again, he replied to Mr. Grove, who suggested alterations, that “he should be glad to do it, but it was out of his power, for he had parted with the copy, and the bookseller would not suffer any such alteration."* These testimonies are enough to show why Watts should desist from an attempt to make such alterations, as his change of sentiments would seem to require. At least they are such reasons as he thought satisfactory.

It is to be remarked, that he does not defend the doxologies, but simply gives reasons, why he cannot alter them. In one part of his reply to Mr. Tomkins he does insinuate, that it is not unlawful to ascribe praises to the Spirit, although it be not strictly scriptural. Inasmuch as "the spirit of any being is sometimes used for being itself, and the spirit of God sometimes means God himself," he supposed it lawful to address the Spirit in the character of God, or, which comes to the same thing, to address the Father under the name of Spirit. But he did not pretend, that this notion was scriptural; he made no other use of it than to diminish, as he thought, the impropriety of using the doxologies. To most understandings, however, this contrivance can seem only to increase the confusion and embarrassment. Tomkins was not satisfied with it, nor with the argument drawn from the offence, which Dr. Watts supposed might be given to some serious christians, if the hymns were altered according to his present senti

ments.

* Monthly Repository, Vol. VIII, p. 770, 771.

Mr.

But there is no occasion to follow this discussion. It is evident through the whole, that Watts was searching for the best reasons to quiet his mind in a case of necessity. To alter his hymns was out of his power; he regretted this misfortune, but as it was not to be remedied, he was willing to contemplate it in its most favourable aspect. The main thing to our present purpose is, that he acknowledged a desire to make alterations, and never in any shape defended the trinitarian parts of the hymns. In fact, had he believed in these parts the discussion could not have commenced.

With these short hints and quotations, I am willing to leave it to the judgment and candour of every impartial reader to decide, whether I committed a very heinous offence in placing even the "pious and heavenly minded Watts in such company," as that of Newton, Locke, Lardner, Whitby, Lindsey, and others of well known piety and excellence, and of similar theological sentiments.*

* Many particulars, respecting the opinions of Watts, may be seen in Belsham's Memoir of Lindsey, p. 216.-Strictures in the Monthly Repository, [Vol. VIII, pp. 683, 715, 768,] on Mr. Palmer's publication, entitled, Dr. Watts no Socinian.-Christian Disciple, Vol. II. New Series, p. 461; and Vol. III. p. 190.-Yates's Sequel, p. 93.—Burder's Memoirs, p. 30, et seqq.The whole of the Solemn Address to the Deity, as contained in the Christian Reformer, Vol. I, p. 113.

LETTER II.

Morals of celebrated Unitarians belonging to the English Church.

SIR,

IN In my first letter I incidentally mentioned the names of several persons, whose lives and characters, it was thought, afforded no feeble testimony to the incorrectness of your charges of immorality and irreligion against Unitarians. I was so unfortunate, however, as to select a few names to which you have taken great exceptions. Among these you specify Clayton, Hoadly, Chillingworth, Law, Blackburne; and your principle of selection would embrace Dr. Samuel Clarke, and all others, who were Unitarians, and at the same time belonged to the English Church. You are amazed, that any one should refer to such men as examples of morality. "I am astonished," you say, "and know not how men, whom I am compelled to consider as honest and sincere themselves, can so far suffer their zeal to triumph over their prudence, I had almost said over their moral sense, as to claim such associates." It is presumed, that all your readers, who know any thing of the characters of these persons, have been equally astonished, that your own " zeal should so far triumph over your pru

dence," as to suffer you to arraign before your individual judgment, and condemn, with a latitude of censure amounting almost to reprobation, men, who have been universally admired for their talents, and revered for their virtues.

Since you have thus ventured, in terms the most serious, to impeach the characters of persons, who have always been considered not less an ornament to the christian profession, than worthy examples of the good influences of the unitarian faith, it becomes my duty to examine the fact in regard to their morals and lives, and also to inquire into the grounds of your impeachment. If, indeed, it can be made out, that these were bad men, and used religion only as a cloak for worldly and wicked purposes, as you would seem to insinuate, then it must be confessed, that the argument in favour of the moral tendency of Unitarianism is rather weakened than confirmed by appealing to their example. But if the contrary be true, and they be ascertained to have been exempla

ry

and pious christians, it will follow, that you were mistaken, more vehement than accurate, and that the argument is sound.

As the only mode of settling the question in this shape, is by an appeal to their writings and contemporaries, it can hardly be supposed, that my limited plan will allow me to go into a full investigation. I can only touch on a few prominent particulars. They shall be such, however, as will be conclusive. The truth is, you cannot select an equal number of men of so much eminence from any period of history.

who were more distinguished for their excellence and christian virtues. Had you thrown your shafts at random, they could not have been more unfortunate in the direction they took, or the objects on which they chanced to fall. It is a fact, which you have not attempted to controvert, and which I am persuaded you will not, that these men were remarkable for their practical goodness. Why then are they loaded with charges so heavy and offensive, why so much abhorrence expressed of their very names, why are they libelled and proscribed as men, who were a disgrace to their profession, who are to be reprobated and condemned as malefactors, and whom no honest man in defence of a good cause can "claim as associates?" You answer, that in belonging to the Church of England, they subscribed to articles which they did not believe. It follows, that they were hypocrites, and their goodness a show for their own convenience and interest. As the burden of your charges rests on this point, it shall be examined with some attention.

in

The question is, whether these men did not obey the dictates of conscience, and conform to the deci sion of their judgment, in the course they pursued? If so, it would have been criminal to act differently. They are not to be judged by a rule, which any dividual, not acquainted with their motives, may imagine he should prescribe to himself under similar circumstances. By this mode of judging, you would admit no man to be conscientious, or sincere, or to act rightly, till he should be guided by your rule.