ty of mind, and was called an atheist; he remarked that he did not know when his religious creed would be formed, and the conclusion was that he was an unbeliever. But none, surely, save those determined to condemn him, despite of reason and justice, will in this age of light and knowledge, draw such conclusions from such premises. If there are still those, who are disposed to echo these epithets of bigotry and intolerance, we would refer them to his works, which contain almost as much in defence of Christianity, as all that the clergy of the church of England had previously written. We would refer them to his religious character. We would mention his cheerful and resigned temper, which the sorest trials could not ruffle; and the elasticity of his mind, which no misfortune could unmove, and vigorous even to the last, in laboring for the improvement of his race. We would mention the truly christian spirit with which he sustained the loss of valued members of his family; his increasing cheerfulness, and trust in God as the hour of his own departure drew near. We would but mention these indisputable truths, and the confirmation they afford to a sentiment he frequently expressed in life, that with religion, all his difficulties and troubles and disappointments were light,-because he was enabled to look beyond them, and leave them to speak for themselves.

We would not by any means say that Priestley had not his faults; but they grew almost necessarily out of the very excellencies of his character. Such an earnest zeal as his tended in its very exercise to occasional excess. In his desire to eradicate wrong opinions, it was natural and almost unavoidable, that he should

sometimes fail of establishing right ones in their stead. In his dread of all superstition in religion, there is reason to fear that he may have inclined to an opposite extreme. In all reform, religious, no less than political, there is danger of going too far. That he was an exception to this rule, we do not pretend to say. The tender conscience may be sometimes shocked at the seemingly profane hand, which he laid on long established and venerated opinions. But such was the man. He could take nothing on trust. He must himself examine the foundation, no matter how old it was on which a doctrine or opinion rested; and if he perceived it sound, his defence of it was as earnest as his investigation had been free; but if unsound, he knew not on what principle he was bound to receive it.

As a philosopher, mankind have not been reluctant to award him his deserts. Here experiments could confirm what hypothesis conjectured; and besides, men do not consider the truths of philosophy so sacred or so fully developed, as to make all examination of them sacrilegious, as is the case in regard to religious opinions. But the same principle which guided his researches into the phenomena of Nature, directed him in his examination of the Bible. If he studied Nature from a desire better to understand and explain what he saw about him of goodness, wisdom, design, and power, that his conceptions of God might be enlarged, and his awe and love of him increased, he investigated revelation for the same great end. And if we were as ready to judge righteous judgment in the one case, as in the other, we should be slow to decide, that the enlightened

philosopher could well be otherwise than the enlightened christian, for we should see that philosophy so directed, must brighten and purify the flame of devotion.

To expect that attempting all that Priestley attempted, he should have committed no errors, that writing all that he wrote he should have made no mistakes, would be expecting more of him than we have a right to expect of any mortal man. It would be about as reasonable as to find, fault with the sun because he sometimes scorches and dries up what it is his province to quicken and invigorate.

We venerate the character of Priestley, then, because, to use the words of the Fragment on Government, 'he did something to instruct, but more to undeceive the timid and admiring student; to excite him to place more confidence in his own strength, and less in the infallibility of great names; to help him to emancipate his judgment from the shackles of authority; to teach him to distinguish between showy language and sound sense; to warn him not to pay himself with words; to show him that what may tickle the ear or dazzle the imagination, will not always inform the judgment; to dispose him rather to fast on ignorance, than feed himself with error.' We venerate him, because he was a free and honest defender of civil and religious liberty; and at a time, when this character exposed him to destruction beneath his falling roof, or to martyrdom in the flames which consumed his dwelling. We venerate him for his disinterested, active interest in behalf of human improvement and happiness; for his earnest efforts in the cause of Christianity; his successful attempts to free it from its corruptions; his satisfactory

displays of its evidences; his able exposition of its doctrines, in his writings; and his bright manifestation of its consolations and supports, in his own life. We venerate him because we read in his remarkable character the purifying, spiritualizing, ennobling influences of truth. We revere him as a pioneer in its sacred cause, as one who made every subject he studied, whether of philosophy, history, or religion, alike subservient to its advancement. We can throw the mantle of christian charity over his failings for the sake of his many virtues, overlook his sometimes hasty zeal in the motive which prompted it, and excuse his speculations because of the great truths with which they were connected.

To adopt the language of his monumental stone : 'His discoveries as a Philosopher, will never cease to be remembered and admired by the ablest improvers of science. His firmness as an advocate of liberty, and his sincerity as an expounder of the scriptures, endeared him to many of his enlightened and unprejudiced contemporaries. His example as a Christian, will be instructive to the wise and interesting to the good, of every country, and of every age.' E.

ADDRESS TO OUR READERS, ON THE FOURTH OF JULY.

'Brethren, ye have been called unto liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh.' How happy would it be for our country, if every citizen

would ponder well this admonition! It behooves us, especially on the anniversary of our Independence, not to indulge in mere exultation because we are free, but seriously to reflect upon the nature and extent of our freedom, and the high obligations which it devolves upon us. It can do us no good merely to repeat the praises of our Fathers; to tell, or to hear, how nobly they resolved-how fearlessly they executed-how patiently they suffered. The achievement of our Revolution derives all its real worth from its high moral character. Whatever a christian may think of violent resistance to oppression in any case, it is impossible not to admire the disinterestedness of those men, who guided our fathers in their struggles for independence. Although some of us may question the lawfulness of fighting in any emergency, no one can deny that the great object for which our fathers fought was a noble one, and that they entered the contest with 'single' hearts. They were not the creatures of any man's ambition. They were not hurried on by any mad schemes of aggrandizement, extension of territory, or accumulation of wealth. Much less were they prompted by the savage passion for military glory. No, they plead a holier cause for war. They were deprived of some of the dearest rights of man; and thought they saw that the restrictions which were laid upon them, were but the beginning of encroachment and oppression. It appeared to them inevitable that their children would be made slaves, if they did not avert this result of the measures pursued by the British government, by timely resistance.

We cannot for a moment hesitate to believe that the