"Here is the wardrobe of my dufty clothes, Here is the Epitaph of Thomas Tyndale, written in the year 1571. "Ye fe how death doth spare no age no kynd 7 No gould, no friend, no ftrength could randfome bee Who would not be content fuch change to make For worldly thinges eternal life to take." 4 We shall finish with the modeft Epitaph of Dr. Grail, "Here underneath interr'd doth lie A flight Sketch of the Controverfy between Dr. Priestley and his Opponents, on the Subject of his Difquifitions on Matter and Spirit. 8vo. Is. Becket. This celebrated controverfy hath engaged the attention of many eminent writers; and others of inferior note, whose talents were unequal to the task, have ventured to enter the lifts, but fuch as may naturally be concluded, met with an inglorious fall. When the controverfy first took place, its merits were largely and particularly entered into in the London Review. Our late Editor was allowed to difplay great fhrewdness and ingenuity in his feveral letters addreffed to Dr. Dr. Priestley, on the fubject of the penetrability of matter; and, in the accounts which he gave of the writings of the respective authors who figured in the debate; he was noticed by Dr. Priestley, and his abilities complimented by his learned antagonist. The defign of the prefent work we collect from the Pre face. "I wifhed," fays the author "to prefent the reader with a brief and general review of a controverfy to which the name of Dr. Priestley had given fome diftinction and popularity, curiofity was excited by it, but few chofe to be at the trouble of gratifying that paffion by a laborious inveftigation of the argument in the state into which contention had thrown it." As our author proceeds in his Preface, he cautiously observes, that he is "no difciple of Dr. Priestley: nor would I," fays he, "infult his understanding, or violate my own fincerity, by clouding his altar with the incence of flattery. I would bear a willing tribute to his merit:-but with the fpirit of a man who is not afraid to tell him of his faults. Of his faults and his merit, I pretend to be no judge, any further than they are fubmitted to the public eye. "The Doctor hath been mistaken by many who having never read his elaborate work, content themfelves with the account given of it by others. That account hath frequently been partial-fometimes erroneous and in one or two inftances wilfully falfe." To the veracity of the affertion contained in the laft cited paragraph, we readily give our affent. Of the general accufation brought against the Doctor, and its tendency, our author hath the following remarks. "Dr. Priestley hath been accused of a defign the most oppofite to his wishes, and that is, to fubvert the doctrine of a future ftate. His enemies for as a Prefbyterian he hath many-and as a Socinian more-have precipitately caught at the charge: and fome of them were not deftitute of that cunning and address which were just fufficient to give it the credit they defired. The fwarm of Atheistic libertines, who are not qualified to reason about religion, but only to vilify it, because it is a check on their views, were very eager to adopt as a truth what his enemies had exhibited as an accufation. They were happy to enroll the name of Priestley in the catalogue of thofe heroic writers, who fcorning an accommodation with, religion, had nobly rejected, in the greatness of their fouls, both its duties and its fanctions; and having reprefented virtue as the mere creature of cuftom and polity, had given up a future ftate as the dream of fuperftition, or the artifice of prieftcraft. I have been often a witness to this hackneyed cant of vulgar infidelity; prefaced with the names of a Mandeville or a Toland, it loft nothing of its futility by fuch wretched authorities. But VOL. XI. when C when the name of Dr. Priestley was introduced to give it credit, that which was ridiculous by itself became ferious from its connexion. In fuch a cafe I have attempted to check the gaiety of a falfe and forward triumph, by anticipating the defign of this pamphlet, which is principally written with a view to convince the infidel, that Dr. Prieftley is no partizan of his caufe, no advocate for any doctrine that hath the most remote tendency to unfettle the laws or fanctions of religion: but on the contrary, that he hath exerted his best talents in fixing them on the only foundation` on which they can fecurely ftand, and that is the gospel of our Lord and Saviour Jefus Chrift, whofe refurrection alone hath begotten us again to a lively hope of an inheritance, incorruptible, undefiled, and that fadeth not away.' In the tract before us we have a kind of hiftorical view of the rife and progrefs of this debate; and in our author's account of the feveral writers who have appeared in it, he hath relieved the tedious drynefs of metaphyfical difquifition, by propriety of fentiment, and a lively and animated ftyle. His wit and humour alfo, with which he hath entertained us, are feasonable and appofite. He hath well obferved the maxim, "Every thing is beautiful in its feafon," and according to his own advice, he hath taken care to put his trifles to their true account, by putting them in their proper place." The force of the argument, though concife, is judiciously preferved. Here the reader will find multum in parvo. But however, we plainly perceive, that our author is in fome paffages, condemned out of his own mouth." He accufes Dr. Priestley of pride, and applies to him the excellent fentence of the Jewish writer," that pride was not made for man" yet, forgetting this wholfome admonition, he betrays in his performance, that he is poffeffed of no inconfiderable share of that quality which he condemns fo farcaftically. Perhaps he is not fenfible of it. This is frequently the cafe among controverfial writers. Almoft every one is partial to his own failings, but at the fame time he beholds thofe of others with a keen and penetrating eye. To the confideration of perfons in this predicament, we fubmit the following lines of Perfius: Ut nemo in fefe tentat defcendere! nemo ! Sed præcedenti fpectatur mantica tergo. The chief objects of our author's ridicule are John Buncle, Efq; the Reverend David Williams, Dr. Shebbeare, Mr. Jofeph Berington (whofe redoubtable name hath often hone in the London Review with a luftre peculiar to itself) à certain writer who calls himfelf a Chriftian; and last of all to to close the rear, the furious "vindicator of the Church of England, as established by the legislative authority of this realm, &c." for whose kind affiftance towards building up the church, and pulling down the conventicle, no true Chriftian or candid churchman will offer the tribute of thanks. fpecimen of our author's turn for ridicule, we will here quote his fentiments of Mr. Jofeph Berington. As a "The first writer that entered into a regular and fyftematical examination of Dr. Priestley's hypothefis, was a Mr. Jofeph Berington. His "Letters on Materialifm" were addreffed to the Doctor, and by a pompous and flattering infcription, he laid a tax on the civility of his antagonist, which he had the mortification to find was repaid with a very fparing hand; and, by complimenting that ftrength which he was going to contend with, he either expreffed his fear, or acknowledged his prefumption. "This writer,who certainly rates his metaphyfical fkill at a prodigious price,was perpetually the port of the London Reviewers: and indeed I know no finer game that can be started in the literary chafe, than a metaphyfical animal that runs to earth; and flumbering in obfcu rity, dreams of the profound. So much for Jofeph Berington.But I had like to have forgotten his Immaterialifm Delineated; or, a View of the first Principles of Things:' by which you may fee juft as far into thofe first principles, as by Jacob Behmen's Rifing fun' which reveals all the fecrets of the dark, light eternal, and temporary world.' I had nearly forgotten this wonderful work, which, I am pofitive, deferves to be as much remembered as his letter to Dr. Fordyce, in which he gives a view of the principles of popery, and demonftrates with his ufual perfpicuity, that it is not delufive in its nature, and perfecuting in its fpirit, as fome wrong-headed proteftants have been weak enough to reprefent it; but, on the contrary, that it is the fairest copy, -yea the very original of that wifdom which cometh down from above, which is first pure and then peaceable, gentle, eafy to be intreated, full of good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrify." "Hail holy light! offspring of heaven first-born? and hail, Oh! Berington, for finging fo melodioutly to the praise and glory of it. As I have confecrated thy metaphyfics to the Rifing fun,' of Jacob Behem; I will confecrate thy theology to the ' falling ftar of the Revelations." The writers who are complimented in this "flight sketch" for their abilities, candour, or other refpectable qualities, are Doctors Beattie, Kenrick, Horftey, Price, Duncan, and Mr. Shepherd (Philalethes Rufticans.) Our author (page 30.) afferts that Dr. Priestley is the accuteft logician of the age. Refpecting this point our fentiments are different. In many of his arguments the Doctor C 2 is is deftitute of logical precifion. We allow he merits the pofitive, but by no means the fuperlative degree in comparifon. But, as Mr. Pope fays, in his Effay on Criticism, ""Tis with our judgments as our watches, none After the author hath given, what he calls a flight hiftorical sketch of the controverfy between Dr. Prieftley and his antagonists, and intermixed it with fuch remarks as naturally offered themselves, he gives the fum of the whole controverfy. To tranfcribe this part, though highly interefting, would carry us beyond our ufual limits. However, as the concluding pages contain fome excellent truths, and origipality of fentiment, we will here prefent them to our readers. "The author of the "Letters on Materialism," confeffeth that he hath no doubt of Dr. Priestley's theological belief of a future ftate; that is his belief of it, as a Chriftian. Then why this vehement outcry? Why fhould Chriftians be angry with a man, because he believes the doctrine of immortality, only on the fure footing of a divine and exprefs revelation? Let us leave it to the deifts to difcover it in the best manner they are able, by the tedious and uncertain investigations of phyfical powers and metaphyfical effences and that equivocal fomething which foars above all diftinétion, and is only introduced for convenience fake, to unite the extremes of both. Chriftians are by no means interefted in the event of such obfcure debates as thefe; becaufe, let the iffue of them be what it will let matter or fpirit get the better of the argument a man who believes the fcriptures is under no neceffity of looking any further for the proof of the doctrine, For to afk one plain queftion, What have the numerous writers in defence of divine revelation, been all this while employed about, if they are yet under the neceffity of proving the doctrine of a future ftate independently of it? The evidences of the truth of Chriftianity, and the natural evidences of a future ftate, proceed on different grounds, and rest their fupport on very different proofs. The former are built on pofitive, determinate, hiftorical facts, about which the fenfes of capable and difinterested judges were immediately and explicitly concerned. But the mere natural evidence of a future ftate, can boast of no fupport that bears any refemblance to human facts, or events that are fubjected to the cognizance of the fenfes. On the footing of Revelation only do we fee a future ftate realized or reduced to a matter of fast. And thus the apoftle argues, "If Christ be not rifen, ye are yet in your fins; and thofe a fo who have fallen asleep in Jefus are perished"-" But now is Chrift rifen from the dead, and become the firft fruits of them that flept." The certain revelation of a future ftate, feems to be the ultimate |