The manner in which Dr. Priestley has treated Mr. Badcock, in his Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingham, holding him up as an immoral character, at a time when, unless fome valuable end could have been anfwered by it, his memory fhould have been at reft, is thought to be very far from either candour or benevolence. The doctor and Mr. Badcock, feem to have been heretofore upon friendly terms; and not very widely afunder as to fentiment. Private letters pafs between them; and Mr. Badcock always acknowledges Dr. Priestley his fuperior. But about 1783, Mr. Badcock oppofes his friend in the Monthly Review, and is thought by many to have the advantage of him. After this, he is faid to act fcandaloufly and difhoneftly. He dies; and foon after his death, his death, Dr. Priestley avails himfelf of his former correfpondence to expofe his difhonefty: and, as if this were not enough, fupplies from his own conjectures what was wanting of fact, to render him completely odious to mankind.

up

Dr. Priefiley may plead, that he has held

"the example of this unhappy man as a warning to others." So, indeed, he speaks; but thinking people will fuppofe, that if this Zimri had not flain his master, his bones might have refted in peace. Dr. Prieftley had juft

caufe for expofing the author of a piece, figned Theodofius, in the manner he has done in thofe Letters. Juftice to himself required this: but what neceffity was there for expofing Mr. Badcock? Allowing that there was fufficient evidence to fupport the heavy charge, whercin does this affect the merits of the caufe? Does proving a man a villain anfwer his arguments? Is it worthy of a generous antagohift to avail himself of fuch methods to prejudice the public mind? Does it belong to a controvertift to write his opponent's hiftory, after he is dead, and to hold up his character in a difadvantageous light, fo as to depreciate his writings?

Whatever good opinion focinian writers may entertain of the ability and integrity of fome few individuals who differ from them, it is pretty evident that they have the candour to confider the body of their opponents as either ignorant or infincere. By the Poem which Mr. Badcock wrote in praife of Dr. Priestley, when he was, as the doctor informs us, his "humble admirer," we may fee in what light we are confidered by our adverfaries. Trinitarians, among the clergy, are there reprefented as "fticking faft to the church for the fake of

a living;" and thofe whom the writer calls "orthodox, popular preachers," (which I fuppofe may principally refer to diffenters, and

methodists) are defcribed as fools and enthufiafts; as either " ftaring, ftamping, and damning in nonfenfe;" or elfe, " whining out the tidings "of falvation; telling their auditors that grace "is cheap, and works are all an empty bubble." All this is published by Dr. Priestley, in his Twenty-fecond Letter to the Inhabitants of Birmingham; and that without any marks of difapprobation. Dr. Prieftley himself, though he does not defcend to fo low and fcurrilous a manner of writing as the above, yet fuggefts the fame thing, in the Dedication of his Doctrine of Philofophical Neceffity. He there praifes Dr. Jebb, for his "attachment "to the unadulterated principles of chrifti

anity, how unpopular foever they may have "become, through the prejudices of the weak, "or the interested part of mankind,"

After all, it is allowed that Dr. Priestley is in general, and efpecially when he is not dealing with a calvinift, a fair and candid opponent: much more fo than the Monthly Reviewers: who, with the late Mr. Badcock, feem to rank among his "humble admirers."* Candid and open, however, as Dr. Priestley

About eight or nine years ago, the Monthly Review was at open war with Dr. Priestley; and the doctor, like an incensed monarch, summoned all his mighty resources to ex

in general is, the above are certainly no very trifling exceptions: and, confidering him as excelling moft of his party in this virtue, they are fufficient to prove the point for which they are alleged; namely, that when focinians profefs to be more candid than their opponents, their profeffion includes more than their conduct will juftify.

I am, &c.

LETTER IX.

THE SYSTEMS COMPARED, AS TO THEIR TENDENCY

TO PROMOTE HUMILITY.

Christian Brethren,

You

OU recollect the prophecy of Ifaiah, in which, fpeaking of gospel times, he predicts, that the loftiness of man fhall be bowed down, and the haughtiness of men fhall be made low, and the Lord alone fhall be exalted in that day; as if it were one peculiar characteristic of the true gospel to lay low the pride of man. The whole

pose its weakness and to degrade it in the eye of the public. The conductors of the Review, at length finding, it seems, that their country was nourished by the King's country, desired peace. They have ever since very punctually paid him tribute; and the conqueror seems very well contented, on this condition, to grant them his favour and protection,

tenour of the new teftament enforces the fame idea. Ye fee your calling brethren, how that not many wife men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chofen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wife; and God hath chofen the weak things of the world, to confound the things which are mighty; and bafe things of the world, and things which are defpifed, hath God chofen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are: that no flesh fhould glory in his prefence-Jefus faid, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou haft hid these things from the wife and prudent, and haft revealed them unto babes-IVhere is boafting? It is excluded. By what law? Of works? Nay, but by the law of faith.* It may be concluded with certainty from thefe paffages, and various others of the fame import, that the fyftem which has the greatest tendency to promote this virtue, approaches nearest to the true gospel of Christ,

Pride, the oppofite of humility, may be diftinguished, by its objects, into natural and fpiritual. Both confift in a too high esteem of ourfelves: the one, on account of thofe accomplishments which are merely natural, or which pertain to us as men; the other on account of

1 Cor. i. 26-29. Matt. xi, 25. Rom. iii. 27.