Biographical Memoir ofDr Priestley. 9.9^ 



proper to remark, that several of these doctrines are those of 

 the first Socinians, and that Priestley only supported them by 

 new arguments. 



It is not necessary for me to pronounce here upon questions 

 so widely different from the studies which call us together, and 

 which, besides, have been so often debated ; it is enough to have 

 been obliged to relate them. But it belongs to my subject to 

 say, that Priestley supported them but too ably. His adver- 

 saries themselves acknowledged that he possessed a vast erudi- 

 tion, and a specious art in combining and directing his resources ; 

 they unanimously speak of him as one of the most powerful 

 controversialists of these latter times, and as one of the most 

 dangerous enemies of orthodoxy. 



Writers of this description are not now dreaded in the Catho- 

 lic church, where authority alone is the arbiter of faith, and 

 where the writings that oppose its doctrines remain unknown to 

 the great body of the faithful. But in Protestant countries, 

 where every thing is submitted to argument, there continually 

 reigns a sort of intestine war ; the theologians are always in 

 arms ; the empire of mind is a bait constantly offered to their 

 ambition, and where dialectics may still make vast conquests. 

 This was apparently what Priestley attempted ; and who will 

 not pardon him ? Power is so seducing, and that of which per- 

 suasion alone is the instrument appears so gentle. 



Perhaps he also had the weakness to think, that, in these in- 

 credulous times, it was necessary to lighten the faith, as in stormy 

 weather a ship is cleared of the most cumbersome part of its 

 freight. In fact, it might be thought that, after rejecting 

 so many doctrines, he had but one additional step to make 

 to fall into absolute infidelity ; but this he did not do. On 

 the contrary, in theology, as in physics, he wished to occupy a 

 station by himself, however perilous it might be, and he trust- 

 ed to his courage for its defence. He could not suffer any to 



cal doctrines concerning the origin of the soul and the nature of matter, as well 

 as their influence on Christianity with reference to the pre-existence of Christ. 

 1777, 8vo. 



The Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity explained. 1777, 8vo. 



Free Discussions regarding the Doctrine of Materialism and of Philoso- 

 phical Necessity, in a correspondence between Dr Priestley and Dr Price. 



Letter to J. Bryant in defence of Philosophical Necessity. 1780, 8vo. 



