APPENDIX VI.

REPLY TO SOME REMARKS OF THE REV. DR. CARPEnter.

IN 1820, Dr. Carpenter of Bristol published "An Examination of Charges against Unitarians and Unitarianism;" in which he favoured me with some strictures on a few passages in the First Volume of this Inquiry. My previous impressions of his amiable and upright character have been strengthened by the perusal of his work. His candour, integrity, and good temper, besides his intellectual ability, give to his writings an immense advantage over the imbecile arrogance, the rash crudities, and the still more dishonourable artifices, of some persons on whom he has felt himself called to animadvert. Happy would it be for those persons, if they would seriously reflect on the guilt with which they defile their own souls, before their Saviour and Judge, and of the cruel injuries which they inflict upon his blessed and holy cause, by any modes of defending it which, their consciences cannot but tell them, are inconsistent with "sim"plicity and godly sincerity." It might also, as an inferior consideration, do them good to reflect, how little value, in the impartial estimation of posterity, will attach to their works, if their streams of talent and learning are polluted by the black infusion of bigotry, haughtiness, and injustice. The effusions of unchristian feeling will be viewed hereafter with grief and regret: but "the words of truth " and soberness," spoken or written "in love," will abide the trial of time, and will furnish pleasing recollections in eternity.It is my sincere wish and endeavour to apply these sentiments, at all times and in all respects, to myself: and if, in any instance, I have violated them, I would be the first to condemn myself; and I hope I may say that such violation is not only contrary to my principles, but repugnant to my habitual feelings and practice. Desiring always to maintain this spirit, I offer a brief reply to the remarks which the author has applied to me.

i. "With whatever sentiments, however, the reader who is hostile to Unitarianism still views the language of Dr. Priestley, he cannot but be convinced, that, by giving, as a CONTINUED QUOTATION from Dr. Priestley, a passage in which there are several transpositions and additions, in which, between parts separated only by a colon, there is more than a page of connected argument,*——and in which, by an extraneous addition, an omission, and a curtailment, he has given a directly erroneous view of Dr. Priestley's object in his obnoxious statement, Bishop Magee is guilty, according to his own words, of GROSS FALSIFICATION of his author." Page 201.

To the clause in this passage marked with the asterisk, Dr. Carpenter appends a note of which the following is a part:

A similar instance of injustice occurs in Dr. Pye Smith's Scripture Testimony to the Messiah, vol. i. p. 58, (of the present edition, p. 92,) where, adducing several of Dr. Priestley's most obnoxious, and, in my judgment, very hasty and censurable expressions, he gives, as one continued quotation, clauses from various papers, and even different volumes, of the Theological Repository;

and, in one instance, gives as Dr. Priestley's, that which Dr. Priestley says another might argue.'

To this charge I reply :

1. In the Note annexed to the passage on which my respected censor animadverts, I have expressly said, that these "epithets and imputations occur in a series of Essays ;" and I have minutely specified the different volumes and pages in which the expressions are respectively to be found. I would also request him to consider, whether the tenor of that Note, and some particular expressions in it, do not contain probable evidence, at least, that it was far from my intention to misrepresent Dr. Priestley's sentiments, or to treat his memory with disrespect.

2. The terms and clauses in question are given without any alteration, as selected from the Essays referred to.

3. I cannot perceive that, in any respect whatever, Dr. Priestley's real sentiments are misrepresented by my statement.

4. In my sincere opinion and belief, these expressions, though detached (and they could not, without an immoderate extent of citation, have been adduced in any other way,) do not wear a different character from that which the entire paragraphs would have done.

5. Yet, I acknowledge that it would have been better to have inserted a line between such clauses as are not consecutive in the original. My not having done so I must impute to want of consideration for I have so much confidence in the honesty of my inten

tions, as to assure myself, that, had it occurred to me as possible for any reader to suppose that I was presenting him with a continued extract, I should have fallen upon some method of precluding the supposition. I sincerely wish that I had done so : but still I must repeat, that the references in the Note are sufficient to have prevented such a mistake. In this edition, the complaint is, I trust, obviated by giving the statement as my own, though it is strictly Dr. Priestley's, and by adding a few words to the Note.

ii. To some remarks of Dr. Carpenter, made in a good and kind spirit, upon the too common influence of the odium theologicum, and the appearance of my having availed myself of that dishonourable mode of endeavouring to parry an argument by personal reflections against those who may employ it; I reply, that I should deem myself very censurable if, in that or in other way of practising upon the infirmities and prejudices of men, I endeavoured to gain any advantage to the cause which I defend. That cause I regard to be THE TRUTH, upon a subject of vital importance to both the theory and the practice of religion: and it would be dishonoured by any attempt to serve it, at the expense of sacrificing christian dispositions. But I am conscious of my own frailties, and would not be very eager in self-justification. If, in any part of what I have written, there be any degree of unchristian asperity, any partial reasonings, any unjust representations, or any unhandsome language; I do sincerely disapprove and regret such passages, and will thankfully accept reproof for them.

In my turn, I beg to ask my worthy remarker, whether, since he designates me, in p. 87, by the term "Orthodox accuser," some of his readers will not surmise that the same person is intended under the same term in p. 85; and then, whether the contrast which he has "drawn between the Unitarian inquirer and his Orthodox accuser," in pp. 85-91, is consonant with truth and justice. I have no doubt but that Dr. Carpenter will disclaim any intention of including me in this description of the "Orthodox accuser," and will perhaps be surprised when he perceives that the repetition of the term seems to involve that application. So readily and innocently may one give occasion for a misapprehension. I also appeal to his acquaintance with such periodical works, and other obvious sources of information, as are known to represent the religious sentiments of those Christians who bear the name of Orthodox, whether it is not the fact that every article except the first two, in his description of the "Orthodox accuser of a too common class," is not inapplicable, and consequently unjust, so far as respects a numerous and increasing

body among protestant dissenters, as well as within the establishment; and that, on the other hand, those persons are fully entitled to share in every part of the honourable picture which he has drawn under the title of "the Unitarian inquirer," and to which he has added, in his own candid spirit, "I am willing to say the Christian inquirer, whatever be his surname."

iii. Referring to Script. Testim. vol. i. pp. 114, 115, (this ed. 160, 161,) Dr. Carpenter observes, that Dr. Pye Smith "has allowed personal feelings to lead him to make charges, deeply and directly affecting the moral and religious character and usefulness of several individuals; when, if there had been any solid ground for such charges, he ought to have specified the individuals to whom he referred, or to have been silent." Page 202.

I request that the reader would review attentively the passage to which this serious animadversion relates; and that he would then give to the following observations what regard they may deserve.

From the best of my recollection, which in such a case may be supposed to be vivid, I can most truly say, that this passage was not produced by "personal feelings," but by a painful and reluctant apprehension of duty. The Author of the Calm Inquiry had made a remark which I felt, and still feel, to be completely opposed to the results of a course of observation really more extensive than I have expressed. I conceive it therefore my duty to state, frankly and plainly, what those results were; though I was not insensible to the extreme delicacy, and personally perhaps imprudence, of the avowal. I had no malevolent passions to prompt my thoughts or words: I had no disposition to hurt those whose departure from the faith was and is to me the matter of severe disappointment, sorrow, and commiseration and I know too well the temptations and the susceptibility of youth, to be severe in judging the young, or to condemn any person in whose character truth and sincerity appear to reign. But I have the clearest conviction that what I have declared to have been "generally" the case, with respect to certain changes of religious sentiment, is indeed the simple and honest truth. These were my reasons for not being " silent:" but "to have specified the individuals" would have been both indiscreet and ungenerous, and was, in my opinion, quite unnecessary. Deeply do I lament that those individuals have receded so far, from that which my honest and growing convictions oblige me to regard as "the faith of God's elect, the truth according to godliness." For them all, it is "my heart's desire and prayer,-that God may give them (uɛrávouar) a change of mind, unto the acknowledgment of the truth; and that,

from the snare of the devil, they who have been taken captive by him (ανανήψωσιν εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα) may awake again unto the will of God."1

iv. Dr. Carpenter expresses more than ordinary astonishment at a passage (vol. i. p. 25, in this ed. p. 31,) of this work, in which I had expressed the apprehension that the "radical error," which diffuses its influence through every distinguishing part of the Unitarian system, is the assumption of low and degrading thoughts concerning the Blessed and Holy God, his moral government, and the revelation of his justice and grace." "For this charge," Dr. Carpenter says, "I was utterly unprepared. On this point, at least, I always thought we stood unrivalled. The charge is a serious. one; and, of all which have been urged by men of intelligence and learning, against the doctrines of Unitarianism, this is the most destitute even of apparent foundation." Page 368.

Any endeavour to do justice to this great, most serious, and complicated question, would require an extent of close investigation and comparison, incomparably beyond what I can here attempt. Nor can we ever engage in so solemn an inquiry, with the rational hope of success, unless our moral taste is purified and exalted by the practical and devotional influence of the principles of revelation. The few and brief observations which I may submit, must be regarded merely as suggestions, to excite the attention of serious and reflecting minds. It is also obvious that they can be only the naked expression of what appears to me to be the state of the case, with scarcely any attempt at elucidation.

1. It is customary with Unitarian writers to indulge in the strongest declarations of the palpable impossibility, the extreme absurdity, of believing that there are Three co-equal Subsistences in the Divine Nature. This may appear to them proper; but I submit to any impartial and upright observer whether it does not imply that those who use this language have found out Jehovah unto perfection; and whether it does not involve the assumption of a knowledge and authority qualifying to decide magisterially upon a subject, which, infinitely more than all others, is beyond the range of created

1 2 Tim. ii. 26. "In textu Paulino avroû et èxelvov diversos plane respicere videntur; auroù quidem Dei servum, atque èkelvov Deum ipsum, tantum Dominum. Græca igitur sic distingue, Καὶ ἀνανήψωσιν, ἐκ τῆς τοῦ διαβόλου παγίδος, ἐξωγρημένοι ὑπ ̓ αὐτοῦ, εἰς τὸ ἐκείνου θέλημα. Atque resipiscant, qui per ipsum (presbyterum) e laqueo diaboli vivi erepti sunt, ad IPSIUS (Dei) voluntatem." Bishop Andrews's Preces Privatæ, p. 360, ed. Oxon, 1675. Yet I think that the first pronoun, and the action expressed by the participle, refer to the tempter.