extinct, that the loss of an army would be a favourable incident. We have not even the advantage of shipwrecks, which must soon, with the society of you and Gerard Hamilton, become the only pleasures of Brighton. My lady is precious, and deserves to shine in London, when she regains her palace. The workmen are slow, but I hear that the minister talks of hiring another house after Christmas.* Adieu, till Monday seven-night.

CXLIII.-EDWARD GIBBON, ESQ. TO LORD SHEFFIELD.

January 17th, 1783.

As I arrived about seven o'clock on Wednesday last, we were some time in town in mutual ignorance. Unlucky enough: yet our loss will be speedily repaired. Your reason for not writing is worthy of an Irish baron. You thought Sarah might be at Bath, because you directed letters to her at Clifton, near Bristol; where indeed I saw her in a delightful situation, swept by the winter winds, and scorched by the summer sun. A nobler reason for your silence would be the care of your papers, to record your steps, words, and actions. I was pleased with your Coventry oration: a panegyric on **** is a subject entirely new, and which no orator before self would have dared to undertake. You have acted with prudence and dignity in casting away the military yoke. This next summer you will sit down (if you can sit) in the long-lost character of a country gentleman.

your

For my own part, my late journey has only confirmed me in the opinion, that number seven in Bentinck-street is the best house in the world. I find that peace and war alternately, and daily, take their turns of conversation, and this (Friday) is the pacific day. Next week we shall probably hear some questions on that head very strongly asked, and very foolishly answered, &c. Give me a line by return of post, and probably I may visit Downing-street on Monday evening; late, however, as I am engaged to dinner and cards. Adieu.

CXLIV.—MR. GIBBON TO DR. PRIESTLEY.†

January 23rd, 1783.

Sir,-As a mark of your esteem, I should have accepted with pleasure your History of the Corruptions of Christianity. You have been careful to inform me, that it is intended, not as a gift, but as a challenge, and such a challenge you must permit me to decline. At the same time you glory in outstripping the zeal of the Mufti and the Lama, it may be proper to declare, that I should equally refuse the defiance of those venerable divines. Once, and once only, the just defence of my own veracity provoked me to descend into the amphitheatre;

Lord North, while his house was repairing, inhabited Lord Sheffield's in Downing

street.

† Although Dr. Priestley may not be justified for publishing the following letters, yet as he thought fit to print them with a volume of sermons soon after Mr. Gibbon's death, it will not be improper to insert them in this collection.

but as long as you attack opinions which I have never maintained, or maintain principles which I have never denied, you may safely exult in my silence and your own victory. The difference between us, (on the credibility of miracles,) which you choose to suppose, and wish to argue, is a trite and ancient topic of controversy, and, from the opinion which you entertain of yourself and of me, it does not appear probable that our disputes would either edify or enlighten the public.

The public will decide to whom the invidious name of unbeliever more justly belongs; to the historian, who, without interposing his own sentiments, has delivered a simple narrative of authentic facts, or to the disputant who proudly rejects all natural proofs of the immortality of the soul, overthrows (by circumscribing) the inspiration of the evangelists and apostles, and condemns the religion of every Christian nation, as a fable less innocent, but not less absurd, than Mahomet's journey to the third heaven.

And now, sir, since you assume a right to determine the objects of my past and future studies, give me leave to convey to your ear the almost unanimous, and not offensive wish, of the philosophic world: -that you would confine your talents and industry to those sciences in which real and useful improvements can be made. Remember the end of your predecessor Servetus, not of his life, (the Calvins of our days are restraned from the use of the same fiery arguments,) but, I mean, the end of his reputation. His theological writings are lost in oblivion; and if his book on the Trinity be still preserved, it is only because it contains the first rudiments of the discovery of the circulation of the blood. I am, sir, your obedient humble servant.

CXLV. DR. PRIESTLEY TO MR. GIBBON.

Birmingham, 3rd February, 1783. Sir, It would have been impertinent in me, especially considering the object of my History, to have sent you a copy of it as a mark of my esteem or friendship. What I meant was to act the part of a fair and open adversary, and I am truly sorry that you decline the discussion I proposed: for, though you are of a different opinion, I do not think that either of us could be better employed; and, should the Mufti and the Lama, whose challenge, you say, you would also decline, become parties in the business, I should rejoice the more. I do not well know what you can mean by intimating, that I am a greater unbeliever than yourself; that I attack opinions which you never maintained, and maintain principles which you never denied. If you mean to assert that you are a believer in Christianity, and meant to recommend it, I must say, that your mode of writing has been very ill adapted to gain your purpose. If there be any certain method of discovering a man's real object, yours has been to discredit Christianity in fact, while in words you represent yourself as a friend to it: a conduct which I scruple not to call highly unworthy and mean; an insult on the common sense of the Christian world; as a method of screening you from the notice of

the law, (which is as hostile to me as it is to you,) you must know that it could avail you nothing; and, though that mode of writing might be deemed ingenious and witty in the first inventor of it, it has been too often repeated to deserve that appellation now.

According to your own rule of conduct, this charge ought to provoke you to descend into the amphitheatre once more, as much as the accusation of Mr. Davis: for it is a call upon you to defend, not your principles only, but also your honour. For what can reflect greater dishonour on a man, than to say one thing and mean another? You have certainly been very far from confining yourself, as you pretend, to a simple narrative of authentic facts, without interposing your own sentiments. I hold no opinions, obnoxious as they are, that I am not ready both to avow in the most explicit manner, and also to defend with any person of competent judgment and ability. Had I not considered you in this light, and also as fairly open, by the strain of your writings, to such a challenge, I should not have called upon you as I have done. The public will form its own judgment both of that and of your silence on the occasion; and finally decide between you, the humble historian, and me, the proud disputant.

As to my reputation, for which you are so very obligingly concerned, give me leave to observe, that, as far as it is an object with any person, and a thing to be enjoyed by himself, it must depend upon his particular notions and feelings. Now, odd as it will appear to you, the esteem of a very few rational Christian friends (though I know that it will insure me the detestation of the greater part of the present nominally Christian world that happen to hear me) gives me more real satisfaction, than the applause of what you call the philosophic world. I admire Servetus, by whose example you wish me to take warning, more for his courage in dying for the cause of important truth, than I should have done, if, besides the certain discovery of the circulation of the blood, he had made any other the most celebrated discovery in philosophy.

However, I do not see what my philosophical friends (of whom I have many, and whom I think I value as I ought,) have to do with my metaphysical or theological writings. They may, if they please, consider them as my particular whims or amusements, and accordingly neglect them. They have, in fact, interfered very little with my application to philosophy, since I have had the means of doing it. I was never more busy, or more successfully so, in my philosophical pursuits, than during the time that I have been employed about the History of the Corruptions of Christianity. I am at this very time, totus in illis, as my friends know, and as the public will know in due time, which with me is never long; and if you had thought proper to enter into the discussion I proposed, it would not have made me neglect my laboratory, or omit a single experiment that I should otherwise have made. I am, sir, your very humble servant,

J. PRIESTLEY.

CXLVI.-MR. GIBBON TO DR. PRIESTLEY.

Bentinck-street, February 6th, 1783.

Sir, As I do not pretend to judge of the sentiments or intentions of another, I shall not enquire how far you are inclined to suffer or inflict martyrdom. It only becomes me to say, that the style and temper of your last letter have satisfied me of the propriety of declining all farther correspondence, whether public or private, with such an adversary. I am, sir, your humble servant.

CXLVII.-DR. PRIESTLEY TO MR. GIBBON.

Birmingham, February 10th, 1783. Sir, I neither requested nor wished to have any private correspondence with you. All that my MS. card required, was a simple acknowledgment of the receipt of the copy of my work. You chose, however, to give me a specimen of your temper and feelings; and also, what I thought to be an opening to a further call upon you for a justification of yourself in public. Of this I was willing to take advantage; and at the same time to satisfy you that my philosophical pursuits, for which, whether in earnest or not, you were pleased to express some concern, would not be interrupted in consequence of it.

As this correspondence, from the origin and nature of it, cannot be deemed confidential, I may, especially if I resume my observations on your conduct as an historian, give the public an opportunity of judging of the propriety of my answer to your first extraordinary letter, and also to this last truly enigmatical one; to interpret which requires much more sagacity, than to discover your real intentions with respect to Christianity, though you might think you had carefully concealed them from all human inspection.

Wishing to hear from you just as little as you please in private, and just as much as you please in public, I am, sir, your humble

servant.

CXLVIII.-MR. GIBBON TO DR. PRIESTLEY.

February 22nd, 1783.

If Dr. Priestley consults his friends, he will probably learn, that a single copy of a paper, addressed under a seal to a single person, and not relative to any public or official business, must always be considered as private correspondence; which a man of honour is not at liberty to print without the consent of the writer. That consent in the present instance, Mr. Gibbon thinks proper to withhold; and, as he desires to escape all further altercation, he shall not trouble Dr. Priestley or himself with explaining the motives of his refusal.

CXLIX. DR. PRIESTLEY TO MR. GIBBON.

Birmingham, February 25th, 1783.

Dr. Priestley is as unwilling to be guilty of any real impropriety as Mr. Gibbon can wish him to be: but as the correspondence between them relates not to any private, but only to a public matter, he apprehends that it may, according to Mr. Gibbon's own distinction, at the pleasure of either of the parties be laid before the public; who, in fact, are interested to know, at least, the result of it. Dr. Priestley's conduct will always be open to the animadversion of Mr. Gibbon, or of any other person. His appeal is to men of honour, and even men of the world: and he desires no favour.

Dr. Priestley has sent a single copy of the correspondence to a friend in London, with leave to show it to any other common friends, but with a prohibition to take any other copy; but between this and printing there is no difference, except in mode and extent. In the of the law and of reason both are equally publications; and has Mr. Gibbon never thought himself at liberty to show a copy of a letter to a third person?

eye

Mr. Gibbon may easily escape all further altercation by discontinuing this mutually disagreeable correspondence, by leaving Dr. Priestley to act as his own discretion or indiscretion my dictate: and for this, himself only, and not Mr. Gibbon, is responsible.

CL.-MR. GIBBON TO MR. DEYVERDUN, AT LAUSANNE.

London, May 20th, 1783.

How I love the sweet and free communication of our reciprocal feelings! We love each other during distance and silence, and we find it mutually sufficient to hear from time to time news of each other's health and welfare. To-day I want to write to you, and I begin without reproaches or apologies, as if we were about to resume the familiar conversation of yesterday. If I intended

to give you a perfect account of my studies, my pleasures, my new connexions, my political course (still silent but rather nearer to great events) I should multiply my quarto volumes, and I do not yet know your opinion of those I have already sent you. This modern "History" would always treat of the "Decline of Empires," and so far as I can judge from my own recollections and from the communications of our friend Bugnon, you are no fonder of the English power than that of the "Roman." Our "Fall" has, however, been more gradual. After an unsuccessful war, and an inglorious peace, we still have enough left to make us live contented and happy; and when I shall have laid down my character of member of parliament to reassume that of a man, a philosopher, and a historian, we shall find ourselves very well agreed upon the greatest part of the astonishing scenes that have just passed before our eyes, and which will furnish plenty of employment for the most skilful of

our successors.