which was "impugned by Dr. Priestley, as being a direct "introduction to atheism," "I do not see the certain ten"dency of this opinion to atheism :" that is, (is it not?) I do not see that this sentiment and apprehension of Dr. Priestley are well founded.-Can this "writer," then, be Dr. Priestley himself? Mr. Yates, like others of his sect, is in general willing enough to pay insinuating compliments to the understandings of his readers. As to my readers, he seems to have forgotten, on the present occasion, that they had understanding at all. For surely that reader "must have a most uncommon “ skull,” a skull over which Drs. Gall and Spurzheim would search in vain for the organs of penetration, who could for a moment suppose, that Dr. Priestley, whom the end of one sentence had represented as impugning a particular doctrine on account of its direct tendency to atheism, should be "the writer," who, in the beginning of the next, says, "I do not perceive "this tendency at all." I think I might almost venture here on a point of admiration. I can solemnly assure Mr. Yates that I had looked at the title-page, and absolutely knew, while I was writing, that the person whose sentiment I quoted was Judge Cooper of Pennsylvania. But really the possibility of such a mistake, as he supposes to be not only likely but almost certain, never once entered my mind, till he suggested it; nor do I believe in it yet. And, were Mr. Yates to assure me that he knew instances of its having occurred, my inference would be, not want of clearness in the note, but want of clearness somewhere else.-As for Judge Cooper not being a Unitarian," whatsoever he was, it maketh no "matter to me." I had no reference, while writing that note, either to Unitarianism or Trinitarianism, but simply to the tendency of that spirit of arrogant self-sufficiency on which I had been commenting in the text. Of this the sentiment quoted in the note is, without controversy, what I have

termed it, “a striking and affecting instance.". The spirit of it is the spirit of infidelity: and whether Judge Cooper was a Trinitarian infidel, or a Unitarian infidel, or

"A smart free-thinker, all things in an hour,'

was a matter of little consequence in itself, and totally irrelative to the object of the note.

CHAPTER II.

MR. YATES has accused me of management and generalship. I will not retort the charge. There is one thing, however, for which I have felt it difficult to account, consistently with that manly openness and decision which I should have expected of him; I mean the impossibility of discovering from his book, what his own sentiments are. What he is not, he leaves us at no loss to find out. He is not a Trinitarian. It may be alleged that this negative position necessarily implies the opposite positive-He is a Unitarian. True. But what, according to Mr. Yates, is a Unitarian? Still the only answer which his book furnishes to this question is,—It is not a Trinitarian: for under the appellation Unitarian he includes all the varieties of sentiment from the highest Arianism to the lowest Socinianism; and if, between these two extreme points (inclusive) you ask me the question, What is Mr. Yates? I frankly answer, So far as his book informs me, I cannot tell.-Now why is this? Is Mr. Yates prepared to say, that he does not think the Scriptures have at all decided, whether Jesus was a superangelic Being, created before all worlds, the instrument of the creation of all other

beings, an inferior God;—or a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, fallible and peccable like other men? Does he think this wide difference on so interesting a subject, of so little consequence as to render it not worth while for the Divine Being, in revealing his truth to his creatures, to be at all explicit about it? If so, I think he entertains very unworthy thoughts of Divine revelation.—If, again, he intended by this proceeding to straiten the bond of brotherhood between his Arian and Socinian friends, I fear, in that case, that his attempt to please every body will end in pleasing nobody; and that most, if not all, both of Socinians and Arians, will be dissatisfied with what they will consider as a compromise of important truth.-Or has his object been to afford himself more convenient scope in his argument? Whether this was his design or not, it is not for me to say; but every reader of his book must have perceived how frequently it has served this purpose. By allowing himself this extensive range, whenever he feels a text pinch him on the Socinian hypothesis of the mere manhood of Christ, he has recourse to the Arian view of his pre-existence and superangelic nature; and if in either he can find any thing like an answer to the argument for his divinity, he is satisfied.

It is not on account of any increased difficulty given to the general argument by this mode of procedure, that I complain of it: for the Arian hypothesis is not more tenable, on scriptural ground, than the Socinian; and every proof of the supreme divinity of Christ militates with the same force and conclusiveness against the one as against the other. I feel no more apprehension at encountering Mr. Yates in his Arian than in his Socinian armour. But when a man takes the field, he ought, I think, openly to appear what he really is. If Mr. Yates believes Jesus Christ to have been a mere man, why has

by

he not said so? If he believes him to have been a superangelic créature existing before all worlds, why has he not said so?—I am satisfied, indeed, that if the supreme divinity of the Saviour is denied, it is a matter of comparatively small consequence what rank we assign to him in the scale of created existence. "The glorious gospel of the blessed God" is as effectually subverted,―the solid basis of my hopes as a sinner as thoroughly undermined, by the Arian hypothesis as by the Socinian, the scheme of Clarke as by that of Priestley and Belsham. Between these two, however, viewed in relation to each other, there is surely a very wide difference; the former considering Jesus as a kind of subordinate deity, possessed of every divine attribute, excepting self-existence and independence, and the proper object of a certain undefined but inferior species of worship; the latter pronouncing him a mere mortal man, in all respects like other men:-the former admitting, in words at least, the doctrine of atonement; the latter proscribing and ridiculing every thing of the kind. Is Mr. Yates still halting between these two opinions?" Probably not. But, for reasons unexplained in his work, and best known to himself, he has judged it proper to leave these differences out of view.—“ Another principle" says he, (p. 8.) "which I have "laid down for myself, is to vindicate those doctrines alone, in "maintaining which all Unitarians are agreed, without enter"ing into the discussion of those subordinate questions, con

66

*

* Since writing this, I have perused a paper of Mr. Yates's in the Monthly Repository, sent me for that purpose by himself, in which he assigns his reasons for employing the designation Unitarian with so much latitude. I saw nothing in that paper that induced me to make any alteration on what I had previously written;-because that which I complain of here, is, not his extensive application of this term, which is a matter in itself of no consequence, and which Mr. Yates and his friends may be left to adjust among themselves to their mutual satisfaction;--but it is his keeping his readers throughout his book utterly in the dark as to what description of Unitarian he himself is.

C

66

cerning which they differ among themselves." "This me"thod," adds he, "is not only necessary in a work which "professes to be a Vindication of Unitarianism: but. it has "the advantage of greatly abridging the labour both for my"self and for my readers."-Now, although I think it would have been more consistent with manly openness, to have explicitly avowed his own views of the person of Christ, and defended them accordingly; yet I am perfectly willing that he should make a virtue of this supposed necessity, and that he should enjoy the advantage of "abridged labour,” and along with it the additional convenience already alluded to, of more extensive scope for evasion, by springing to every point that may best answer his purpose, between the highest Arianism and the lowest Socinianism.

Mr. Yates and his friends are far from being agreed as to the extent of meaning which should be attached to the ap pellation by which they are pleased to distinguish themselves. But it is not worth while to contend about a name. It has often been observed, that those who arrogate to themselves the exclusive title of Unitarians, design to convey by it the tacit insinuation that Trinitarians deny the Divine Unity. Let us not trouble ourselves, however, about the designation they have assumed: but, while we reject the charge which it implies, and which, in spite of all our explicit disavowals, we may still expect to be pertinaciously persisted in, let us give them their favourite appellation, attaching to it the only sense which, in strict fairness, it should be considered as bearingnot that we deny the Divine Unity (for as to this essential article of faith we are Unitarians as well as they) but that they deny the Divine Trinity. * Antitrinitarians is their correct

* The following does credit to the candour of the writer: "Unitarian is not opposed to Tritheist or Polytheist it does not denote a believer in one God, as contradistinguished from a believer in three Gods, or in more Gods than one.