describes, till such time as the said controversy shall be finally settled to the satisfaction of all parties,-till either Unitarians on the one hand, or Trinitarians on the other, shall come to be universally convinced of their errors, and shall consequently cease their opposition. If this be his meaning, it is not easy to predict the time at which we shall be justified in proceeding to our practical application. Our zeal, I fear, must be repressed, our eloquence tongue-tacked, and our hearts kept in an ice-house, for an indefinite, and, in all probability, a long period. He must mean," when the truth is "once discovered" to our own personal satisfaction," when the "controversy is terminated" in our own minds, in consequence of fair and deliberate investigation. And if this be his meaning, I have just endeavoured to do, to the best of my ability, the very thing, to which my adversary, with so much propriety, and emphasis, and eloquence of expression, has given his hearty sanction.-Which of the two convictions, Mr. Yates's or mine, is founded on the most deliberate and impartial investigation, it must be left to the reader, from a comparison of our respective reasonings, to decide.

I could not read without a smile, Mr. Yates's smart remarks on my unfortunate points of admiration. From what he says of my "frequent use" of them, in their " single, double, and "treble form," (! !! !!!) his reader, if he had not previously perused my Volume, would expect, on his looking into it, to find them" bristling" in every page, "like quills upon the "fretful porcupine;"—as numerous, and obtrusively remarkable, as breaks and dashes in the pages of my uncle Toby.-I shall leave it to the reader, if he chuse to be at the trouble, to turn over 440 pages, and ascertain the number of times that the double and treble notes of admiration occur, Possibly he may find half a dozen of the former, and half as many

B

of the latter. As to single points of admiration, I have always understood them to be intended for use, and the employment of them in writing to be as legitimate, as that of the inflexions and intonations of the voice in speaking. But with these, indeed, Mr. Yates seems as seriously offended as with the other. I can only assure him, that the "tones of astonishment," of which he complains, were as far as possible from being " affected." The astonishment expressed in them was, bona fide, felt. There may, possibly, be some advantage in that unvarying monotony, which leaves our hearers at full liberty to guess, whether the state of our minds be satisfaction or disgust, indifference or surprise : yet, on the whole, I am disposed to think the ordinary rule preferable, that the looks and tones of the speaker should correspond with his predominant feelings. And I cannot well account for Mr. Yates's having felt so sore under these "tones of astonishment," and prickly "bristles of admira❝ration"-(a misnomer indeed on the present occasion, as it was any thing but admiration they were intended to indicate) on any other supposition, than that of a secret consciousness of there being in truth some little cause for the wonder which they were intended to express.

There are two other species of "management and gene"ralship" and "manoeuvring" such as "a votary of truth "would scorn," which are laid to my charge in Mr. Yates's introduction. The first is my " making the best use" of the

very few proofs" which I had to adduce, "bringing them "forward different times, dwelling upon them at great length, "turning them about, and showing them in the most pleas❝ing variety of lights ;" and my professing to bring forward a specimen, and to proceed on the principle of selection, when I have nearly or entirely exhausted my store.-That I en

deavoured to make the best use of the proofs which I did adduce, I need not surely hesitate to admit. I should have been a recreant to my cause had I failed to do so :- -but whether it has been done in the manner described by Mr. Yates, I must leave it to the candid reader of my Discourses to judge. The falsity of the latter part of the above charge is well enough known to every one who knows any thing at all of the subject; and I trust it will be sufficiently apparent to all my readers, before I have done with these remarks, that the stock of proofs is not quite exhausted, and that even Mr. Yates has unwittingly supplied a little to it himself.

The second manoeuvre is thus described. (P. 5.) "Instead "of presenting a fair and full view of the Unitarian system "in its leading principles, and general aspects, he makes "it his object to bring into notice every thing absurd or "dangerous that was ever written by a Unitarian.”—This is a serious charge: and I distinctly deny its truth. We shall afterwards see the extensive sense in which Mr. Yates is pleased to use the appellation Unitarians. I was writing, however, against Socinians. In exposing what I deemed their errors, I took my extracts not from the writings of any contemptible scribblers, but from those of the "chief "men of their synagogue." For where shall those, who are not themselves initiated, discover the distinguishing sentiments of the party, if not by reference to such men as Lardner and Priestley, and Lindsay and Belsham, and the Editors of the Improved Version of the New Testament?I know not what those "minor topics" may be to which Mr. Yates refers as opposed to the "few great principles" of Unitarianism; or what he means by "sentiments of indivi"dual Authors," to which "the great body would refuse "their sanction."-Particular sentiments of individuals, I

may have occasionally introduced, to exemplify the tendency of the general principles of their party. But, Mr. Yates himself being judge, wherever he has given any thing like an enumeration of them, I have directed my attack fully and fairly against these general principles themselves;-—and I challenge him to the proof of the "low trick" he is pleased to ascribe to me, the trick of a "nibbling adversary," who gravely refutes the fancies, mistakes, or hasty conclusions "of individual writers, instead of considering the broad prin"ciples espoused by the whole party."

But of this imputation Mr. Yates has brought forward one proof. Let us examine it a little. If all his evidence should be like it, the reply will not be difficult." Indeed," says he, " through zeal to collect all the offensive matter to be "found in Unitarian publications, he has in one instance, "at least as the passage will be applied by his readers, "violated fact."-I beg particular attention to the qualifying clause here," at least as the passage will be applied "by his readers."-It seems to indicate, that the writer was not very sure of his ground :—that he could hardly so apply the passage himself. No, indeed, he could not. Mr. Yates possesses common sense. And I am bold to say that no reader, not entirely destitute of this precious commodity, could possibly interpret the passage as he supposes all my readers certainly must." After some very excellent remarks,” continues Mr. Yates, "on the impropriety of indulging a presumptuous rashness in the pursuit of truth, he quotes a

66

66

passage from the Appendix to the Life of Priestley, show"ing with what indifference this fearless temerity enables "a man to contemplate the conclusion that there is no God. "If he had turned to the title-page of the Volume, and page "iv. of the preface, he would have seen that the Author, "whose words he has quoted without mentioning any name

"except that of Priestley, was Mr. Thomas Cooper, President judge of the fourth district of Pennsylvania; and if he had "made the inquiry which became him before producing this

66

passage as an illustration of the spirit cherished by Unita"rians, he would have learned, that Judge Cooper is not a "Unitarian."-By the clause which is printed in Italics, I understand Mr. Yates to mean (and he has been so understood by others) that, from my having mentioned no name except that of Dr. Priestley, the unwary reader might be led to associate the words quoted with his name, and to affix to him the stigma contained in the note. But this is truly surprising. As the note referred to is short, I shall quote it at length." The following striking and affecting " instance of the sang froid with which this spirit enables a "man to suppose and to contemplate even the conclusion "that there is no God, is taken from No. 4. of the Appendix "to the Memoirs of Dr. Priestley, vol. I. p. 423. Speaking ❝of the doctrine of equivocal or spontaneous generation, in "certain species of plants and animals, as maintained by “Dr. Darwin and impugned by Dr. Priestley, the latter of "whom considered it as a direct introduction to atheism, the "writer says: I do not see the certain tendency of this "opinion to atheism; for this property of spontaneous pro"duction may have been originally communicated under ❝ certain circumstances, as well as any of the other properties "of organized or unorganized matter; and the one and the "other may be equally necessary parts of the pre-established "order of things. BUT IF IT DO LEAD TO ATHEISM, WHAT "THEN? There can be no crime in following truth wherever "it leads; and I think we have sufficient reason to believe, "that the result of truth must be more beneficial to mankind "than error.” ”—-Such, reader, is the note. Is there any obscurity in it?" The writer says," respecting a doctrine