A REPLY

ΤΟ

MR. KENTISH'S SERMON, &c.

MR. KENTISH entitles his Discourse, The Moral Tendency of the Genuine Christian Doctrine. This title is either irrelative, to the professed object of his undertaking, or it is a begging the question. If he only meant to affirm, that the genuine Christian doctrine, be it what it may, is productive of moral effects in those who embrace it, this is what none but a professed Infidel would dery. It is a principle which every denomination of Christians admits. It is the datum on which I have proceeded, in endeavouring to ascertain what the genuine Christian doctrine is. If, there. fore, Mr. Kentish, intends only to prove what his title announces, his performance. must be totally irrelative to its professed object; and contains no answer to the piece against which it is written. But it is possible, that, by the genuine christian doctrine, Mr. Kentish means what "he sincerely believes to be such," or what he calls the Unitarian doctrine. But this is begging the question at the outset. Our opponents must surely be reduced to very necessitous circumstances, or they would not condescend to such humble methods of establishing their principles.

Mr. Kentish, speaking of my Letters on Socinianism, observes, that it was by no means his intention, or his wish, to canvass every observation which is there advanced." To canvass every observation might be unnecessary; but an answer to any work ought

to enter upon a full and thorough discussion of the principal subjects included in it.

A performance that does not require this, requires no answer at all. I cannot think, therefore, that either Dr. Toulmin or Mr. Kentish are justifiable, in evading the body of the arguments contained in the publication which they meant to answer. The number of veterans, in literary war, which are to be found on the side of our opponents, renders it difficult to account for their refusing to hazard a decisive engagement, without imputing it to a conviction that they stand upon disadvantageous ground. Dr. Toulmin has proved his dislike to it by a barefaced attempt to shift it. Mr. Kentish has not done so: his peformance has less evasion, and less assuming of the question in debate, and, consequently, is more respectable than that of his colleague. He keeps upon the proper ground: but, as though he thought it enchanted, he hurries over it, touching upon only a few of the topics of discussion, and taking but very little notice of the arguments of his opponent, as he passes along. It is a retreat, instead of a regular engagement; a running fight, rather than a pitched battle. In favour of such a mode of conducting the controversy, it is possible he might choose to print in the form of a sermon.

But Mr. Kentish has reasons for not being more particular in his answer: "Of Mr. Fuller's remarks, many," says he, 66 are personal, and many refer solely to a vindication of the religious principles that he has seen proper to embrace."* If many of my remarks be personal, Mr. Kentish had a right to point them out; and ought to have done so, rather than content himself with a general accusation, unsubstantiated by a single proof. That I have vindicated those religious principles which I have thought proper to embrace, is true: the misrepresentation and contempt with which they have been treated by the Reviewers, and other Socinian writers, rendered a vindication of them necessary; and, if our opponents have now retreated within the limits of their own territory, and are contented to act, in future, merely on the defensive; it may be presumed, without arrogance, that it has not been altogether without effect.

* Page 3, Preface.

Mr. Kentish seems not only contented to act on the defensive, with respect to the moral tendency of his principles, but also with respect to the actual moral effects produced by them. He thinks, "in point of fact, it can scarcely be proved, that, in love to God, they are surpassed by their fellow-christians; though God forbid,” he adds, "that we should rashly arrogate to ourselves superiority of virtue! Rash, arrogant, and shocking, however, as this pretence appears to Mr. Kentish, it is no more than has been made by his brethren. All that Dr. Priestley has written upon the gloomy and immoral tendency of Calvinism, implies a pretence to a superiority of virtue. What else is meant by his charging our views with being "unfavourable to the love of both God and man; and an axe at the root of all virtue ?" He accuses us of "living in the dread of all free inquiry? whereas they are in the way of growing wiser and better, as long as they live." He also goes about to weigh the virtue of Unitarians and Trinitarians; and, though he allows the former to have most of an apparent conformity to the world, yet, "upon the whole, he supposes them to approach nearest to the proper temper of Christianity.". Mr. Belsham does not scruple to assert, that "they-who are sincerely pious and diffusively benevolent with these principles, could not have failed to have been much better, and much happier, had they adopted a milder, a more rational, a more truly evangelical creed." These are passages which I have quoted and answered, in my Letters on Socinianism: and what else can be made of them, but a pretence to superiority of virtue ! I do not accuse these writers of rashness or arrogance, in making such pretences, unless it be on account of their asserting what they are unable to maintain. It would be consistent with Christian humility to prove, that true believers are men of superior virtue to unbelievers; and if any denomination of professing Christians have an advantage over others, in this respect, they have a right, especially when accused by them of immorality, fairly and modestly to state it. But who can forbear to pity the situation of men who, after all these challenges, on the first close inquiry that is made into the justice of

*Page 13.

their claims, are reduced to the dire necessity of giving them up, of standing merely upon the defensive, and of exclaiming against the rashness of arrogating to themselves a superiority of virtue!

66

1

It will be time enough for Mr. Kentish to" admit a claim to infallibility," when such a claim is made; or to a "knowledge of the motives or designs of men," any farther than as they are made manifest by their words and actions, when his opponent makes any pretence to it. In this way, I suppose, he himself will not scruple to judge the heart; since he proposes, in the same page, to "illustrate the spirit in which my examination is written."* assure Mr. Kentish, it was neither in an unguarded" nor a "guarded" moment, that I presumed to charge Unitarians with having a heart secretly disaffected to the true character and government of God, and dissatisfied with the gospel way of salvation. Rather, was it not in an unguarded moment, that he, as well as several of his brethren in the reviewing department, accused me of so doing? If any of these writers thought proper to quote my words, why did they not quote the whole sentence, as it stands ? by their method of quotation, one might prove, from the scrip. tures, that there is no God.

The proposition, as it stands in my Letters, is conditional. It is true, the thing affirmed is, that "the avenues which lead to Socinianism are not an openness to conviction, or a free and impartial inquiry after truth; but a heart secretly disaffected to the true character and government of God, and dissatisfied with the gospel way of salvation: but the condition on which the truth of this proposition is suspended, is that Socinianism is a system the character of which is, that "irreligious men are the first, and serious Christians, the last, to embrace it." Now, do our opponents mean to admit, without hesitation or explanation, that this is the character of Socinianism? I know, indeed, they have conceded thus much; but I was ready to suppose, that, upon its being represented to them in its own colours, they would have recalled, or, at least, have endeavoured to put a more favourable construction upon their concessions. But, it should seem, by their applying

*Page 4, Preface.

the latter branch of the proposition to themselves, they admit the former, as properly characteristic of their system: and, if they admit the one, 1 see no cause to recede from the other.

I have contended, that it is not presumption to judge of men's motives by their words and actions; and that it is what our op ponents, as well as all other men, do, in innumerable instances. In this instance, however, I have not judged the motives of any individual. The thing affirmed barely respects the general course of things. The avenues which lead to any place are the ordinary passages through which persons enter: but it does not follow, that they are the only ones. Were I to assert that the avenues which lead to offensive war are not, as its abettors would persuade us to think, a desire to maintain the honour of their country; but a heart secretly dissatisfied to the true interests of mankind, and dissatisfied with the morality of the gospel; such an assertion I fear, would contain but too much truth: it would not denote, however, that there never was an individual who engaged in such wars, but from such motives. Persons may be drawn into them unawares, and contrary to their inclination; and, being once engaged may find it difficult to recede. Thus, with respect to our religious sentiments, education, connexions, and various other things, may have great influence in determining them. How far such things may consist with sincere love to Christ, I have not undertaken to decide. But, as, in the one case, a person would generally find his heart averse from actual engagements, and lean+ ing towards a peace; so, I apprehend, it will be in the other : like the serious Christians mentioned by Mrs. Barbould, though they may rank with Socinians, yet their hearts will lean towards the doctrine that exalts the Saviour, and exhibits him as the atoning sacrifice.

Before Mr. Kentish enters on the defence of his principles, on the ground of their moral tendency, he offers six remarks. These are as follows:

1. "An obvious effect of the impressions to which mankind are exposed from surrounding objects, is, that no principles can so