against the Unitarians as a body; and complains of my partiality, in referring to two or three individuals, and omitting to mention others whose sentiments and language were dif ferent. What, then, are the notable instances produced by Mr. Yates of the sacred veneration of Unitarians for the Holy Scriptures?

"The Bible, the Bible, the Bible only, is THE RELI"GION OF PROTESTANTS," that great maxim which Protestants "have so often repeated with a noble indignation in reply "to the pretensions of the church of Rome, is found in "the writings of the ingenuous and high-minded Chilling"worth, who having, in the early part of his life, wavered, "with a modest caution, between different religious senti- · "ments, at length settled in the doctrines of Socinianism."

It is not worth while to inquire, at what time of his life, whether before or after he had "settled in the doctrines of "Socinianism," Chillingworth wrote this famous sentence. For in truth, excellent as it is, when considered as directed against the pretensions of the church of Rome, it is nothing to the purpose for which Mr. Yates adduces it. It is a sentiment to which Dr. Priestley or Mr. Belsham, with all their low estimate of the inspiration and authority of the Scriptures, would have put their signatures with as much readiness as Chillingworth himself, or any Protestant in the kingdom. For to what more, after all, does the sentence amount, than an explicit disavowal, in opposition to the Romish church, of the authority of its traditions, and the decrees of its Ecclesiastical councils? It expresses a sentiment, therefore, common to all Protestants as such; but it ascertains nothing as to the views of any class of Protestants by whom it may be adopted and used, respecting the plenary inspiration and universal authority of the Bible.

I have not at present the means of examining into the circumstances of the case referred to by Mr. Yates, of "some "of the most learned Trinitarians, about 150 years ago, hav"ing confessed that the doctrine of the Trinity was not found"ed on the Scriptures, but on the traditions of the Church." But first of all, of the fact, as thus stated, I avow myself incredulous. Secondly, If any Trinitarians made such a concession, they were fools for their pains, and traitors to their cause; and the Unitarians were clearly right, when they maintained, as a previous step to the establishment of their opinions, that "the Scriptures are the only infallible rule whereby "to determine religious controversies," and when they declared their resolution to " prefer the infinite wisdom of God before "the fallible dictates of human or angelic reason."-Thirdly, This is only, after all, an appeal to Scripture in opposition to tradition, and does not, in the least degree, any more than the preceding maxim of Chillingworth, secure the Scriptures themselves from licentious freedoms in the application of these principles to practice; such freedoms as those which form "the "broadest foulest blot" in the theological and critical reputation of so many modern writers of the same school. In finding the answer to the question, "Hath the Scripture,—that is, hath "God said it?" there is still ample room left for the discovery of interpolations and false readings, and for all the ingenuity of misinterpretation and evasion.-The language, however, as used by Socinians, is certainly a curious and somewhat interesting relic. Reason does not appear here in so presumptuous an attitude and office as have since been assigned to her, enthroned as she has been as supreme and final arbitress of the dictates of Infinite Wisdom, to receive, reject, or question, as seemeth good in her sight. The expressions have certainly

D

more of the general cast of Trinitarianism. But let us recollect-"'Tis a hundred and fifty years since."

With regard to the beautiful and impressive saying of Locke, respecting the Holy Scripture, as having GOD FOR ITS AUTHOR; SALVATION FOR ITS END; and TRUTH WITHOUT ANY MIXTURE OF ERROR FOR ITS MATTER;" far be it from me to detract from its real excellence. Let the sentiment of this great philosopher of the human understanding have its full impression on the mind of every reader. But was Mr. Locke a Socinian? That he teaches doctrine inconsistent with " the gos"pel of the GRACE of God," as delivered in its simplicity by the inspired apostles, I am deeply concerned at being obliged to think. But of his Socinianism the proof remains to be produced. It may be deemed arrogant and presumptuous, to speak in these terms of a man so eminent as Locke. But, admitting the claim made in his behalf to a high rank among men of genius and exalted powers, this does not oblige me even to approve all his philosophy; and far less does it bind me to receive his theology. I cannot forget Him who said, "I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because "thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and "hast revealed them unto babes: even so, Father, for so it "seemed good in thy sight."

Mr. Yates next pays his tribute of respect, on account of their exemplary regard to the Scriptures, to Dr. Jebb, the Duke of Grafton, the Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament, and Dr. John Taylor; whom, for the present, I shall leave to the judgment of the reader ;—and then closes the chapter with a defence and eulogy of "the ❝honoured, injured name of Dr. Priestley."

From the place in which this defence and eulogy are introduced, it was naturally to be expected, that the sacredness

of the Doctor's regard to the volume of Divine truth should have been the principal topic of his panegyrist's praise, and his vindication from every charge of the contrary the chief object of his zealous defender ;-that he should have appeared in Mr. Yates's átoλoyia as a decided asserter of its inspiration, and of the decisiveness of its authority above all the "fallible dictates of human or angelic reason;"-sitting at the feet of Jesus, with the humble docile spirit of a little child,→ subjecting his understanding, without gainsaying, to the instruction of heaven,-acknowledging the scripture writers as "holy men of God, who spake as they were moved by "the Holy Spirit," and as therefore, on every rational prin ciple, entitled to the entire deference of their readers.—But no. Nothing like this is at all attempted. He is eulogized where I had never blamed him; defended where I had never attacked him; and left exposed in the only point in which any fault had been found with him. Never surely was defence, in this respect, worse conducted, and never was eulogy more gratuitous and uncalled for. Dr. Priestley was amiable in his character, gentle in his manners, cheerful, kind, and instructive in his conversation. him any of these excellences. Neither have I questioned the eminence and versatility of his talents, the extent and variety of his acquirements, the "wonderful activity and energy of his ❝ mind, his open frankness and simplicity in the expression of "his thoughts," nor the unwearied perseverance of his investi gations. I have neither " depreciated his attainments," nor "ridiculed his talents," nor" vilified his morals."-According to Mr. Yates, however, I have "treated him throughout my ❝ volume with marked disrespect, and in one passage animad"verted on him in the severest terms of reprehension." (P. 22.) The Italics contain my own phrase. It belonged to Mr.

I have not denied

Yates to show that such terms of reprehension were undeserved and misapplied, in the particular case in which I conceived they would have been justified. That the reader may judge of this for himself, I have only to refer him to the passages in my discourses alluded to by Mr. Yates. When he has read the extracts from Dr. Priestley, which are there adduced, he will, I apprehend, see sufficient reason to agree with me in thinking, as I still do, that the writer of them would have been more consistent, had he avowed himself a Deist; and that, so far as respects the authority of revelation (the only authority by which the points in question can be decided)," there is nothing to bind his conscience, nothing "to convince his judgment; and that, having no common "ground on which it is at all possible to determine the "controversy, we must consequently, and of necessity, have "done with him."-Mr. Yates, in a quotation which he introduces from Dr. Parr, grants it to be right, that Dr. Priestley should be "confuted where he is mistaken; ex"posed where he is superficial; repressed where he is dog"matical; and rebuked where he is censorious." Have I, in any thing that I have said, exceeded this licence? I am conscious to myself that I have "set down naught in malice," and, in matters of such infinite importance, I do not wish "in "aught to extenuate." If Mr. Yates reckons those of Dr. Priestley's views which I have endeavoured to expose, amongst the "trivial errors of sentiment or expression which may be "selected from his hundred publications," and "in petulant "attacks upon which they who have not sufficient vigour of "intellect to comprehend what is truly important in his "doctrines exhaust their strength," I have only to say, that in my opinion he estimates them, I had almost said infinitely, too lightly. I am bold enough to think-(most frankly and