once, on our organs of feeling,\nof sight, and of taste. The impression thus made on the extreme end\nof the appropriate nerve, is propagated by some species of motion\nalong the course of nerve up to the brain, and there, and there only,\nperceived; for if the nerve be cut, or tied, or palsied, in any part of\nits course, the impression is not perceived. Motions in the brain thus\nproduced, and perceived, are _sensations_: similar motions arising, or\nproduced without the impression of an external object, are _ideas_.\nThese impressions being in the instance given, simultaneous or nearly\nso, are associated, so that the sensation produced by the sight of a\npeach, will give rise to motions in the brain similar to those produced\nat first by the taste and the touch of it: i. e. it will suggest the\n_ideas_ of taste and touch, and excite the inclination to reach and to\neat the object of them. Hence sensations, ideas, and muscular motions\nare associated together and mutually suggest and give rise to each\nother. What species of motion it is, with which the nervous system is\naffected in this process, or whether Sir Isaac Newton\u2019s \u00c6ther, or its\nmodern substitute the electric fluid, has any thing to do with it or\nnot, is no essential part of the theory, and may be adopted or rejected\nwithout prejudice to the main system. Some kind of motion there\nmanifestly is; I think it _demonstrable_ that it is vibratory; but of\nwhatever kind it be, its existence in the brain is unquestionable;\nand the association and catenation of individual motions in the brain\naccording to certain laws, is equally so. This is matter of fact,\nand it was Dr. Reid\u2019s business if he could, to shew that neither the\nmotions, the perceptions, or the associations took place in that organ.\nThe general law is expressed by Hartley Prop. 20. Cor. 7.\n\nThe Metaphysics of the present day require also, a more accurate\nattention to the Theory of Grammar than has hitherto been paid by\nwriters on the subject. Perhaps I do not assert too much in saying\nthat we have had no grammarians worth notice, none who have thrown\nlight on the principles of Grammar, but Locke and Horne Tooke. What\ndreadful confusion has arisen from treating words denoting what are\ncalled abstract ideas, as if they were the exponents of real individual\nexistence? Whereas they are merely signs of artificial classification\nwithout any individual archetype. For instance in relation to the\npresent subject, what volumes of laboured and learned trifling have\nbeen written on the _Will_, the _Judgment_, the _Understanding_ and\nthe other faculties as they are called, of the soul! Yet nothing is\nmore certain than that the will, the judgment, the understanding,\n&c. have no existence: they are words only, the counters employed in\nreasoning, convenient signs of arrangement, like the _plus_ the _minus_\nand the _unknown quantity_ in Algebra, but no more. The time however is\napproaching, when Metaphysics will take rank among the Sciences that\nlay claim, if not to absolute demonstration, yet to an approximation to\ncertainty sufficient for all the purposes of ethical reasoning, and all\nthe practical duties of human life.\n\n\n\n\n                               _ERRATA._\n\n\nPAGE,  LINE.\n  23   10 from the top,   For deliverery,    read delivery.\n  84   14  --     --       \u201d  Actes,          \u201d   Artes\n  \u201d    \u201d   --     --       \u201d  _pecsinit_,       \u201d   _nec sinit_.\n  90      bottom line,     \u201d  No. 6,          \u201d   No. 4.\n 160   2   --     --       \u201d  Bur,            \u201d   But.\n 172   3   --     --       \u201d  Biancount,      \u201d   Liancourt.\n 188   1   --     --       \u201d  determing,      \u201d   determining.\n  \u201d    8   --     --       \u201d  he              \u201d   her.\n 214   1   --     --      For wall,          read well.\n 218   3  from the bottom  \u201d  immorality,     \u201d   immortality.\n 229   2   --     --       \u201d  1679,           \u201d   1767.\n 269   3   --     --       \u201d  fort,           \u201d   forte.\n 304   8  from the bottom after, the Author,  \u201d   Dr. Coward.\n  \u201d    1  from the top,    \u201d  predomininates, \u201d   predominates.\n 333   7  from the top of the note for disc,  \u201d   dire.\n 357   12 from the top    For is,             \u201d   it.\n\n\n\n\n                           Transcriber Notes\n\nObvious punctuation errors and ommissions have been corrected.\n\nThe errata have been corrected, except for the one listed as on page\n357, which does not exist.\n\nPage 4 \u201cMy mother dying in in\u201d changed to \u201cMy mother dying in\u201d\n\nPage 23 \u201cmy deliverery\u201d changed to \u201cmy delivery\u201d\n\nPage 25 \u201cthat neighbourghood\u201d changed to \u201cthat neighbourhood\u201d\n\nPage 44 \u201cEnglish grammer\u201d changed to \u201cEnglish grammar\u201d\n\nPage 45 \u201cjustly prefered\u201d changed to \u201cjustly preferred\u201d\n\nPage 58 \u201coccured to me\u201d changed to \u201coccurred to me\u201d\n\nPage 77 \u201cwell knowh\u201d changed to \u201cwell known\u201d\n\nPage 84 \u201cActes, emollit mores pecsinit\u201d changed to \u201cArtes, emollit\nmores nec sinit\u201d\n\nPage 88 \u201cconstantly returnned\u201d changed to \u201cconstantly returned\u201d\n\nPage 94 \u201cin the difficuties\u201d changed to \u201cin the difficulties\u201d\n\nPage 114 \u201cthe number of such person\u201d changed to \u201cthe number of such\npersons\u201d\n\nPage 120 \u201cair fram water\u201d changed to \u201cair from water\u201d\n\nPage 121 \u201caf enjoyment\u201d changed to \u201cof enjoyment\u201d\n\nPage 126 \u201cI thonght my\u201d changed to \u201cI thought my.\u201d \u201cwithout exceprion\u201d\nchanged to \u201cwithout exception\u201d\n\nPage 158 \u201crespect ro me\u201d changed to \u201crespect to me.\u201d \u201cwould bo ready\u201d\nchanged to \u201cwould be ready\u201d\n\nPage 160 \u201cBur the sentence\u201d changed to \u201cBut the sentence\u201d\n\nPage 172 \u201cDuke de Liancount\u201d changed to \u201cDuke de Liancourt\u201d\n\nPage 181 \u201cprincipal Agebraic\u201d changed to \u201cprincipal Algebraic\u201d\n\nPage 188 \u201cwithout determing\u201d changed to \u201cwithout determining\u201d\n\nPage 211 \u201csome symtoms\u201d changed to \u201csome symptoms\u201d\n\nPage 214 \u201cas wall as\u201d changed to \u201cas well as.\u201d \u201cjust aftorward\u201d changed\nto \u201cjust afterward\u201d\n\nPage 217 \u201cread that pampnlet\u201d changed to \u201cread that pamphlet\u201d\n\nPage 218 \u201ca happy immorality\u201d changed to \u201ca happy immortality\u201d\n\nPage 220 \u201cchearfulnees of\u201d changed to \u201cchearfulness of\u201d\n\nPage 223 \u201cis unnecsssary\u201d changed to \u201cis unnecessary\u201d\n\nPage 227 \u201crecommending and comfirming\u201d changed to \u201crecommending and\nconfirming\u201d\n\nPage 241 \u201cis is chiefly\u201d changed to \u201cis chiefly\u201d\n\nPage 244 \u201cA dissertatson\u201d changed to \u201cA dissertation\u201d\n\nPage 253 \u201ceandour of disposition\u201d changed to \u201ccandour of disposition\u201d\n\nPage 256 \u201cof of metals\u201d changed to \u201cof metals.\u201d \u201cDr. Priesley\u201d changed\nto \u201cDr. Priestley\u201d\n\nPage 264 \u201cof of water\u201d changed to \u201cof water\u201d\n\nPage 280 \u201cNich. Jonrn.\u201d changed to \u201cNich. Journ.\u201d\n\nPage 290 \u201caon philosophical subjects\u201d changed to \u201con philosophical\nsubjects.\u201d \u201cfrom of vapours\u201d changed to \u201cform of vapours\u201d\n\nPage 295 \u201cfrom the extention\u201d changed to \u201cfrom the extension\u201d\n\nPage 308 \u201cone of the inumerable\u201d changed to \u201cone of the innumerable.\u201d\n\u201cAuthore J. R. M. I.\u201d changed to \u201cAuthor J. R. M. I.\u201d\n\nPage 314 \u201csnd it is there\u201d changed to \u201cand it is there\u201d\n\nPage 325 \u201canwers were given\u201d changed to \u201canswers were given\u201d \u201cDr.\nHorseley\u201d changed to \u201cDr. Horsely\u201d\n\nPage 331 \u201cmanifestly predomninates\u201d changed to \u201cmanifestly predominates\u201d","title":"Memoirs of Dr. Joseph Priestley : $b To the year 1795, written by himself: with a continuation, to the time of his decease, by his son, Joseph Priestley: and observations on his writings, by Thomas Cooper, President Judge of the 4th. district of Pennsylvania: and the Rev. William Christie.","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":71847}