but they are mingled with sentiments of deep regret, that one, from whose extensive learning, correct taste, enlightened understanding, and general urbanity of manners, every thing fair, and candid, and honourable, might have been justly expected, should thus violate truth and charity, in the service of a party, and afford the sanction of his authority to the revilings and the calumnies of ignorance and bigotry.

You will, without doubt, contend that in drawing this truly frightful picture of Unitarianism, you are warranted by the concessions of some of its most distinguished advocates. You have, in fact, in the passage on which I am now animadverting, pressed Dr. Priestley himself into the unholy and ungrateful service of confirming your misrepresentations, and of passing the sentence of condemnation on the principles he laboured to establish. "Here, then," you say, (p. 12,) i. e. when the disputers of this world reject the gospel as foolishness, yet are anxious not to be reputed infidels, "Socinianism steps in to offer her friendly veil; under which, hardihood of speculation and audacity of conjecture, may mask themselves from universal reprobation. So shrouded-to use the language of One who drew from the life, and whose accuracy in this. instance cannot be suspected-the new proselyte may attain (if he does not, already, possess) that 'cool unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it, which is necessary in order to judge truly concerning particular tenets in religion !'

It is much to be regretted, that while allowing the praise of accuracy to Dr. Priestley, because it suited your

purpose, you should have neglected that virtue yourself. The words which you mark as a citation from him, and by which you endeavour to support your severe censure of Unitarianism, are not his. I will accurately cite the passage which you have misrepresented. It is this: "Besides, it cannot be denied, that many of them, who judge so truly concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that cool, unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it. Though, therefore, they are in a more favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, they are not likely to acquire a zeal for what they conceive to be the truth." (Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 95.)-Now, let the reader compare this extract, which I have accurately given, with the passage which I have as accurately transcribed from your Charge, and say whether you have indeed, as you profess to have done, "used the language of one who drew from the life?" Where are the words, which, by the distinction of inverted commas, you designed to be taken as the words of Dr. Priestley? Where has he asserted, that indifference to religion in general is "necessary, in order to judge truly concerning particular tenets in religion ?" The term necessary, which is of the utmost importance in this passage, is not to be found in the original; nor is the idea it conveys, expressed there. In the sentence which you profess to quote, Dr. Priestley barely states the fact, that many speculative Unitarians have attained to a cool and unbiassed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general. In the next, which you have not quoted, he allows, indeed, that they are thus placed in a situation more favourable for distinguishing between truth and falsehood; but he does not even hint at this situation as being necessary for this

purpose; nor does he afford you the slightest ground for the sarcastic exclamation in your note, (p. 61,) "Alas! what must that religion be, to which the best introduction is, to have no religion at all!" Dr. Priestley's object, in the passage from which you have so unfairly cited, was to state a fact, and to assign what he conceived to be the cause of it. The fact is, that when he published the Discourse, in the preface to which that passage occurs, there were many who professed Unitarian opinions, but felt little zeal for their support, and were therefore easily induced to desert the religious societies to which they nominally belonged. The cause of this he conceived to be, that their religion was only speculative; that their indifference to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it, had produced in them so cool and unbiassed a temper, that they could readily distinguish between true and false doctrine; but, at the same time, prevented the just and desirable effect of truth on their affections and their lives. "Consequently," as he goes on to observe, "when they are satisfied with respect to any controverted question, concerning which they may have had the curiosity to make some inquiry, they presently dismiss the subject from their thoughts; and thus, never reading and thinking about it, except when it is casually mentioned, they are not in the way of being interested in it, and cannot be expected to make any great sacrifices to it." Very far indeed is Dr. Priestley from asserting, that such an indifference is essential to the reception of Unitarianism, or from approving of it. On the contrary, he laments that it should, in any instance, be found amongst those who call themselves Unitarians; and it is the object of the Discourse, to which these remarks are prefixed, to recommend the adoption of such measures in Unitarian societies, as should excite and cherish a different spirit, and render all the

members of such societies, zealous and practical Christians. He proposes that the ends which the apostles had in view, in forming Christian societies, should still be pursued. They," he observes, "chiefly respected the ultimate and proper object of Christianity, which was the forming of good men, men fearing God, and conscientiously discharging the moral duties of life, as preparatory to that immortal state, which it was the great object of Christianity fully to reveal to us. Without this, they considered a man to be as effectually unqualified for being a member of a Christian society, as if he had been an unbeliever; because his nominal belief of Christianity had no proper influence on his behaviour in life. All Christians ought to be persons whose light should shine before men, that others may see their good works. They ought to provoke to love and to good works, and not suffer sin in each other; making converts to Christianity by their lives, no less than by their doctrine and arguments." Now Sir, is this a menstruum which can readily dissolve every plain but obnoxious precept? In such a religion, is there little or nothing to condemn the Pyrrhonist and the profligate?

It is true that Dr. Priestley does admit, as you observe, (p. 61,) that the connexion between the belief of the mere humanity of Christ (or, to use his own words) "between the simple truth that Christ was not the supreme God himself," and a Christian life, is very slight. And are you prepared to say that such is not the case with respect to any other doctrine,-that of the Deity of Christ, for instance, of Original Sin, or of the Atonement? May not these be taken up merely as matters of speculation? No doctrine whatever, so embraced, little attended to, and not carefully applied to some practical end, however pure and orthodox

it may be esteemed, will have any other than a very slight connexion with a Christian life. I have no doubt, Sir, that your knowledge of mankind will enable you to apply this maxim of Dr. Priestley, which you appear to cite as unfavourable to Unitarianism, to the doctrines of your own Church, and of every other religious sect.

That indifference to religion in general is more favourable than a zealous attachment to some particular form of religion to the perception of speculative religious truth, (which is all that Dr. Priestley means to assert,) is a position which will not be questioned by those who have any knowledge of the human mind, or any experience of human life. "There is no person," it has been well observed, "who, were he to choose one to whom he would convey instruction on any point, would not choose one who knew nothing of the point, rather than one whose ideas and opinions lie against it. Were he, for instance, to choose one whom he would instruct in the true system of the world, according to the modern discoveries, he would sooner choose one who was a stranger to philosophy, than one who had deeply imbibed a false philosophy, and was skilled in all the methods of defending it. The former would have nothing to do but to learn and improve: the latter, on the contrary, would have a great deal to unlearn, and it would be necessary to empty and to alter his whole mind before he could be made a proper subject for instruction, or a proper receptacle for truth."* This remark, the justice of which must be universally admitted, is equally applicable to subjects of religious inquiry. No one can feel deeply interested

• Price's Sermons on various Subjects, p. 8.

G