teach, rather from the sound of detached passages, than from the signification and tenor of the context? How, if this should prove to be a kind of reverence, for which Mr. Kentish's opponent does not plead any more than himself? And how, if our objections should not be against examination, but against the conclusions which some persons draw; not against correcting, but corrupting the translation; not against attending to the scope of the writers, but against torturing them to speak contrary to their real intentions? Will it not follow, in this case, that this "stedfast protest" is against a nonentity, that this mighty triumph is over a man of straw?

It is a usual way of writing, first to lay down a proposition, and then to establish it by evidence. In this manner

I have generally proceeded. Mr. Kentish in quoting my language, has more than once taken simply the proposition, taking no notice of the evidence by which it is supported, and then accused me of dealing in peremptory assertions.* Such is his conduct in reference to what I have written on the tendency of Socinianism to Infidelity.† Mr. Kentish is welcome to call the positions which I have advanced "calumny," or by what other name he pleases; let but the evidence with which they are supported be considered in connexion with them, and, if they will not stand the test of examination, let then share the fate they deserve.

As to what my opponent alleges concerning what it is that denominates any one a professing Christian, and his appeal to the Acts of the Apostles, I have already said what I judge necessary on that subject, in my reply to Dr. Toulmin; where also I have adduced some additional evidence of the tendency of Socinianism to Deism.

I have only one more remark to make on Mr. Kentish: it respects the meaning of our Lord's words in John xiv. 28. My Father is greater than I. The sense which has commonly been put upon this passage, both by Trinitarians and Anti-Trinitarians, appears to me to be beside the scope of the writer: nor is that of Mr. Kentish, in my judgment, more plausible. I agree with him, "that it is not the mere abstract doctrine of his Father's superiority, which he designed to assert;" or rather, I think that it expres+ Page 41.

*See pages 29, 35.

VOL. II.

+ Page 40, Note.

42

ses no comparison whatever between the person of the Father and that of the Son. The comparison appears evidently, to me, to respect the state of exaltation with the Father, and the state of humiliation which he then sustained. If ye loved me, saith he, ye would rejoice because I said, I go to the Father; for my Father is greater than I.-The glory and happiness which my Father possesses, and which I go to possess with him, is greater than any thing I can here enjoy: your love to me, therefore, if it were properly regulated, instead of prompting you to wish to detain me here, would rather incline you to rejoice in my departure.*

But, though I disagree with Mr. Kentish in his sense of this passage of scripture, I perfectly agree with him in the general sentiment with which he concludes his performance: that “the season may not be far distant, when systems which assume the Christian name, shall, like fabrics erected upon thesand, be over. thrown by a mighty fall”—but "that real Christianity has nothing to fear." And I may add, that it is with sacred satisfaction I anticipate the time, when all that exalteth itself against Christ, let it affect whose systems it may, shall utterly fall, and nothing shall be left standing, but the simple, unadulterated doctrine of the cross.

I shall conclude my reply, to both Dr. Toulmin and Mr. Kentish, with a brief Review of the Reviewers. What has fallen under my observation is contained in the Monthly and Analytical Reviews, and the Protestant Dissenters' Magazine.

In the Monthly Review Enlarged, my opponents had reason to expect, not merely a friend and patron, but a respectable and powerful ally. The managers of that work were parties in the controversy; as much so as Dr. Priestley, or Mr. Belsham, or Mr. Lindsey, or Mrs. Barbauld. They were called upon either to defend their allegations, or to relinquish them. But, like the late Empress of the North, by the allies, they have been a long time in raising their quota, and at last, have mustered up about half a dozen lines! In these lines, which are given in a Review of Mr. Kentish's Sermon, they have, with a design sufficiently apparent, preserved a sullen silence respecting the piece which gave occa

* See Calvin and Henry upon the place.

sion for it.

"From an impartial perusal of this sensible and wellwritten discourse," they tell us, "the candid reader may perhaps apprehend, that the important objects of piety and virtue may be advanced on the Unitarian plan, although he should not himself embrace it."*

Brief, cautious, and sullen, as this Review may appear, it is the best that my opponents can either of them boast. It is true, it contains merely opinion; and that is expressed in very general terms; but herein, for aught I know, may consist its excellency. The other Reviewers, as the reader will presently perceive, by descending to particulars, and attempting to back their opinion with reasoning, have ruined the cause, and injured those whom it was their intention to serve.

The Analytical Review of Dr. Toulmin's performancet is too long for insertion here. The substance of it amounts to no more than this: that the ground on which I have conducted the controversy, is not a fair one. But this implies a reflection on the wisdom of Dr. Toulmin, for pretending to meet me upon this ground; and a still greater reflection upon Mr. Kentish, for engaging upon it, and acknowledging, that, "in religion, the maxim, Ye shall know them by their fruits, is a maxim unquestionably of high authority, evident reason, and familiar application;" yea, more: that it is a criterion "by which the world will judge concerning the natural influence of our religious opinions." It also implies a conviction, on the part of the Reviewer, that his cause is lost. Like a second in a duel, he informs the world that it is no wonder his friend has fallen, for he fought upon unfair ground!

If this review has been of any use to Dr. Toulmin, it is by an attempt to cover his retreat. By raising an outcry, against the professed ground of the controversy, a kind of apology is formed for its being shifted; and the reader's attention is insensibly turned off from the Doctor's false reasoning, and reconciled to what he has advanced, foreign to the subject, from the Acts of the Apostles. But, whatever service might be afforded by this, it is all undone

* Review for January, 1797, p. 118. Article 74.

+ Review for October, 1796, pp. 394-396.

by what follows: for, after having raised an outcry against reasoning on the ground of moral tendency, he discovers an inclination to make the utmost use of it that he is able. As Dr. Toulmin, notwithstanding his shifting the ground of the argument, has no objection to exhibit all the morality on his side, that he can muster up; so neither has the Analytical Reviewer any objection to repeat it after him. The one can tell of their virtuous individuals, and the other can echo the account; though both ought to have known, that it is not from the character of individuals, but of the general body, that I proposed to reason.

If the critique of the Analytical Review be weak, that in the Protestant Dissenter's Magazine is still weaker. This Reviewer observes, that the method Dr. Toulmin has taken to show the moral tendency of Unitarian principles, is plain and solid; it is one recommended by his antagonist, an appeal to facts. He examines every specimen of apostolical preaching recorded in the Acts of the Apostles ; each of which, he endeavours to show, is in unison with Unitarian sentiments. From this, the inference is very clear, that the world was converted, and the sinners of mankind were brought to faith and repentance, by the preaching of the simple Unitarian doctrine; directly contrary to what Mr. Fuller has advanced, that "Socinian writers cannot pretend that their doctrine has been used to convert profligate sinners to the love of God and holiness."*

Dr. Toulmin has appealed to facts; and it seems the writer of this article does not know but that they were facts in point. That they are not so, must be evident on the slightest reflection: for they can be of no use to Dr. Toulmin, unless he first prove, that the Apostles were of his sentiments: and, if this be proved, they can be of no use afterwards; because the point in question is supposed to be decided without them. Whether Dr. Toulmin was aware of this, I shall not pretend to determine: it is evident, however, that his affecting to join issue in an appeal to facts, has every property of a feint, or of an attempt to keep up the appearance of a regular, pitched battle; while, in reality, he was affecting a retreat. But, whatever may be thought of Dr. Toulmin's acquainted

*Review for October, 1796, p. 394.

+ Page 6.

ness or unacquaintedness with what he was doing, this writer appears to know nothing of the matter. He does not know, that the Doctor's repairing to the primitive Christians for examples of the conversion of profligates to the love of God and holiness, instead of proving "the direct contrary" to what I had affirmed, affords the strongest confirmation of it. It did not occur to him, it seems, that, if Dr. Toulmin could have found, or pretended to find, examples near home, he would not have gone to so great a distance in search of

them.