nists: none of them are the right sort of men: so instead of answering their arguments, he amuses his readers with reflexions on their learning and abilities: and the world is to infer, how powerfully he would. confute and display his superior skill in the science of defence, if he could but meet with a proper opponent. But unfortunately they are all of the wrong sort; so he treats with contempt all that are past, and with defiance all that are to come; assuring the public, that the greatest coward may think himself a match for the orthodox-I have reconnoitred the force of the enemy, and I see nothing that can daunt the most timid-I want to see their Goliah-Thus doth the Doctor flourish his pen over the heads of us weak churchmen, in the spirit of a prize-fighter. In the same vapouring strain, he calls Dr. Horsley, the late Bishop of St. David's, a boastful Champion, so confuted and baffled by himself, that all the encomiums and encouragements of his friends cannot bring him into the field again. (Letters to the Dean of Cant. p. 3.) Here we have a specimen of the language of the cockpit, applied to a dignitary of the church, and a controversy in divinity. The case is this: If persons of better learning and more manners leave him to himself, because they find it is to no purpose to argue with him; he reports, that they have ran away, and left him in possession of the field. He puts a like interpretation upon the pious conduct of Dr. Horne. This most amiable of men, when Dean of Canterbury, preached an exhortatory sermon on the duty of contending earnestly for the faith: which exhortation Dr. Priestley very ingeniously interprets into the voice of distress: as if all his opponents were confuted, and the good Dean crying out for more help; the Champion of Socinianism had got them all down, and was belabouring them at his mercy. Much

of the Doctor's logic consists in boasting and defiance. He therefore tells the world, the defenders of orthodoxy have no dependence but on the act of William and Mary, which he calls the real Goliah in this business. (Free Enquiry, p. 80.) But Dr. Priestley knows this Goliah has never been produced, because, so far as argument is wanted, we find ourselves able to do without it. But, if to apply to other aids, is tacitly to confess our weakness in point of argument; how comes he to depend, so much as he does, on the foreign helps of railing, blustering and terrifying? This impertinent application to the force of ill words, I call his Act of William and Mary, which he is putting into execution on every occasion; and therefore, by his own rule, he is under a state of conscious inability and confutation.

There is a sophistry in defying the laws made for the support of religion, which few people can see through. From their non-execution, it is argued, that we are ashamed of them, as being sensible they are the fences of falsehood. It is likewise suspected that the Socinians are courting persecution, and wish the laws to be put in force against themselves: but this can never be the case with those men who make so great a show of their impunity; and are so frequently turning it into an argument in their favour. In truth, their logic will be a match for us either way: if the laws are executed, then it is because we have no argument: if they are not executed, then it is because we are afraid it should be seen that we have no argument: so they have us at bay in either case. The experience of the world tells us, on the one side, that impunity begets licentiousness: and prudence teaches, on the other, that penal laws should never be executed, if lighter methods are found sufficient. Our laws in

support of religion, were not intended to exclude fair and reasonable argument; their use is to repress insolence and outrage; and to secure the peace of the state; which never thought itself secure with subjects, who boldly deny the Godhead of Jesus Christ, and teach the people to do the same. If there is any proper object of such a law, it is the man, who, when he should be arguing, falls to blaspheming: who, because he is not able to confute, alarms the minds of his readers with the prospect of being soon overpowered by numbers, or destroyed by some sudden and unforeseen explosion, for which he and his friends have so long been preparing the materials. I leave Dr. Priestley to look into the writings of modern controvertists, and see if he can find a person of that description. Another of the Doctor's arts is to impose upon his readers with unfair samples. Thus, if an adversary should lay upon him a dozen hard names, of which eleven should be true, and the twelfth doubtful; he will pick out the last, and hold it up to the public as a specimen of all the rest. In this way he can answer a large book before breakfast; by taking a few passages without their dependencies, and then boasting that he has confuted the whole work.

But Dr. Priestley never displays his sophistry to greater advantage, than when he undertakes to evade the force of a text of Scripture, which is very often necessary, from the part he has unhappily taken in divinity. The Scripture asserts plainly of Jesus Christ, that all things were created by him and for him, and he is before all things, and by him all things consist. Col. viii. 16. Now behold the answer to this plain positive Scripture-" I would only observe," says the Doctor," that neither the earth, nor the sun, moon or stars, nor any material substance, is specified

among the things created by him." (See Letters, p. 119.) So all things signify none of these things, because none of them are particularly mentioned. To rid himself of the argument for the pre-existence and divinity of Christ from the act of creation, &c. he supposes, that as Christ is said to have reconciled the world as well as created it, created and reconciled may well be supposed to be synonymous: so that if a man reconciles two neighbours at variance, he may be said to have created them. I beg the reader to review p. 118, 119, 120 of his letters to Dr. Price, as a specimen of Unitarian logic and divinity: such as the learned Bishop of St. David's might well run away from; but not because he is beaten out of the field.

We prove the divinity of our blessed Saviour, by shewing that the same divine acts are ascribed to Him as to God: and as the Almighty is demonstrated by the works of omnipotence, the argument will never be answered. But nothing is too hard for Dr. Priestley; who replies, that this argument will prove God and Satan to be the same being; because it is said of David, that God moved him to number the people; and in another place that Satan tempted him. But the Doctor, who writes very fast, cannot stop on such occasions to make proper distinctions: all he aims at is, to make a little appearance, and and get off as soon as he can. Temptation is no divine act; which is the thing always supposed in the argument he is answering. God, or man, or even Satan himself, may be said to tempt, if regard be had to the sense in which it is spoken; but God and Satan are never said either to have created the world or to have saved it. Such, however, is the style of criticism, which Dr. Priestley has opposed to Mr. Jones's Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity. (See his Letters to Students in the Universities.)

When a man is what we call a Proteus, he can transform himself from one shape to another, and assume any temper, to serve the present purpose; he can be audacious when he is in fear; pleased when he is vexed; glad when he is sorry; and compassionate while he is gratified with another's misery. Our Doctor rejoices in the orthodox defences of the church of England, because, as he informs my Lords the Bishops, they will hasten its destruction. He is glad that his property and his life were attacked, because this does honour to his writings; his adversaries having found this the only way of answering them. Every thing makes for him, which we should suppose to be against him. He boasts, that the Unitarians are more obliged to Dr. Horsley, than to any Trinitarian: but for what no mortal can tell, unless it be for detecting and exposing them past remedy to the world. The design of all this is, to make the writers of the church believe, that notwithstanding all their efforts, they do and will write to no good purpose; rather to a bad one; and that they may as well give it up, and leave the Doctor unmolested in corrupting our faith, and deluding the people, till the grand plot of total subversion shall be ripe for execution.

I shall trouble the reader but with one more of his sophisms; which is that of his insinuating so frequently as he does, that the age in which we live is greatly enlightened. Every monitor who advises us to become wiser than we are, deserves to be heard: but his meaning is, that we ought not to be contented with the faith of our forefathers, because we know some new things of which our forefathers were ignorant. The argument is altogether impertinent and inconsequential: but weak minds, and young scholars, whose vanity grows faster than their wisdom, may be influenced by it.