"I am, reverend Sir, your very humble servant, "J. Priestley." This sheet contains a preface to a third vol. of Institutes of Religion.' That you, Madam, may be the better enabled to judge between him and me, I send it to you in a separate packet, which will be delivered along with this.

"I never saw Dr Priestley; I greatly esteem his talents as a natural philosopher, particularly as a chemist: whether his talents in moral philosophy be as distinguished, I have no opportunity of knowing. His excessive admiration of Mr Hartley's book, (see the preface, page 21.) I have heard mentioned as one of the learned Doctor's hobby-horses. I am not ignorant of his connections in the way of party; but I hope, in this attack upon my book, he is determined by nothing but a love of truth. I need not tell you, that he is the oracle of the Socinians and Dissenters; and the public will no doubt expect that I should answer his preface. This will not be a difficult matter. The Doctor must certainly have read my book, since he declares, in print, his disapprobation of it; but that he has read it attentively, and without prejudice, is not clear. Certain it is, that every one of his remarks on me,

as they appear in this preface, is founded in a gross misapprehension of my doctrine. I have written him a letter, which I enclose in this packet for your perusal; if you approve of it, please to cause it be forwarded to him; if not, you may suppress it.

"One would think, from reading Dr Priestley's preface, that Dr Reid, Dr Oswald, and I, wrote in concert, and with a view to enforce the very same hypothesis. But the truth is, that I write in concert with nobody: Dr Oswald's book I never read, till after my own was published; and Dr Reid (to whom I have made all due acknowledgments for the instruction I have received from his work) never saw mine, till it was in the hands of the public. The controversial part of Dr Reid's book regards the existence of matter chiefly; Dr Oswald's system (though there are many good things in his book) I never distinctly understood. The former of these authors differs in many things from me; and the latter (if I am rightly informed) has actually attacked a fundamental principle of mine, in a second volume, lately published, which I have not yet got leisure to read.

I have already observed, that, among various plans suggested by Dr Beattie's friends in England, for the advancement of his fortune, that of his taking orders in the Church of England had been mentioned to him.* It has been seen, by the preceding correspondence with Lady Mayne and Mr John Pitt, that he had entirely abandoned that idea. The zeal of his friends, however, was not abated, and he received another very flattering proposition, to the same purpose, through the hands of Dr Porteus.

* See Vol. I. p. 333.

LETTER XCVIII.

THE REV. DR PORTEUS TO DR BEATTIE.

Hunton, near Maidstone, Kent, July 24th, 1774.

"I am desired, by one of the Episcopal bench, whose name I am not yet at liberty to mention, to ask you, whether you have any objections to taking orders in the Church of England. If you have not, there is a living, now vacant, in his gift, worth near five hundred pounds a-year, which will be at your service.

"Be pleased to send me your answer to this, as soon as possible, and direct it to me at Peterborough, in Northamptonshire, where I shall probably be before your letter can reach me. I feel myself happy in being the instrument of communicating to you so honourable and advantageous a proof of that esteem, which your literary labours have secured to you, amongst all ranks of people."

To this proposition, so very flattering, as well as advantageous, Dr Beattie gave the following admirable reply, which does the highest credit to the purity of his principles, and the integrity of his mind.

LETTER XCIX.

DR BEATTIE TO THE REV. DR PORTEUS.

Peterhead, 4th August, 1774.

"I have made many efforts to express, in something like adequate language, my grateful sense of the honour done me by the Right Reverend Prelate, who makes the offer conveyed to me in your most friendly letter of the 24th July. But every new effort serves only to convince me, more and more, how unequal I am to the task.

"When I consider the extraordinary reception which my weak endeavours in the cause of truth have met with, and compare the greatness