designation; but we call them Unitarians, on the same principle as (in a case of infinitely inferior importance indeed, but precisely similar in kind) we give the title of Baptists to those of our Christian brethren whose proper denomination is Antipædobaptists. We are Baptists as well as they; but we frankly give them the name they have chosen to themselves, notwithstanding that on their part it conveys a reflection against the propriety of our own practice.

There is another advantage, indeed, which I had almost overlooked, derived by Mr. Yates, from his comprehensive acceptation of the term Unitarian. It enables him to enlarge considerably his list of worthies. That list the reader may find in page 165 of the "Vindication." Although Mr. Yates professes that he "presents this list of illustrious and "venerated names, not for the sake of an empty boast, "nor to decide the question in dispute by great human "authorities, but simply to counteract the false impression "which Mr. Wardlaw's treatment of Unitarian divines is "adapted to produce,"-yet it cannot fail to strike the considerate reader, what an anxiety there is to swell the list, not only by including Sabellians, Arians, Semiarians, and Socinians in all their variety of degrees, but by pressing into the service every one, in whose writings any thing is to be found that could attach to them the slightest suspicion of their verging towards a doubt of the ordinary doctrine of the Trinity. It is generally understood that the sentiments of the excellent and venerable Dr. Isaac Watts tended in his latter years towards Sabellianism:-but how would he have

It is opposed to Trinitarian-Tri-uni-tarian only, and signifies a believer in, and a worshipper of, one God in one person, as contradistinguished from a believer in, and a worshipper of, one God in three persons." From "Plea for Unitarian "Dissenters," as quoted in the Monthly Repository for August 1815,-p. 480.

been horrified to have seen his name enrolled with the names of those who degrade to the rank of a mere fellow mortal that blessed Redeemer who was the object of his constant adoration, and who utterly deny that atonement on which all his hopes for eternity were founded, as well as the very existence of that Holy Spirit, to whose "quickening powers" he owed his spiritual life, and whose sacred and melting influences purified and warmed his heart, and tuned his harp to praise.—Who, that was not bent on giving his system popularity and eclat, would ever have thought of classing together in the same theological list, the names of DR. ISAAC WATTS, and DR. JOSEPH PRIESTLEY? If ever there existed two men, antipodes in religious sentiment and religious feeling, these are the two. Dr. Watts's prayer on the subject of the Trinity is usually referred to by Unitarians, in support of the propriety of their classification of his name. That prayer is a most impressive and interesting one. It shows us a minda great mind, labouring with the vast importance of the subject about which it is engaged, humbly distrustful of its own faculties, feelingly alive to the danger of self-deception, tremblingly apprehensive of the smallest error, breathing desires intensely earnest after the discovery of truth, and glowing with a pure and fervent devotion kindled by a live coal from the altar of God. I apprehend, if the spirit by which this remarkable effusion of a pious soul is characterized were more universally prevalent, we should have still fewer of the followers of Priestley than even the few he has unhappily found. The heart by which it was dictated had not a constitution for "the frigid zone of Christianity."

* The prayer may be found 66 amongst Fragments of Time," at the end of Vol. IX. of the last edition of the Doctor's Works.-But see Note A. at the end of this Treatise.

Although the theological sentiments of Dr. Whitby were certainly in some points very different from those of Dr. Watts, yet the whole tenor of his works justifies us in questioning his right (in the Irish sense of the term-See Miss Edgeworth) to the place assigned him in the Unitarian brotherhood: --if a brotherhood that may be called, of which the members are so strangely heterogeneous in their sentiments, some of them with hardly a feature that bears the slightest mark of family likeness, and some who, were they to rise from the dead, and chance to see Mr. Yates's list, would disown the relation with a frown of indignant astonishment, or with a sigh of heart-breaking grief, that any thing whatever should have been said or written by them, capable of being so perverted as to bring their names into such a catalogue.

I feel no particular anxiety to define the precise boundaries of agreement and difference between the various writers enumerated as the friends of Unitarianism. There are others of them, I am very sure, besides the two mentioned, that would not have been much better pleased than they with the classification. It is not, however, a very honourable means of giving authority and weight to a cause, to muster a host of imposing names. And this is done with a peculiarly bad grace by those who set themselves forward as of all men the warmest advocates of unshackled inquiry and liberty of thought, the sworn foes of prejudice, and of all subjection to human dictation. Mr. Yates is well aware, what a mighty army of "illustrious and venerated names" could be set in array on the opposite side, and that without pressing into the ranks any that belong to the camp of the enemy. It is vain to say, that such names are not enumerated with the intention of giving weight to the sentiments which they supported. The thing cannot be done without such intention.

That Mr. Yates felt a secret conscious elation of mind in the list he had made out, an inward self-gratulation in mentally appending his own name to so honourable a roll, and a desire to give a certain dignity and respectability to the cause he was defending, his manner of expressing himself will not allow me to doubt.-Now, I am far from wishing to detract from the merits of Unitarian writers. Let all of them have their due proportion of credit, for their attainments in various erudition, and for the services which they may have rendered to Christianity by their able defences of its general truth, on the ground of external evidence: and let it be frankly admitted, that the credit of some of them will, in both respects, stand eminently high. But, notwithstanding the indignant disdain which the observation formerly excited in the breast of Mr. Yates, I must repeat it, as an important truth, that a writer may most ably and successfully illustrate and establish the external evidences of Christianity, and yet entertain notions grossly and fundamentally erroneous of what Christianity is. Nay, the service which he renders in its general defence may sometimes be more than counterbalanced by the mischief which his efforts on the other hand produce, or tend to produce, in undermining the truth taught by the inspired apostles, depriving the religion of Christ of all its most essential peculiarities, robbing it of whatever entitles it to the name of GOSPEL, or good news to a guilty and perishing world.

"Whether the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures,” says Mr. Yates, "be a doctrine of the Christian religion, is one of "those questions, upon which Unitarians are divided in 66 opinion. It would therefore be inconsistent with my pre"sent design to enter into the discussion. But it is totally "foreign from the inquiry concerning the Trinity of persons ❝in the Godhead, and the Divinity and atonement of Christ.

"When Unitarians endeavour to show, that the Scriptures "do not contain these doctrines, they always suppose their "Divine authority."-(Pages 16, 17.)

They "always suppose their Divine authority." For a few instances of the manner in which the Divine authority of the Scriptures is "supposed" by the writers in question, the reader is referred to my sixth discourse, "on the test of "truth in matters of religion." With these instances, however, Mr. Yates is not well pleased. They are, he alleges, a very partial selection. Yet Mr. Yates knew well enough, that the selection is taken from that particular description of writers, against whose tenets my Discourses were chiefly and avowedly directed. These were not the Arians, but the Socinians. And truly the laxity of their views respecting the plenary inspiration and universal authority of the Scriptures, is a matter of such flagrant and lamentable notoriety, that I feel no anxiety to defend myself on this head, against the charge of misrepresentation, to any who are at all acquainted with their writings.—It is against the spirit and views of the more modern Socinians that it is especially needful to warn the public. If the sentiments of the ancient men of the sect were not so loose and licentious, on the subject in question, as those of its more modern leaders, this only shows, that Socinianism has been going on, agreeably to its natural tendency, from bad to worse; and increases the necessity for putting the unwary on their guard. In bringing forward his evidence of the regard paid to the Scriptures by Unitarians, Mr. Yates produces nothing from those moderns whose works supplied the examples of the contrary, which have been the occasion of awakening his jealousy on this point. He does not attempt their vindication from the charge brought against them; but only denies that it is justly made