spoken of this direct testimony of a man, "whose extensive learning," as it has been well remarked, "qualified him to try the merits of every evidence, and whose unbiassed integrity and sacred veneration for truth, enabled him to pass an impartial sentence."* You assert indeed that "Mr. Palmer, in his tract intitled Dr. Watts no Socinian,' has conclusively shewn that both these opinions were ill-founded;" but I must beg leave again to say, that this was not a matter of mere opinion; and that Mr. Palmer has not disproved the positive testimony of Dr. Lardner. This, I am persuaded, would be readily acknowledged by any impartial person who would read two excellent papers published in the Monthly Repository, vol. viii. entitled Strictures on a recent publication of Mr. Palmer's. I cannot but regret that this work, proceeding as it does from the Unitarian school of "schism and sciolism," will of course be considered by you as unworthy of your attention.

Dr. Lardner states that Dr. Watts was a Unitarian several years before his death; and this statement, as I have already shewn, is not contradicted by any thing in the works which he published two years before his death, and to two of which, after Mr. Palmer, you particularly refer as decisive of his orthodoxy at that time. For whatever the language of these works may be, the substance of the doctrine is Anti-Trinitarian-it is Unitarian. But Dr. Lardner further affirms that his 'Last Thoughts' were completely Unitarian. This judgment was formed on the perusal of MSS. destroyed by the executors of Dr. Watts;

⚫ Even Dr. Horsley thus speaks of Lardner :-"The learned and the candid Lardner, whose judgment must have been biassed by his opinions in prejudice of the writings," (the Epist. of Ignatius) "if any thing could have biassed his judgment in prejudice of the evidence of truth."-Letters, &c. p. 124.

no one therefore, in the present day, is warranted to contradict the affirmation of Dr. Lardner: and as it is utterly inconsistent with the acknowledged character of that cool and judicious writer to speak so strongly and decidedly, without some substantial reason, it is highly probable, to say the least, that amongst these MSS. there were some written after the time of the last publication, and containing a more explicit avowal of Unitarian opinions.* And that such was the case, we may justly conclude, from the character and style of one of them rescued from the flames by Dr. Doddridge, entitled 'A Solemn Address to the Deity,' which appears to have been drawn up by Dr. Watts, on a review of what he had written on the subject of the Trinity, and therefore subse

* In the Monthly Review for March, 1782, there is some curious information relating to these MSS., which it may be well to recite here.

"That the Doctor had altered his opinion with respect to some points of what is called orthodoxy, is undeniable. This is a subject that some of his encomiasts shrink from with concealed mortification, and would, if possible, consign to oblivion, as it cannot be remembered, without bringing some reflection either on the Doctor himself, or their own darling cause. But it would be in vain to deny a fact known to many, who were interested in making it public. It was known to Dr. Lardner, and by him communicated to the late excellent Mr. Merivale of Exeter, from whose mouth the writer of the present article immediately received it. Dr. Watts's papers (many of which contained the most explicit renunciations of some of his former sentiments with respect to the doctrine of the Trinity) were mutilated, and published in a very imperfect manner. Some were wholly suppressed; and it was with difficulty that Dr. Doddridge could rescue from destruction, a certain curious paper respecting the Trinitarian controversy, published among his posthumous works, intitled 'A Solemn Address to the Deity, &c.' The conduct of some of Dr. Watts's friends in this affair, was so disingenuous, that it called forth very loud complaints from those who were acquainted with the secret: and it was but a short time before Dr. Doddridge embarked for Lisbon, that he complained to Mr. Merivale of unfair conduct, both with respect to Dr. Watts and himself, to whose charge, in conjunction with the late Dr. D. Jennings, his papers were intrusted for publication."

quent to the publication of the Important Questions, &c.' Now it is observable that this interesting and affecting Address is directed to the Father alone, as the only true God, the Supreme Being. Christ is here spoken of as a man in whom dwells all the fulness of the Godhead bodily; as an illustrious Person, who possesses divine dignity, not of himself, but only as united to the true and eternal God; but not a word is said of his pre-existence as a human soul; while the Holy Spirit is mentioned merely as the power and influence of the Almighty, exerted in the execution of all his purposes. * “It is clear indeed,” as the author of the Strictures, &c.' observes, "that the writer's sentiments upon the matter in question, were far from being absolutely settled: his creed was not altogether fixed; he had not, as is the case of some men, renounced inquiry, and closed his understanding against evidence and conviction :" yet that he was no Trinitarian at that time, is evident from the general strain of this affecting Address, and from some remarkable passages occurring in it. What believer in the doctrine of the Trinity, ever held "Hadst thou told me such language as the following? plainly in any single text, that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, are three real distinct Persons, in thy divine nature, I had never suffered myself to be bewildered in so many doubts, nor embarrassed with so many strong fears of assenting to the mere inventions of men, instead of divine doctrine. Or, hadst thou been pleased so to express and include this proposition in the several scattered parts of thy book, from whence my reason and conscience might with ease find out, and with certainty infer this doctrine, I should have joyfully employed all my reasoning powers,

*Letters to the Calvinistic Christians of Warwick, p. 143.

with their utmost skill and activity, to have found out this inference, and ingrafted it into my soul."

In the other MS. to which you have referred, intitled A faithful Inquiry, &c.' I readily grant that "the sentiments are as remote from Unitarianism as those of the volumes above quoted or referred to;" but not more soi. e. they are Unitarian in substance, clothed in something like the language of orthodoxy. They are indeed remote from genuine Trinitarianism.-But on this subject I need add no more. When the sentiments even of the works to which you have so confidently appealed, are thoroughly examined, and it is further considered that we have no where Dr. Watts's last sentiments in print, every candid reader, I apprehend, will conclude with me that you have been too hasty in pronouncing the question of Dr. Watts's orthodoxy to be "set at rest.”

I am not aware that Watson, Paley, and Sir Wm. Jones, have been generally, or with any degree of confidence claimed by us. That their orthodoxy has been suspected, even by their friends, is well known; and what you have offered in their defence is by no means sufficient entirely to remove such suspicions. I cannot believe that any Unitarian writer has been so unreasonable as to assert, or to intimate, that because Watson and Paley "had never put out any special disquisition upon the Trinity, they of course disbelieved them; it is not the usual habit of our minds to be satisfied with such evidence as this, upon any subject. Nor yet can we be satisfied with your proofs of their orthodoxy. On the three discourses of Paley, to which you refer as decisive, no one, I am persuaded, who carefully peruses them, will be disposed to lay any stress;

and your extract from Watson proves only that he did not pretend to explain the doctrine of the Incarnation, not that he believed it. I do not mean, however, to call in question his faith in that article. To a certain extent, he and Paley may have been orthodox: but whatever their faith may have been, they had learnt from an apostle "a more excellent way;" they had that "charity which vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth not behave itself unseemly, thinketh no evil, and rejoiceth in the truth." That both these eminent men should make whatever orthodoxy they possessed go as far as possible, was nothing else than might be expected from their habits, station, and connexions. That the portion which fell to their share was not very large, will inevitably be suspected by all who fairly consider the character of the Collection of Theological Tracts,' with its admirable preface and catalogue of Theological writers by the one; and the dedication of 'The Principles of Moral and Political Philosophy,' by the other, to the Unitarian Bishop of Carlisle.

If any one have claimed Dr. Wallis as a Socinian, I with agree you that he has done so unwarrantably. But I am not aware of any such claim having been advanced : nor has he been classed, as you assert, by Mr. Belsham, among Unitarian expositors." He takes his place in the Calm Inquiry,' with Augustin, Calvin, Hooker, South, and others, amongst those Trinitarians who are called Nominalists; who "maintain that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, are three distinctions in the one selfexistent Deity, analogous to the faculties of understanding, will, and power in men; to which three distinctions, personal terms may be applied."-Calm Inquiry, 2nd edit. p. 337. In a note subjoined to this definition, Mr. Belsham