opinion of Reviewers, on these performances, be of any weight, it must be concluded, that they have done this, at least. The Analyt ical and Monthly Reviews, with The Protestant Dissenters' Magazine, have each bestowed on one or other of them, their strong and unqualified approbation. Whether their critiques have been of any advantage to the cause I may hereafter inquire: at present, I shall proceed to examine what is advanced by each of my opponents, in their order.

1797

A

REPLY TO DR. TOULMIN.

SECTION I.

ON THE GROUND OF ARGUMENT USED IN THIS CONTROVERSY, AND THE ATTEMPTS OF OUR OPPONENTS TO SHIFT IT.

WHEN I first formed a design of writing against Socinianism, I perceived, that, although the holy scriptures were treated, by Socinian writers, with great disrespect in various instances, yet they were generally the ultimate tribunal to which the appeal was made. The object of the controversy, on both sides, seemed to be to ascertain their true meaning. For this purpose, two general methods had been adopted: First, arranging the various passages of scripture which relate to the subject, and reasoning upon them. Secondly, examining in what sense Christians, in the early ages of Christianity, understood them.

The first is the common way of deciding controversies in divinity; and a very good way it is, if fairly conducted. I had several objections, however, against pursuing it in this instance. First: it was ground which was already fully occupied. Able writers, on both sides, had gone over all the passages of scripture relating to the subject; and many of them had nearly exhausted their genius, in reasoning upon the scope of the sacred writers, and in criticising upon the original language. Secondly: I perceived that Socinian writers had got into such an unwarrantable habit of criticising upon the sacred writings, that the plainest passages

could not stand before them; whole chapters, and whole books, were cashiered, as spurious; and even the whole Bible was declared to be "obscure," and " never designed to decide upon controverted questions in religion and morality."* It appeared, to me, of but little account to reason upon texts of scripture, when the scripture itself, whatever might be its meaning, was virtually disallowed.

As to the last of these methods, it was not within my province. Besides, it appeared to me, that, whatever pleasure we may feel in tracing the history of early opinions, and whatever good purposes may be answered by a work of this nature, if impartially conducted; yet it can afford no proper criterion of what is the apostolic doctrine. Christians in early ages were as liable to err as we are; and, in many instances, they did err, so as to contradict the scriptures, and one another.

Thinking on these things, it occurred to me, that there was another method of reasoning, fin ve which have been already mentioned; namely, by inquiring-What is that doctrine, in the present day, which is productive of the best moral effects? Several considerations induced me to prefer this ground of reasoning, in the present case, to either of the other two. First; It would serve to ascertain what was the apostolic doctrine, as well as the former of them, and much better than the latter. If, for example, in discoursing on the vines and fig-trees which formerly grew in the land of Canaan, a dispute should arise, whether they resembled this or that species now growing in other countries, one way of deciding it would be to compare the fruits. If the fruit of one species could be proved to possess a much nearer likeness than the fruit of another, that would tend to decide the controversy in its favour. Secondly: An inquiry into the moral tendency of the different doctrines, would not only serve as a medium of ascertaining which of them was the apostolic doctrine, but would also prove the truth of that doctrine, and its divine original: for it is a principle so deeply engraven on the human mind, that whatever doctrine is productive of good fruits must in itself be

* Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. X. p. 357.

good, and have its origin in God, that very few writers, if any
would dare to maintain the contrary. I perceived, therefore, if I
could not only prove that what is commonly called Calvinism is
most productive of effects similar to those which sprang from the
doctrine of the Apostles, but also exhibit them in such a light, as I
went along, as that they shonld approve themselves to every man's
conscience; I should thereby cut off the retreat of those Socinian
writers, who, when their doctrine is proved to be anti-scriptural,
forsake Christian ground, and take shelter upon the territories of
Deism; degrading the Bible as an "obscure book;" taxing its
writers with "reasoning inconclusively ;" and declaring, that its
"nature and design was not to settle disputed theories, or decide
upon controverted questions in religion and morality." I knew
well, that, though they dared to write degradingly of the scriptures,
and of the sacred writers, yet they dare not professedly set them-
selves against morality. Thirdly: The judging of doctrines by
their effects, is a practice warranted by scripture: By their fruits
ye shall know them. A very able writer, in a discourse on this
passage, has shown, that "the rule here given by our Saviour, is
the best that could have been given; that it is sufficient to distin-
guish truth from error; and that it is, in fact, the rule by which
all good men, and, indeed, mankind in general, do judge of reli-
gious principles and pretensions.”* Fourthly, I supposed that
such a method of reasoning would be more interesting to the pub-
lic mind, having never before, to my recollection, been adopted as
the ground of any particular treatise on the subject. Fifthly, It
was ground upon which there was room for common Christians to
stand, and be witnesses of the issue of the contest; which, while
the controversy turned upon the opinion of the Fathers, or the
construction of a text of scripture, was not the case. Sixthly,
It was
a, ground of reasoning to which our opponents could not fairly ob-
ject, seeing they had commenced an attack upon it, charging the
Calvinistic system with " gloominess," "bigotry," and "licen-
tiousness;" with being "averse to the love of both God and man,'
and "
an axe at the root of all virtue."

* See Dr. Witherspoon's Trial of Religious Truth by its Moral Influence. VOL II.

33

These were the principal reasons which induced me to prefer the ground of argument on which I have proceeded. I would not be understood, however, as expressing the least disrespect towards the works of those who have proceeded on other grounds. Let the subject be examined in every point of view. Every author has a right to choose his ground of reasoning, provided it be a fair one, and that which may be unsuitable to the turn and talents of one person, may be suitable to those of another. If the reader wish to grounds of scripture

see the present controversy pursued, on the testimony, and the opinions of early ages, he may consult to great advantage, a late very valuable and elaborate work of Dr. Jamieson, entitled, A Vindication of the Doctrine of Scripture, and of the Primitive Faith, concerning the Deity of Christ, in Reply to Dr. Priestley's History of Early Opinions, 2 vols. 8vo.

Knowing somewhat of the abilities of the writers on the other side, and their readiness, on all occasions, to defend their cause, I did not expect to escape their censure. I laid my account, that what I advanced would either be treated as unworthy of notice, or if any answer was written, that the strength of the arguments, would be tried to the uttermost. In both these particulars, however, I have been mistaken. They have not treated it as unworthy of notice. They have acknowledged the contrary. And, as to trying the strength of the arguments, I must say, that Dr. Toulmin has not so much as looked them in the face. On the contrary, though the Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian Doctrine, is the title of his performance, yet he acknowledges his design is to "supercede the examination of that comparison into which I had fully entered;"* that is, to relinquish the defence of the practical efficacy of his principles, and to reason entirely upon another ground. Mr. Kentish is the only writer who has pretended to encounter the argument. Whether he has succeeded, will be hereafter examined. At present, I shall attend to Dr. Toulmin.

This writer observes, at the outset, that "the title prefixed to his Letters, will lead the reader to expect from them, chiefly the discussion of one point; but, that a point of great importance in

* Page 5.