if w^., lttmt$ita af € THE CALVimSTIC .WB SOCIffUtJC SYSTEMS EXAMINED AND COMPARED, ""T-- AS TO THEIR MORAL TENDENCY: IN A SERIES OF LETTERS^ ADDRESSED TO THE V<^^ FRIENDS OF VITAL AND PRACTICAL RELIGION. From a new and correct London Edition* TO WHICH IS ADDED, A POSTSCRIPT, ESTABLISHING THE PRINCIPLE OF THE WORK AGAINST THE EXCEPTIONS OF Dr. TouLMiN, Mr. Belsham, &c. BY ANDREW FULLER. Grace be with all them that love our Lord Jesus Christ in sincerity Paul. BOSTON : PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY LINCOLN & EDMANDS. Sold at their Bible Warehouse, and Theological & Miscellaneous Bookstore, No. 53 Cornhill, 1815. PREFACE. THE following Letters are addressed to the friends of vital and practical religion^ because the Author is persuaded that the ver}^ essence of true piety is concern- ed in this controversy ; and that godly men are the only proper judges of divine truth, being the only humble, upright, and earnest inquirers after it. So far from thinkinj^ with Dr. Priestley, that " an unbiassed tem- per of mind is attained in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it ;" he is satisfied that persons of that description have a most powerful bias against the truth. Though it were admitted that false princi- ples, accompaiiied with a bigotted attachment to them, are worse than none ; yet he cannot admit that irrelig- ious men are destitute of principles. He has no notion of human minds being unoccupied, or inditleretU : he that is not a friend to religion in any mode, is an enemy to it in all mo«ies ; he is a libertine ; lie doth evil, and therefore hateth the light. And shall we compliment such a character by acknowledging him to be m " a favourable situation for distinguishing betvveen truth and falsehood ?* God forbid ! It is he that doeth his toilly that shall know of his doctrine. The luiiubie, the candid, the upright inquirers alter truth, are the per- so IS who are likely to tind it ; and to them the Author takes the liberty to appeal. The principal occasion of these Letters, was, the late union among Protestant Dissenters, in reference to civil affairs, having been the source of various misconcep- tions ; and as the writer a()prehends, improved as a mean of disseminating Socinian principles. A 2 • Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 95. VI PREFACE. In the late application to Parliament for the repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts, the dissenters have ujiited without an^' lespect to their doctrinal principles. They considereci themselves as applying merely for a civil right ; and that in such an application, difference in theological sentiments had no more concern, than it has in the union oi a nation under one civil head or form of government. This union, however, has become an occasion of many reflections. Serious men of the established church have expressed thf ir surprise that some dissen- ters could unite with others so opposite in their religi- ious principles ; and had the union been of a religious nature, it must indeed have been surprising. Others have supposed that the main body of dissenters had either imbibed the Socinian system, or were hastily ap- proaching towards it. Whether the suggestion of Dr. Horsley, that *' the genuine Calvinists among our mod- ern dissenters are very few,*' has contributed to thi& opinion, or whatever be its origin, it is far from being just. Every one who knows the dissenters, knows that the body of them are what is commonly called orthodox. Dr. J^riestley, who is well known to be sufficiently sanguine in estimating the numbers of his party — so sanguine that, when speaking of rhe common people o^ this country, he reckons *' nine out of ten of them would prefer a Unitarian to a Trinitarian liturgy ;"* yet acknowledges, in regard to the dissenters, that Uni- tarians are by far the^ minority. In Birmingham, where the proportion of their number to the rest of the dissenters is greater than in any other town in the king- dom, it appears from Dr. Priestley's account of the matter, that those called orthodox are nearly three to one : and throuiihout Enuland and Wales they have been suoposed to be " as two, if not as three to one, to the Socinians and Arians inclusive."f * Def. of Unit, for 1786, p. 61. t See Dr. Priestley's Farniliar Letters to the inhabitants of Birming-liam. Let. iii. xi. Also Mr. Parry's Remarks on th^ resolutions of the Warwick Meeting'. P&EFACE* VII If Dr. Horsley found it necessary in support of his ^ ause, to overturn Dr. Priestley's assertion, that " great >os purpose, than that of the body of dissenters having deeerteti their forirver principles, in the well-known change oi ihe. major part of the Church of England ; who, about the time of Archbishop Laud, we4)t off from Calvinism to Arminianism« Had this example been adduced, his> a ' Save found some difficulty in maintain'., uiist him ; as it is an undoubted fact, and a iHjt wiiici. he himsc4f acknowledges, with several others oi the kind, in the Third of his Familiar Letters to the Inhabitants of Birmingkam. The supposition, however, of the dissent er*' lycinqf generally gone, or going off to Socinianisni, \\ r Irom just, has not bten without its apparent The consequence vvlijch Socinians have assumed, in j.a- pers and pamphlets, which have been circulated abcut the country, has affbrdtd rooin lor s«uch a supposiiun. It has not been very uncommon for them to speak of themselves as the dissfnters, the modern »is- ^-'^TERs, &c. it was said in a paper thai was pub- .1 more than once, *' The ancient, like the modern iicoytnters worshipped one (»od — they knew nothing of the Nicene or Athanasian creeds." — The celebrated authoress of The Address to the Opposers of the Repeal of the Corporation and Test Acts^ is not clear in this matter. That otherwise admirable performance is tinged with the pride of party cousi^qut nee. "We thauk y~ we are in numbers, compared to the estah inftrrior too ii» fortune and influence, labouring as we do under the frowns of the court, and the anathema OF THE ORTHODOX, we shouid make our way so readily VllI PREFACE. into the recesses of royal favour." — Even the Monthly Reiyieiocrs, though they have borne ttstinnony a<^aUiSt miugiuii^ doctrinal dispute^ with those of the repeal of the Test-laws ;* yet have sometimes spoken of dissenters and Socinians, as if they were terms of the same meaning and extent. " It appears to us as ab- surd (they say) to charge xhe religious principles of THE uissEMTfcRi? With republicanism, as it would be to advance the same accusation against the Psewtonian philosophy. The doctri^ue cf gravitation may as well be deeuied ^iangcroui>4<^ ^he state, as SociNiANiSM.^'f Is it unnatural from such representations as these, for those who k«iow but little ot us, to consider the Socin- ians as constituting the main body of the dissenters ; and the Cah'iuists as only a few stragglers, who follow these leading men at a distance in all their measures, but whose numbers and consequence are so small, that even the mention of their names among protestant dissenters may very well be omitted ? This, however, as it only affects our reputation, or at most can only impede the repeal of the Test-laws, by strengthening a prejudice, too strong already, against the whole body of dissenters, might be over-looked. But this is not all : it is pretty evident that the union among us in civil matters has been improved for the purpose of disseminating religious principles. At one of the most public meetings for the repeal of the C'or- poration and Test Acts, as the author was credibly in- formed, Socinian peculiarities were advanced, which passed unnoticed, because, those of contrary principles did not choose to interrupt the harmony of the meeting, bv turning the attention of gentlemen from the imme- diate object for which they were assembled, \^'hat end could Dr. Priestley have in introducing so much about the Test Act in his controversy with Mr. Burn, on the person of Christ ; except it were to gild the pill, and make it go down the easier with Calvinistic dissenters } • Mon. Rev. enlarged. Vol. I. p. 233. t M. R. enlarged, for June 1790, p. 247. PREFACE. . IX The writer of these Letters does not blame the dissenters of his own persuasion for uniting with the Socinians. In civil matters he thinks it lawful to unite with jneuy be their religious principles what they may : but he and many others would be very sorry, if a union of this kind should prove an occasion of abating our zeal for those religious principles which we con- sider as being of the very essence of the gospel. The reason why the term Socinians is preferred in the foUowino^ Letters to that of Unitarians, is not for the mean purpose of reproach ; but because the latter name is not a fair one. The term, as constantly explained by themselves, signifies those professors of Christianity who worship but one God : but this is not that wherein they can be alloived to be distinguished from others. F or what professors of Christianity are there, who profess to_ worship a plurality of Gods? Trinitarians profess also to be Unitarians : they, as well as their opponents, be- lieve there is but one God. To give Socinians this name therefore exclusivelt/, would be granting them the very point which they seem so desirous to take for granted, that is to say, the point in debate. Names, it may be said, signify little ; and this signi- fies no more on one side, than the term orthodox does on the other. The writer owns, when he first conceived the design of publishing these Letters, he thought so : and intended all along to use the term Unitarians. What made him alter his mind was, his observing that the principal writers in that scheme have frequently availed themselves of the above name, and appear to wish to have it thought by their readers that the point in dispute between them and the Trinitarians, is, Whether there be three Gods, or only one ? If he had thousfht the use of the term Unitarians consistent with justice to his own argument, he would have preferred it to that of Socinians ; and would also have been glad of a term to express the system which he has defended, instead of calling it after the name of Calvin ; as he is aware that callin»> ourselves after the CONTENTS. LETTER PAGE I. Introduction and General remarks 13 II. The systems compared as to their tendency to convert profligates to a life of holiness - 21 III. ■ Their tendency to convert profess- ed unbelievers - 42 IV. The argument from the number of converts to Socinianisra examined 55 V. On the standard of morality 70 VI. The systems compared as to their tendency to promote morality in general 80 VII. Love to God 107 VIII. Candour and benevolence to men 125 IX. Humility 144 X. Charity, in which is considered the charge of Bigotry 155 XI. Love to Christ 185 XII. Veneration for the Scriptures - - 199 XIII. Happiness or cheerfulness of mind 223 XIV. A comparison of motives, exhibited by the two systems, to gratitude, obedience, and heavenly-mindedness 240 XV. On the resemblance between Socinianism and infidelity, and the tendency of the one to the other 255 Postscript ,.------- 282 THE CALVINISTIC AND SOCINIAN SYSTEMS EXAMINED AND COMPARED, LETTER I. INTRODUCTION AND GENERAL REMARKS. Christian Bretkreriy MUCH has been written of late years on the So- cinian controversy ; so much, that the attention of the Christian world has, to a considerable de<^ree, been drawn towards it. There is no reason, however, for considering this circumstance as a matter of wonder, or of regret. Not of wonder : for supposing the Deity and atonement of Christ to be divine truths, they are of such importance in the christian scheme as to induce the adversaries of the gospel to bend their main force against them, as against the rock on which Christ hath built his church. Not of regret : for whatever partial evils may arise from a full discussion of a sub- ject, the interests of truth will, doubtless, in the end prevail ; and the prevalence of truth is a good that will outweigh all the ills that may have attended its dis- covery. Controversy engages a number of persons of different talents and turns of mind ; and by this means the subject is likely to be considered in every view in which it is capable of being exhibited to advantage. B J $r 14 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. £lET. 1. The point of light in which the subject will be con- ^ «iderecl in these letters, namely, as injiuencing the heart €tnd life, has been frequently glanced at on both sides. 1 do not recollect, however, to have seen this view of it professedly and separately handled. In the great controversy in the time of Elijah, re- course was had to an expedient by which the question was decided. Each party built an altar, cut in pieces a bullock, and laid the victim upon the wood, but put no fire under; and the God that should answer by fire, was to be acknowledged as the true god. We can- not bring our controversies to such a criterion as this: we may bring them to one, however, which, though not so suddenly, is not much less sensibly evident. The tempers and lives of men are books, for common people to read ; and they will read them, even though they should read nothing else* They are indeed warranted by the scriptures themselves to judge of the nature of doctrines, by their holy or unholy tendency. The true gospel is to be known by its being a doctrine according to godliness ; teaching those who embrace it to deny un^ godliness, and worldly lusts, and to live soberly^ right" eously, and godly in the present world. Those, on the other hand, tvho believe not the truth, are said to have pleasure in unrighteousness. Profane and vain bab-^ blings, as the ministrations of false teachers are called, tvill increase unto more ungodliness; and their word will eat as doth a canker,^ To this may be added, that the parties themselves, engaged in this controversy, have virtually acknowledged the justice and importance of the above criterion ; in that both sides have inciden- tally endeavoured to avail themselves of it. A criterion then by which the common people will judge, by which • 1 Tim. vi. 3. Tit. ii. 12. 2 Thes. ii. 2. 1 Tim. ii. 16, If. tET. 1.] INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 15 the scripture authorises them to judge, and by which both sides in effect agree to be judged, cannot but be worthy of particular attention. I feel, for my own part, satisfied not only of the truth and importance of the doctrines in question, but also of their holy tendency, I am aware, however, that others think differently, and that a considerable part of what 1 have to advance must be on the defensive. *' Admitting the truth," says Dr. Priestley, *' of a trinity of persons in the Godhead, original sin, arbitra- ry predestination, atonement by the death of Christ, and the plenary inspiration of the scriptures, their value, estimated by their influence on the morals of men, cannot be supposed, even by the admirers of them, to be of any moment, compared to the doctrine of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retri- bution : and, in the opinion of those who reject them, they have a very unfavourable tendency, giving wrong impressions concerning the character and moral govern- ment of God, and such as might tend, if they have any effect, to relax the obligations of virtue."* In many instances Dr. Priestley deserves applause for his frankness and fairness as a disputant : in this passage, however, as well as in some others, the admirers of the doctrines he mentions are unfairly represented.^ They who embrace the other doctrines are supposed to hold that of arbitrary predestination ; but this sup- position is not true. The term arbitrary conveys the idea of caprice ; and in this connexion denotes, that, in predestination, according to the Calvinistic notion of itr God resolves upon the fates of men, and appoints them to this or that, without any reason for so doing. But there is no justice in this representation. There is no * Lett, to Phil. Unb. Pt. ii. p. 33, 25, l6 INTRODUCTORY REMARK*. [lET. 1. decree in the divine mind that we consider as void of reason. Predestination to death is on account of sin ; and as to prede*stination to life, though it be not on account of any works of righteousness which we have done, yet it does not follow that God kas no reason whatever for what he does. The sovereignty of God is a wise, and not a capricious sovereignty. If he hide the glory of the gospel from the wise and prudent, and reveal it unto babes, it is because it seemeth good in his sight. But if it seem good in the sight of God, it must, all things considered, be good : for the judgment of God is according to truth. It is asserted also that the admirers of the foremen- tioned doctrines cannot, and do not, consider them as of equal importance with that of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retribution. But this, I am satisfied, is not the case : for whatever Dr. Priestley may think, they consider them, or at least some of them, as essential to true holiness ; and of such consequence, . even to the doctrine of the resurrection of the human race to a life of retribution, that, without them, such a resurrection would be a curse to mankind rather than a blessing. There is one thing, however, in the above passage^ wherein we all unite ; and this is, that the value or importance of religious principles is to be estimated by their influence on the morals of men. By this rule let the forementioned doctrines, with their opposites, be tried. If either those or these will not abide the trial* they ought to be rejected. Before we enter upon a particular examination of the subject, however, I would make three or four general observations. LET. r.J INTRODTUCTORY REMARK*. 1? First, Whatever Dr. Priestley or any others have said, of the immoral tendency of our principles, I am persuaded that i may take it for granted, they do not mean to suggest, that we are not good members ot civil society, or worthy of the most perfect toleration in the state ; nor have 1 any such meaning in what may be suggested concerning theirs. — 1 do not know any relig- ious denomination of men, who are unworthy of civi protection. So long as their practices do not disturb the peace of society, and there be nothing in their avow- ed principles inconsistent with their giving security for their good behaviour, they doubtless ought to be pro- tected in the enjoyment of every civil right to which their fellow citizens at large are entitled. Secondly, It is not the bad conduct of a few individ- uals, in any denomination of christians, that proves any thing on either side ; even though they may be zealous advocates for the peculiar tenets of the party which they espouse. It is the conduct of the general body from which we ought to form our estimate. — That there are men of bad character who attend on our preaching, ia not denied ; perhaps some of the worst : but if it be so, it proves nothing to the dishonour of our principles. Those, who, in the first ages of Christianity, were not humbled by the gospel^, were generally hardened by it. Nay, were it allowed that we have a greater number o€ hypocrites than the Socinians, (as it hath been insinuat- ed that the hypocrisy and preciseness of some people- afford matter of just disgust to speculative Unitarians) t do not think this supposition,, any more than the other, dishonourable to our principles. The defect of hypo- crites lies not so much in the thing professed, as in the sincerity of their profession. The thing professed may be excellent, and perhaps is the more hkely to be so B 2 18 INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. [lET. I. from its being counterfeited ; for it is not usual to coun- terfeit things of no value. Those persons who entertain low and diminutive ideas of the evil of sin and the digni- ty of Christ, must, in order to be thought religious by us, counterfeit the contrary ; but, among Socinians, the same persons may avow those ideas, and be caressed for it. That temper of mind which we suppose common to men, as being that which they possess by nature, need not be disguised among them in order ^o be well thought of; they have therefore no great temptations to hypocri- sy. The question in hand, however, is not. What influence either our principles or theirs have upon per- sons who do not in reality adopt them ; but. What in- fluence they have upon those who do ?* Thirdly, It is not the good conduct of a few individ- uals on either side that will prove any thing. — Some have adopted a false creed, and retain it in words, who yet never enter into the spirit of it ; and consequently do not act upon it. But merely dormant opinions can hardly be called principles : those, rather, seem to be a man's principles, which lie at the foundation of his spirit and conduct. — Farther; Good men are found in denom- * Though the Socinians be allowed, in what is said above^ to have but few hypocrites among them ; yet this is to be un- derstood as relating merely to one species of hypocrisy. Dr. Priestley, speaking of Unitarians who still continue in the Church of England, says, " From a just aversion to every thing that looks like hypocrisy and preciseness, they rather lean to the extreme of fashionable dissipation." Yet he represents the same persons, and that in the same page, as " continuing to countenance a mode of worship, which, if they were questioned about it, they could not deny to be, according to their own principles, idolatrous and blasphemous.*' Discourses on Various Subjects^ p. 96. The hypocrisy, then, to which these gentlemen have so juot an aversion, seems to be only of on€ kind. LET. 1.] INTRODUCTORY REMARKS. 1^ inations whose principles are very bad ; and good men, by whatever names they are called, are more nearly of a sen- timent than they are frequently aware of. Take two of them who ditfer the most in words, and bring them up- on their knees in prayer, and they will be nearly agreed. — Besides, A great deal of that which passes for virtue amongst men, is not so in the sight of God, who sees things as they are. It is no more than may be account- ed for without bringing religion or virtue into the ques- tion. There are motives and considerations which will commonly influence men, living in society, to behave with decorum. Various occupations and pursuits, es- pecially those of a mental and religious kind, are incon- sistent with profligacy of manners. False apostles, the very ministers of Sat an y are said to transform themselves into the apostles of Christ, and to appear as the ministers of righteousness ; even as Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light,* There are certain vices, which, being inconsistent with others, may be the means of re- straining them. Covetousness may be the cause of so- briety ; and pride restrains thousands from base and ignoble gratifications, in which, nevertheless, their hearts take secret and supreme delight. A decent con- duct has been found in pharisees, in infidels, nay, even in atheists. Dr. Priestley acknowledges that *' An atheist may be temperate, good-natured, honest, and in the less extended sense of the word, a virtuous ?;/<7«/*f Yet Dr. Priestley would not from hence infer any thing in favour of the moral tendency of atheism. Lastly, Neither zeal in defence of principles, nor eve- ry kind o^ devotion springing from them, will prove those principles to be true, or worthy of God. — Several gen- • 2 Cor. xi. 13, 14, 15. I Lett, to a Phil. Unb, Pt. i. p. 6. pref. 20 INTRODlfCTORY REMARKS. [lET. 1. tlemen, who have gone over from the Calvinistic to the Sociriian system, are said to possess greater zeal for the propagation of the latter, than they had used to discov- er for that of the former. As this, however, makes nothing to the disadvantage of their system, neither does it make any thing to its advantage. This may be owing, for any thing that can be proved to the contrary, to their having found a system more consonant to the bias of their hearts, than that was which they formerly professed. — And as to devotion, a species of this may exist in persons, and that to a high degree, consistent enough with the worst of principles. We know that the gospel had no worse enemies than the devout and hon^ ourabte amongst the Jews,* Saul, while an enemy to Jesus Christ, was as sincere, as zealous, and as devout in his way, as any of those persons whose sincerity, zeal and devotion, are frequently held up by their admirers in favour of their i^auise. These observations may be thought by some, instead of clearing the subject, to involve it in greater difficul- ties, and to render it almost impossible to judge of the tendency of principles by any thing that is seen in the lives of men. It is allowed the subject has its difficul- ties, and that the foregoing observations are a proof o^ it: but I hope to make it appear, whatever difficulties may on these accounts attend the subject, that there is still enough in the geoeral spirit and conduct of men, by which to judge of the tendency of their principles. 1 am, &c, -^ * Acts xiii. 50. LET. 2.] THE CONVERSION, &C. 21 LETTER 11. THE SYSTEMS COMPAREB, AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO CONVERT PROFLIGATES TO A LIFE OF HOLINESS. Christian Brethren^ YOU need not be told, that being horn again^^re-* ated in Christ Jesus — converted — becoming as a little childy Sfc. are phrases expressive of a change of heart, which the scriptures make necessary to a life of holiness here, and to eternal life hereafter. It is on this account that I begin with conversion^ considering it as the com- mencement of a holy life. A change of this sort was as really necessary for iNjc- odemuSy whose outward character, for aught appears* was respectable, as for Zaccheus, whose life had been devoted to the sordid pursuits of avarice. Few, 1 sup- pose, will deny this to be the doctrine taught in the Nevf Testament. But, should this be questioned, should the necessity of a change of heart in some characters be denied, still it will be allowed necessary in others. Now, as a change is more conspicuous, and consequent- ly more convincing, in such persons who have walked in an abandoned course, than in those of a more sober life, I have fixed upon the conversion of proJiigateSy as a suitable topic for the present discussion. There are two methods of reasoning which may be used in ascertaining the moral tendency of principles. The first is, by comparing the nature of the principles themselves with the nature of true holiness, and the agreement or disagreement of the one with the other. The second is, by referring to plain and acknowledged 2:2 THE CONVERSION [LET. 2. facts, judging of the nature of causes by their effects. Both these methods of reasoning, which are usually ex- pressed by the terms a priori^ and a posteriori^ will be used in this and the following Letters, as the nature of the subject may admit. True conversion is comprehended in those two grand topics on which the apostles insisted in the course of their ministry — Repentance towards God and faith to- wards our Lord Jesus Christ, Let us then fix upon these great oul lines of the apostolic testimony, and ex- amine which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to produce them. Repentance is a change of mind. It arises from a conviction that we have been in the wrong ; and consists in holy shame, grief and self*. loathing, accompanied with a determination to forsake every evil way. Each of these ideas is included in the account we have of the repentance of Job.* Behold, I am vile ; what shall I answer thee ? 1 will lay my hand upon my mouths Once have I spoken, but I will not answer ; yea twice, hut I will proceed no farther — / abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes. It is essential to such a change as this, that the sinner realizes the evil nature of sin. No man ever yet repented of a fault, without a conviction of its evil nature. Sin must appear exceed^ ing sinful, before we can, in the nature of things, abhor it, and ourselves on account of it. Those sentiments which wrought upon the heart of David, and brought him to repentance, were of this sort. Throughout the fifty first Psalm we find him deeply impressed with the evil of sin, and that considered as an offence against God. He had injured Uriah and Bathsheba, and strict- ly speaking had not injured God, the essential honour • Chap. xl. 4. xlii. 6. LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. 23 and happiness of the divine nature being infinitely beyond his reach ; yet as all sin strikes at the divine glory, and actually degrades it in the esteem of crea- tures, all sin is to be considered in one vitiw, as commit- ted against God; and this view of the subject lay so near his heart as to swallow up every other. Against THEE, THEE ONLY have I Sinned, and done this evil in thy sight ! It follows, then, that the system which affords the most enlarged views of the evil of sin, must needs have the greatest tendency to promote repent- ance for it. Those who embrace the Calvinistic system believe, that man was originally created holy and happy — that of his own accord he departed from God, and became vile — that God being in himself infinitely amiable, de- serves to be, and is, the moral centre of the intelligent system — that rebellion against him is opposition to the general good — that, if suffered to operate according to its tendency, it would destroy the well-being of the uni- verse, by excluding God, and ^ighteousness,^and peace, from the whole system — that, seeing it aims destruc- tion at universal good, and tends to universal anarchy and mischief, it is in those respects an infinite evil, and deserving of endless punishment — and that, in whatever instance God exercises forgiveness, it is not without re- spect to that public expression of his displeasure ao^ainst it, which was uttered in the death of his Son. These, brethren, are sentiments which furnish us with motives for self-abhorrence : under their influence millions have repented in dust and ashes. But those, on the other hfind, who embrace the So^ cinian system, entertain diminutive notions of the evil of sin. They consider all evil propensities in men, (except those which are accidentally contracted by, edu- 24 THE CONVERSION [lET. 2. cation or example) as being in every sense natural to them, supposing that they were originally created with them : they cannot, therefore, be offensive to God, un- less he could be offended with the work of his own hands for being what he made it. Hence, it may be, Sjcinian writers, when speaking of the sins of men, describe them in the language of palliation ; language tending to con- vey an idea of pity, but not of blame. Mr. Belsharn, speaking of sin, calls it, " human frailty ;'' and the subjects of it, '* the frail and erring children of men.^'* The following positions are for substance maintained by Dr. Priestley in his treatise on Necessity : ** That for any thing we know, it might have been as impossible for God to make all men sinless and happy, as to have made them infinite.'' — That all the evil there is in sin, arises from its tendency to injure the creature — That if God punish sin, it is not because he is so displeased with it as in any case to *' take vengeance'* on the sinner, sacrificing his happiness to the good of the whole ; but, knowing that it tends to do the sinner harm, he pu^;s him to temporary pain, not only for the warning of others, but for his own good, with a view to correct the bad «lisposition in him. — That what is threat- ened against sin is of such a trifling account, that it need not be an oV>ject of dread. "No ISecessarian," says he, '* supposes that any of the human race will suffer eternally ; but that future punishments will an- swer the same purpose as temporal ones are found to do, all of which tend to good, and are evidently admitted for that purpose ; so that God, the author of all, is as much to be adored and loved for what we suffer as for what we enjoy ^ his intention being equally kind in both. And since God has created us for happiness, • Sermon on the Importance of Truth, p. 33—35. LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. 25 what misery can we fear ? If we be really intended for ultimate, unlimited happiness, it is no matter to a truly resigned person tvhen, or where, or howy* Sin is so trifling an affair, it seems, and the punishment threat- ened against it of so little consequence, that we may be quite resigned and indifferent, whether we go immedi- ately to heaven, or whether we first pass through the depths of hell ! The question at present is not, Which of these rep- resentations is true, or consonant to scripture ; but» Which has the greatest tendency to promote repentance ? If repentance be promoted by a view of the evil of sin, this question, it is presumed, may be considered as decided. Another sentiment intimately connected with the evil of sin, and equally necessary to promote repentance, is. The equity and goodness of the divine law, — No man ever truly repented for the breach of a law, the precepts of which he considered as too strict, or the penalties us too severe. In proportion as such an opinion prevails, it is impossible but that repentance must be precluded. Now the precept of the divine law requires us to love God with all the heart, soul, mind, and strength, and our neighbour as ourselves. It allows not of any devia- tion, or relaxation, during the whole of our existence. The penalty by which this holy law is enforced, is noth- ing less than the curse of Almighty God. But, accord- ing to Mr. Belsham, If God *« mark and punish every instance of transgression," he must be a '* merciless tyrant :'^ and we must be " tempted to wish that the reins of universal government were in better hands/'f Mr. Belsham, perhaps, would not deny that perfect C * Pag-es 118, 122, 65, 149, 150, 12S. f Serm. p. 34. 26 THE CONVERSION [lET. 2. obedience is required by the law, according to the plain meaning of the words by which it is expressed, or that the curse of God is threatened against every one that continueth not in all things written in the book of the law to do them ; but then this rule is so strict, that to *' mark and punish every instance,'* of deviation from it, would be severe and cruel. It seems then that God has given us a law, by the terms of which he cannot abide ; .that justice itself requires him, if not to abate the pre- cept, yet to remit the penalty, and connive at smaller instances of transgression, I need not inquire how much this reflects upon the moral character and govern- ment of God. Suffice it at present to say, that such views must of necessity preclude repentance. If the law which forbids " every instance" of human folly, be unreasonably strict, and the penalty which threatens the curse of the Almighty on every one that continueth not in all things therein written, be indeed cruel ; then it must so far be unreasonable for any sinner to be re- quired to repent for the breach of it. On the contrary, God himself should rather repent for making such a law, than the sinner for breaking it ! Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is another essential part of true conversion. — Faith is credence, or belief. Faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ, is belief of the gospel of salvation through his name, A real belief of the gospel is necessarily accompanied with a trust or confidence in him for the salvation of our souls. The term believe itself sometimes expresses this idea; particularly in 2 Tim. i, 12. / know whom I have be- lieved, and am persuaded that he is able to keep THAT WHICH 1 HAVE COMMITTED UNTO HIM against that day. This belief, or trust, can never be fairly un- derstood of a mere confidence in his veracity, as to the LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. ^ truth of his doctrine ; for, if that were all, the ahility of Christ would stand for nothin^r ; and we might as well be said to trust in Peter, or John, or Paul, as in Christ, seeing we believe their testimony to be valid as well as his. Believing, it is granted, does not necessa- rily, and in all cases, involve the idea of triist, for which 1 here contend ; this matter being determined by the nature of the testimony. Neither Peter, nor any of the apostles, ever pretended that their blood, though it might be shed in martyrdom, would be the price of the salvation of sinners. We may therefore credit their testimony, without trusting in them, or committivg any thing, as Paul expresses it, into their hands. But Christ's blood is testiiied of, as the way, and the only way of salvation. He is said to be the propitiation for our sins ; and hy himself to have purged- our sins — Through his blood ice have forgiveness — Neither is there salvation in any other ; for there is none other name under heaven given among men whereby we must be saV" ed — Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ,* Hence it follows, that to be- lieve his testimony, must of necessity involve in it a trusting in him for the salvation of our souls. If this be a just representation of faith in Jesus Christ, we cannot be at a loss to decide which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to promote it ; and, as faith towards our Lord Jesus Christ is essential to true conversion, we cannot hesitate in concluding, which has the greatest tendency to turn a sinner from the evil of his ways. Not to mention, at present, how Socinian writers disown an ** implicit belief'' in the testimony of the sacred writers, f and how they lean to • 1 John iv. 10. Heb. i. 3. Eph. i 7. Acts iv. 12. 1 Cor. iii. 11. t Dr. Priestley's Def. of Unit, for irsr, p. 66» ^ THE CONVERSION [LET. 2, their own understanding, as the criterion by which scripture is to be tried ; that which I would here insist upon is, That, upon their principles, all trust or con- fidence in Christ for salvation is utterly excluded. IVot only are those principles unadapted to induce us to trust in Christ ; but directly tend to turn off our attention and affection from hira. Dr. Priestley does not appear to consider him as the way of a sinner s sal- vation in any sense whatever, but goes about to explain the words of Peter, (Acts iv. 12.) Neither is there sal- vation in any other, Sfc. not of ** salvation to eternal life," but ** of salvation or deliverance from bodily diseases."* And another writer (Dr. Harwood) oi' the same cast, in a volume of Sermons lately published, treats the sacred writers with still less ceremony. Paul had said. Other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ ; but this writer, as if he designed to affront the apostle, makes use of his own words in order to contradict him. *^ Other foundation than this can no man hiy," says he, '* other expectations are visionary, and groundless, and all hopes founded upon anything else than a good moral life, are merely imaginary, and contrary to the whole ttiior of the gospel. "f Whether these things be not aimed to raze the foundation on which the church is l)uilt ; and whether this be any other than stumbling at the stumbling-stone, and a setting him at nought, in the o-reat affair for which he came into the world, let every christian judge. It particularly deserves the serious (onsideration, not only of the above writers, but of those wlio are any way inclined to their mode of thinking : ]*'or if it should be so that the death of Christ, as a pror)itiutory sacrifice, is the only medium through * Fam. T.oUei-s. IM XIV. t I'^n^'^ l^-^- LET. 2.} OF PROFLIGATES* 39 which sinners can be accepted of God ; and if they should be found fighting against God and rejecting the only way of escape, the consequence may be such as to cause the ears of every one that heareth it to tin- gle. Meanwhile, it requires but little penetration to discover, that whatever takes away the only foundation of a sinner's confidence cannot be adapted to promote it* Brethren 1 Examine these matters to the bottom, and judge for yourselves, whether you might not as well expect grapes of thorns, or tigs of thistles, as to see re- pentance towards God, or faith towards our Lord Jcbus Christ, proceeding from Socinian principles. The foregomg observations serve to show what may he expected from the Socinian doctrine, according to the nature of things ; let us next make some inquiry into matters of fact. We may judge from the nature of th^ seed sown what will be the harvest : but a view of what the harvest actually is, may afford still greater satisfaction. First, then. Let it be considered whether Sociniai> congregations have ever abounded in conversions of the proiane to a life of holiness and devotedness to God.— Dr. Priestley acknowledges that *' the gospel, when it was first preached by the apostles, profiuced a wonder- ful change in the lives ^nd ipa,npers of persons of all ages."* Now if the doctrine which he and others^ preach, be the same for subsst^nce a« that which they preached, one might expeict tQ see some considerable degree of similarity in the effects. But is any thing- like this to be seen in Socinian congregations ? Ha9^ that kind of preaching which l^a>;es pat the doctriaes^ eT man's lost condition by nature,, and salvatioa by p-ra^*- e 2 ♦ I*^tu to 3. i?Mt Uub. Frjef. p. i& oU THE CONVERSIOISr [LET. '-i. only, through the atonement of Christ ; and substitutes, in their place, the doctrine of mercy without an atone- ment, the simple humanity of Christ, the efficacy of repentance, and obedience, &.c. — has this kind of preaching, I say, ever been known to lay much hold on the hearts and consciences of men f The way in which that •' wonderful change'* was effected, in the lives and manners of people, which attended the first preaching of the gospel, was, by the word preached laying hold on their hearts* It was a distinguishing mark of primitive preaching, that it commetided itself to every man^s con^ science. People could not in general sit unconcerned under it. We are told of some who were cut to the heartf and took counsel to slay the preachers ; and of others who were pricked in the heart, and said. Men and brethren, what shall we do ? But in both cases the heart was the mark at which the preacher aimed, and which his doctrine actually reached. Has the preaching of the Socinians any such effect as this ? Do they so much as expect it should ? Were any of their hearers, by any means, to feel pricked in their hearts, and come to them with the question, What shall we do ? would they not pity them as enthusiasts, and be ready to suspect that they had been among the Calvjnists ? If any counsel were given, would it not be such as should tend to im- pede their repentance, rather than promote it ; and in- stead of directing them to Jesus Christ, as was the prac- tice of the primitive preachers, would they not endeav- our to lead them into another course ? Socinian writers cannot so much sls pretend, that their doctrine ha«a been used to convert profligate sinners to the love of God and holiness. Dr. Priestley's scheme will not enable him to account for such changes where Christianity ' ^s ceased to be a novelty. The absolute J.ET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. 31 novelty of the gospel when first preached, he represents as the cause of its wonderful efficacy ; but in the pres- ent age, among persons who have long heard it, and have contracted vicious habits notwithstanding, he looks for no such effects. He confe^ses himself *' less solicit- ous aboiit the conversion of unbelievers who are much advanced in life, than of younger persons, and that be- cause he despairs of the principles of Christianity having much effect upon the lives of those whose dispositions and habits are already formed.'** Sometimes he reck- ons that the great body of primitive christians must have been *' well-disposed with respect to moral virtue, even before their conversion to Christianity ; else, (he thinks) they could not have been so ready to have abandoned their vices, and to embrace a doctrine which required the strictest purity and rectitude of conduct, and even to sacrifice their lives in the cause of truth. '*t In his treatise on Philosophical Necessity, he declares, that, ** upon the principles of the Necessarian, all late re- pentance, and especially after long and confirmed habits of vice, is altogether and necessarily meffectual, there not being sufficient time left to produce a change of disposition and character, which can only be done by a • Letters to a Phil. Unb. Part II, Pre/. It is true, Dr Priest- ley is not here speaking of the proflig-ates among' nominal christians, but of those among avowed infidels This, however, makes nothing to the argument. The dispositions and habits of profane nominal christians, are as much formed as those of avowed infidels ; and their conversion to a holy life is as much an object of despair as the other. Yea, Dr. Priestley in the same place acknowledges, that, "to be mere nominal christian* is worse than to be no christians at all.** t Let. to a Phil. Unb. Pt. ii. p. 167, 16a 39 THE CONVERSION LlET. 2. chan^^e of conduct, and of proportionably loug con- tiuuiiiice."* I confess, I do not perceive the consistency of these passages with each other. By the power of novelty^ woijderful change was produced in the lives and man- ners of men ; and yet the body of them must have been well-disposed with respect to moral virtue ; that is, they must have been in such a state as not to need any wonderful change, else they could not have been so ready to abandon their vices. A wonderful change was produced in the lives and manners of men of all ages ; ^nd yet there is a certain age in which repentance is *^ altogether and necessarily ineffectual/' Inconsistent, however, as these positions may be, one thing is suffi- ciently evident ; viz. That the author considers the conversion of profligates, of the present age, as an ob- ject of despair. Whatever the gospel according to Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John may affirm, that, ac- cording to Dr. Priestley, affords but very little, if any, hope to those who in scripture are distinguished by the Dame of sinners, chief of sinners, and lost. He does ** not expect such conversion of profligate, and habitu- ^ly wicked men, as shall make any reniarkable change in their lives and characters. Their dispositions and babits are already formed, so that it can hardly be sup- posed to be in the power of new and better principles to change them.*' It cannot be unnatural, or uncan- did, to suppose that these observations were made from experience ; or that Dr. Priestley writes in this manner on account of his not being used to see any such effects arise from his ministry or the ministry of those of his sentiments. There is a sort of preaching, however, even since the days of inspiration, and where Christianity hath • Page 156. LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. 33 ceased to be a no «^/f^, which has been attended, in a good degree, with similar eftects to that of the apos- tles. Whatever was the cause, or however it is to be accounted for, there have been those whose labours have turned many, yea, many proJiigateSf to righteous- ness ; and that by preaching the very doctrines which Dr. Priestley charges with being the *' corruptions of Christianity;'' and which a once humble admirer of his attempted to ridicule.* It is well known what sort of preaching it was that produced such great effects in many nations of Europe, about the time of the Reformation. Whatever different sentiments were professed by the Reformers, I suppose they were so far agreed, that the doctrines of human depravity, the deity and atonement of Christ, justihcation by faith* and sanctification by the influence of the Holy Spirit, were the great topics of their ministry. Since the reformation there have been special sea- sons in the churches, in which a religious concern has greatly prevailed, and multitudes were turned from their evil ways ; some from an open course of profane- ness, and others from the mere form of godliness to the power of it. Much of this sort of success attended the labours of Perkins, Bolton, Taylor, Herbert* Plildersham, Blackerby, Gou^e, Witaker, Bunyan, great numbers of the ejected ministers, and many since their time in England ; of Livingstone, Bruce, Rutherford, M'Cullock, M'Laurin, Robe, Balfour, Sutherland and others in Scotland ; of Franck, and his fellow-labourers, in Germany ; and of Stoddard, Edwards, Buel, Tennant, and many others in Amer- ica. f And what Dr. AVatts and Dr. Guyse said of * See Familiar Letters. Lett. xxii. P S. I See Gillies* Historical Collections. 34 THE CONVERSION [lET., 2. the success of Mr. Edwards, and some others, in America, might with equal truth have been said of the rest : ** That it was the common phiin Protes- tant doctrine of the Reformation, without stretching towards the Antinomians on the one side, or the Ar- minians On the other, that the Spirit of God had been pleased to honour with such illustrious success."* Nor are such effects peculiar to past ages. A considerable degree of the same kind of success has attended the Calvinistic churches in North America, within the last ten years ; especially in the States of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Georgia.f Nor is it pe- culiar to the AVestern world, though they have been greatly favoured. I believe there are hundreds of ministers now in this kingdom, some in the estab- lished church, and some out of it, who could truly say to a considerable number of their auditors, as Paul said to the Corinthians ; Ye are our epistle ^ known and read of all men — ye are manifestly declare ed to he the epistle of Christ, ministered by us, writ' ten not with ink, hut with the Spirit of the living God : not in tables of stone, hut in fleshly tables of the heart. There are likewise hundreds of congrega- tions which might with propriety be addressed in the language of the same apostle to the same people ; And such were some of you ; (namely, fornicators, adulterers, thieves, covetous, drunkards, revilers, ex- tortioners,) hut ye are washed, hut ye are sanctified, hut ye are justified. And those ministers by whose instrumentality these effects were produced, like tbeir predecessors before mentioned, have dwelt principally on the Protestant doctrines of man's lost condition by * Pref to Mr. Edwards' Narrative. I See Rippon*s Baptist Register, for 1790, ]?art I, II. LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. ft5 nature, and salvation by grace onU', tb rough the atoning blood of Christ ; together with the necessity of the regenerating influence of the Holy Spirit. When, therefore, they see such effects attend their labours, they think themselves warranted to ascribe them, as the apostle did, to the name oj' the Lord Jesus, and to the Spirit of our God.* The solid and valuable effects produced by this kind of preaching are attested by the late Mr. Rob- inson of Cambridge, as well as by Dr. Watts, and Dr. Guyse. " Presumption and despair,*' said that ingenious writer, ** are the two dangerous extremes to which mankind are prone in religious concerns. Charging home sin precludes the first, proclaiming redemption prevents the last. This has been the method which the Holy Spirit has thought fit to seal and succeed in the hands of his ministers. Wickliffe, Lather, Knox, Latimer, Gilpin, Bunyan, Living- stone, Franck, Blair, Elliot, Edwards, Whitefield, Tenoant, and all who have been eminently blessed to the revival of practical godliness, have constantly availed themselves of this method ; and, prejudice apart, it is impossible to deny, that great and ex- cellent moral effects have followed. "f Should it be alleged that Mr, Robinson, before he died, changed his opinions in these matters, and reck- oned all such things as these enthusiasm ; it might be answered, A change of opinion in Mr. Robinson can make no change in the "facts," as he justly calls them, which he did himself the honour to record. Besides, the effects of this kind of preaching are not only recorded by Mr, Robinson, but by those wh© • 2 Cop. iii 2,3. 1 Cor. vi. 12. t TransUtion of Claude, Vol. II, p. 564. Note. $6 THE CONVERSION (LET. 2. triumph in his conversion to their principles. Dr. Priestley professes to think highly of the Methodists, and acknowledges that they have " civilized and christianized a great part of the uncivilized and un- christianized part of this country."* Also, in his Dis^ courses on Various Subjects, he allows their preaching to produce " more striking effects'' than that of Socia- ians, and goes about to account for it.f A matter of fact so notorious as this, and of so much consequence in the controversy, requires to be well accounted for. Dr. Priestley seems to have felt the force of the objection that might be made to his principles on this ground, and therefore attempts to obviate it. But by what medium is this attempted ? The same principle by which he tries to account for the wonderful success of the gospel in the primitive ages, is to account for the effects produced by such preaching as that of the Methodists ; The ignorance of their auditors giving what they say to them the force of NOVELTY. The Doctor is pleased to add, " Our people having in general been brought up in habits of virtue, such great changes in character and conduct are less necessary in their case.":J: A few remarks in reply to the above shall close this Letter. — First, If novelty be indeed that efficacious principle which Dr* Priestley makes it to be, one should think it were desirable every century or two, at least, to have a new dispensation of religion. Secondly, If the great success of the primitive preachers was owing to this curious cause. Is it not extraordinary that they themselves should never be acquainted with it, or communicate a secret of such » Fam . Letters, Lett. vii. f P^&e 375. 4^ Discourse* on Various Subjects,' p. :^75. LET. 2.] OF PaeFLIGATES. 9V importance to their successors? They are not only silent about it, but in some cases appear to act upon a contrary principle. Paul, when avowing the sub- ject matter of his ministry before Agrippa, seemed to disclaim every thing novel ; declaring that he had said none other things than those which the prophets and Moses did say should come* And as to the cause of their success, they seem never to have thought of any thing but the hand of the Lord that was with them — The working of his mighty power — Who cauS" ed them to triumph in Christy making manifest the savour of his knowledge by them in every place,*^ Thirdly, If novelty be what Dr. Priestley makes it to be, the plea of Dives had much more of truth in it than the answer of Abraham. He pleaded that if one rose from the dead men would repent ; the novelty of the thing, he supposed, must strike them. But Abra- ham answered, as if he had no notion of the power of mere novelty ; Jf they hear not Moses and the Proph^ etSy neither will they be persuaded though one rise from the dead. Fourthly, If the success of the apostles was owing to the novelty of theic. mission, it might have been expected that at Athens, where a taste for hearing and telling of new things occupied the whole attention of the people, their success would have been the greatest. Every body knows that a congeniality of mind in an audience, to the things proposed, wonderfully facilitates the re- ception of them. Now, as the gospel was as much of a novelty to them as to the most barbarous nations, and as they were possessed of a peculiar turn of mind which delighted in every thing of that nature, it might D * Acts xii. 21. EpheXj. 19. 2 Cor. ii. U. 38 THE CONTERSION [lET. 5, have been expected, on the above hypothesis, that a harvest of souls would there have been gathered in* But instead of this, the gospel is well known to have been less successful in this famous city than in many other places. Fifthly, Some of the most striking effects, both in early and later ages, were not accompanied with the circumstance of novelty. The sermon of Peter to the inhabitants of Jerusalem* contained no new doctrine ; it only pressed upon them the same things for sub- stance which they had heard and rejected from the Vips of Christ himself; and, on a pre-judgment of the issue by the usual course of things, they would probably have been considered as more likely to reject Peter's doctrine than that of Christ; because when once peo- ple have set their hands to a business, they are gener- ally more loth to relinquish it and own themselves in the wrong, than at first to forbear to engage in it. And as to later times, the effects produced by the preaching of Whitefield, Edwards, and others, were many of them upon people not remarkably ignorant, but who had attended such kind of preaching all their lives without any such effect. The former, it is well known, preached the same doctrines in Scotland and America, as the people were used to hear every Lord's-day ; and that with great effect among persons of a lukewarm, and careless description. The latter, in his JSarrativetof the tvork of God in and about Northampton, represents the inhabitants as having been " a rational and under- standing people." Indeed they must have been sucli, or they could not have understood the compass of ar- gument contained in Mr. Edwards' Sermons on Jvsti- fication, which were delivered about that time, and are • Acts ii. LET. ^,] OF PROFLIGATES. 39 said to have been the means of great religious concern among the hearers* Nor were these effects produced by airs and gestures, or any of those extraordinary things in the manner of the preacher, which give a kind of novelty to a sermon, and sometimes .tend to move the affections of the hearers. Mr. Prince^ who it seems had often heard Mr. Edwards preach, and observed the remarkable conviction which attended his ministry, de- scribes in his Christian History his manner of preaching. *' He was a preacher,'* says he, ** of a low and moder- ate voice, a natural delivery, and without any agitation of body, or any thing else in the manner to excite atten- tion, except his habitual and great solemnity, looking and speaking as in the presence of God, and with a weighty sense of the matter delivered."* Sixthly, Suppose the circumstance of novelty to have great efficacy, the question is, with respect to such preaching as that of the Methodists, Whether it has efficacy enough to render the truth of the doctrine of no account ? It is well known that the main doc- trines which the Methodists have taught, are, 3Ian*s lost condition by nature, and salvation by the atone^ ment of Christ ; but these, according to Dr. Priestley, are false doctrines ; no part of Christianity, but the *' corruptions" of it; and " such as must tend, if they have any effect, to relax the obligations to virtue." But if so. How came it to pass that the preaching of them should " civilize and christianize mankind ?" Novelty may do wonders, it is granted; but still the nature of those wonders will correspond with the na- ture of the principles taught. All that it can be sup- posed to do, is to give additional energy to the principles which it accompanies. The heating of a furnace seven times hotter than usual, would not endue it with the • Gillies' Hist. Collections, vol. ii. p. 196. 40 THE CONVERSION [lET. 2. properties of water ; and water put into the most pow- erful motion, would not be capable of producing the effects of fire. One would think it were equally evi- dent, that falsehood, though accompanied with novelty, could never have the effect of truth. Once more: It may be quetioned. Whether the gen- erality of people who make up Socinian congregations, stand in less need of a change of character and con- duct than others? Mr. Belsham says, that <' rational christians are often represented as indifferent to prac- tical religion ;" and admits, though with apparent reluctance, that " there has been some plausible ground ibr the accusation." Dr, Priestley admits the same thing, and they both go about to account for it in the same way,* Now whether their method of accounting for it be just or not, they admit the fact; and from lience we may conclude, that the generality of ** ra- tional christians" are not so righteous as to need no re- pentance ; and that the reason why their preaching does not turn sinners to righteousness, is not owing to their want of an equal proportion of sinners to be turned. But, supposing the Socinian congregations were generally so virtuous as to need no great change of character ; or if they did, so well infornfed that noth- ing could strike them as a novelty ; that is not the case with the bulk of mankind amongst whom they live. Now, if a great change of character may be produced by the mere power of novelty, Why do not Dr. Priestley, and those of his sentiments, go forth, like some others, to the kighivays and hedges ? Why- does not he surprise the benighted populace into the love of God and holiness, witb his meiv doctrines ? * Mr. Bthham^s Senn, p. 32. Dr. Priestle/s Discourses on ,'iir:oi{s SuhjcctSy p. 95. LET. 2.] OF PROFLIGATES. 41 (New he must acknowledge they are to them.) If false doctrine, such as that which the Methodists have taught, may, through the power of novelty, do such wonders, what might not be expected from the true ? I have been told that Dr. Priestley has expressed a wish to go into the streets, and preach to the common people. Let him, or those of his sentiments, make the trial. Though the people of Birmingham have treated him so uncivilly, I hope both he and they would meet with better treatment in other parts of the country ; and if by the power of novelty they can turn but a few sinners from the error of their ways, and save their souls from death, it will be an object warthy of their attention. But should Dr. Priestley, or any others of his sen- timents, go forth on such an errand, and still retain their principles, they must reverse the declaration of our Lord, and say, We come not to call sinners, but the righteous to repentance. All their hope must be in the uncontaminated youth, or the better sort of people, whose habits in the paths of vice are not so strong but that they may be overcome. Should they, in the coarse of their labours, behold a malefactor approaching the hour of his esecution, What must they do ? Alas, like the priest and the Levite, they must pass by on the other side. They could not sa much as admonish him to repentance, with any degree of hope ; because they consider *' all late repentance, and especially aft^r long and confirmed habits^ of vice, as absolutely and necessarily ineffectual."* Ha{>. py for many a poor wretch of that- description,, happy D 2 *See Dr.Ppiestley's Discourses on Various Subjects^ p. 258; Also his doctrine of Phil, Necessity, p, 156- 4^. THE CONVERSION [lET. 3. especially for the poor thief upon the cross, that Jesus Christ acted on a different principle I These, brethren, are matters that come within the knowledge of every man of observation ; and it be- hoves you in such cases to know not the speech of them that are pirffed up, but the power. I am, &c. LETTER III. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED, AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO CONVERT PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. Christian Brethren^ SOCINIAN writers are very sanguine on the ten- dency of their views of things to convert infidels ; uamely, Jews, Heathens and Mahometans. They reckon that our notions of the Trinity, form the grand obstacle to their conversion. Dr. Priestley often sug- gests, that so long as we maintain the Deity of Jesus Christ, there is no hope of converting the Jews, be- cause this doctrine contradicts the first principle of their religion, the unity of God, Things, not alto- gether, but nearly similar, are said concerning the conversion of the Heathens and Mahometans, espec- ially the latter. On this subject the following ob- servations are submitted to your oonsideration. With respect to the Jetos, they know very well that those who believe in the Deity of Christ, profess to believe in the unity of God ; and if they will not admit this to be consistent, they must depart from LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. 45 what is plainly implied in the language of their an- cestors. If the Jews in the time of Christ had thought it impossible, or, which is the same thing, inconsistent with the unity of God, that God the Father should have a Son equal to himself, flow came they to attach the idea of equality to that of Sonship ? Jesus asserted that God was his own Father ; which they understood as making himself equal with God ; and therefore sought to kill him as a blasphemer.* Had the Jews affixed those ideas to sonship which are entertained by our opponents, namely, as implying nothing mor6 than simple humanity. Why did they accuse Jesus of blasphemy for assuming it ? They did not deny that, to be God's own Son, was to be equal with the Fath- er ; nor did they allege that such an equality would destroy the divine unity ; a thought of this kind seemft never to have occurred to their minds. The idea to which they objected was. That Jesus of T^azareik tvas the Son of God ; and hence, it is probable, the profession of this great article was considered in the apostolic age as the criterion of Christianity. f Were this article admitted by the modern Jews, they must reason differently from their ancestors, if they scrupled to admit that Christ is equal with the Fatlier. The Jews were greatly offended at our Lord's words ; and his not explaining them so as to remove the stumbling-block out of the way, may serve to teach us how we ought to proceed in removing stumbling- blocks out of the way of their posterity. For this cause they soufj^ht to kill him — because he had said that God was his Father^ making himself equal with god. ifesus saidj I and my Father are one. They then took up stones to stone him* When he told them oi' many * John V. 18. t Acts viii. 27. 44 THE CONVERSION [l-ET* 3. good works that he had shewn them ; aad asked, For which of those works do ye stone me ? They replied^ For a good work we stone thee not^ but for blasphemy ; and because thouy being a man, makest thyself God.* From hence it is evident, that, whetlier Jesus Christ be truly God, or not, they understood him as asserting that so he was ; that is, they under- stood his claiming the relation of God's own Son, and declaring that He and his Father were one, as imply- ing so much. This was their stumbling-block. Nor does it appear that Jesus did any thing towards re- moving it out of their way. It is certain he did not so remove it, as to afford them the least satisfaction ; for they continued to think him guilty of the same blas- phemy to the last, and for that adjudged him worthy of death. t If Jesus never thought of being equal with God, it is a pity there should have been such a misunderstanding between them ; a misunderstand- ing that proved the occasion of putting him to death 1 Such an hypothesis, to be sure, may answer one end ; it may give us a more favourable idea of the conduct of the Jews than we have been wont to enter- tain. If it does not entirely justify their procedure, it greatly extenuates it. They erred, it seems, in imag- ining that Jesus, in declaring himself the Son of God, made himself equal with God: and thus, through mistaking his meaning, put him to death as a blas- phemer. But, then, it might be pleaded on their behalf, that Jesus never suggested that they were in an error in that matter — that, instead of informing them that the name Son of God implied nothing more thai^ simple humanity, he went on to say, among other • John ▼. 18. X. 30, 33. f Matt. xxvi. 63, 66. LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. 46 things, That all men should honour the Son even as they honour the Father. And instead of disownint^ with abhorrence the idea of making himself God^ he seemed to justify it, by arguing from the less to the greater ; from the image of the thing to the thing itself.* Now these things considered, should an impartial ju- ry sit in judgment upon their conduct, one would think they could not, with Stephen, bring it in murder ; to make the most of it, it could be nothing worse than manslaughter. All this may tend to conciliate the Jews, as it tends to roll away the reproach which, in the esteem of christians, lies upon their ancestors, for crucifying the Lord of glory : but whether it will hav« any influence towards their conversion, is another question. It is possible, that in proportion as it con-^ firms their good opinion of their forefathers, it may confirm their ill opinion of Jesus, for having, by his obscure and ambiguous language, given occasion for such a misunderstanding between them. Could the Jews but once be brought to feel that temper of mind wliich, it is predicted in their own prophets, they shall feel ; could they but look on kim^ tohoM thet/ have pierced, and mourn for him as one niourneth for his only Son, and be en bitterness Jbr Aim as one that is in bitterness Jbr his first born; I should b€ under ho apprehensions for their acknowledging his proper Divinity, or embracing him as the great atone- ment, to the fountain of whose blood they would joy-, fully repair, that they might be cleansed from their sin and iheir uncleanness.f Nearly the same things might be observed respecting Ueathins and Mahometans. We may so model the * John v. 18. and x. 34—36- j Zech. xii. 10—14. xiii. 1. 46 THE CONVERSION [lET. S. gospel as almost to accommodate it to their taste, and by this means we may come nearer together ; but whether, in so doing, we shall not be rather converted to them, than they to us, deserVes to be considered. Christianity may be so heathenized, that a man may believe in it, and yet be no christian. Were it true, therefore, that Socinianism hail a tendency to induce professed infidels, by meeting them as it were half-way, to take upon them the christian name, still it would not follow that it was of any real use. The Popish missionaries, of the last century, in China, acted upoa the principle of accommodation. They gave up the main things in which Christians and Heathens had been used to differ, and allowed the Chinese every favourite species of idolatry. The consequence was, they had a great many converts, such as they were ; but thinking people looked upon the missionaries as more convert- ed to Heathenism, than the Chinese Heathens to Christianity.* But even this effect is more than may be expected fi'om Socinian doctrine among the Heathen. The Po- pish Missionaries had engines to work with^ which So- cinians have not. They were sent by an authority, which, at that time, had weight in the world ; and their religion was accompanied with pomp and super- fitition. These were matters, which^ though far froai recommending their mission to the approbation of se- rious christians, yet would be sure to recommend it to the Chinese, They stripped the gospel of all its real glory; and in its place substituted a false glory. But Socinianism, while it di vests the gospel of all that is interesting and affecting to the souls of men, substi- tutes nothing in its place. If it be Christianity at all, * Millar's Propagation of Christianity, Vol. II. p . 388, 438. LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. 4? it is, as the ini^enioiis Mrs. Barbaiild is said in time past to have expressed it, " Christianity in the frigid zone.'* It may be expected, therefore, that no con- siderable number of professed Infidels will ever think it worthy of their attention. Like the Jew^ they will pronounce every attempt to convert them by these ac- commodating principles nn gator y ; and be ready to ask, with him, What they shall do more by embracing Christianity^ than they already do ?* Dr. Priestley, however, is for coming to action, '^ Let a free intercourse be opened, says he, between Mahometans and rational, that is. Unitarian Christians, and I shall have no doubt with respect to the conse- quence. *'f And again, *' Let the Hindoos, as well as the Mahometans, become acquainted with our litera- ture, and have free intercourse with Unitarian Chris- tians, and I have no doubt but the result will be in favour of Christianity. "J So then when Heathens and Mahometans are to be converted, Trinitarians, like * Mr. Levi's Letters to Dr. Priestley^ pp. 76, 77. t Lett, to a Phil. Unb. Part II, pp. 116, 121. % '* Rational, that is Unitarian Christians" Why need Dr. Priestley be so particular in informing" his reader that a rational christian sig-nifies a Unitarian christian ? To be sure, all the world knew long-enoiig^h as^o that rationality was confin- ed to the Ui'itarians. Doubtless, they are the people, and wis- dom will die with them. When Dr. Priestley speaks of per- sons of his own sentiments, he calls them *^ rational christians** AVhen in the same pag^e, speaking of such as differ from him, he calls them, "Those who assume to themselves the distin- guishing- title of Orthodox." Consider, on Differ, of Opin. § 3* Qiiery, Is the latter of these names assumed 2iX\y more than the former And is Dr. Priestley a fit person to reprove a body of people for assuming a name which implies what their ad- ^•ersaries do not admit ? # THE CONVERSION [LET. 3. those of Gideon's army, that bowed down upon their knees to drink, must sit at home ; and the whole of the expedition, it seems, must be conducted by Unitarians, as by the three hundred men that lapped. Poor Trin- itarians ; deemed unworthy of an intercourse with Hea- thens ! Well, if you must be denied, as by a kind of Test-act^ the privilege of bearing arms in this divine war, surely you have a right to expect that those who shall be possessed of it, should act valiantly, and do exploits. But what ground have you on which to rest your expectations ? None, except Dr. Priestley's good conceit of his opinions. When was it known that any considerable number of Heathens or Mahometans were converted by the Socinian doctrine ? Sanguine as the Doctor is on this subject. Where are the facts on which his expectations are founded ? Trinitarians, however, whether Dr. Priestley think them worthy or not, have gone among the heathens, and that not many years ago, and preached what they thought the gospel of Christ ; and I may add, from facts that cannot be disputed, with considerable suc- cess. The Dutch, the Danes, and the English, have each made some attempts in the East ; and, 1 hope, not without some good effects. If we were to call that conversion, which many professors of Christianity would call so without any scruple, we might boast of the conversion of a great many thousands in those parts. But it is acknowledged that many of the conversions in the East were little, if any thing, more than a change of denomination. Thd greatest and best work, and the most worthy of the name of conversion, of which 1 have read, is that which has taken place by the labours of the Anglo-Americans among the natives. They {lave indeed wrought wonders. Mr. Elliot, the first LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UJ^ BELIEVERS. 4$ minister who engaged in this work, went over to New- England in 1632 ; and, being warmed with a holy zeal for converting the natives, learned their language, and preached to them in it. He also, with great labour, translated the Bible, and some English trea- tises, into the same language. God made him emi- nently useful for the turning of these poor heathens to himself. He settled a number of christian churches, and ordained elders over them from among themselves. After a life of unremitted labour in this important undertaking, he died in a good old age, and has ever since been known, both amon^ the English and the natives, by the name of. The Apostle of the Jlmerican Indians. Nor were these converts like many of those in the East, who professed they knew not what, and in a little time went oft' again as fast they came : the gen- erality of them understood and felt what they profess- ed, and persevered to the end of their lives. Mr. El- liot's example stimulated many others ; some in his life time, and others after his death, laboured much, and were blessed to the conversion of thousands among the Indians. The names and labours of Bourn, Fitch, Mahew, Pierson, Gookin, Thatcher, Rawson, Treat, 7\ipper, Cotton, Walter, Sargeant, Davenport, Park, Horton, Brainerd, and Edwards, are remem- bered with joy and gratitude in those benighted regions of the earth. Query. Were ever any such eftects as these wrought by preaching Socinian doc- trines } Great things have been done among the heath- ens of late years by the Moravians, Ahout the year 1733, they sent missionaries to Greenland ; a most inhospitable country indeed, but containing about E 50 THE CONVERSION [lET. 3. «« ten thousand inhabitants/' all inveloped in pagan darkness. After the labour of several years, apparently in vain, success attended their efforts ; and in the course of twenty or thirty years, about seven hundred heathens are said to have been baptized, and to have lived the life of christians.* — They have done great good also in the most northern parts of North Amer- ica, among the Eskimeaux ; and still more among the Negroes in the West-India Islands; where, at the close of 1788, upwards of thirteen thousand of those poor, injured, and degraded people, were formed into christian societies. The views of Moravians, it is true, are different from ours in several particulars, especially in matters relating to church-government and discipline ; but they appear to possess a great deal of godly simplicity : and as to the doctrines which they inculcate, they are mostly what we esteem evan- gelical. The doctrine of atonement by the death of Christ, in particular, forms the great subject of their ministry. The first person in Greenland who appeared willing to receive the gospel, was an old man, who came to the missionaries for instruction. *' We told him," (say they) " as well as we could, of the creation of man, and the intent thereof, of the fall and corruption of nature, of the redemption effected by Christ, of the resurrection of all men, and eternal happiness, or damnation." They inform us after- wards that the doctrine of the cross, or '' the Creator's taking upon him human nature, and dying for our sins," was the most powerful means of impressing the minds of the heathen, and of turning their hearts to God. "On this account, (they add) we determined, like Paul, to know nothing but Jesus Christ, and him crucified." * Sec Crantz's History of Greenland. LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. 51 No'.v consider, brethren, were there ever any such effects as the above wrought by the Socinian doctrine ? If there were, let them be brought to bght. Nay, let a single instance be produced of a Socinian teacher having so much virtue or benevolence in him, as to make the attempt; so much virtue or benevolence, as to venture among a race of barbarians, merely with a view to their conversion. But we have unbehevers at home : and Dr. Priestley, persuaded of the tendency of his principles to con- vert, has lately made some experiments upon them, ab being within his reach. He has done well. There is nothing like experiment in religion, as well as in philosophy. As to what tendency his sentiments would have upon heathens and mahometans, provided a free intercourse could be obtained, it is all conjec- ture. The best way to know their efficacy is by trial, and trial has been made. Dr. Priestley has addressed Letters to a Philosophical Unbeliever, and Letters to the Jews, Whether this seed will spring up, it is true, we must not yet decide. Some little time after he had published, however, he himself acknowledged, '* I do not know that my book has converted a single un- believer.'** Perhaps he might say the same still : and that not only of his Letters to a Philosophical Unhelieveri but of those To the Jews. If the opinion of the Jews may in any degree be col- lected from the answer of their champion, 3/r. David Levi, so far are they from being convinced of the truth of Christianity by Dr. Priestley's writing?, that they suspect whether he himself be a Christian. "Your doctrine, (says Mr. Levi) is so opposite to what 1 always understood to be the principles of Christianity, that I * Letters to Mr. HamTnon. 52 THE CONVERSION [lET. 3. must ingeiiiionsly confess I am greatly puzzled to re- concile your principles to the attempt. What ! a wri- ter that asserts that the miraculous conception of Jesus does not appear to hifu to be suf/tcientlt/ autheniicatedy and that the original Gospel of St» Matthew did not contain it, set up for a defender of Christianity against the Jews ! is such an inconsistency as I did not expect to meet with in a philosopher, whose sole pursuit hath been in search of truth — You are pleased to de- clare in plain terms, that you do not believe in the mi- raculous conception of Jesus -^ and that you are ofopin^ ion that he toas the legitimate son of Joseph. After such assertions as these, how you can be entitled to the appellation of a christian, in the strict sense of the v/ord, is to me really incomprehensible. If I am not greatly mistaken, I verily believe that the honour of Jesus, ^r the propagation of Christianity, are things of little moment in your serious thoughts, notwithstand- ing all your boasted sincerity."* To say nothing of the opinion of the Jews concerning tvhat is Christianity y having all the weight that is usually attributed to the judgment of impartial bystanders, the above quotations afford but little reason to hope for their conversion to Christianity by Socinlan doctrines. But still, it may be said, we know not what is to come. True ; but this we know, that if any considera- ble fruit arise from the Addresses above referred to, it is yet to come ; and not from those addresses only, but, I am inclined to think, from any thing that has been attempted by SociJiians for the conversion of unbelievers. Is it not a fact, that Socinian principles render men indifferent to this great object, and even induce them to treat it with contempt ? The Monthly Reviewers^ in * Mr. David Levi's Letters to Dr. Priestley. LET. 3.] OF PROFESSED UNBELIEVERS. 53 reviewing Mr. Carey'* s late publication on this subject, inl'er from his acknowledgments ot the baneful influ- ence of* wicked Europeans in their intercourse \>ith lieaUiens, and the great corruptions among the various denominations of professing christians, that if so, '* far better is the light of nature as comiounicated to then^ by their Creator, than any light that our officiousness disposes us to carry to them."* By Europeans, who have communicated their vices to heathens, Mr. Carey undoubtedly meant, not those ministers of the gospel, or those serious christians, who have gone among them for their good ; but navigators, merchants, and adven- turers, whose sole object was to enrich themselves : and though he acknowledges a great deal of degeneracy and corruption to have infected the christian world, yet the quaiitications which he requires in a missionary might have secured his proposal from censure, and doubtless would have done so, had not the Reviewers been dispos- ed to throw cold water Cipon every such undertaking. If, indeed, there be none to be found among profess- ing christians, except such, who, by their intercourse with heathens, would only render their state worse than it was before, let the design be given up ; but if other- wise, the objection is of no force. The Reviewers will acknowledge, that great corrup- tions have attended the civil government of Europe, not excepting that of our own country; and, that we are constantly engaged in dissentions on the subject : yet, I have no doubt but they could find certain indi- viduals, who, if they were placed in the midst of an un- civilized people, would be capable of affording them substantial assistance; would teach them to establish E 2 ♦ Monthly HevUnx, for Dec. 1792, p. 447. 54 THE CONVERSION, kc, [I'^T. 3. good laws, good order, and equal liberty. Nor would they think of concluding, because European conquer- ors and courtiers, knowing no higher motive than self- interest, instead of meliorating the condition of uncivil- ized nations, have injured it, that therefore it was vain for any European to think of doing otherwise. Neither would they regard the sneers of the enemies of civil lib- erty and equity, who might deride them as a little Jiock of conceited politicians, or at best of inexperienced phi- lanthropists, whose plans might amuse in the closet, but would not bear in real life. Why is it that we are to be sceptical and inactive in nothing but religion ? Had Mr, Carey, after the example of Dr. Priestley, proposed that his own denomination only should open an intercourse with Heathens, the Reviewers would have accused him of illiherality ; and now, when he proposes that, *' other denominations should engage separately in promoting missions," this, it is said, would be " spreading our religious dissentions over the globe." How, then, are these gentlemen to be pleased ? By sit- ting still, it should seem, and persuading ourselves that it is impossible to find out what is true religion ; or, if not, that it is but of little importance to disseminate it. But why is it, I again ask, that we are to be sceptical and inactive in nothing but religion ? The result is this : Socinianism, so far from being friendly to the conversion of unbelievers, is neither adapted to the end, nor favourable to the means ; to those means, however, by which it has pleased God to save them that believe. I am, ^c. LET. 4.] THE NUMBER OF, &C. 55 LETTER IV. THE ARGUMENT, FROM THE NUMBfeR OF CONVEltTS TO SOCFNIANISM, EXAMINED. Christian Brethren^ \¥ facts be admitted as evidence, perhaps it will ap- pear that Socinianisni is not so much adapted to make converts of Jews, Heathens, Mahometans, or Philo- sophical Unbelievers, as of u speculating sort of people among professing Christians. These in our own coun- try are found, some in the established church, and some among (lissenters. Among people of this description, I suppose, Socinianism has gained considerable ground. Of this, Dr. Priestley, and others of his party, are fre- quently making their boast.* But whether they have atiy cause for boasting, even in this case, may be justly doubted. In the first place. Let it be considered, that, though Socinianism may gain ground among speculating indi^ viduals, yet the congregations where that system, or what bears a near resemblance to it, is taught, are greatly upon the decline. — There are, at this time, a great many places of worship in this kingdom, especial- ly among the Presbyterians, and the General Baptists, u^here the Socinian and Arian doctrines have been taught till the congregations are gradually dwindled away, and there are scarcely enough left to keep up the form of worship. There is nothing in either of these systems, comparatively speaking, that alarms the con- science, or interests the heart ; and therefore the con- gregations where they are taught, unless kept up by * Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 92, 94, 5§, THE NUMBER OF [lET. 4. the accidental popularity of a preacher, or some other circumstance, distinct from the doctrine delivered, generally fall into decay. But, farther, Let us examine a little more particu- larly, what sort of people they, in general, are, who are converted to Socinianism. It is an object worthy of inquiry, whether they appear to be modest, humble, serious christians ; such as have known the plague of their own hearts; such in whom tribulation hath wrought patience, and patience experience ; such who know wHOiM they have believed, and who have learned to count all things but loss for the excellency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus their Lord ; such who, in their investigation of sentiments, have been used to mingle earnest and humble prayer with patient and impartial inquiry ; such, in fine, who have become as little children in their own eyes ? If they be, it is a cir- cumstance of consequence, not sufficient indeed to jus- tify their change of sentiments, but to render that change an object of attention. When persons of this descriptioa embrace a set of new principles, it becomes a matter of serious consideration, what could induce them to do so. But if they he not, their case deserves but little regard. When the body of converts to a system are mere speculatists in religion, men of little or no seriousness, and who pay no manner of attention to vital and practical religion, it reflects neither honour on the cause they have espoused, nor dishonour on that which they have rejected. When we see persons of this stamp go over to the Socinian standard, it does not at all surprise us; on the contrary, vve are ready to sav, as the apostle said of the defection of some of the professors of Christianity in his day, They went out from uSi hut they were not of us. LET. 4.] SOCINIAN CONVERTS. 57 That many of the Socinian converts were previously men of no serious religion, needs no other proof than the acknowledgment of Dr. Priestley, and of Mr. Bel- sham. It cannot be denied, (says the former) "that many of those who judge so truly, concerning partic- ular tenets in religion, have attained tojthat cool unbi- assed temper of mind in consequence of becoming, more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the , modes and doctrines of it." And this indifference to. all religion is considered by Dr. Priestley as "favour-- able to a distinguishing between truth and false- hood."* Much to the same purpose is what Mr, Bel- ^ sham alleges, as quoted before, that, ** Men who are most indifferent to the practice of religion, and whose minds therefore are least attached to any set of princi- ples, will ever be the first to see the absurdity of a pop- ular superstition, and to embrace a rational system of faith. "t It is easy to see, one should think, from hence, what sort of characters those are which compose the body of Socinian converts. Dr. Priestley, however, considers this circumstance as reflecting no dishonour upon his princi};les. He thinks he has fully accounted for it. So thinks Mr. Be'sham, and so think the Monthly Reviewers, in their Review of Mr. Belsham's Sermon. ijl * Discourses on Vanoiis Subjects, p. 65. f Serm. on Import, of Truths p 32. ? I have not scrupled to class the Monthly J^evie^vers among* Socinians. Although in a work of that kind there be frequently, no doubt, a change of hands ; yet it is easy to see that of late years (a very short interval excepted) it has been princip:dly, if not entirely, under Socinian direction ; and, so far as religion is concerned, has been used as an instrument for the propaga- tion of that system. Impartiality towards Calvinistic writers is 58 THE NUMBER OF [lET. 4. Surely Soc'unans must be wretchedly driven, or they, would not have recourse to such a refu2:e as that of ac- knowledging that they hold a gospel, the best prepara- tive for which is a being destitute of all religion! <* What a reflection is here implied,'' says Dr. Wil- liams, ** on the most eminent Reformers of every age, who were the first to see the absurdities of a popular superstition, and the falsity of reigning principles ! What a poor compliment to the religious character of Unitarian reformers ! According to this account, one might be tempted to ask — Was it by being indifferent to the practice of religion that Mr. Belsham was quali- fied to see and pronounce Calvinism to he gloomy and erroneous., an unamiahle and melancholi/ system ? Char- ity forbids us to think be was thus qualified ; and if so, by his own rule he is no very competent judge ; except he is pleased to adopt the alternative, that he is only not, therefore, to be expected from that quarter. It is true, they sometimes affect to stand aloof from all parties ; but it is mere affectation. Nothing can be more absurd than to expect them to judg-e impartially in a cause wherein they themselves are parties ; absurd however as it is, some persons are weak enough to be imposed upon by their pretences. Perhaps of Inte years, the Monthly J^evieiv has more contributed to the spreading" of Socinianism, than all other writings put together. The plan of that w^ork does not admit of argumentation ; a sud- den flash of wit is generally reckoned sufficient to di&credit a Calvinistic performance ; and this just suits the turn of those who are destitute of all religion. A laborious investigation of matters would not suit their temper of mind; they had rather subscribe to the well known maxim, that, " Ridicule is the test of truth :" and then, whenever the Reviewers hold up a doctrine as ridiculous, they have nothing to do but to join the laugh, and conclude it to be a *« vulgar error, or a popular su- perstition." LET. 4.] SOCINIAN CONVERTS. 59 the humble follower of more sagacious, but irreligious guides,"* We read of different kinds of preparatives in the scriptures ; but I do not recollect that they contain any thing like the above. Zeal and attention, a disposition to search and pray, according to Solomon, is a prepara- tive for the discovery of truth. f The piety of Corne- lius, which he exercised according to the opportunities he possessed of obtaining light, was a preparative for his reception of the gospel as soon as he heard it. J And this accords with our Lord's declaration ; He that tvill do his will shall know of his doctrine. On the other hand. The cold indifference of some in the apos- tolic age, u'ho received not the love 0/ the tiuth, but, as it should seem, held it with a loose hand, even while they professed it, was equally a preparative for apos- tasy. 1| We also read of some in Isaiah's time, who '* leaned very much to a life of dissi})ation ;" they erred through wine. All tables are full of vomit, and Jilthiness, (salth the prophet, describing one of their assemblies) so that there is no place. He adds. Whom shall he teach knowledge, and whom shall he make to under statid doctrine ? And what is the answer ? *' Were the men who leaned to a life of dissipation," who loved to suck at the breasts of sensual indulgence, the proper subjects ? No ; those that were weaned from the breasts, and drawn from the milk.^ But now, it seems, the case is altered ; and, in order to find out truth, the most likely way is to be divested of all religion / • Discourse on the Influence of Religious Practice, upon our inquiries after truthj in Answer to Mr. Belsham's Ser- mon, p. 6. f Prov. ii. l— 9. t Acts x. || 2 Thes. ii. 10. § Isai. xxviii. 7, 9. 60 THE NUMBER OF [LKT. 4. It is true, these things are spoken of what are called «' speculative Unitarians,*' whom Dr. Priestley calls *« men of the world," and distinguishes them from " serious christians." He endeavours also to guard his cause by observing, That the bulk of professing christians, or of those who should have ranked as christians, in every age, have been of this description. It must be acknowledged, that there have been luke- warm, dissipated, and merely nominal christians, in all ages of the church, and in every denomination : I suspect, however, that Dr. Priestley, in order to reduce the state of the church in general to that of the Unitarians, has rather magnified this matter. But . be that as it may, there are two circumstances which render it improper for him to reason from this case to the other : — First, Whatever bad characters have ranked with other denominations, at least with ours, as to their religious creed, we do not own, or consider them as *' converts ;" much less do we glory in the spread of our principles, when men of that character profess to embrace them, as this writer does.* If we speak of converts to our principles, we disown such people, and leave them out of the account, as persons whose walk and conversation, whatever be their speculative opinions, discover them to be enemies to the fross of Christ* But were Socinians to do so, it is more than probable that the number of converts of whom they boast would be greatly diminished. — Secondly, Whenever irreligious characters profess to imbibe our principles, we do not consider their state of mind as friendly to them. That which we account truth, is a system of holiness ; a system, therefore, which men of *' no religion" will never cordially em- * Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 98—93, 94. LET. 4.] SOCINIAN CONVERTS. "^1 brace. Persons may indeed embrace a notion about the certainty of the divine decrees, and of the necessity of things being as they are to be, whether the proper means be used or not ; and they may live in the neglect of all means, and of all practical religion ; and may reckon themselves, and be reckoned by some othei-s, among the Calvinists, To such a creed as this, it is allowed, the want of all relifrion is the best preparative : but then it must be observed, that the creed itself is as false, as the practice attending it is impure, and as opposite to Calvinism, as it is to scrip- ture and common sense. Our opponents, on the con- trary, ascribe many of their conversions to the absence of religion, as their proper cause, granting that, ** ma- ny of those who judge so truly concerning particular tenets in religion, have attained to that cool unbiassed temper of mind in consequence of becoming more indiifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it." Could this acknowledgment be considered as the mistake of an unguarded moment, it might be overlooked ; but it is a fact^ a fact which, as Dr. Priestley himself expresses it, " cannot be denied :"* a fact, therefore, which must needs prove a mill-stone about the neck of his system. That doctrine, be it what it may, to which an indifference to religion in general is friendly, cannot be the gos- pel, or any thing pertaining to it, but something very near akin to infidelity. If it be objected, that the immoral character of persons, previous to their embracing a set of prin- ciples, ought not to be alleged against the moral tendency of those principles; because, if it were, F * Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 95, l^^ THE NUMBER OF £lET. 4. Christianity itself would be dishonoured by the pre- vious character of many of the primitive christians— It is replied, there are two circumstances necessary to render this objection of any force :— First, The previous character of the convert, however witked it may have been, must have no injiuence on his conversion. — Secondly, This conversion must have such an influence on him, that, whatever may have been his past char^acter, his future life shall be devoted to God. Both these circumstances existed in the case of the primitive christians ; and if tlie same could be said of the converts to Socinianism, it is acknowledged that all objections from this quarter ought to give way. But this is not the case. So- cinian converts are not only allowed, many of them, to be meh of no religion ; but the want of religion, as we have seen already, is allowed to have influenced their conversion. Nor is this all ; it is allowed, that their conversion to these principles has no such influ- ence upon them as to make any material change in their character for the better. This is a fact tacitly admitted by Mr. Belsham, in that he goes about to account for it, by alleging what was their character previous to their conversion. It is true, he talks of this being the case, " only for a time," and at length these converts are to " have their eyes opened ; are to feel the benign influence of their principles, and demonstrate the excellency of their faith by the su- perior dignity and worth of their characters." But these, it seems, like the " annihilation of death," and the conversion of Jews and Mahometans by the Socinian doctrine, are things yet to come,* * Since the publication of the first edition of these Letters, $L report has been circulated, that Dr. Priestley has been mis- LET. 4.] SOCINIAN CONVERTS. 63 But it will be pleaded, though many who go over to SociniaQlti^in are men of no religion, and continue to represented by the quotation in page 56^ which also was referred to in the preface, p. i. Dr. P it has been said, in the place from whence the passage is taken, ivas not coTnviending a total indifference to religion, but the contrary / and his tneaning U'flj, not that such a disregard to all religion is a better quaiification for discerning truths than a serious temper of mind, but that it i» preferable to that bigoted attachment to a system ivhick sotne people discover. That Dr. P.'s leading design was to commend a total indif- ference to religion was never suggested I suppose this, on the contrary, was' to commend good discipline among the Uni- tarians, for the purpose of promoting religious zeal. His words are, (accounting for the want of zeal among them) ** It cannot be denied that many of those who judge so truly con- cerning 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 favour- able situation for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, they are not likely to acquire a zeal for what they conceive to be the truth." The leading design of Dr. P. in this passage, it is allowed, was to recommend good discipline, as friendly to zeal ; and as a previous indifference to religion in general was unfavour- able to that temper of mind which he wished to inspire, in this view he is to be understood as blaming it. Yet, in an incidental manner he as plainly acknowledges it to have been favourable for distinguishing between truth and falsehood, and in this view he must be understood ^s com,mendi)ig it. That he does commend it, though in an incidental way, is manifest from his attributing their judging so truly concerning particu- lar tenets in religion to it ; and that not merely as an occasion, but as an adequate cause, producing a good effect ; render- ing the mind more cool and unbiassed than it was before. To suppose that Dr. P. does not mean to recommend indifference 64 THE NUMBER OP [lET. 4. *Mtan to a life of dissipation,*' yet that is not the case wtih all: there are some who are exemplary in tlieir to religion in ^s^eneral, as friendly to truth (though unfriendly to zeal) is supposing him not to mean what he says. As to the question, Whether Dr. P. means to compare an indifference to religion in general, with a serious temper of mind, or with a spirit of bigotry ? It cannot be the latter, un- less he consider the characters of whom he speaks, as having been formei'ly bigoted in their attachment to modes and forms- For he is not comparing them with other people^ but with themselves at a former period. So long as they regarded relig- ion in general, according to his account, they were in a less favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and false- hood, than when they came to disregard it. Dr. P.'s own account of these characters seems to agree with mere men of the world, rather than with religious bigots. They were per- sons, he says, who troubled themselves very little about relig- ion ; but who had been led to turn their attention to the dis- pute concerning the person of Christ, and by their natural good sense had decided upon it. To this effect he writes in pages 96, 97, of his Discourses on Various Subjects Now% this is far from answering to the character of religious bigots, or of those who a,t any time have sustained that character. But, waving this, let us suppose, that the regard which those characters bore towards religion in general, loas the regard of bigots. In this case, they were a kind of Pharisees, attached to modes and forms, which blinded their minds from discover- ing the truth. Afterwards they approached nearer to the Sad- ducees, became more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it. The amount of Dr. P 's position would then be. That the spirit of a Sadducee is pre- ferable, with respect to discerning truth, to that of a Pliarisee, possessing more of a cool unbiassed temper of mind. The re- ply that I shovild make to this, is, That neither Pharisees nor Sadducees possess that temper of mind of which Dr. P. speaks, but are both a generation of vipers, difierent in some respects, but equally malignant towards the true gospel of Christ : and that the luunble, the candid, the serious, and the upright eu» LET. 4.] SOCINIAN CONVERTS. 65 lives, men of eminent piety and virtue, and who are distinguished by T>i\ Priestley by the name of *' se- rious christians."* To this it is replied ; — quirers after truth are the only persons likely to find it. And this is the substance of what I advanced in page i, of the pre^ face, which has been charged as a misrepresentation. I never sug-g-ested that Dr. P. was comparing the characters in ques- tion with the serious or the candid ; but rather that let the comparison respect ivhotn it might, his attributing an unbiassed temper of mind to men in consequence of their becoming in- difiierent to religion m general, was erroneous ; for that he who is not a friend to religion in any mode, is an enemy to it in all modes, and ought not to be complimented as being in a favourable situation for distinguishing between truth and falseliood. A writer in the Monthly Review has laboured to bring Mr, Belsham off in the same manner. But ihstead of affording bim any relief, he has betrayed the cause he has espoused, and made Mr. B. reason in a manner unworthy of his abilities. '* We apprehend, (says this writer) that Mr. B. does not mean to assert, nor even to intimate, that indifference to religious practice prepared the mind for the admission of that religious truth ivhich prompts virtttous conduct." Mr. B., however, does intimate, and even assert, that, " the men who are the most indifferent to the practice ot religion,, will ever be the first not only to see the absurdity of a popular superstition* but to em- brace a rational system of faith" Does the Reviewer mean then to acknowledge that the rational system does not include that kind of truth which prompts virtuous conduct R There is no^ truth in his expresi>ions, but upon this supposition. But this writer not only informs us what Mr. B, did not mean, but what he did mean. (One would think the Reviewer of Dr Williams nuist have been very intimate with Mr. B.)y Mr. Belsham meant, it seems^ *' That the absurdities ofijr^ popular superstition are rnore apt to strike the minds of thoae- who are even indifferent to religion, than of those who are big> F 2- ♦ Discourses on Various Subjects j p. 98, ti(> THE NUMBER OP [lFT. 4. First, Whatever piety or virtue there may be among Socinian converts, it may be doubted whether piety or oted in their attachment to particular creeds and rites ; and therefore that the former will be more inclined to allow reason to mould their faith, than tlie latter."— i?eoiident with it. He acknowledges also, " There are many (among the Calvinists) whose hearts and lives are in all respects truly christian, and whose christian tempers are really promoted by their own vieics of their sysfemy^ Mow is it then, that Dr. Priestley ** cannot see what mo- tive a Calvinist can have to give any attention to his moral conduct ;" and why does he represent Calvin- • Doctrine of Necessity, p. 154. f Ibid, pp. 163, 164. 84 ON MORALITY [lET. 6, ism as *^ an axe at the root of all virtue and good- ness ?" By all virtue and goodness he can only mean the virtue and goodness of wicked men. Indeed this appears plainly to have been his meaning : for, after acknowledging that Calvinism has something in it favourable to ** an habitual and animated devotion," be adds, " But where a disposition to vice has pre- occupied the mind, I am very well satistied, and but too many facts might be alledged in proof of it, that the doctrines of Calvinism have been actually fatal to the remains of virtue^ and have driven men into the most desperate and abandoned course of wickedness : whereas the doctrine of necessity, properly understood, cannot possibly have any such effect, but the con- trary,"* Now suppose all this were true, it can »ever justify Dr. Priestley in the use of such unlim- ited terms as those before mentioned. Nor is ft any disgrace to the Calvinistic system, that men, whose minds are pre-occupied with vice, should misunder- stand and abuse it. The purest liquor, if put into a musty cask, will become unpalatable. It is no Hiore than is said of some who professed to embrace Christianity in the times of the apostles, that they turned the grace of God into lasciviousness. Is it any wonder that the wicked will do wickedly ; or that they will extract poison from that which, rightly understood, is the food of the righteous ? It is enough if our sentiments, like God's toords, do good to the upright. Wisdom does not expect to be justijied^ but of her children. The scriptures themselves make no pretence of having been useful to those who have still lived in sin ; but allow the gospel to be a savour ^f death unto death in them that perish. The doc- trine oi' necessity is as liable to produce this effect * Doctrine of Necessity, p. 1(53. LET. 6.] IN GENERAL, &S as any of the doctrines of Calvinism. It is true, as Dr. Priestley observes, *' It cannot do so, if it be properly understood ;" but this is allowing that it may do so, if it be misunderstood ; and we have as good reason for ascribing the want of a proper understand- ing of the subject, to those who abuse predestination and other Calvinistic doctrines, as he has for ascrib- ing it to those who abuse the doctrine of necessity. Dr. Priestley speaks of the remains of virtue where a disposition to vice has pre-occupifd the mind ; and of the Calvinistic system being as an axe at the root of these remains : but some people will question, whether virtue of such a description have any root belonging to it, so as to require an axe to cut it up ; and whether it be not owing to this circumstance that such characters, like the stony-ground hearers, m time of temptation fall away. Secondly, The Calvinistic system is misrepresent- ed by Dr. Priestley, even as to its influence on the unregenerate. — In the passage before quoted, he rep- resents those persons, ** who are of the happy num- ber of the elect, as being sure that God will some time or other work upon them his work of sanctify- ing grace." But how are they to come at this as- surance ? Not by any thing contained in the Calvin- istic system. All the writers in that scheme have con- stantly insisted, That no man has any warrant to con- clude himself of the happy number of the elect, till the work of sanctifying grace is actually wrought. With what colour of truth, or ingenuousness, then, could Dr. Priestley represent our system as aflV>rding a ground of assurance, previous to that event ? This is not a matter of small account in the present con- troversy ; it is the point on which the immoral ten- H 86 ON MORALITY [lET, 6. dency of the doctrine wholly depends. Ay to the certainty of any man's being sanctitied and saved at some future time, this can have no ill influence upon him, while it exists merely in the divine mind. If it have any such influence, it must be owing to his knowledge of it at a time, when, his heart being set on evil, he would be disposed to abuse it ; but this, as we have seen, upon the Calvinistic system, is utterly impossible; because nothing short of a sanctified temper of mind affords any just grounds to draw the favourable conclusion. Dr. Priestley has also represented it as a part of the Calvinistic sys- tem, or, however, *' as the opinion of some,'' that the more wicked a man is, previous to God's work of sanctifying grace upon him, the more probable it is that he will some time be sanctitied and saved. But though it be allowed, that God frequently takes occasion from the degree of human wickedness to magnify his grace in delivering from it ; yet it is no part of the Calvinistic system, that the former af- fords any grounds of probability to expect the latter; and whoever they be that Dr. Priestley alludes to as entertaining such an opinion, I am inclined to think they are not among the respectable writers of the party, and probably not among those who have written at all. Thirdly, Let it be considered. Whether Dr. Priest- ley's own views of Philosophical Necessity do not amount to the same thing as those which he alleges to the discredit of Calvinism ; or, if he will insist upon the contrary, whether he must not contradict himself, and maintain a system, which, by his own confession, is less friendly to piety and humility, than that which he opposes. — A state of unregeneracy is considered by Calvinists as being the same thing which Dr. Priestley LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 87 describes as, *^ the state of a person who sins with a full consent of will, and who, disposed as he is, is under an impossibility of acting otherwise ; but who,'' as he just- ly maintains, "is nevertheless accountable, even though that consent be produced by the efficacy and uncon- querable influence of motives. It is only, (continues he) where the necessity of sinning arises from some oth- er cause, than a mans own disposition of mind, that we ever say there is an impropriety in punishing a man for his conduct. If the impossibility of acting well has arisen from a bad disposition, or habit, its having been innpossible, with that disposition or habit, to act virtu- ously, is never any reason for our forbearing punish- ment ; because we know that punishment is proper to correct that disposition and that habit."* Now if it be consistent to punish a man for necessary evil, as Dr. Priestley abundantly maintains. Why should it be inconsistent to exhort, persuade, reason, or expostulate with him ; and why does he call those Calvinists " the most consistent," who avoid such addresses to their au* ditors ? If" the thoughts, words, and actions of unre- generate men, being necessarilj^ sinful," be a just rea- son why they should not have exhortations addressed to them ; the whole doctrine of Necessity must be incon- sistent with the use of means ; than which nothing can be more contrary to truth, and to Dr. Priestley's own views of things. As to our being passive in regeneration, if Dr. Priestley would only admit that any one character could be found that is so depraved as to be destitute of all true virtue, the same thing would follow from his own Necessarian principles. According to those principles, every man who is under the dominion of a vicious habit of mind, will continue to choose vice, till such time as * Doctrine of Necessity, p. 63 — 65. 88 ON MORALITY [lET. 6. that habit be chanp^ed, and that by some influence with- out himself. " If (says he) I make any particular choice to-day, I should have done the same yesterday, and should do the same tomorrow, provided there be no change in the state of my mind respecting the ob- ject of the choice.*'* Now can any person in such a state of mind be supposed to be active in the changing of it ; for such activity must imply an inclination to have it changed, which is a contradiction^ as it supposes him at the same time under the dominion of evil, and inclined to goodness ? But possibly, Dr. Priestley will not admit that any one character can be found who is utterly destitute of true virtue. Be it so ; he must admit that in some characters vice has an habitual ascendency : but the habitual ascendency of vice as certainly determines the choice, as even a total depravity, A decided majority in parliament carry every measure with as much certain- ty as if there were no minority. Wherever vice is pre- dominant (and in no other case is regeneration needed) the party must necessarily he passive in the first change of his mind in favour of virtue. But there are seasons in the life of the most vicious men, in which their evil propensities are at a lower ebb than usual ; in which conscience is alive, and thoughts of a serious nature arrest their attention. At these fa- vourable moments it may be thought that virtue has the advantage of its opposite, and that this is the time for a person to became active in effecting a change up- on his own mind. Without inquiring whetiier there be any real virtue in all this; it is sufficient to observe, that if we allow the whole of what is pleaded for, the objection destroys itself. For it supposes, that in order to a voluntary activity, in favour of virtue, the • Page 7. LET. 6.] IN G Elf ERA L. 8^ mind must first be virtuously disposed, and that bj- something iu which it was passive; which is giving up the point in dispute. Dr. Priestley often represents **' a change of dispo- sition and character as being effected only by a change of coiidact, and that of long continuance,"* But whatever influence a course of virtuous actions may have upon the disposition, and however it may tend to establish us in the habit of doing good, all good- ness of disposition cannot arise from this quarter* There must have been a disposition to good, and one too that was sufficiently strong to outweigh its op- posite, ere a course of virtuous actions could be com- menced ; for virtuous action is nothing but the effect, or expression, of virtuous disposition. To say that this previ'ous disposition was also produced by other previous actions, is only carrj'ing the matter a little farther out of sight ; for unless it can be proved that virtuous action may exist prior to, and without all virtuous disposition, let the one be carried back as far as it may, it must still have been preceded by the other; and in obtaining the precediiig disposition, the soul must necessarily have been pa^^iue.f * Doctrine of Necessity, p. 156. •j- Since the publication of the second edition of these Let- ters, it has been sug,^ested by a friend, that there is no ne- cessity for confining, these observations to the case of a man totally depraved, or of one under the habitual ascendency of vice : for that, according to Dr. Priestley's Necessarian principles, all volitions are the effects of motives : therefore every man, in every volition, as he is the subject of the in- fluence of motive operating as a cause, is passive ; equally so, according to the Calvinistic system, as he is supposed to be in regeneration. H 2 90 ON MORALITY [lET. 6. Dr. Priestley labours hard to overthrow the doc- trine of immediate divine agency, and contends that all divine influence upon the human mind is througt the medium of second causes, or according to the established laws ol nature. " If moral impressions were made upon men's minds by an immediate divine agenc)^ to what end (he asks) has been the whole apparatus of revealed religion f'^ This in effect is saying, That if there be laws for such an operation on the human mind, every kind of influence upon it must be through the medium of those laws ; and that if it be otherwise, there is no need of the use of means. But might he not as well allege. That if there be laws by which the planets move, every kind of influence upon them must have been through the medium of those laws ; and deny that the Divine Being immedi- ately, and prior to the operation of the laws of nature, put them all in motion ? Might he not as well ask. If an immediate influence could be exercised in set- ting the material system in motion, of what use are all the laws of nature by which it is kept in motion ? Whatever laws attend the movements of the material system, the first creation of it is allowed to have been by an immediate exertion of divine power. God said. Let there be light, and there was light ; and why should not the second creation be the same ? 1 say the second creation; for the change upon the sinner's heart is represented as nothing less in the divine word, and the very manner of its being efl*ected, is expressed in language which evidently alludes to the first creation. — God, who commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined into our hearts, to give the lighjt of the knowledge of the glory of God ♦ Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 221. LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. ^l' in the face of Jesus Christ. Not only scripture, but reason itself teaches the necessity for such an imme- diate divine interposition in the changing of a sinner's heart. If a piece of machinery (suppose the whole material system) were once in a state of disorder, the mere exercise of those laws by which it was ordained to move, would never bring it into order again ; but, on the contrary, would drive it on farther and farther to everlasting confusion. As to election, Dr. Priestley cannot consistently maintain his scheme of Necessity without admitting it. If, as he abundantly maintains, God is the author of every good disposition in the human heart ;* and if, as he also in the same section maintaiirs, God, ip all that he does, pursues one plan or system previously concerted ; it must follow, that wherever good dispositions are produced, and men are finally saved, it is altogether in consequence of the appoint- ment of God, which, as to the present argument, is the same thing as the Calvinistic doctrine of election. So plain a consequence is this from Dr. Priestley's Necessarian principles, that he himself, when writing his Treatise on that subject, could not forbear to draw it. ** Our Saviour (he says) seems to have considered the rejection of the gospel by those who boasted of their wisdom, f and the reception of it by the more despised part of mankind, as being the consequence of the express appointment of God. At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes ; even so. Father, for so it * Doctrine of Necessity, § xi. \ Qiiery. Were not these the rational rcU^ionUts of that age ? 92 Q^ MORALITY [lET. 6, secmeth good in thy sight, '^ To the same purpose, in the next page but one, he observes, that God is considered as " the sovereign disposer, both of gospel . privileges here, and future happiness hereafter, as appears in such passages as 2 Thess. ii. 13. God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation^ through sanctijication of the Spirit, and belief of the truth.^^^ If there be any difference between that election which is involved in Dr. Priestley's own scheme, and that of the Calvinists, it must consist, not in the original appointment, or in the certainty of the event, but in the intermediate causes or reasons which in- duced the Deity to fix things in the manner that he has done ; and it is doubtful whether even this can be admitted. It is true, Dr. Priestley, by his ex- clamations against unconditional election^f would seem to maintain that where God hath appointed a sinner to obtain salvation, it is on account of his fore- seen virtue ; and he may plead that such an election is favourable to virtue, as making it the ground, or procuring cause of eternal felicity ; while an election that is altogether unconditional, must be directly the reverse. But let it be considered, in the first place. Whether such a view of election as this, does not clash with the whole tenor of scripture ; which teaches us that we are saved and called with an holy callings not according to our works, but according to the di^ vine purpose and grace given us in Christ Jesus be» fore the world began — iVof of works, lest any man should boast — At this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace — And if by grace» then it is no more of works ; otherwise grace is no more * Page 140—142. t Consequences on Difference in Religious Opinions, § III. LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 93 grace. But if it he of works, then it is no more grace ; otherwise work is no more work.* Secondly, Let it be considered whether such an election will consist with Dr. Priestley's own scheme of Necessity. This scheme supposes that all virtue, as well as every thing else, is necessary. Now whence arose the necessity of it ? It was not self-originated, nor accidental ; it niust have been established by the Deity. And then it will follow, that if God elect any man, on account of his foreseen virtue, he must have elected him on account of that which he had determined to give him ; but this, as to the origin of things, amounts to the same thing as unconditional election. As to men's taking liberty to sin, from the con- sideration of their being among the number of the elect ; that, as we have seen already, is what no man can do with safety or consistency, seeing he can have no evidence on that subject but what must arise from a contrary spirit and conduct. But suppose it were otherwise, an objection of this sort would come with an ill grace from Dr. Priestley, who encourages all mankind not to fear, since God has made them all for unlimited ultimate happiness, and (whatever be their conduct in the present life) to ultimate unlimited happiness they will all doubtless come.f Upon the whole. Let those who are inured to close thinking, judge whether Dr. Priestley's own views of philosophical Necessity, do not include the leading principles of Calvinism ? But should he insist upon * See also those scriptures which represent election as the cause of faith and holiness ; particularly Ephes. i. 3, 4. John vi 57 Rom. viii. 22, 30. Acts xiii 48 1 Pet. i. 1. Rom. ix. 15, 16. But if it be the cause, it cannot be the effect of them. » f Doctrine of Necessity, pp.128, 129. 94 ON MORALITY [lET. 6. the contrary, then let it be considered, whether he must not contradict himself, and maintain a system, which, by his own confession, is less friendly to piety and humility than that which he opposes, *< The essential difference (he says) between the two schemes is this : The Necessarian believes his own dispositions and actions are the necessary and sole means of his present and future happiness ; so that, in the most proper sense of the words, it depends entirely on himself whether he be virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable. The Calvinist maintains, on the other hand, that so long as a man is unregenerate, all his thoughts, words, and actions, are necessarily sinful, and in the act of regeneration he is altogether pas- sive,'** We have seen already that on the scheme of Dr. Priestley, as well as that of the Calvinists, men in the first turning of the bias of their hearts, must be passive. But allow it to be otherwise, allow what the Doctor elsewhere teaches, that " A change of disposition is the effect^ and not the cause of a change of conduct f'f and that it depends entirely on our- selves whether we will thus change our conduct, and by these means our dispositions, and so be happy forever ; all this, if others of his observations be just, instead of promoting piety and virtue, will have a contrary tendency. In the same performance Dr. Priestley acknowledges, that, *' Those who from a principle of religion ascribe more to God and less to man than other persons, are men of the greatest ele- vation of piety. "J But if so, it will follow, that the essential difference between the necessarianism of Socinians, and that of Calvinists, (seeing it consists in this, that the one makes it depend entirely upon * Doctrine of Necessity, pp. 152--154. f Ibid. p. 156. ^ Doctrine of Necessity, p. 107. LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 95 a man's self, whether he be virtuous or vicious, hap- py or miserable, and the other upon God) is in fa- vour of the latter. Those wlio consider men as de- pending- entirely upon God for virtue and happiness, ascribe more to God and less to man than the other ; and so, according to Dr. Priestlej, are, " men of the greatest elevation of piety." They, on the other hand, who suppose men to be dependent entirely upon themselves for these things, must consequently have less of piety, and more of " heathen stoicism ;** which, as the same writer, in the same treatise ob- serves, " allows men to pray for external things, but admonishes them that, as for virtue, it is our own, and must arise from within ourselves, if we have it at all."* But let us come to facts. If, as Dr. Priestley says, there be *' something in our system, which, if carried to its just consequences, would lead us to the most abandoned wickedness ;'' it might be expected, one should think, that a loose, dishipated, and abandoned life, would be a more general thing among the Calvin- ists, than among their opponents. This seems to be a consequence of which he feels the force ; and therefore discovers an inclination to make it good. In answer to the question, " Why those persons who hold these opin- ions are not abandoned to all wickedness, when they evidently lay them under so little restraint ?" he an- swers, *' This is often the case of those who pursue these principles to their just and fatal consequences" — adding, " For it is easy to prove that the Antinomian is the only consistent absolute predestinarian.'^f That there are persons who profess the doctrine of absolute * Page 67. f Consid. on X)iffer. of Opin, § iii. ^6 ON MORALITY [lET, b. predestination, and who, from that consideration, may indulge themselves in the greatest enormities, is admit- ted. Dr. Priestley, however, allows, that these are " only such persons whose minds are previously deprav- ed ;" that is, wicked men, who turn the grace of God into lasciviousness. Nor are such examples " often'* to be seen among us ; and where they are, it is commonly in such people who make no serious pretence to personal religion, but who have just so much of predestination in their heads, a^ to suppose that all things will be as they are appointed to be, and therefore that it is in vain to strive ; just so much as to look at the end, and over- look the means ; which is as wide of Calvinism as it is of Socinianism. This may be the absolute predestina- tion which Dr. Priestley means; namely, a predestina- tion to eternal life, let our conduct be ever so impure, and a predestination to eternal death, let it be ever so holy ; and if so, it is granted that the Antinomian is the only consistent believer in it : but then it might with equal truth be added, that he is the only person who believes in it at all. The Calvinistic doctrine of predestination supposes, that holiness of heart and life is as much the object of divine appointment as future happiness ; and that this connexion can never be brok- en. To prove that the Antinomian is the only consist- ent believer in such a predestination as this, may not be so easy a task as barely to assert it. ,1 cannot imag- ine it would be very easy, especially for Dr. Priestley, seeing h^ acknowledges, that " the idea of every thing being predestinated from all eternity is no objection to prayer i because all meaiis are appointed as well as ends ; and therefore if prayer be in itself a proper means, the end to be obtained by it, we may be assured, will not be had without thiSf any more than without any LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 97 other means, or necessary previous circumstances.*'* Dr. Priestley may allege that this is not absolute pre- destination : but it is as absolute as ours, which makes equal provision for faith and holiness, and for every mean of salvation, as this does for prayer. Will Dr. Priestley undertake to prove that a loosCy dissipated, and abandoned life, is a more general thing among the Calvinists, than aynong their opponents ? I am persuaded he will not. He knows that the Calvin- ists in general are far from being a dissipated, or au abandoned people, and goes about to account for it ; and that in a way that shall reflect no honour upon their principles, " Our moral conduct (he observes) is not left at the mercy of our opinions ; and the regard to virtue that is kept up by those who maintain the doc- trines above-mentioned, is owing to the influence of other principles implanted in our nature."f Admit- ting this to be true, yet one would think the worst prin- ciples will, upon the whole, be productive of the v.»orst practices. They whose innate principles of virtue are all employed in counteracting the influence of a per- nicious system, cannot be expected to form such amia- ble characters, as where those principles are not only left at liberty to operate, but are aided by a good system. It might, therefore, be expected, I say again, if our principles be what our opponents say they are, that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life, would be a more general thing among us than among them. I may be told, that the same thing, if put to us, would be found equally difficult ; or that, notwith- standing we contend for the superior influence of the Calvinistic system to that of Socinus, yet we should * Let. to a Phil. Unb. Part i. p. Ill, f Consid. on Differ, of Opin. § iij. I 99 ON MORALITY ['ET. 6, find it difficult to prove, that a loose, dissipated, and abandoned life, is a more general thing among So- cinians, than it is among Calvinists. And I allow that I am not sufficiently acquainted with the bulk of the people of that denomination to hazard an as- sertion of this nature. But if what is allowed by their own writers (who ought to know them) may be ad- mitted as evidence, such an assertion might never- theless be supported. " Rational christians are often represented (says Mr. Belsham) as indifferent to prac- tical religion.'' Nor does he deny the justice of this representation, but admits, though with apparent reluctance, that ** there has been some plausible ground for the accusation ;" and goes about to ac- count for it, as we have seen in Letter iv. in such a way, however, as may reflect no dishonour vpon their principles,*^* The same thing is acknowledged by Dr. Priestley, who allows, that " A great number of the Unitarians of the present age are only men of good sense, and without much practical religion :" and, that '* there is a greater apparent conformity to the world in them, than is observable in others. "f Yet he also goes about to account for these things as Mr. Belsham does, in such a way as may reflect no dishon* our on their principles. It is rather extraordinary, that when facts are introduced in favour of the virtue of the general body of the Calvinists, they are not denied, but accounted for in such a way that their principles must share none of the honour ; and when facts of an opposite kind are introduced in proof of the want of virtue in Unitarians, they also are not denied, but accounted for in such a way that their principles shall have none of the dishonour. Cal- vinism, it seems, must be immoral, though Calvinists • Sermon, p. 32. f Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 100* LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 99 be virtuous ; and Socinianism must be amiable, though Socinians be vicious. I shall not inquire wheth- er these very opposite methods of accounting for facts be fair or candid. On this the reader will form his own judgment : it is enough for me that the facts themselves are allowed. If we look back to past ages (to say nothing of those who lived in the earliest periods of Christianity, because I would refer to none but such as are al- lowed to have believed the doctrine in question) I think it cannot be fairly denied, that the great body of holy men, who have maintained the true worship of God (if there was any true worship of God main- tained) during the Romish apostasy ; and who, many of them, sacrificed their earthly all for his name, have lived and died in the belief of the deity and atonement of Christ. Our opponents often speak of these doctrines being embraced by the apostate- church of Rome ; but they say little of those, who during the long period of her usurpation, bore testi- mony for God. The Waldenses, who inhabited the vallies of Piedmont, and the Albigenses^ who were afterwards scattered almost all over Europe, are al- lowed, 1 believe, on all hands, to have preserved the true religion in those darkest of times: and it is thought by some expositors, that these are the people who are spoken of in the twelfth chapter of the Rev- elation, under the representation of a woman, to whom was given two wings of a great eagle, that she might fiy into the wilderness — and there be nourished for a time, from the face of the serpent. It was here that true religion was maintained, and sealed by the blood of thousands from age to age, when all the rest of the christian world were wondering after the beast. And as to the doctrines which they held, they were 1U0 ON MORALITY [lET. 6« much the same as ours. Among the adversaries to the church of Rome, it is true, there might be men of different opinions. Arius, and others, may be supposed to have had their followers in those ages. But the body of the people called Waldenses, are not to be reckoned as such ; on the contrary, the principles which they professed were for substance the same with those embraced afterwards by the re- formed churches ; as is abundantly manifest by sev- eral of their catechisms and confessions of faith, which have been transmitted to our times. Mr. Lind^ey, in his Apology, has given a kind of history of those who have opposed the doctrine of the Trinity ; but they make a poor figure during the iibove long and dark period, in which, if ever, a tes- timony for God was needed. He speaks of ** churches and sects, as well as individuals of that descrip- tion, in the Xllth century ;" and there might be such. But can he produce any evidence of their having so much virtue as to make any considerable sacrifices for God ? Whatever were their number, according to Mr. Lindsey's own account, from that time till the reformation (a period of three or four bun Ired years, and during which the Waldenses and the WickJiffites were sacrificing every thing for the preservation of a good conscience) they " were driven into corners, and silence.''* That is, there is no testi- mony upon record which they bore, or any account of their having so much virtue in them as to oppose, at the expense of either life, liberty, or property, the prevailing religion of the times. Mr. Lindsey speaks of the piety of "the famous Abelard ;'* but surely he must have been wretched- ly driven for want of that important article, or he * Chapter i. p. 34, LET. 6'.] IN GENERAL. 101 would not have ascribed it to a man, who, as a late writer observes, «* could with equal facility explain Ezekiel's prophecies, and compose amorous sonnets for Heloise ; and was equally free to unfold the doc- trine of the Trinity, and ruin the peace of a family, by debauching his patron's niece."* The same wri- ter, in the Appendix to his Farewell Sermon to the Congregation in Essex Street, lately published, holds up the piety of Servetus, by giving us one of his prayers addressed to Jesus Christ ; in which he expresses his full persuasion that he was under a divine impulse to write against his proper divinity. Surely, if Socinian piety had not been very scarce, Mr. Lindsey would not have been under the necessity of exhibiting the effusions of idolatry and enthusiasm, as examples of it. Religion will be allowed to have some influence in the forming of a national character : especially that of the common people, among whom, if any where, it generally prevails. Now if we look at those nations where Calvinism has been most preva- lent, it will be found, 1 believe, that they have not been distinguished by their immorality, but the re- verse, Geneva, the Seven United States, Scotland, and ]\orth America, (with the two last of which we may be rather better acquainted than with the rest) might be alleged as instances of this assertion. With respect to Scotland, though other sentiments are said to have lately gained ground with many of the cler^ v ; 3'et Calvinism is known to be generally prevalent among the serious part of the people. And as to their national character, you seldom know an intelli- gent Englishman to have visited that couatry, witli- I 2 • Mp. Robinson's. Plea for the Divinity of Christ, ij03j ON MORALITIf [lET. 6. out being struck with the peculiar sobriety, and religious behaviour of the inhabitants. As to America, though strictly speaking, they may be said to have no national religion (a happy circumstance in their favour) yet perhaps there is no one nation in the world where Calvinism has more generally prevailed. The great body of the first settlers were Calvinists ; and the far greater part of religious people among them, though of different denominations as to other mat- ters, continue such to this day. And, as to the mor- al effects which their religious principles have pro- duced, they are granted on all hands to be consider- able. They are a people, as the Mont hit/ Reviewers have acknowledged, " whose love of liberty is at- tempered with that of order and decency, and accom- panied with the virtues of integrity, moderation, and sobriety. They know the necessity of regard to re- ligion and virtue, both in principle and practice."* In each of these countries, it is true, as in all oth- ers, there are great numbers of irreligious individuals ; perhaps a majority : but they have a greater propor- tion of religious characters than most other nations can boast ; and the influence which these characters have upon the rest, is as that of a portion of leaven which leaveneth the whole lump. The members of the church of England, it may be taken for granted, were generally Calvinists, as to their doctrinal sentiments, at, and for some time after, the Reformation. Since that time those senti- ments have been growing out of repute, and Socinian- ism is supposed, among other principles, to have prevailed considerably among the members of that community. Dr. Priestley, however, is often very sanguine in estimating the great numbers of Unita- • Monthly Review from May to August, 1793, p. 502» let/6.] in general. 103§ rians among them. Now let it be considered, wheth- er this change of principle has in any degree been serviceable to the interests of piety or virtue. On the contrary, did not a serious walking with God, and a rigid attention to morals, begin to die away from the time that the doctrines contained in the thirty mne. articles began to be disregarded ?* And now, when Socinianism is supposed to have made a greater pro- gress than ever it did before, is there not a greater degree of perjury, and more dissipation of manners, that at almost any period since the reformation ? J am not insensible that it is the opinion of Dr. Priestley, and of some others, that men grow better, that the world advances considerably in moral im- provement ; nay, Mr. Belsham seems to favour an idea, that " in process of time, the earth may revert to its original paradisiacal state — and death itself be annihilated." This however will hardly be thought to prove any thing, except that enthusiasm is not confined to Calvinists, And as to men growing bet- ter, whatever may be the moral improvement of the world in general, Dr. Priestley somewhere acknowl- edges, that this is far from being the case with the church of England, especially since the times of bish- op Burnet. * With respect to the dissenters, were there ever men of holier lives than the generality of the puritans and nonconformists of the last two centuries ? Cau any thing, equal to their piety and devotedness to God, be found among the generality of the Socinians of their time, or of any time ? In sufferings, in • The same sort of people who held Calvinistic doctrines, were at the same time so severe in their morals, that Laud found it necessary, it seems, to publish. The Book of Sport s^^ in order to counteract their influence on the nation at large. ' J04 ON MORALITY [lET. 6. fastings, in prayers, in a firm adherence to their prin- ciples, in a close walk with God in their families, and in a series of unremitted labours for the good of man- kind, they spent their lives. But fastings and prayers, perhap^ may not be admitted as excellences in their character. It is pos- sible they may be treated with ridicule. Nothing less than this is attempted by Dr. Priestley in his Fifth Letter to Mr. Burn. *' 1 could wish (says he) to quiet your fears on your account. For the many sleepless nights which your apprehensions must nec- essarily have caused you, accompanied of course with much earnest prayer and fasting, must in time affect your health.'* Candour out of the question. Is this piety ? — It is said to be no uncommon thing for persons who have been used to pray extempore, when they have turned Socinians, to leave off that practice, and betake themselves to a written form of their own composition. This is formal enough, and will be thought by many to afford but slender evidence of their devotional spirit ; but yet one would have sup- posed they would not have dared to ridicule it in oth- ers, however destitute of it they might be themselves. Dr. Priestley allows that Unitarians are peculiar- ly wanting in zeal for religion.* That this concession is just, appears not only from the indifference of great numbers of them in private life, but from the conduct of many of their preachers. It has l)een observed, that when young ministers have become Socinians, they have frequently given up the ministry, and be- come school-masters, or any thing they could. Some, who have been possessed of fortunes, have become mere private gentlemen. Several such instances have occurred both among dissenters and churchmen. If • Discourses on Various Subjects, pp. 94, 95„ LET. 6.] IN GENERAL. 105- they bad true zeal for God and religion, why is it that they are so indifferent about preaching what they account the truth ? Dr. Priestley farther allows, that Calvinists have ** less apparent conformity to the world ; and that they seetn to have more of a real principle of religion than Socinians.'* But then he thinks the other have the most candour and benevolence ; " so, as upon the whole, to approach nearest to the proper temper of Christianity," He ** hopes also they have more of a real principle of religion than they seein to have/'* As to candour and benevolence, these will be consid- ered in another Letter. At present it is sufficient to observe, that Dr. Priestley, like Mr. Belsham, on a change of character in his converts, is obliged to have recourse to hope, and to judge of things con- trary to what they appear in the lives of men, in or- der to support the religious character of his party. That a large proportion of serious people are to be found among Calvinists, Dr. Priestley will not deny ; but Mrs. Barhauld goes farther. She acknowledges, in effect, that the seriousness which is to be found among Socinians themselves, is accompanied by a kind of secret attachment to our principles ; an at- tachment which their preachers and writers, it seems, have hitherto laboured in vain to eradicate. <' These doctrines (she says) it is true, among thinking people, are losing ground ; but there is still apparent in that class called serious christians, a tenderness in expos- ing them ; a sort of leaning towards them, as in v alk- ing over a precipice one should lean to the safest side : an idea that they are, if not true, at least good to be believed ; and that a salutary error is better than a * Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 100, 101. ^06 ON MORALITY IN GENERAL. [lET. b, dangerous truth.''* By the " class called serious christians," Mrs. Barbauld cannot mean professed Calvinists ; for they have no notion of leaning towards any system as a system of salutary error, but consid- er that to which they are attached as being the truth. She must therefore intend to describe the serious part of the people of her own profession. We are much obliged to Mrs. Barbauld for this important piece of information. We might not so readily have known without it, that the hearts and consciences of the setious part of Socinians revolt at their own prin- ciples ; and that, though they have rejected what they esteem the great doctrines of the gospel in theory, yet they have an inward leaning towards them as the only safe ground on which to rest their hopes. Ac- cording to this account it should seem, that serious christians are known by their predilection for Cal- vinistic doctrines ; and that those *' thinking people among whom these doctrines are losing ground," are not of that class or description, being distinguished from them. Well, it does not surprise us to hear, that ** those men who are the most indifferent to practical religion, are the JirSt, and serious christians the last, to embrace the rational system," because it is no more than might be expected. If there be any thing surprising in the affair, it is, that those who make these acknowledgments should yet boast of their principles, on account of their moral tendency. I am, &c. • Remarks on Wakefield's Enquiry. LET. 7.] LOVE TO GOD. 107 LETTER \ 11. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED, AS TO THEIR TENDENCY TO PROMOTE LOVE TO GOD, Christian Brethren, OUR opponents, as you have doubtless observed, are as bold in their assertions, as they are liberal in their accusations. Dr. Priestley not only asserts that the Calvinistic system is '* unfavourable to genuine piety, but to evert/ branch of vital practical religion.^'* We have considered, in the foregoing Letter, what relates to morality and piety in general : in the following Let- ters we shall descend to particulars, and inquire, under the several specific virtues of Christianity, which of the systems in question is the most unfavourable to them. I begin with love. The love of God and our neighbour, not only contains the sum of the moral law, but the spirit of true religion ; it must therefore afford a strong presumption for, or against a system, as it is found to promote or diminish these cardinal virtues of the christian character. On both these topics we are principally engaged on the defensive, as our views of things stand charged with beins: unfavourable to the love of both God and man. " There is something in your system of Christianity,*' says Dr. Priestley in his Letters to Mr. Burn, " that debases the pure spirit of it, and does not consist with either the perfect venera- tion of the divine character, which is the foundation of true devotion to God ; or perfect candour and benevo- lence to man/* A very serious charge, and which, could it be substantiated, would doubtless afford a strong presumption, if not more than presumption, • Consider, on Differ, of Opinion, § IIL i^lfS LOVE TO GOD. [lET. 7. i against US. But let the subject be examined. This Letter will be devoted to the first part of this heavy charge, and the following one to the last. As to the question, whether we feel a veneration for the divine character? I should think we ourselves must be the best judges. All that Dr. Priestley can know of the matter is, that he could not feel a perfect venera- tion for a Being of such a character as we suppose the Almighty to sustain. That, however, may be true, and yet nothing result from it unfavourable to our principles. It is not impossible that Dr. Priestley should be of such a temper of mind as incapacitates him for admiring, venerating, or loving God in his true character ; and hence he may be led to think, that all who entertain such and such ideas of God, must be void of that perfect veneration for him which he sup- poses himself to feel. The true character of God, as revealed in the scriptures, must be taken into the ac- count, in determining whether our love to God be gen- uine or not. We may clothe the Divine Being with such attributes, and such only, as will suit our depraved taste ; and then it will be no difficult thing to fall down ^nd worship him : bnt this is not the love of God, but of an idol of our own creating. The principal objections to the Calvinistic system, under this head, are taken from the four following to- pics : The atonemeyit ; the vindictive character of God ; X\\e glory of God, rather than the happiness of creatures, being his last end in creation ; and the worship paid to Jesus Christ. - - First, the doctrine of atonement as held by the Cal- vinists, is often represented by Y^r* Priestley as detract- ing from the goodness of God, and as inconsistent with \i\^ natural placability, — He seems always to consider this doctrine as originating in the want of love, or at LET. 7.] LOVE TO GOD. lt)9 kast, of a sufRcient degree of love ; as tbotigh God could not find in his heart to show mercy without a price being paid for it. ** Even the elect, (says he) according to their system, cannot he saved till the ut- most effects of the divine wrath have been suffered for them by an innocent person,*'* Mr. Jardine also, by the title which he has given to his late publication, calling it. The unpurchased love of God, in the redemp^ iion of the icorld by Jesus Christ; suggests the same idea. When our opponents wish to make good the charge of our ascribing a natural implacability to the Divine Being, it is common for them either to describe our sentiments in their own language ; or, if they deign to quote authorities, it is not from the sober discussions of prosaic writers, but from the figurative language of poetry. Mr. Belsham describes *' the formidable chi- mera of our imagination, to which, (he says) we have annexed the name of God the Father, as a merciless tyrant."f They conceive of ** God the Father,*' says Mr. Lindsey, ** always with dread, as a Being of severe, unrelenting justice, revengeful, and inexorable, without full satisfaction made to him for the breach of his laws. God the Son, on the other hand, is looked upon as made up of all com{)assion and goodness, interposing to save men from the Father's wrath, and subjecting him- self to the extremest sufferings on that account." For proof of this, we are referred to the poetry of Dr, Watts ! in which he speaks of the rich drops of Jesus' blood, that cabn\l his frowning face ; that spi^ink led o'er the hurning throne^ and turn d the wrath to grace — 0^ the • On Dlfler. of Opin. § iii. J Sermons on the Importance of Truth, p. 53—35. K 110 XOVE TO GOD, [let. ?• infant Deity ^ the bleeding God, and of heaven appeased withjiowing blood»* On this subject, a Calvinist might without pre- sumption adopt the language of our Lord to the Jews, / honour my Father, and ye do dishonour me. Noth- ing can well be a greater misrepresentation of our sentiments than this which is constantly given. These writers cannot be ignorant, that Calvinists disavow considering the death of Christ as a cause of divine love or goodness. On the contrarj^, they always main-, tain, that divine love is the cause, the first cause of our salvation, and of the death of Christ to that end. They would not scruple to allow that God had love enough in his heart to save sinners without the death of his Son, had it been consistent with righteousness ; but that, as receiving them to favour without some public expression of displeasure against their sin, would have been a dishonour to his government, and have afforded an encouragement for others to follow their example ; the love of God ivronght in a way of righteousness : first giving his oidy-begotten Son to become a sacrifice, and then pouring forth all the fulness of his heart through that appointed medium. The incapacity of God to show mercy without an atonement, is no other than that of a righteous gover- nor, who, whatever good-will he may bear to an of- fender, cannot admit the thought of passing by the offence, without some public expression of his dis- pleasure against it; that, while mercy triumphs, it may not be at the expense of law and equity, auH of the general good. So far as I understand it, this is the light in which Calvinists consider the subject. Now judge, brethren, • Apology (4th Ed.) p. 97, and Appendix to bis Farewell Sermon, at Essex-street, p. 52. LET. 7] LOVE TO GOD. Ill Whether this view of things represent the divine Be- ing as natiiidlly implacable ? Whether the gift of Christ to die for us be not the strongest expressioQ of the contrary ? and, Whether this, or the system which it opposes, " give wrong impressions concern- ing the character and moral government of God ?" Nay, I appeal to your own hearts. Whether that way of saving sinners through an atonement, in which mercy and truth meet together, righteousness and peace embrace each other ; in which God is just^ and the justifier of him that believeth in Jesus ; do not endear his name to you more than any other representation of him that was ever presented to your minds ? Were it possible for your souls to be saved in any other way, for the divine law to be relaxed, or its penalty remitted without respect to an atonement ; vyould there not be a virtual reflection cast upon the divine character ? Would it^ not appear as if God had enacted a law that was so rigorous as to require a repeal, and issued threatenings which he was obliged to retract ? Or, at least, that he had formed a sys- t'em of government without considering the circum- stances in which his subjects would be involved ; a system, " the strict execution of which would do more harm than good ;'' nay, as if the Almighty, on this account, were ashamed to maintain it, and yet had not virtue enougli to acknowledge the remission to be an act o^ justice^ but must all along call it by the name of grarc f Would not the thought of such a reflection destroy the bliss of heaven, and stamp such an impression of meanness upon that character whom you are taught to adore, as would almost in- capacitate yon for revering or loving him ? It is farther objected, that, according to the Cal- vinistic system, God is a vindictive Beings and that llf^ LOTE TO GOD. [lET. 7. as such we cannot love him. — It is said, that we *• rep- resent God in such a light, that no earthly parent could imitate him without sustaintns: a character shocking to mankind,*' That there is a mixture of the vindictive in the Calvinistic sjstem, is allowed : but let it be closely considered, whether this be any disparagement to it ? Nay, rather, whether it be not necessary to its perfection ? The issue in this case entirely depends upon the question. Whether vindic- tive justice be in itself amiable ? If it be, it cannot render any system unamiable. <' We are neither amused nor edified, (says a writer in the Montkli/ ReviewJ by the coruscations of damnation. Nor can we by any means bring ourselves to think, with the late Mr. Edwards, that the vindictive justice of God is a glorious attribute.''* This however may be very true, and vindictive justice be a glorious attribute, notwithstanding. I believe it is very common for people, when they speak of vindictive punishment, to mean that kind of punishment which is inflicted from a wrathful dis- position, or a disposition to punish for the pleasure of punishing. Now, if this be the meaning of our opponents, we have no dispute with them. We do not suppose the Almighty to punish sinners for the sake of putting them to pain. Neither scripture, nor Calvinism, conveys any such idea. Vindictive punishment, as it is here defended, stands opposed to that punishment which is merely corrective : the one is exercised for the good of the party ; the other not so, but for the good of the community. Those who deny this last to be amiable in God, must found their denial either on scripture testimony, or on the nature and fitness of things. As to the former, the * Rev. of Edwards' XXXIII Sermons, for Mar. 1791. LET. 7.] LOYE TO GOD, 113 scriptures will hardly be supposed to represent God as an unamiable Being ; if therefore they teach that vindictive justice is an unamiable attribute, it must be maintained that they never ascribe that attribute to God. But with what colour of evidence can this be aHe<^ed ? Surely, not from such language as the following : The Lord thy God is a consuming five^ even a jealous God — Our God is a consuming fire — God is jeahus, and the Lord revengeth ; the Lord REVENGETH, and IS fuTious ; the Lord ivitl take VENGEANCE OTi his adversaries, and he reserveth wrath for his enemies-^Who can stand before his in- dignation? and who can abide in the fierceness of his anger ? — His fury is poured out like fire — O Lord God, to whom vengeance belongeth : O God, to whom VENGEANCE belongeth, shew thyself/ — He that shew- eth no mercy shall have judgment without mercy — He that made them tvill not have mercy on them, and he that formed them will shew them no favour — For we know him that hath said. Vengeance belongeth unto me, I will recompense, saith the Lord — Jt is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God — / lifl up my hand to heaven, and say, I live /orever. If £ whet my glittering sword, and mine hand take hold on judgment, I will render vlngeance to mine enemies, and will reward them that hate me — The angels which kept not their first estate, he hath reserved in ever- lasting chains, under darkness, unto the judgment of the great day — Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them are set forth for an example, suffering the vevgeance of eternal fire — The Lord Jesus shall be revealed from heaven, with his mighty angels, in fiam'- ing fire, taking vengeance on them that know not K 2 114 LOVE TO GOD, [lET. 7* God^ and that obey not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ.* As to the nature and fitness of things, we cannot draw any conclusion frorn thence against the loveli- ness of vindictive justice, as a divine attribute, unless the thing itself can be proved to be unlovely. But this is contrary to the common sense and practice of mankind. There is no nation or people under heaven but what consider it in various cases as botb neces- sary and lovely. It is true, they would despise and "abhor a magistrate, who should punish beyond desert ; or who should avail himself of the laws of his country to gratify his own caprice, or his private revenge. This, however, is not vindictive justice, but manifest injustice. No considerate citizen who values the pub- lic weal, could blame a magistrate for putting the penal laws of his country so far in execution, as should be necessary for the true honour of good gov- ernment, the support of good order, and the terror of wicked men. When the inhabitants of Gibeah requested, that the Levite might be brought out to them that they might know him ; and on their re- quest not being granted, abused and murdered his companion ; all Israel, as one man, not only con- demned the action, but called upon the Benjamites to deliver up the criminals to justice. Had the Ben- jamites complied with their request, and had those sons of Belial been put to death, not for their own good, but for the good of the community, where had been the nnloveliness of the procedure ? On the con- trary, such a conduct must have recommended itself to the heart of every friend of righteousness in the * Deut. iv. 24. Heb. xii. 29. Nahum i. 2, 6. Psalm xciv I. Tames ii. 13. Isa. xxvii. 11. Heb. x. 30, 31. Deut. xxxii/40, 41. Jude 6, 7. 2 Thes. i. a LET. 7.] LOVE TO GOD. 115 universe, as well as have prevented the shockin|^ ef- fusion of blood which followed their refusal. Now, if vindictive justice may be glorious in a human gov- ernment, there is no reason to be drawn from the na- ture and Jitness of things, why it would not be the same in the divine administration. But the idea on which our opponents love principally to dwell, is that of a father. Hence the charge, that we ** represent God in such a light that no earthly parent could imitate him, without sustaining a character shocking to mankind." This objection comes with an ill grace from Dr. Priestley ; who teaches, that *' God is the author of sin ; and may do evil, provided it be with a view that good may come.''* Is not this repre- senting God in such a light, that no one could imitate him without sustaining a character shocking to man- kind ? Whether Dr. Priestley's notions on this subject be true, or not, it is true that God's ways are so much above ours, that it is unjust in many cases to measure his conduct to a rebellious world, by that of a father to his children. In this matter, however, God is imitable. We have seen already that a good magistrate, who may justly be called the father of his people, ought not to be under the influence of blind affection, so as in any case to shew mercy at the expense of the public good. Nor is this all : There are cases in which a parent has been obliged, in benevolence to his family, and from a con- cern for the j^eneral good, to give up a stubborn and rebellious son, to bring him forth with his own hands to the elders of his city, and there with his own lips bear witness against him ; such witness too as would subject him not to a mere salutary correction, but to be stoned to death by the men of his city. We know such a law • On Necessity, p. 117 — 121. 116 LOVE TO GOD. [l^T. ?. was made in Israel ;* and as a late writer observed up- on it, such a law *' was wise and good ;"f it was calcu- lated to enforce in parents an early and careful educa- tion of their children ; aiid if, in any instance, it was executed, it was that ail Israel might hear and fear / And how do we know but that it may be consistent with the good of the whole system, yea, necessary to it, that some of the rebellious sons of men, should, in company with apostate angels, be made examples of divine ven- geance ; that they should stand, like Lot's wife, as pillars of salt, or as everlasting monuments of God's displeasure against sin ; and that while their smoke ris- eth up forever and ever, all the intelligent universe should hear and fear, and do no more so wickedly ! In- deed, we must not only know, that this may be the case, but if we pay any regard to the authority of scri{)ture, that it 25 so. \^ words have any meaning, this is the idea given us of the Angels who kept not their first estate ; and of the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrha ; who are said to be set forth for an example, suj/ering the vengeance of eternal fire, % It belongs to the character of an all-perfect Being, who is the moral governor of the universe, to promote the good of the whole ; but there may be cases, as in human governments, wherein the general good may be inconsistent with the happiness af particular parts. The case of robbers, of murderers, or of traitors, whose lives aresacriticed for the good of society, that the example of terror afforded by their death may counteract the ex- ample of immorality exhibited by their life, is no de- traction from the benevolence of a government, but rather essential to it. * Deut. xxi. 18—21. I Mr. Robinson, in his Sermon to the Young People at WiUingham. \ Jude 6, 7. LET. 7.] LOVE TO GOD. 117 But how, after all, can we love such a tremendous Being ? I answer, a capacity to resent an injury is not always considered as a blemish even in 2i private charac» ter : if it be governed by justice and aimed at the cor- rection of evil, it is generally allowed to be commenda- ble. We do not esteem the favour of a man if we con* sider him as incapable, on any occasion, of resentment, M^e should call him an easy soul, who is kind, merely because he has not sense enough to feel an insult. But shall we allow it right and tit for a puny mortal thus far to know his own worth, and assert it ; and at the same time deny it to the great Supreme, and plead for his being insulted with impunity ? God, however, in the punishment of sin, is not to be considered as acting in a merely private capacity ^ but as the universal moral governor ; not as separate from the great system of Being, but as connected with it ; or as head and guardian of it. Now in this relation^ vindictive justice is not only consistent with the loveli- ness of his character, but essential to it. Capacity and inclination to punish a disorder in a state, are never thought to render an earthly prince less lovely in the eyes of his loyal and faithful subjects, but more so. That temper of mind, on the contrary, which should induce him to connive at rebellion, however it might go by the name of benevolence and mercy, would be ac- counted by all the friends of good government, injustice to the public ; and those who in such cases side with the disaffected, and plead their cause, are generally supposed to be tainted with disaffection themselves. A third obje-ctlon is taken from the consideration of the gloTif of Gody rather than the happiness of creatures being his last end in creation. — '* Those who assume to themselves the distinguishing title of orthodox, (says. Dr. Priestley,) consider the supreme Being as having I^IS LOVE TO GOD. [lET. ?. created all things for his gfori/, and by no means for the general happiness of ail his creatures,"* If by the general happiness of all his creatures. Dr. Priestley means, the general good of the universe, nothing can be more unfair than this representation. Those who are called orthodox never consider the glory of God as being at variance with the happiness of creation in gen- eral, nor with that of any part of it, except those who have revolted from the divine government : nor, if we regard the intervention of a mediator, with theirs, un- less they prove finally impenitent, or, as Dr. Priestley calls them, *' wilful and obstinate transgressors." The glory of God consists, with reference to the present case, in doing that which is best upon the whole. But if, by the general happine'Ss of all his creatures, he means to include the happiness of those angels who kept not their first estate, and of those men who die impenitent; it is acknowledged, that what is called the orthodox system does by no means consider this as an end in creation, either supreme or subordinate. To suppose that the happiness of all creatures, whatever might be their future conduct, was God's ultimate end in creation, (unless we could imagine him to be disap- pointed with respect to the grand end he had in view) iis to suppose what is contrary to Jact, All creatures we are certain are not happy in this world ; and, if any regard is to be paid to revelation, all will not be happy in the next. If it be alleged, that a portion of misery is necessary in order to relish liappiness ; that therefore the mis- eries of the present life, upon the whole, are blessings : and that the miseries threatened in the life to come may be of the same nature, designed as a purgation, by means of which, sinners will at length escape the * On Differ, of Opin. § iii. LET. 7) LOVE TO GOD. 1 l^ second death^ — It is replied. All the miseries of this world are not represented as blessings to the parties, nor even all the good things of it. The drowning of Pharaoh, for instance, is never described as a blessing to him ; and God declared that he had cursed the blessings of the wicked priests, in the days of the prophet Malachi. All things^ we are assured, work together for good; but this is confined to those who love God, and are the called according to his purpose. As to the life to come, if the miseries belonging to that state be merely temporary and purgative, there must be all along a mixture of love and mercy in them ; whereas tlie language of scripture is. He that hath shewed no mercy, shall have judgment without mkrcy — The wine of the wrath of God will be poured out without mixture. Nay, such miseries must not only contain a mixture of love and mercy, but they themselves must be the effects and expressions of love ; and then it will follow, that the foregoing language of limitation and distinction (which is found indeed throughout the Bible) is of no account ; and that blessings and curses are the same things. Dr. Priestley himself speaks of " the laws of God as being guarded with awful sanctions ;" and says, that " God will inflexibly punish all wilful and obstinate transgressors."* But how can that be called an awful sanction which only subjects a man to such misery as is necessary for liis good r How, at least, can that be accounted e/?y?^j:i6/e punishment in which the divine Being all along aims at the sinner's happiness ? We might as well call the operation of a surgeon in amputating a mortified limb, in order to save the pa- tient's life, by the name of inflexible punishment, as those miseries which are intended for* the good of the sinner. If that be their end, they are, strictly speaking, • On DifF. of Opin. § iil. 120 I.OVE TO GOD. [let. ?. blessings, though blessings in disguise : and in that case, as Dr. Edwards in his answer to Dr. Chauncey has fully proved, blessings and curses are in effect the same things. As to our considering the Supreme Being as having created all things for his own glory, I hope it will be allowed that the scriptures seem, at least, to countenance such an idea. They teach us that God made all things FOR HIMSELF — hat all things are created by him, and FOR HIM. He is expressly said to have created Israel (and, if Israel, why not others ?) for his glory. Not only of him, and through him, but, to him are all things. Glory, and honour, and power, are ascribed to him, by the elders and the living creatures ; for, say they. Thou hast created all things ; and for thy PLEASURE they are and icere created* But farther, and what is more immediately to the point, I hope this sentiment will not be alleged as a proof of oar want of love to God ; for it is only assign- ing him the supreme place in the system of being; and Dr. Priestley himself elsewhere speaks of " tiie love of God, and a regard to his glory,'* as the same thing.f One should think those, on the other hand, who assign the happiness of creatures as God*s ulti- mate end, thereby giving him only a subordinate place in the system, could not allege this as an evidence of their love to him. That place which God holds in the great system of being, he ought to hold in our affec- tions; for we are not required to love him in a greater proportion than the place which he occupies requires. If it were otherwise, our affections must move in a pre- |)osterous direction. We ought, therefore, on this sup- • Prov. xvi. 4. Col. i. 16. Isai xllii. 7. Heb. ii. 10. Rom. xi. 36. Rev. iv. 11. f Oil differ, of Opia. § i. f^ET, 7.] LOVE TO GOD, l4l? position, to love ourselves, our own happiness, and the happiness of our fellow-creatures, more than God ; for as occasion r€» 122 LOVE TO GOD. [lET. 7. quired, give way to it. The glory of his own charac- ter, occupying only a subordinate place in the system, if ever it should stand in the way of that which is su- preme, must give place among other things. And if God have consented to all this, it must be because the happiness, not only of creation in general, but of every individual, is an object of the greatest magnitude, and most fit to be chosen : that is, it is better, and more worthy of God, as the governor of the universe, to give up his character for purity, equity, wisdom, and verac- ity, and to become vile and contemptible in the eyes of his creatures ; it is better that the bands which bind all holy intelligencies to him should be broken, and the cords which hold together the whole moral system be cast away, than that the happiness of a creature should in any instance be given up ! Judge, ye friends of God, does this consist with '* the most perfect veneration for the divine character ?*' Once more : It seems to be generally su^xposed by our opponents, that the worship we pay to Christ tends to divide our hearts ; and that in proportion as we adore him, we detract from the essential glory of the Father. In this view, therefore, they reckon themselves to exercise a greater veneration for God than we. But it is worthy of notice, and particularly the serious no- tice of our opponents, that it is no new thing for an op- position to Christ to be carried on under the plea of love to God. This was the very plea of the Jews when they took up stones to stone him. For a good work, said they, we stove thee not, but for that thou, being a man, makest thyself God. They very much prided themselves in their God ; and under the influence of that spirit constantly rejected the Lord Jesus. Thou art called a Jew, and makest thy boast of God — We be . not born of fornication ; we have one Father, even God LET. 7.] LOVE TO GOD. 123 — Give God the praise, we hwic that this man is a siri" ner. It was under the pretext of zeal and friendship for God, that tliey at last put him to death as a blasphe^ mer. But what kind of zeal was this ; and in what manner did Jesus treat it ? Jf God were your Father 9 said he, ye tvouhl love me — He that is of God, heareth God's words — It is my Father that honoureth me, of tohom ye say that he is your God ; yet ye have not known him — / know you^ that you have not the love of God in you,* Again : Tiie primitive christians will be allowed to have loved God aright ; yet they worshipped Jesus Christ. Not only did the martyr Stephen close his life by committing his departing spirit into the hands of Jesus, but it was the common practice in primitive times to invoke his name. He hath authority, said Ananias concerning Saul, to bind all that call on thy name. One part of the christian mission was to de- clare, That whoj^oever should call on the name of the Lord should be saved ; even of that Lord of whom the Gentiles had not heard. Paul addressed him- self to all that in every place called upon the name of Jesus Christ. These modes of expression (which if I be not greatly mistaken, always signify divine worship) plainly inform us, that it was not merely the practice of a few individuals, but of the great body of the primitive christians, to invoke the name of Christ ; nay, and that this was a mark by which they were distinguished as christians.-^ Farther : It ought to be considered, that in wor- shipping the Son of God, we worship him not on ae- • Rom ii. 17. John x. 33, viii. 41. ix. 24. viii. 42, 47, 54, 55. v. 42. t Acts ix. 14. compared with Ver. 17. Rom. x. 11—14. 1 Cor. i. 2. IM LOVE TO GOD. [lET. 7. €Ount of that wherein he differs from the Father ; but on account of those perfections which we believe him to possess in common with him. This, with the consideration that we worship him not to the exclusion of the Father, any more than the Father to the ex- clusion of him, but as ojie with hiiUy removes all ap- prehensions from our minds, that in ascribing glory to the one, we detract from that of the other. Nor can we think, but that these ideas are confirmed, and the weight of the objection removed, by those dec- larations of scripture where the Father and the Son are represented as being in such union, that he tvho hath seen the one, hath seen the other ; and he who honoureth the one, honoureth the other ; yea, that he who honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father who sent him.* ft might fairly be argued in favour of the tendency of Calvinistic doctrines to promote the love of God, that upon those principles we have more to love him for, than upon the otiier. On this system we have much to be forgiven, and therefore love much. The ^'x- pense at which our salvation has be*i\ obtained, as we believe, furnishes us with a motive of love to which nothing can be compared. But this I shall refer to Another place ;f and conclude with reminding you, that notwithstanding Dr. Priestley loads Calvinistic principles with such heavy charges as those raention- • John xiv. T — 9 v. 23. The reader may see this subject ably urged by Mr. Scott, in his Mssays oti the most hnportant Subjects of religion, First edition, No. vii. p. 96, 97. These JCssays are of a piece with the other productions of that ju- dicious writer ; and, though small, and for the convenience of the poor, sold for o7ie penny each, contain a fund of solldj^, rational, and scriptural divinity. f Letter x.iY. LET. 8.] ON CANDOUR, &G. 125 ed at the beginning of this Letter, yet he elsewhere acknowledges thenci to be " generally favourable to that leading virtue, devotion ;" which in effect is acknowledging them to be favourable to the love of God. I am, &c. LETTER Vin. ON CANDOUR AND BENEVOLENCE TO MEN. Christian Brethren^ , YOU recollect that the Calvinistic system standi charged by Dr. Prie&tley, not only with being incon- sistent with a perfect veneration of the divine char- acter, but with *' perfect candour and benevolence to jnan." This, it must be owned, has often been objected to the Calvinists. Their views of things have been supposed to render them sour and ill-natured towards those who ditfer from them. Charity, candour, be- nevolence, liberality, and the like, are virtues to which Socinians, on the other hand, lay almost an exclusive claim. And such a weight do they give these virtues in the scale of morality, that they con- ceive themselves, " upon the wliole, even allowinp- that they have more of an apparent conformity to the world than the Trinitarians, to approach nearer to the proper temper of Christianity than they."* I shall not go about to vindicate Calvinists any farther than 1 conceive their spirit and conduct to admit of a fair vindication ; but I am satisfied that if things be closely examined, it will be found that a • Dr. Priestley's Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 100. L 2 126 ON CANDOtJii [htt. &4 great deal of what our opponents attribute to tbem-i selves is not benevolence or candour; and that a great deal of what they attribute to us, is not owing to the want of either* Respecting benevolence or good-will to men, in or- der to be genuine, they must consist with love to God, There is such a thing as partiality to men, with respect to the points in which they and tlieir Maker are at variance ; but this is not benevolence. Partiality to a criminal at the bar might induce us to pity him so far as to plead in extenuation of his guilt, and to endeavour to bring him off from the just punishment of the laws ; but this would not be benevolence. There must be a rectitude in our ac- tions and affections to render them truly virtuous. Regard to the public good must keep pace with compassion to the miserable ; else the latter will de-* generate into vice, and lead us to be partakers of other mens sins. Whatever pretence be made to de- votion, or love to God, we never admit them to be real, unless accompanied with love to men ; neither ought any pretence of love to men to be admitted as genuine, unless it be accompanied with love to God. JEach of these virtues is considered in the scriptures as an evidence of the other. If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother ^ he is a liar — By this we know that we love the children of God, when we love God, aiid keep his commandments,* There is such a thing as partiality to men, as ob- served before, with respect to the points in which they and their Maker are at variance ; leaning to those notions that represent their sin as compara- tively little, and their repentance and obedience as a balance against it ; speaking smooth things, and • 1 John iv. 20, v. 3. LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE. 12*7 aifording flattering intimations that without an atone- ment, nay, even without repentance in this lite, all will be well at last. But if it should prove, that God is wholly in the right, and man wholly in the wrontj : that sin is exceedinsr sinful : that we all de- serve to be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord ; and that, if we be not interested in the atonement of Christ, this punish- ment must actually take place ; — if these things, I say, should at last prove true, then all such notions as have flattered the pride of men, and cherished their presumption, instead of being honoured with the epithets of liberal and benevolent, will be called by very difl'erent names. The princes and people of Judah would doubtless be apt to think the senti* ments taught by Hananiah, who prophesied smooth things concerning them, much more benevolent and liberal than those oi* Jeremiah ^ (ch. 28.) who generally came with heavy tidings ; yet true benevolence existed only in the latter. Whether the complexion of the whole system of our opponents do not resemble that of the false prophets, who prophesied smooth things, and healed the hurt of the daughter of Israel slightly^ crying, peace, peace, when there was no peace ; and whether their objections to our views of things be not the same for substance as might have been made to the true prophets, let all who wish to know the truth, however ungrateful it may be to flesh and blood, decide. A great deal of what is called candour and henev** olence among Socinians, is nothing else but indijfference to ail religious principle. ** If we could be so happy, (says Dr. Priestley) as to believe that there are no errors, but what men may be so circumstanced as to be innocently betrayed into ; that any mistake oi the I2S ON CANDOUR [lET. 8. head is very consistent with rectitude of heart ; and that all ditfereuces ia modes of worship may be only the difierent methods by which ditterent men (who are equally the oj/spring of God) are endeavouring to honour and obey their common parent ; our diti'er- ences of opinion would have no tendency to lessen our mutual love and esteem.'** This is manifestly no other than indifference to all religious principle. Such an indifference, it is allowed, would produce a temper of mind which Dr. Priestley calls candour and benevolence ; but which, in fact, is neither the one, nor the other. Benevolence is good will to men ; but good will to men is very distinct from a good opinion of their principles, or their practices ; so dis- tinct, that the former may exist in all its force, with- out the least degree of the latter. Our Lord thought very ill of the principles and practices of the people of Jerusalem ; yet he beheld the citi/y and ivept over it* This was genuine benevolence. Benevolence is a very distinct thing from compla^' cency or esteem. These are founded on an approba- tion of character ; the other is not. 1 am bound by the law of love to bear good will to men, as creatures of God, and as fellow-creatures, so as by every mean in my power to promote their welfare, both as to this life, and that which is to come ; and all this, let their character be what it may. 1 am also bound to esteem every person, for that in him which is truly amiable, be he a friend or an enemy, and to put the best con- struction upon his actions that truth will admit ; but no law obliges me to esteem a person respecting those things which I have reason to consider as erroneous or vicious. I may pity him, and ought to do so; but to esteem him in those respects would be contrary * On Dif. of Opin. § ii. LET. 8.] AND BENEYOLENCE. I^ to the love of both God and man. Indifference to religious principle, it is acknowledged, will promote such esteem. Under the influence of that indifference we may form a good opinion of various characters, which otherwise we should not do ; but the question is. Would that esteem be right, or amiable ? On the contrary, if religious principle of any kind should be found necessary to salvation ; and if benevolence con- sist in that good-will to men, which leads us to pro- mote their real welfare, it must contradict it ; for the welfare of men is promoted by thinking and speaking the truth concerning them. 1 might say, If we could be so happy as to think virtue and vice indifferent things, we should then possess a far greater degree of esteem for some men than we now do; but woul4 such a kind of esteem be right, or of any use either to ourselves or them ? Candour, as it relates to the treatment of an adversa- ry, is that temper of mind which will induce us to treat him openly,, fairly, and ingenuously ; granting him eve- ry thing that can be o ranted consistent with truth, and entertaining the most favourable opinion of his character and conduct that justice will admit. But what has all this to do with indifference to religious principle, as to matters of salvation ? Is there no such thing as treating a person with fairness^ openness, and generosity, while we entertain a very ill opinion of his principles, and have the most painful apprehensions as to the danger of his state ? Let our opponents name a more candid writer of controversy than President Edwards : yet he consider- ed many of the sentiments against which he wrote, as destructive to the souls of men, and those who held them as being in a dangerous situation. As a great deal of what is called candour and benevo- lenccj^ among Socinians, is merely the effect of indiffer- 130 ON CANDOUR*^ [lET. 8" ence to religions principle ; so a great deal of that in Calvinists, for which they are accused of the want of these virtues, is no other than a seriovs attachment to what they account divine truths and a serious disappro* hation of sentiments which they deem subversive of it. Now, surely, neither of these things is inconsistent with cither candour or benevolence : if they be, however, Jesus Christ and his apostles are involved in the guilt, equally with the Calvinists. They cultivated such an attachment to religious principle, as to be in real earnest in the promotion of it ; and constantly represented the knowledge and belief of it as necessary to eternal life. Ye shall know the truth, said Christ, and the truth shall make you free — This is life eternal, to know thee the ifnly true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast stnt — He that believeth on the 5o??, hath everlasting life ; and he that believeth not the Son, shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him,* They also constantly discovered a marked disapprobation of those sentiments which tended to introduce another gospel, so far us to declare that man accursed who should propagate them. They considered false principles as pernicious and de- structive to the souls of men. // ye believe not that I am he, said Christ to the Jews, ye shall die in your sins — and tvhither I go ye cannot co?ne. To the Galatians, who did not fully reject Christianity, but in the matter of justification were for uniting the works of the law with the grace of the gospel, Paul testified, saying. If ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing.'^ Had the apostle Paul considered «' all the different modes of worship as what might be only the different methods of different men, endeavouring to honour and obey their common parent ;" he would not have felt his * John vili. 32. xvii. 3. iii. 36. t John viii. 21—24. Gal. i. 8. v. 2, 3, 4; LET, 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE. 131 spirit stirred in him, when he saw the city of Athens wholly given to idolatry : at least, he would not have addressed idolaters in such strong language as he did, preaching to them that they should turn from these vani- ties unto the living God, Paul considered them as having been all their life employed, not in worshipping the living God, only in a mode ditierent from others, but mere vanities. Nor did he consider it as a *' mere mistake of the head, into which they " might have beea innocently betrayed ;" but as a siii, for which they were without excuse ; a sin for which lie called upon them in the name of the living God to repent,* Now, if candour and benevolence be christian virtues, which they doubtless are, one should think they must consist with the practice of Christ and his apostles. But if this be allowed, the main ground on which Cal- vinists are censured will be removed ; and the candour for which their opponents plead must appear to be spu- rious, and foreign to the genuine spirit of Christianity. Candour and benevolence, as christian virtues, must also consist with each other ; but the candour of Sociiii- ans is destructive of benevolence, as exemplified in the scriptures. ' Benevolence in Christ and his apostles ex- tended not merely, nor mainly, to the bodies of men, but to their souls ; nor did they think so favourably of mankind as to desist from warning and alarming them, but the reverse. They viewed the whole world as lying in wickedness, in a perishing condition ; and hazarded the loss of every earthly enjoyment to rescue them from it, as from the jaws of destruction. Btit it is easy to perceive, that in proportion to the influence of Socinian candour upon us, we shall consider mankind, even the heathens, as a race of virtuous beings, all worshipping the great Father of creation, only in difterent modes. ♦ Acts xvii. 16. xiv. 15. Rom. i. 20. Acts xvii. 30. 132 ON CANDOUtt [let. ^. Our concern for their salvation will consequently abate, and we shall become so indifferent respecting it, as nev- er to take any considerable pains for their conversion^ This, indeed, is the very truth with reg^ard to Socinians, They discover, in general, no manner of concern for the salvation of either heathens abroad, or profligates at home. Their candour supplies the place of this species of benevolence, and not unfrequently excites a scornful smile at the conduct of those who exercise it. The ditference between our circumstances and those of Christ and his apostles, who were divinely inspired, however much it ought to deter us from passing judg- luent upon the hearts of individuals ; ought not to make us think that every mode of worship is equally safe, or that religious principle is indifferent as to the affairs of salvation ; for this would be to consider as false, what by divine inspiration they taught as true. Let us come to matters of fact. Mr, Belsham does not deny that Calvinists may be " pious, candid, and benevolent ;" but he thinks they would have been more so if they had been Socinians. *« They, and there are many such, (says he) who are sincerely pious^ and diffu- isively benevolent icith 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."* Now, if this be indeed the case, one might expect that the most perfect examples of these virtues are not to be looked for among ns, but among our opponents ; and yet it may be questioiied whether they will pretend to more perfect examples of piety, candour, or benevolence, than are to be found in the characters of a Hale, a Franck, a Brainerd, an Edwards, a Whitefield, a Thornton, and a Howard, (to say nothing of the living) whose lives * Sermon on the Importance of Truth/ p. 30, LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE. I^MI were spent in doing good to the souls and bodies of men ; and who lived and died depending on the aton- ing blood and justifying righteousness of the Lord Jesus Christ. The last of these great men, in whom his country glories, and who is justly considered as the martyr of humanity ^ is said thus to have expressed him- self at the close of his last Will and Testament : " IVJy immortal spirit I cast on the sovereign mercy of God, through Jesus Christ, who is the Lord of my strength, and I trust is become my salvation." He is said also to have given orders for a plain neat stone to be placed upon his grave, with this inscription, Spes mea Christus : Christ is my hope ! We are often reminded of the persecuting spirit of Trinitarians, and particularly of Calvin toward Serve- tus. This example has been long held up by our oppo- nents, not only as a proof of his cruel disposition, and odious character, but as if it were sufficient to deter- mine, what must be the turn and spirit of Calvinists in general. But sup[)osing tlie case to which they appeal were allowed to prove the cruelty of Calvin's disposi- tion ; nay, that he was, on the whole, a wicked man, destitute both of religion and humanity ; What would all this prove as to the tendency of the system that happened to be called after his name, but which is al- lowed to have existed long before he was born ? We regard what no njan did or taught as oramlar, unless he could prove himself divinely inspired, to which Cal- vin never pretended. Far be it from us to vindicate him, or any other man, in the business of persecution. We aVihor every thing of the kind as much as onr oppo- nents. Though the principles for which he contended appear to us, in the main, to be just ; yet the weapons of his warfare, in this instance, were carnal. M 1^4 ON CANDOUR [lET. 8. It ought, however, to be acknowledged on the other side, and if our opponents possessed all the candour to which they pretend, they would in this, as well as in Other cases, acknowledge, that persecution for religious principles was not at that time peculiar to any party of christians, but common to all, whenever they were in- vested with civil power. It was an error, and a detesta- ble one ; but it was the error of the age. They looked upon heresy in the same light as we look upon those crimes which are inimical to the peace of civil society ; and, accordingly, proceeded to punish heretics by the sword of the civil magistrate. If Soclnians did not persecute their adversaries so much as Trinitarians, it was because they were not equally invested with the power of doing so. Mr. Lindsey acknowledges that Fausius Socinus himself was not free from persecution in the case of Francis DavideSy superintendent of the Unitarian churches in Transylvania. Davides had disputed with Socinus on the invocation of Christ, and '* died in prison in consequence of his opinion, and so ne offence taken at his supposed indiscreet propaga- tion of it from the pulpit. I wish I could say, (adds Mr. Lindsey) that Socinus, or his friend Bjandrata, had done all in their power to prevent his com^iiitment, or procure his release afterwards.*' — The difference be- tween Socinus and Davides was very slight. They both held Christ to be a mere man. The former, however, was for praying to him ; which the latter, with much greater consistency, disapproved. Considering this, the persecution to which Socinus was accessary was as great as that of Calvin ; and there is no reason to think but that if Davides had differed as much from Socinus as Servetus did from Calvin, and if the civil magistrates bad been for buriMng him, Socinus would have concur- red with thera. To this might he added, that the con- LET. 8.] AND BENEYOLENCE. 135 duct ofSocinus was marked with disingenuity ; in that he considered the opinion of Davides in no very heinous point of light ; but was afraid of increasing the odiuna, under which he and his party aheady lay, among other christian churches.* Mr. Robinson, in his Ecclesiastical Researches^ has given an account of both these persecutions ; but it is easy to perceive the prejudice under which he wrote. He evidently inclines to extenuate the conduct of Soci- nus, while he includes every possible circumstance that can in any manner blacken the memory of Calvin. Whatever regard we may bear to the latter, 1 am per- suaded we should not wish to extenuate his conduct in the persecution of Servetus ; or to represent it in softer terms, nor yet so soft, as Mr. Robinson has represented that of the former in the persecution of Davides, We do not accuse Socinianism of being a persecuting system, on account of thi's instance of misconduct in Sociniis : Vior is it any proof of the superior candour of our opponents, that they are continually acting the very reverse towards us. As a Baptist^ I might in- dulge resentment against CVawwrr,^who caused some of that denomination to be burned alive : yet I am in- clined to think, from all that I have read of Cranmer, that notwithstanding his conduct in those instances, he was upon the whole of an amiable disposition. Though he held with Pedobaptism, and in this manner defended it, yet I should never think of imputing a spirit of persecution to Pedobaptists in general ; or of charg- ing their sentiment, in that particular, with being of a persecuting tendency. It was the opinion that errone* ouSi religious principles are punishable by the civil mag* isirate, that did the mischief, whether at Geneva, in Transylvania, or in Britain ; and to this, rather than to * Mr. Lindsey's Apol. p. 153—156. 138 . ON CANDOUR [lET. 8» Trinitarianism, or to Unitarianism, it ought to be imputed. We need not hold with Mr. Lindsey, " the inno- cence of error/' in order to shun a spirit of persecution. Though we conceive of error, in many cases, as crimi- nal in the sight of God, and as requiring admonition, yea, exclusion from a religious society ; yet, while we reject all ideas of its exposing a person to civil punish- ment, or inconvenience, we ought to be acquitted of the charge of persecution. Where the majority of a religious society consider the avowed principles of an individual of that society as being fundamentally erro- neous, and inconsistent v^ith the united worship and well-being of the whole; it cannot be persecution to endeavour by scriptural arguments to convince him ; and, if that cannot be accomplished, to exclude him from their communion. , It has been suggested, that to think the worse of a person on account of his sentiments, is a species of persecution, and indicates a spirit of bitterness at the bottom, which is inconsistent with that benevolence which is due to ail mankind. But if it be persecution to think the worse of a person, on account of his sen- timents (unless no man be better or worse, whatever sentiments he imbibes, which very few will care to assert) then it must be persecution for us to think of one another according to truth. It is also a species of persecution, of which our opponents are guilty as well as we, whenever they maintain the superior moral tendency of their own system. That which is adapt- ed and intended to do good to the party, cannot be persecution, but genuine benevolence. Let us sup- pose a number of travellers, all proposing to journey to one place. A number of different ways present themselves to view, and each appears to be the right LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE, 137 way. Some are inclined to one, sonae to another ; and some contend that, whatever smaller difference there may be between them, they all lead to the same end. Others, however, are persuaded that they all do not terminate in the same end ; and appeal to a correct map of the country, which points out a num- ber of bye-paths, resembling those in question, each leading to a fatal issue. Query, Would it be the part of benevolence, in this case, for the latter to keep silence, and hope the best ; or to state the evidence on which their apprehensions were founded, and to warn their fellow-travellers of their danger ? There are, it is acknowledged, many instances of a want of candour and benevolence among us ; over which it becomes us to lament. This is the case es- pecially with those whom Dr. Priestley is pleased to call "the anly consistent absolute Predestinarians." 1 may add, there has been, in my opinion, a great deal too much haughtiness and uncandidness discov- ered by some of the Trinitarians of the established church, in their controversies with Socinian dissenters. Th^se dispositions, however, do not belong to them as Trinitarians, but as churchmen. A slight observa- tion of human nature will convince us, that the ad- herents to a religion established by law, let their sen- timents be what they may, will always be under a powerful temptation to take it for granted that they are right, and that all who dissent from them are con- temptible sectaries, unworthy of a candid and re- spectful treatment. This temptation, it is true, will not have equal effect upon all in the same community. Serious and humble characters will watch against it ; and, being wise enough to know that real worth is not derived from any thing merely external, they may be M 2 138 ON CANDOtH [let. 8. superior to it. But those of another description will be very ditferently affected. There is, indeed, a mixture of evil passions in all our religious affections, against which it becomes us to watch and pray. I see many things in those of my own sentiments which I cannot approve ; and, possibly, others may see the same in me. And should the Socinians pretend to the contrary, with respect to themselves, or aspire at a superiority to their neigh- bours, it may be more than they are able to maintain. It cannot escape the observation of thinking and im- partial men, that the candour of which they so fre- quently boast, is pretty much confined to their own party, or those that are near a-kin to them. Socinians can be candid to Arians, and Arians to Socinians, and each of them to deists; but if Calvinists expect a share of their tenderness, let them not greatly wonder if they be disappointed. There need not be a greater or a more standing proof of this, than the manner in which the writings of the latter are treated in the Monthly Review. It has been frequently observed, that though So- cinian writers plead so much for candour and esteem among professing christians, yet, generally speaking, there is such a mixture of scornful contempt discover- ed towards their opponents, as renders their profes- sions far irom consistent. Mr. Lindsey very charita- bly accounts for our errors, by asserting that " the doctrine of Christ being possessed of two natures, is the fiction of ingenious men, determined at all events to believe Christ to he a different Being from what he really was, and uniformly declared himself to he ; by which fiction of their's they elude the plain- est declarations of scripture concerning him, and will prote him to be the most high God, in spite of his own LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLEXCE. 139 most express and constant language to the contrary. And as there is no reasoning with such persons, they are to be pitied, and considered as being under a debility of mind in this respect, however sensible and rational in others/'* Would Mr, Lindsey wish to have this considered as a specimen of Socinian can- dour ? If Mrs, Barbauld had been possessed of can- dour equal to her ingenuity, instead of supposing that Calvinists derive their ideas of election, the atonement, future punishment, &c, from the tyranny and caprice of an eastern despot, she might have admitted, whether they were right or not, that those principles appeared to them to be taught in the Bible.f If we may estimate the candour of Sociijians, from the spirit discovered by Mr. Robinson in the latter part of his life, the conclusion will not be very favourable to their system. At the time when this writer professed himself a Calvinist, he could acknowledge those who differed from him, with respect to the divinity of Christ, as " mistaken brethren ;" at which time his opponents could not well complain of his being uncandid. But^ when he comes to change his sentiments on that article, he treats those from whom he differs in a very different manner, loading them with every species of abuse. Witness his treatment of Augustine', whose conduct, previous to his conversion to Christianity, though la- mented with all the tokens of penitential sorrow, and entirely forsaken in the remaining period of his lite, he • Catechist. Enquiry 6. f A friend of mine on looking* over Mrs Bai-bauld's Pamph- let, in answer to Mr. Wakefield, remarks as follows : ** Mrs. B. used to call Socinianism, The Frigid Zone of' Christianity ^ but she is now got far north herself. She is amazing-ly clever; her language enchanting ; but her caricatura of Calvinism is abominable." 140 ON CANDOUR [lET. 8^ industriously represents to his disadvantage; calling him *'a pretended saint, but an illiterate hypocrite of wicked dispositions ;*' loading his memory, and even the very country where he lived, with every opprobrious ep- ithet that could be devised.* Similar instances mi«:ht o be added from his Ecclesiastical Researches, in which the characters of Calvin and Beza are treated in an equally uncandid manner.-}- T)r, Priestley himself, who is said to be the most candid man of his party, is seldom overloaded with this virtue when he is dealing with Caivinists. It does not discover a very great degree of perfection in this, or even in common civility, to call those who consider his principles as pernicious, by the name of " bigots, the bigots,*' &c,, which he very frequently does. Nor is it to the credit of his impartiality^ any more than of his candour, when weighing the moral excellence of Trinitarians and Unitarians against each • Hist, of Baptism, p. 652. f Mr. Rob inson, in his notes on Claude observes, from Mi% Burgh, that *' Whatever occurs in modern writers of History, of a narrative nature, we find to be an inference from a system previously assumed, without any view to the seeming- truth of the facts recorded ; but to the establishment of which the historian appears, through every species of misrepresentation, to have zealously directed his force — The subversion of free- dom was the evident purpose of Mr. Hume, in writing the History of England. I fear we may with too much justice af- firm the subversion of Christianity to be the object of Mr. Gibbon, in writing his History of the decline and fall of the Ro- man Empire,'' Vol ii pp 147, 141. Perhaps it might with equal propriety be added that the subversion of what is com- monly called orthodoxy, and the vindication, or palliation, of every thing which in every age has been called by the name of heresy, were the objects of Mr. Robinson in writing his History of Baptism, and what has since been published under the title of Ecclesiastical Researches, LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE, lit^ Other, as in a balance, to suppose, **the former to have less, and the latter something 7nor€, of a real principle of religion than they seem to have."* Thi» looks like taking a portion out of one scale, and cast- ing it into the other, for the purpose of making weight where it was wanting. Dr. Priestley, in answer to Mr. Burn on the Person of Christ, acquits him of <' any thing base, disin- genuous, immoral or wicked ;" and seeing Mr. Burn had not acquitted him of all such things in return^ the doctor takes occasion to boast that " his princi- ples, whatever they are, are more candid than those of Mr. Burn.^'t But if this acknowledgment, can- did as it may seem, be compared with another passage in the same performance, it will appear to less ad- vantage. In letter the fifth, the doctor goes about to account for the motives of his opponents, and if the following language do not insinuate any thing ** base, immoral, or wicked,'' to have influenced Mr, Burn, it may be difficult to decide what baseness, im-» morality, or wickedness, is. " As to Mr. Burn's be- ing willing to have a gird at me, as Falstaif says, it may easily be accounted for. He has a view to rise in his profession, and being a nvan of good natural understanding, and good elocution, but having had no advantage of education, or family connexions, he may think it necessary to do something in order to make himself conspicuous ; and he might sujipose he could not do better than follow the sure steps of those who had succeeded in the same chase before him." What can any person make of these two pas- sages put together ? It must appear, either that Dr. Priestley accused Mr. Burn of motives, of which m • Discourses on V^arious Subjects, p. 100, f Fam. Letters, Let. xviii. 142 ON CANDOUR [lET. ^. his conscience he did not believe him to be guilty ; or that he acquitted him of every thing base and wicked, not because he thought him so, but merely with a view to glory over him by affecting to be un- der the influence of superiour candour and generosity. The manner in which Dr. Priestley has treated Mr. Badcock in his Familiar Letters to the Inhahitants of Birmingham, holding him up as an immoral char- acter, at a time when,, unless some valuable end could have been answered by it, his memory should have been at rest, is thought to be very far from either candour or benevolence. The doctor and Mr. Badcock seem to have been heretolbre upon friendly terms; and not very widely asunder as to sentiment. Private letters pass between them' ; and Mr, Badcock always acknowledges Dr. Priestley his superior. But about 1783, Mr, Bad- cock opposes his friend in the Monthly Review, and is thought by many to have the advantage of him. After this, he is said to act scandalously and dishonestly. He dies ; and soon after his death. Dr. Priestley avails him- self of his former correspondence to expose his dishon- esty : and, as if this were not enough, supplies from his own conjectures what was wanting of fact, to render him completely odiop.s to mankind. Dr. Priestley may plead, that he has held up ** the example of this unhappy man as a warning to others." So, indeed, he speaks ; but thinking people will sup- pose, that if this Zimri had not slain his master^ his bones might have rested in peace. Dr. Priestley had just cause for exposing the author of a piece, signed Theodosius, in the manner he has done in those Letters. Justice to himself required this : but what necessity was there for exposing Mr. Badcock ? Allowing that there was sufficient evidence to support the heavy charge, wherein does this affect the merits of the cause ? Does LET. 8.] AND BENEVOLENCE. 143 proving a man a villain answer his arguments ? Is it worthy of a generous antagonist to avail himself of such methods to prejudice the public mind ? Does it belong to a controvertist to write his opponent's histor}^, after he is dead, and to hold up his character in a disadvan- tageous light, so as to depreciate his writings ? Whatever good opinion Socinian writers may enter- tain of the ability and integrity of some few individuals WHO diifer from them, it is pretty evident that they have the candour to consider the body of their opponents as either ignorant or insincere. By the poem which Mr. Badcock wrote in praise of Dr. Priestley, when he was, as the doctor informs us, his ** humble admir- er,*' we may see in what light we are considered by t>ur adversaries. Trinitarians, among the clergy, are there represented as *' sticking fast to the church for the sake of a living ;'* and those whom the writer calls " orthodox, popular preachers,'' (which I suppose may principally refer to dissenters, and methodistsj are described as fools and enthusiasts ; as either " staring, stamping, and damning in nonsense ;" or else, whin- \w<^ out the tidings of salvation ; telling their audi- tors that grace is cheap, and works are all an empty bubble." All this is published by Dr. Priestley, in his Ticenty Second Letter to the Inhabitants of Bi?- mingham ; and that without any marks of disappro- bation. Dr. Priestley himself, though he does not descend to so low and scurrilous a manner of writing as the above, yet suggests the same thing, in the Ded- ication of his Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity, He there praises Dr, Jebb, for his "attachment to the unadulterated principles of Christianity, how un- popular soever the\'^ may have become, through the prejudices of the weak, or the interested part of man- kind/' t44 ON HUMIHTT. [let. 9. After all, it is allowed that Dr. Priestley is in gener- al, and especially when he is not dealing with a Calvin- ist, a fair and candid opponent : much more so than the Monthly Reviewers: who, with the late Mr. Bad- tock, seem to rank among his '* humble admirers."* Candid and open, however, as Dr. Priestley in general is, the above are certainly no very trifling exceptions : and, considering him as excelling most of his party in this virtue, they are sufficient to prove the point for which they are alleged ; namely, that when Socinians profess to be more candid than their opponents, their profession includes more than their conduct will justify. 1 am, he. LETTER IX. THE SYSTEMS COMPARED, AS TO THFIR TENDENCY TO PROMOTE HUMILITY. Christian Brethren^ YOU recollect the prophecy of Isaiah, in which, speaking of gospel times, he predicts, thnt the loftiness of man shall he bowed down, and (he haughtiness of men shall he made loiv, and the Lord alone shall he exalted in that day ; as if it were one peculiar characteristic of the true gospel to lay low the pride of man. The whole * About eig-bt or nine years ago, the Monthly Review was at open war with Dr. Priestley ; and the doctor, like an incens- ed monarch, summoned all his mighty resources to expose its weakness and to degrade it in the eye of the public. The con- ductors of the Review, at length finding, it seems, that thpir country vjas nourished by the King^s country ^ desired peace. They have ever since very punctually paid him tribute ; and ihe conqueror seems very well contented, on this condition, to grant them his favour and protection. LET. 9.] ON HUMILITY. 145 tenor of the New Testament enforces the same idea. Ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many tcise men after thejiesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world, to confound the wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world, to confound the things which are mighty ; and base things of the world, and things which are despised, hath God chosen, yea, and things which are not, to bring to nought things that are : that no flesh should glory in his presence — Jesus said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes — Where is boasting ? It is excluded. By what law ? Of works ? Say, but by the law of faith,* It may be concluded with cer- tainty from these passages, and various others of the same import, that tiie system which has tlie greatest tendency to promote this virtue, approaches nearest to the true gospel of Christ. Pride, the oppobite of humility, may be distinguish- ed, by its objects, into natural aud spiritual. BoJi con- sist in a too high esteem of ourselves : the one, on ac- count of those accomplishments which are merely nat- ural, or which pertain to us as men ; the other on ac- count of those which are spiritual, or which pertain to us as good men. With respect to the first, it is not very difficult to know who they are that ascribe most to their own understanding ; that profess to believe in nothing but what they can comprehend ; that arrogate to themselves the name of ratio). al christians : that af- fect to *' pity all those who maintain the doctrine of two natures in Christ, as being under a debilitv of miiid in tliis respect, however sensible and rational in others ;"f N * 1 Cop. i. 26—29. Matt, xi, 25. Rom. iii. i^r. I Mr. Lindsey's Catechist, Enquiry 6. 14§ ON HUMILITY. [lET. Q. that pour compliments extravagantly upon one anoth- er ;* that speak of their own party as the wise and learned, and of their opponents as the ignorant and illit- erate who are carried away by vulgar prejudices ;*|* that tax the sacred writers with " reasoning inconclu- sively/' and writing " lame accounts;'' and that repre- sent themselves as men of far greater compass of mind than they, or than even Jesus Christ himself ! The hist of these particulars may excite surprise. Charity, that hopeth all things, will be ready to sug- gest, Surely, no man, that calls himbclf a christian, will dare to speak so arrogantly. 1 acknowledge I should have thought so, if 1 had not read in Dr. Priestley's Doctrine of Philosophical Necessity .^ as follows : *' Not that I think that the sacred writers were Necessarians^ for they vieve not philosophers ; not even our Saviour himself, as far as appears : — But their habitual devotion naturally led them to refer all things to God, without reflecting on the rigorous meaning of their language ; and very probably, had they been interrogated on the subject, they would have appeared not to be apprised of the Necessarian scheme, and would have answered i[i a manner unfavourable to it." J The sacred writers, it seems, were well-meaning persons ; but at the same time so ignorant, as not to know the meaning of their own language ; nay, so ignorant, that, had it been ex- plained to them, they would have been incapable of taking it in ! Nor is this suggested of the sacred writers only ; but, as it should seem, of Jesus Christ himself. A very fit person Jesus Christ must be, indeed, to be addressed as A:woM*iw^ all things; as a revealer of the * Mr. Toulmin's Serm. on the Death of Mr. Robinson, p. 47, 56, •J- Mr. Belsham's Sermon on the Importance of Truth, p. 4, 32. t Page 133. LET. 9.] ON HUMILITY. 147 rnrnd of God to men ; as the wisdom of God ,* as he in whom it pleased the Father that all fulness should dwell ; by whom the judges of the earth are exhorted to be in- structed ; and who '^hM judge the world at the last day : when, in fact, he was so ignorant as not to consider the raeaniTig of his own language ; or, if he had been inter- rogated upon it, would not have been apprised of the extent of the scheme which his words naturally led to, but would probably have answered in a manner unfa- vonraV>le to it ! Is this the language of one that is little in his own eyes ? But there is such a thing as spiritual pride, or a too high esteem of ourselves on account of spiritual accom- plishments ; and this, together with a spirit of bigotry^ Dr. Priestley imputes to Trinitarians. "Upon the whole, (says he) considering the great mixture of spir- itual pride and bigotry in some of the most zealous Trinitarians, I think the moral character of Unitarians in general, allowing that there is in them a greater appar- ent conformity to the world than is observable in oth- ers, approaches more nearly to the proper temper of Christianity. It is more cheerful, more benevolent, and more candid. The former have probably less, and the latter, I hope, somewhat more, of a real principle of re- ligion, than they seem to have."* To this it is replied. First: If Trinitarians be proud at all, it seems it must be of their spirituality ; for, as to rationality, they have none, their opponents having by a kind of exclusive charter, monopolized that article. It is their misfor- tune, it seems, when investigating the doctrine of the person of Christ, to be under a "debility of mind," or a kind of periodical insanity. • Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 100 148 ON HUMILITY. [lET. 9. Secondly : Admitting that a greater degree of spirit- ual pride exists among Trinitarians, than among their opponents ; if we were, for once to follow Dr. Priest- ley's example, it might he accounted for without any reflection upon their principles. Pride is a sin that easily besets human nature, though nothing is more op- posite to the spirit that becomes us ; and, whatever it is in which a body of men excel, they are under a pe- culiar temptation to be proud of that rather than of other things. The English people have been often charged by their neighbours with pride, on account of their civil constitution ; and, I supj)ose, it has not been without reason. They have conceived themselves to exLid other nations in that particular ; have been apt to \alae themselves upon it; and to undervalue their neighbours more than they ought. This has been their fault: bat it does not prove that their civil consti- tution has not, after all, its excellencies. Nay, perhaps the reason why some of their neighbours have not been so proud in this particular as they, is, they have not had that to be proud of. Christians in general are more likely to be the subjects of spiritual pride than avowed iiitidels ; for, the pride of the latter, though it may iise to the highest pitch imaginable, will not be m their spirituality. The same may be said of Socini- ans. For, while ** a great number of them are oidy men of good sense, aid without much practical relig- ion,'* as \y\\ Priestley acknowledges they are,* their pride will not be in their spirituality, but in their sup- posed rationality. Thirdly : Let it be considered whether our doctrinal sentiments do not bear a nearer affinity to those princi- ples which in scripture are constantly urged as motives ♦ Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 100. LET, 9.] ON HUMILITY. 14^ to humility, than those of our opponents. — The doc- trines inculcated by Christ and his apostles, in ordeV to lay men low in the dust before God, were those of hu- man depravity, and salvation by free and sovereign grace through Jesus Christ. The language held out by our Lord was, that he came to seek and to save that tvhich tvas lost. The general strain of his preaching tended to inform mankind, not only that he came to save lost sinners ; but that no man under any other character could partake of the blessings of salvation, / cam^, saith he, wo^ to call the righteovs, but sinners to repentance. The whole need not a physician, but they that are sick. To the same purpose the apostle of the Gentiles declared to the Ephesians, You' hath he quickened ivho were dead in trespasses and sins : where^ in, in time past, ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince 0/ the power of the air, the spirit that now tvorketh in the children of diso* bedience. Nor did he speak tliis of Gentiles, or of prof- ligates only ; but though himself a Jew, and educated a Pharisee, he added. Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, ful- filling the desires of the flesh and of the mind ; and were by nature the children of wrath even as others* To the doctrine of the universal depravity of human nature, he very properly and joyfully proceeds to op- pose that of God's rich mercy. But God who is rick in mercy, for the great love wherewith he loved 21s, even ivhen we were dead in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ, The humbling doctrine of salvation by undeserved favour was so natural an inference from these premises, that the apostle could not forbear . throwing in such a reflection, though it were in a pa- renthesis ; By grace ye are saved I Nor did he leave it N 2 IS9 ON HUMILITY. [lET. 9* there, but presently after drew the same conclusion more fully : For by grace ye are saved through faith ; and that not of yourselves ; it is the gift of God, Not of tvorksy lest any man should boast,* To the same purport he taught in his other epistles : Who hath sav* ed us, and called us with an holy calling, not accord* ing to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which ivas given us in Christ Jesus, before the ivorld began — Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us — Of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctifcation, and re* demption : that according as it is ivritten. He that glo" rieth, let him glory in the Lord,'\ These, we see, were the sentiments by which Christ and his apostles taught men humility, and cut off boasting. But as though it were designed in perfect opposition to the apostolic doctrine, Socinian writers are constantly exclaiming against the Calvinistic system, because it maintains the insufficiency of a good moral life to recommend us to the favour of God. *< Repentance and a good life, (says Dr. Priestley) are of themselves sufficient to recommend us to the divine favour.*'^ — "When, (says Mrs. Bar- bauld) will christians permit themselves to believe, that the same conduct which gains them the approba- tion of good men here, will secure the favour of Heaven hereafter } — When a man, like Dr. Price, is about to resign his soul into the hands of his Maker, he ought to do it not only with a reliance on his mercy, but his justice — It does not become him to pay the blasphemous homage of deprecating the wrath • Ephes. ii. 1—9. t 2 Tim. i. 9 Titus iii. 5. 1 Cor. i. 30, 31. # Hist, of Corrup. of Christianity, Vol, 1. p. 155. LET. 9.] ON HUMILITY. 151 of God, when he ought to throw himself into the arms of his love."* — *« Other foundation than this can no man lay : (says Dr. Harwood) All hopes founded upon any thing else than a good moral life, are merely imaginary. "f So they icrap it vp. If a set of wri- ters united together, and studied to form an hypoth- esis in perfect contradiction to the holy scriptures, and the declared humbling tendency of the gospel, they could not have hit upon a point more directly to their purpose. The whole tenor of the gospel says, It is NOT q/* works f lest any man should boast : But Socinian writers maintain, that it is of works, and of them only ; that in this, and in no other way, is the divine favour to be obtained. We might ask. Where is boasting then 9 Is it excluded P Nay ; Is it not admitted and cherished ? Christ and his apostles inculcated humility, by teaching the primitive christians that virtue itself was not of themselves, but the gift of God. They not only expressly declared this with respect to faith, but the same, in effect, of every particular included in the general notion of true godliness. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself ^ said Christ, except it abide in the vine, no more can ye, except ye abide in me : for without me ye can do nothing — We are his work'- manship, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them — He worketh in us both to ivill and to do, of his good pleasure.^ The manifest design of these important sayings, was, to humble the primitive christians, and to make them feel their entire depen- dence upon God for virtue, even for every good thought* * Answer to Mr. Wakefield. | Sermons, p. 193. i John XV. 4, 5. Eph. ii. ID. Phil. ii. 13. f52 ON HUMILITY. [lET. 9. Who maketh thee to differ, said the apostle, and what hast thou that thou didst not receive ? Now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it f* The Calvinistic system, it is well known, includes the same things : but where is the place for them, or where do they appear, in the sys- tem of our opponents ? Dr. Priestley, in professed opposition to Calvinism, maintains, that " it depends entirely upon a man's self whether he be virtuous or vicious, happy or miserable ;"f That is to say, it is a man's self that maketh him to differ from another; and he has that (namely, virtue) which he did not receive, and in which therefore he may glory. J Dr. Priestley replies to this kind of reasoning, *■* When we consider ourselves as the workmanship of * 1 Cor. iv. 7. t ^^^- ^^ Necessity, p. 153. t It is true. Dr. Priestley himself sometimes allows that virtue is not our oivny and does not arise from laithin ourselves ; calling that mere heathen stoicism, which maintains the con- trary : and tells us, that ** those persons, who, fi'om a princi- ple of religion, ascribe more to God, and less to man, are persons of the greatest elevation in piety." On Nece^sity^ pp^ 107, 108. Yet in the same performance he represents it as a part of the Necessarian scheme, by which it is opposed to Calvinism, that ** it depends entirely upon a man's sef, whether he be virtuous or vicious." P. 153. If Dr. Priestley mean no more by these expressions, thart that our conduct in life, whether virtuous or vicious, depends upon our choice, the Calvinistic scheme, as well as his own, allows of it. But if he mean that a virtuous choice originates in ourselves, and that we are the proper cause of it, this can agree to nothing b\it the Arminian notion of a self-determining power in the will, and that in fact, as he himself elsewhere observes, is ** mere heathen stoicism,, which allows men to pray for exter- nal things, but admonishes them, that, as for virtue, ii is our own, and must arise froTn vjithin ourselves, if we have it at all." P. 69. LET. 9.] ON HUMILITY, I5d God ; that all our powers, of body and of mind, are derived from him ; that he is the giver of every good and of every perfect gift, and that without him we can do and enjoy nothing, how can we conceive ourselves to be in a state of greater dependence, or obligation ; that is, what greater reason or foundation can there possibly be for the exercise of humility? if I believe that I have a power to do the duty that God requires of me; yet as I also believe that that power is his gift* 1 must still say, What have I that I have not received* and how then can I glory as if 1 had not received it ?"* It is true, Dr. Priestley, and for ought 1 know, all other writers, except atheists, acknowledge themselves indebted to God for the powers by which virtue is attained, and perhaps for the means of attaiinng it ; but this is not acknowledging that we are indebted to him for virtue itself. Powers and opportunities are mere natural blessings ; they have no virtue in them, but are a kind of talent capable of being improved, or not improved. Virtue consists, not in the possession of natural powers, any more than in health, or learn- ing, or riches ; but in the use that is made of them. God does not, therefore, upon this principle, give us virtue. Dr. Priestley contends, that as we are ** God's workmanship, and derive all our powers of body and mind from him, we cannot conceive of ourselves as being in a state of greater dependence upon him." The apostle Paul, however, teaches the necessity of being created in Christ Jesus unto good works. Ac- cording to Paul, we must become his workmanship by a new creation, in order to the performance of good works : but according to 'Y^r, Priestley, the first creation is sufficient. Now, if so, the difference be- • On Differ, of Opin. § iii. MA ON HUMILITY. [lET. 9. tween one man and another is not to be ascribed to God : for it is supposed, that God has given all men the powers of attaining virtue, and that the difference between the virtuous man and his neighbour is to be ascribed to himself, in making a good use of the powers and opportunities with which he was invested. Upon this sj^stem, therefore, we may justly answer the question. What hast thou ivhich thou hast not re^ ceived? I have virtue, and the promise of eternal life as its reward, and consequently have whereof to glory. In short, the whole of Dr. Priestley's concessions amount to nothing more than the heathen stoicism, which he elsewhere condemns. Those ancient phi- losophers could not deny, that all their povvers were originally derived from above ; yet they maintained that as for virtue, \t\sourown, and must arise yrom within ourselves, if we have it at all." I do not deny that all men have natural powers, together with means and opportunities of doing good ; which, if they were but completely well-disposed, are equal to the performance of their whole duty. God requires no more of us, than to love and serve him with ALL our strength. These powers and opportunities render them accountable beings, and will leave them without excuse at the last day. But if they are not rightly disposed, all their natural powers will be abused ; and the question is. To whom are we in- debted for a change of disposition ? If to God, we have reason to lie in the dust, and acknowledge it was he that quickened us, when ive were dead iji sins : if to ourselves, the doctrine of the stoics will be es- tablished, and we shall have whereof to glory. 1 am, &c. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. 155 / LETTER X. ON CHARITY : IN WHICH IS CONSIDERED THE CHARGE OF BIGOTRY. Christian Brethren, THE main reason why we are accused of spiritual pride, bigotry, uncharitableiiess, and the like, i;?, the importance which we ascribe to some of our sentiments. 'N iewing them as essential to Christianity, we cannot, })roperly speaking, acknowledge those who reject them as christians. It is this which provokes the resentment of our opponents, and induces them to load us with op- probrious ej>ithets. We have already touched upon this topic, in the Letter on Candour, but will now con- sider it more particularly. It is allowed, that we ought not to judge of whole bodies of men by the denomination under which they pass ; because names do not always describe the real principles they embrace. It is possible that a person who attends upon a very unsound ministry, may not understand or adopt so much of the system which he hears inculcated, as that his disposition shall be formed, or his conduct regulated, by it. I have heard, from persons who have been much conversant with Socinia!>s, that though, in general, they are of a loose, dissipated turn of mind, assembling in the gay circles of pleasure, and following the customs and manners of the world ; yet that there are some among them who are more seri- ous ; and that these, if not in iheir conversation, yet in their solemn addresses to the Almighty, incline to the doctrines of Calvinism. This perfectly accords with Mrs. Barbauld's representation of the matter, as noticed towards the close of the Sixth Letter. Tljese people 156 ON CHARITY. [lET. 10. are not, properly speaking, Socinians ; and, therefore, ought to be left quite out of the question. For the question is. Whether, as believing in the Deity and atonement of Christ, with other correspondent doctrines, we be required by the charity inculcated in the gospel, to acknowledge, as fellow-christians, those who thor- oughly and avovTcdly reject them ? It is no part of the business of this Letter, to prove that these doctrines are true ; this, at present, I have a right to take for granted. The fair state of the objec- tion, if delivered by a Socinian, would be to this effect : * Though your sentiments should be right, yet, by re- fusing to acknowledge others who differ from you, as fellow-christians, you over-rate their importance, and so violate the charity recommended by the gospel.' To the objection as thus stated, I shall endeavour to reply. Charity, it is allowed, will induce us to put the most favourable construction upon things, and to entertain the most favourable opinion of persons, that truth will admit. It is far from the spirit of Christianity, to in- dulge a censorious temper, or to take pleasure in draw- ing unfavourable conclusions against any person what- ever ; but the tenderest disposition towards mankind cannot convert truth into falsehood, or falsehood into truth. Unless, therefore, we reject the Bible, and tlie belief of ani/ thing as necessary to salvation ; though we should stretch our good opinion of men to the great- est lengths, yet we must stop somewhere. Charity it- self does not so believe all things, as to disregard truth and evidence. We are sometimes reminded of our Lo r d ' s CO m m a n d , Judge not , Mst ye he ju dgecL This language is doubtless designed to rej>rove a censorious disposition, which leads people to pass wwjw^^ judgment, or to discern a mote in a brother s ej/e, tchile they are blind to a beam in their own .* but it cannot be intend- LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. tSf ed to forbid a// judgment whatever, even upon charac- ters ; for this would be contrary to what our Lord teaches in the same discourse, warning his disciples to beware of false prophets, tvko would com€ to them in sheep^s clothing : adding. Ye shall know them hy their fruits,* Few pretend, that we ought to think favoura- bly o{ profligate characters ; or that it is any breach of chanty to think unfavourably concerning them. But, if the words of our Lord be understood as forbidding all judgment ivhatever upon characters, it must be wrong to pass aijy judgment upon them. ^^ay, it must be wrong for a minister to declare to a drunkard, a thief, or an adulterer, that, if h« die in his present condition, he must perish ; because this is judging the party not to be in a state of salvation. All the use that is commonly made of our LordV words, is in favour of sentiments, not of actions : but the scriptures make no such distinction. Men are there represented as being under the wrath of God, who hfive not believed on the name of the only-begotten Son of God ; nor is there any thing intimated in our Lord's €xpressions, as if the judgment, which he forbade his disciples to pass, were to be confined to matters of sen- timent. The judgment, which is there reproved, is partial or trrow^ judgment, whether it be on account of sentiment, or of practice. Even those who plead against judging persons on account of sentiment (many of them at least) allow themselves to think unfavoura- bly of avowed infidels, who have heard the gospel, hut continue to reject it. They themselves, therefore, do judge unfavourably of men on account of their senti- ments ; and must do so, unless they will reject the bible, which declares unbelievers to be under condem nation. O • Matt.'vli. 1, 2, 3, 15, 76. 158 ON CHARITY* [lET. 10. Dr. Priestley, however, seems to extend bis favonra* ble opinion to idolaters and intidels, without distinction. *' All differences in modes of worship, (he says) may be only the different methods by which different men (who are equally the offspring of God J are endeavouring to honour and obey their common Parent."* He also in- veighs a*>ainst a supposition, that the mere holding of any opinions (so it seems the great articles of our faith must be called) should exclude men from the favour of God, It is true, what he says is guarded so much, as to give the argument he engages to support a very plau- sible appearance ; but withal so ill directed, as not in the least to affect that of his opponents. His words are these : " Let those who maintain that the mere holding of any opinions (without regard to the motives and state of mind through which men may have been led to form them) will necessarily exclude them from the favour of God, be particularly careful with respect to the prem- ises from which they draw so alarming a conclusion.'* The counsel contained in these words is undoubtedly very good. Those premises ought to be well founded from whence such a conclusion is drawn. 1 do not, indeed, suppose, that any ground for such a conclusion exists : and who they are that draw it I cannot tell. The mere holding of an opinion, considered abstracted- ly from the motiv^e, or state of mind of him that holds it, must be simply an exercise of intellect ; and, I am in- . dined to think, has in it neither good nor evil. But the question is. Whether there be not truths, which, from the nature of them, cannot be rejected without an evii bias of heart ? And, therefore, where we see those truths rejected. Whether we have not authority to con- clude that such rejection must have arisen from an evil bias ? ♦ On Differ, of Opin. § ii. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. 159 If a man say, There is no God, the scripture teaches us to consider it, rather as the language of his hearty than simply of his judgment ; and makes no scruple of calling him a fool ; which according to the scrip- tural idea of the term, is equal to calling him a wicked man. And let it be seriously considered, upon what other principle our Lord could send forth his^ disci- ples to preach the gospel to every creature, and add as he did, He that believeth and is baptized, shall he saved ; and he that believeth not shall be damned. is it not here plainly supposed that the gospel was accoiupanied with such evidence, that no intelligent creature could reject it, but from an evil bias of heart, such as would justly expose him to damnation ? If it had been possible for an intelligent creature, after hearing the gospel, to think Jesus an impostor, and his doctrine a lie, without any evil motive, or corrupt state of mind ; I desire to know how the Lord of glory is to be acquitted of something worse than bigotry in making such a declaration. B'^cause the mere holding of an opinion, irrespec- tive of the motive or state of mind in him that holds it, is neither good nor evil, it does not follow, that *' all differences in modes of worship may be only the different methods by which different men are endeavouring to honour and obey their common parent." The latter includes more than the former. The performance of worship contains more than the mere holding of an opinion : for it includes an exer- cise of the heart. Our Lord and his apostles did not proceed on any such principle, when they went forth preaching the gospel ; as J hope hath been sufficiently proved in the Letter on Candour, The principles on which they proceeded were. An assurance that they were of God, and that the whola world were lying in l60 ON CHARITY. [lET. 10» tmckedness — That he who icas of God would hear their wdrds ; and he that was not of God would not hear them — That he who believed their testimoni/y set to his seal that God was true ; and he that believed it noty made God a liar. If we coiisfder a belief of the gospel, in those who hear it, as es'sential to salvation, we shall be called bigots : but, if this be bigotry, Jesus Christ and his apostles were bigots ; and the same outcry might have been raised against them, by both Jews and Greek?, as is now raised against us. Jesus Christ himself said to the Jews, If ye believe not that I am he^ ye shall die in your sins : and his apostles went forth with the same language. They wrote and preached that men might believe that Jesus was the Christ ; and thnty believing, they might have life through his name. Those who embraced their testimony, they treated as in a state of salvation ; and those who re- jected it were told, that they had judged themselves ten worthy of everlasting life. In short, they acted as men fully convinced of the truth of what their Lord had declared in their commission ; He that helieveth and is baptized, shall be saved ; but he that believeth not, shall be damned. To all this an unbelieving Jew might have object- ' e?d, in that day, with quite as good a grace as So- cinians object in this : ' These men think, that our salvation depends upon receiving their opinions 1 Have not we been the people of God, and in a state of salvation, time out of mind, without believing that Jesus of Nazareth was the Son of God ? Our fathers believed only in general, that there was a Messiah to come ; and were, no doubt, saved in that faith. We also believe the same, and worship the same God ; j^nd yet, according to these bigots, if we reject their LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. l6l opiiiioij, concerning Jesus being the Messiah, we must be judged unwortky of everlasting life, ^ A heathen also, suppose one of Paul's hearers at Athens, who had just heard him deliver the discourse at Mars-hill, (recorded in Acts xvii. 22 — 31.) might have addressed his countrymen in some such lan- guage as the following : ' This Jewish stranger, Athenians, pretends to make known to us The un- known God, Had he been able to make good his pretensions, and had this been all, we might have been obliged to him. But this unknown God, it seems, is to take place of all others that are known, and be set up at their expense. You have hitherto, Athenians, acted worthy of yourselves ; you have lib- erally admitted all the gods to a participation of youi worship : but now, it seems, the whole of your sa- cred services is to be engrossed by one. You have never been used to put any restraint upon thought or opinion ; but with the utmost freedom have ever beea in search of new things. But this man tells us we OUGHT NOT TO THINK that the godhead is like unto silver or gold ; as though we were bound to adopt hi& manner of thinking and no other. You have beea famed for your adoration of the gods; and to this even your accuser himself has borne witness : yet he has the temerity to call us to repentance for it.. Lt seems, then, we are considered in the light of crimz^ nals — criminals on account of our devotions — criminals for being too religious,, and for adhering to the re- ligion of our ancestors ! Will Athenians endure this ? Hid he possessed the liberality becoming one who should address an Athenian audience, he would have supposed, that, however we might have beea hitherto mistaken in our devotions,, yet our intenilous weiie O a 1^2 o^ cftARirr* Itf/r, 10. good ; and that *« All the differences in modes of worship, as practised by Jews and Athenians, (who are equally, by his own confession, the off spring of' God) may have been only different methods, by which we have been endeavouring to honour and obey our Common parent." * Nor is this all : for we are call- ed to repentance, becausk this unknown God hath «p- pointed a day in ivhich he will judge the ivorld, Sfc . So then, we are to renounce our principles and wor- ship, and embrace his, on pain of being called to give an account of it before a divine tribunal. Future happiness is to be confined to his sect ; and our eter- nal welfare depends upon our embracing his opinions I Could your ears have been insulted, Athenians, witli an harangue more replete with *' pride, arrogance^ and bigotry f* ' But to say no more of this insulting language, the importance he gives to his opinions, if there were no other objection, must ever be a bar to their being re- ceived at Athens. You, Athenians, are friends to Jree inquiry. But should our philosophers turn christians, instead of being famous, as heretofore, for the search of new truth, they must sink into a state of mental stagna- tion. " Those persons who think that their salvation de- pends upon holding their present opinions, must neces- sarily entertain the greatest dread of Jree inquiry. They must think it to be hazarding of their eternal wel- fare, to listen to any arguments, or to read any books, that savour of idolatry. It must appear to them in the same light as listening to any other temptation, where- by they would be in danger of being seduced to their everlasting destruction. This temper of mind cannot but be a foundation for the most deplorable bigotry, obstinacy, and ignorance." £ET. 10.] ON CHARITY. l63^ 'The Athenians, I doubt not, will generally abide by the relitrion of their forefathers: but should airy in- dividuals think of turning christians, 1 trust they will never adopt that illiberal principle of making their opinion necessary to future happiness. While this man and his followers hold such a notion ** of the importance of their present sentiments, they must needs live in the dread of all free inquiry ; whereas we, who have not that idea of the importance of our present sentiments, preserve a state of mind proper for the discussion of them. If we be wrong, as our minds are under no strong bias, we are within the reach of conviction; and thus are in the way to grow wiser and better as long as we live." By the above it will appear, that the apostle Paul was just as liable as we are to the charoe of bigotry. Those parts which are marked with double reversed commas, are, with only an alteration of the term heresy to that o^ idolatry^ the words of Dr. Priestley in the Second Section of his Considerations on Dijjerences of Opinions. Judge, brethren, whether these words best tit the lips of a christian minister, or of a heathen cavil- ler. The consequences alleged by the supposed Athenian against Paul, are far from just, and might be easily refuted : but they are the same for substance as those alleged by Dr. Priestley against us, and the premises from which they are drawn are exactly the same. From the whole, I think, it may safely be concluded, if there be any 'sentiments taught us in the New Tes- tament in a clear and decided manner, this is one : That the apostles and primitive preachers considered the belief of the gospel which they preached, as neces- sary to the salvation of those who heard it. ON CHAaiTY. [let. 10* Bat though it should be allowed that a belief of the gospel is necessary to salvation, it will still be objected, That Sociuiaiis believe the gospel as well as others ; their Christianity therefore ought not to be called in question on this account. To this it is replied; If what Socinians believe be indeed the gospel; in other words, if it be not deficient in what is essential to the gospel ; they undoubtedly ought to be acknowledged as christians : but if otherwise, they ought not. It has been pleaded by some, who are not Socinians, that we ought to think tavourably of all who profess to embrace Christianity in general^ unless their conduct be manifestly immoral. But we have no such criterion atforded us in the New Testament ; nor does it accord with what is there revealed. The New Testament informs us of vari- ous wolves in shcep^s clothings who appeared among the primitive christians ; men who professed the chris- tian name, but yet were in reality enemies to Chris- tianity ; who perverted the gospel of Christy and introduced another gospel in its place. But these men, it is said, not Oidy taught fiilse doctrine, but led immoral lives. If by immoral be meant grossly wicked, they certainly did not all of them answer to that character. The contrary is plain- ly supposed in the account of the false apostles among the Corinthians ; who are called deceitfal workers^ transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ, And no marveU for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light : therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also ■:e transformed as the ministers of righ^ teousness.* I wou'tf not here be understood as draw- ing a comparison between the fitlse apostles and the Socinians. My design in this place, is not to insiii* • 2 Cor. xi. 13—15. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. l65 uate any specttic charge against them ; bat merely to prove, that if we judge favourably of the state of every person who bears the christian name, and whose exte- rior moral character is fair, we must judge contrary to the scriptures. To talk of forming a favourable judgment from a profession of Christianity in general, is as contrary to reason and common sense, as it is to the New Tes- tament. Chrisiianity, in general, must comprehend soine of the leading particulars of it. Suppose a can- didate for a seat in the House of Commons, on being asked his political principles, should profess himself a friend to liberty in general. A freeholder inquires, * Do you disapprove, Sir, of taxation without rep- resentation ? No, Would you vote for a reform in parliament ? No, Do you approve of the liberty of the press ? No.* Would this afford satisfection ? Is it not common for men to admit that in the gross which they deny i» detail ? The only question that can fairly be urged is ; Are the doctrines which Socinians disown, ^supposing them to be true, of such importance, that a rejection of them would endanger their salvation ? It must be allowed, that these doctrines mat/ be what we consider them ; not only true, but essential to Christianity. Christianity, like every other system of truth, must have some principles which are essen- tial to it : and if those in question be such, it cannot justly be imputed to pride, or bigotry ; it cannot be uncharitable or uncandid, or indicate any want of benevolence, to think so. Neither can it be wrong to draw a natural and necessary conclusion , that those persons who reject these principles are not christians. To think justly of persons, is, in no respect, incon- sistent with a universal good-will towards them. It is not in the least contrary to chanty, to consider lui- l6# ON CHARITY. [lET. 10^. believers in the light in which the scriptures repre- sent thern ; nor those who reject what is essential to the gospel, as rejecting the gospel itself. Dr. Priestley will not deny that Christianity has its great truths, though he will not allow the doc- trines in question to make any part of them. *' The being of a God — his constant over-ruling providence, and righteous moral government — the divine origin of the Jewish and christian revelations — that Christ was a teacher sent from God^ — that he is our master, lawgiver, and judge — that God raised him from the dead — that he is now exalted at the right hand of God — that he will come again to raise all the dead, and sit in judgment upon them — and that he will then give to every one of us according to our works — These, (he says) are, properly speaking, the 072 It/ great truths of religion ; and to these not only the Church of England, and the Church of Scotland, but even the Church of Rome gives its assent."* We see here, that Dr. Priestley not only allows that there are certain great truths of religion, but determines what, and what " only'' they are. I do not recollect, how- ever, that the false teachers in the churches of Ga- latia denied any one of these articles ; and yet with- out rejecting some of the great and essential truths of Christianity, they could not have perverted the gospel of Christ, or have introduced another gospel. But Dr. Priestley, it seems, though he allows the above to be great truths, yet considers nothing as essential to Christianity, but u belief of the divine mission of Christ. •" While a man believes, (he says) in the divine mission of Christ, he might with as much propriety be called a Mahometan as be de- * Fam. Letters. Letter xxii. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. l&H nied to be a christian."* To call Socinians Mahomet tans, might in most cases be improper : they would still, however, according to this criterion of Christianity, be within the pale of the church. For Mahomet himself, I suppose, never denied the divine mission of Christ; nor very few of those doctrines which Dr. Priestley calls '* the otili/ great truths of religion." The doctor informs us, that «' some people con- sider him already as half a Mahometan/'f Wheth- er this be just or unjust, according to his notions of christianitv, a Mahometan is to be considered as more than half a christian. He ought, if the above crite- rion be just, to be acknowledged as a fellow-christian ; and the whole party, instead of being ranked with heathenish and Jewish unbelievers, as they are by this same writer, J ought to be considered as a sect, or denomination of christians. The doctor, therefore, need not have stopped at the Church of Borne, but might have added the Church of Constantinople, as agreeing in his ** only great truths of religion." I scarcely need to draw the conclusion which fol- lows from what has been observed — If not only those who perverted the gospel among the Galatians, did, but even the Mahometans may acknowledge those truths which Dr. Priestley mentions, they cannot be the only great, much less the distinguishing truths •f the christian religion. The difference between Socinians and Calvinists, is not about the mere circumstantials of religion. It respects nothing less than the rule of faith, the ground of hope, and the object of worship. If the Socinians be right, we are not only superstitious dev- * Consider, on Differ, of Opin. § v. f Pref. to Let to Mi*. Burn. t Fam. Let. Let. xvii. Conclusion. ifti ON CHARITY, [lET. 10c otees, and deluded dependants upon an arm of flesh,* but habitual idolaters. On the other hand, if we be right, they are guilty of refusing to subject their faith to thed ecisions of Heaven ; of rejecting the only way of salvation ; and of sacrilegiously depriving the Son of God of his essential glory. It is true, they do not deny our Christianity on account of our supposed idolatry ; but no reason can be assigned for it, except their indifference to religious truth, and the deisti- cal turn of their sentiments. If the proper Deity of Christ be a divine truth, rt is a great and a fundamental truth in Christianity, Sodn- ians, who reject it, very consistently reject the worship of Christ with it. Butworship enters into the essence of religion ; and the worship of Christ, according to the New Testament, into the essence of the christian religion. The primitive christians are characterised by, their calling upon the name of the Lord Jesus, The apostle, when v^riting to the Corinthians, addressed himself To the church of God at Corinth : to them that were sanctified in Christ Jesus ; called to be saints ; tcith all that in everyplace called upon the mame OF Jesus Christ our LoRD.f That this is design^ ed as a description of true christians will not be denied ; but this description does not include Socinians, seeing they call not upon the name of Christ. The conclusion * Jer. xxvii. 6 \ Mr. Lindsey's observation, that Called upon the name of Christy should be rendered, Called by the name of Christ, if ap- plied to Rom. X. 13, would make the scriptui-es prorfiise salva- tion to every one that is called a Christian Salvation is prom- ised to all who believe, love, fear, and call upon the name of the Lord ; but never are the possessors of it described by a mere accidental circumstance, in which they are not voluntary, and in which, if they were, there is no virtue. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. 1(?^ is, Sociiiians would not have been acknowledged by the a])ostle Paul as true christians. If the Deity of Christ be a divine truth, it must be the Father's will, that all men should honour the Son in the same sense, and to the same degree, as they hon- our the Father ; and those who honour him not as God, will not only be found opposing the divine will, but are included in the number of those who, by refusing; to honour the Son, honour not the Father who hath sent him : which amounts to nothing less, than that the worship which they pay to the Father is unacceptable in bis sight. If the Deity of Christ be a divine truth, he is the object o? triist ; and that not merely in the character of a witness, but as Jehovah, in whom is everlasting strength. This appears to be another characteristic of true christians in the New Testament. In his name shall the Gentiles trust — I know ichom I have trusted : and that he is able to keep that which I have committed unto him — In whom ye also trusted after ye heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation,* But if it be a characteristic of true Christianity so to trust in Christ, as to commit the salvation of our souls into his hands; how can we conceive of those as true chris- tians, who consider him only as a fellow creature ; and ^-onsequently place no such confidence in him ? If men by nature be in a lost and perishing condi- tion; and if Christ came to seek and save them under those characters, as he himself constantly testified ; then all tho'se that were whole in their own eyes, and seemed to need no physician, as the Scribes and Phari- sees of old, must necessarily be excluded from an in- terest in his salvation. And in what other light caa P * Matt. xii*. 21. 2 Tim. 5. 1?, Eph. i, 12, 13 170 ON CMABLiT\:. [let. 10. those persons be considered, who deny the depravity of their nature, and approach the Deity without respect to an atoning Saviour ? — Further : Ifthe death of Christ, as an atoning sacrifice, be the only way of a sinner's salvation ; if there be No other name given under heaven, or among men, by which ive must be saved ; if this be the foundation tvhicJi God hath laid in Zion, and if no other will stand in the day of trial : How can we conceive that those who deliber- ately disown it, and renounce all dependance upon it for acceptance with God, should yet be interested in it ? Is it supposable, that they will partake of \hi\ijbr- giveness of sins, which believers are said to receive^or his sake, and through his name^ who refuse to make use of that name in any of their petitions ? Ifthe doctrine of atonement bj the cross of Christ be a divine truth, it constitutes the very substance of the gospel ; and, consequently, is essential to it. The doc- trine of the cross is represented in the New Testament as the grand peculiarity, and the principal glory of Christianity. It occupies a large proportion among the doctrines of scripture, and is expressed in a vast variety of language, Christ was delivered for our ojj'cnces, ftoundedfor our transgressions, bruised for our iniqui- ties — He died for our sins — By his death purged our sins — is said to take (or bear) away the sins of the world —to have made peace through the blood of his cross — reconciled us to God by his death — redeemed us by his blood — washed us from our sins in his own blood — by his mvn blood obtained eternal redemption for us — purchas- ed his church by his own blood, &c. &c* This kind of iantjuacre is so interwoven with the doctrine of the New Testament, that to explain away the one, is to subvert the other. The doctrine of the cross is described as be- iDg, not merely an important branch of the gospel, \jni LET. ]0.] ON CHARITY. 171 the gospel itself. We preach Christ crucified; to the Jews a stiimbiing'b/ock^ and to ike Greeks foolishness : but to them that are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God ^ and the wisdom of God — / deter min- ed not to knew any thing among i/ouy save Jesus Christ and him crucified — An eneniy to the cross of Christ is oiily atiother mode of clescM'ibing an enemy to the gos- pt:;!.* It vvas reckoned a sufficient refutation of any principle, if it could be proved to involve in it the conse- quence of Christ's having died in t'om.f Christ's dy- ing for our sins, is not only declared to be a divine truth according to the scriptures, but a truth of such impor- tance, that the then present standing, and the final sal- vation oi' the Corinthians, were suspended upon their adherence to it. J In fine, the doctrine of the cross ia the central point in which all the lines of evangelical truth meet and are united. What the sun is ta the sys- tem of nature, that the doctrine of the cross is to the system of the gospel ; it is the life of it. The revolv- ing planets might as well exist and keep their course without the attracting influence of the one, as a gospel be exhibited worthy of the name that should leave out the other. I am aware that Socinian writers do not allow the doctrine of the atonement to be signified by that of the cross. They would tell you, that they believe in the doctrine of the cross, and allow it to have a relative or subordinate importance, rendering the truth of Christ's resurrection more evident, by cutting off all pretence that he was not really dead.|| Whether this meagre sense of the phrase will agree with the design of the apostle in this and various other passages in the New Testament, — whether it contains a sufficient ground for * I Cor. i. 23, 24. ii. 2. f Gal. ii. 21. +1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, 3. II Dr. Priestley's Serm. on glorying in the cross. 172 ON CHARITY. [lET. iO. that singular glorying of which he speaks, or any prin- ciple by which the ivorld ivas crucijied to him, and he unto the woridy — let the ini partial judge. But be this as it may, the question here is not whether the doctrine of atonement be signified by that of the cross; but jBupposiig it to be so, whether it be of such importance as to render a denial of it a virtual denial of Christiani- ty ? — Once more : If we believe in the absolute necessity of regenero" tiony or that a sinner must be renewed in the spirit of his mind, or never enter the kingdom of God ; in what light must we consider those who plead for a reforma- tion only, and deny the doctrine of a supernatural divine influence, by which a new heart is given vs, and a new spirit is put within us ? Ought we, or can we consider them as the subject of a divine change, who are contin- ually ridiculing the very idea of it ? It is common for our opponents to stigmatize us with the name of bigots* Bigotry, if I understand it, is a blind and inordinate attachment to one's opin- ions. If we be attached to principles on account of their being our's, or because ice have adopted them, rather than because they appear to us to be taught in the holy scriptures ; if we be attached to some pecu- liar principles to the neglect of others, or so as to give them a greater proportion in the system than they require; if we consider things as Vjeing of greater importance than the scriptures represent them ; if we obstinately adhere to our opinions, so as to be averse to free inquiry, and not open to conviction ; if we make so much of principles as to be inattentive to holy practice ; or if a difference in religious sentiment destroy or damp our benevolence to the persons of those from whom we differ ; in any of these cases, we are subject to the charge of bigotry. But we may f LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. 173 consider a belief of certain doctrines as necessary to salvation, without coming under any part of the above- description. We may be attached to these doctrines, not because we have already embraced them, but on account of their appearing- to us to be revealed in the scriptures : we may give them only that degree of importance in our views of things, which they occu- py there : we may be so far friends to free inquiry, as impartially to search the scriptures to see whether these things be true ; and so open to conviction as to relinqaish our sentiments, when they are proved to be unscriptural. We may be equally attached to practi- cal godliness, as to the principles on which it is found- ed ; and notwithstanding our ill opinion of the relig- ious sentiments of men, and our apprehensions of the danger of their condition, we may yet bear good-will to their persons, and wish for nothing more than an opportunity of promoting their welfare, both for this life and that which is to come. I do not pretend that Calvinists are free from big- otry ; neither are their opf)onents. What 1 here con- tend for, is. That their considering a belief of certain doctrines as necessary to salvation, unless it can be proved that they make more of these doctrines than the scriptures make of them, ought not to subject them to such a charge. What is there of bigotry in our not reckoning, the Socinians to be christians, more than in their reckon- ing us ic/o/a^er* .^ Mr. Madan complained of the So- ciiiians " insulting those of his principles with the charge of idolatry." Dv. Priestley justitied them by observing, '* All who ]>elieve Christ to be a man, and not God, must necessarily thittk it idolatrous to pay him divine honours ; and to cail it so, is no other than the necessary consequence of avowing our belief,*' P ?, 174 ON CHARITY. [lET. 10. Nay, he represents it as ridiculous, that they should *' be allowed to think the Trinitarians idolaters, without being permitted to call them so.*'* If Socinians have a right to think Trinitarians idolaters, they have doubtless a right to call them so, and, if they be able, to make it appear so : nor ought we to consider our- selves as insulted by it. I have no idea of being offended with any man, in affairs of this kind, for speaking what he believes to be the truth. Instead of courting compliments from each other, in matters of such moment, we ought to encourage an unreserved- ness of expression, provided it be accompanied with sobriety and benevolence. But neither ought Socin- ians to complain of our refusing to acknowledge them as christians, or to impute it to a spirit of bigotry ; for it amounts to nothing more than avowing a neces- sary consequence of our belief. If we believe the deity and atonement of Christ to be essential to Chris- tianity, we must necessarily think those who reject these doctrines to be no christians ; nor is it inconsist- ent with charity to speak accordingly. Again : What is there of bigotry in our not allow- ing the Socinians to be christians, more than in their not allowing us to be Unitarians ? We profess to believe in the divine unity, as much as they do in Christianity. But they consider a oneness of person, as well as of essence, to be essential to the unity of God ; and, therefore, cannot acknowledge us as Uni- tarians : and we consider the deity and atonement of Christ as essential to Christianity ; and, therefore, can- not acknowledge them as christians. We do not choose to call Socinians Unitiiians, because that would be a virtual acknowledgment that we ourselves do not believe in the divine unity : but we are not ef- * Familiar Letters, Let. VI. LET. 10.] ON CHAftlTY. t^ fended at what they think of us ; nor do we impute it to bigotry, or to any thing of the kind. We know, that while they think as they do on the doctrine of the Trinity, our sentiments must appear to them as Tri theism. We comfort ourselves in these matters with this, that the thoughts of creatures, uninspired of God, are liable to mistake. Such are their's con- cerning us, and such are our's concerning them ; and if Socinians do indeed love our Lord Jesits Christ m sinceritij^ it is happy for them. The judgment of their fellow-creatures cannot affect their state : and thousands who have scrupled to admit them among the true followers of Christ in this world, would re- joice to find themselves mistaken in that matter at the last day. It has been pleaded by some, who are not Socinians, that a belief in the doctrine of the atonement is not necessary to salvation. They observe. That the dis- ciples of our Lord, previou^s to his death, do not ap- pear to have embraced the idea of a vicarious sacri- fice ; and therefore conclude, that a belief in a vica- rious sacrifice is not of the essence of faith. They add. It was owing to prejudice, and consequently wrong, for the disciples to disbelieve this doctrine, and admit the same thing with respect to Socinians : yet as the error in the one case did not .endanger their salvation, they suppose it may not do so in the other. To this objection the following observations are of- fered in reply. First: Those who object in this manner do not suppose the disciples of Christ to have a^rreed with Socinians in any of their peculiar sentiments, except the rejection of a vicarious sacrifice. They alloW them to have believed in the doctrine of human de- pravity, divine influence, the miraculous conceptionai 174 ON CHARITY. [lET. 10. the pre-existence and proper deity of Christ, the in- spiration of the scriptures, &c. The case of the disciples, therefore, is far from being parallel with that of the Socinians. Secondly : Whatever were the ignorance and er- ror which occupied the minds of the disciples relative to the death of their Lord, their case will not apply to that of Socinians, on account of the difference in the state of revelation, as it stood before and after that event. Were it even allowed that the disciples did reject the doctrine of Christ's being a vicarious sac- rifice ; yet the circumstances which they were under, render their case very different from ours. We can perceive a considerable difference between rejecting a principle before, and after, a full discussion of it. It would be a far greater evil, in the present day, to persecute men for adheriiig to the dictates of their consciences, than it was before the rights of conscience were so fully understood. It may include a thou- sand degrees more guilt for this country, at the present time, to persist in the slave-trade, than to have done the same thing previous to the late inquiry oa that business. But the disparity between periods with regard to the light thrown upon these subjects, is much less than between the periods before and after the death of Christ, with regard to the light thrown upon that subject. The difference between the periods, before and after the death of Christ, was as o-reat as between a period in which a prophecy is unaccomplished, and that in which it is accomplished. There are many things that seem plain in prophecy, when the event is past, which cannot then be hon- estly denied ; and it may seem wonderful that they should ever have been overlooked or miiitaken ; yet LET. la.] ON CHARITY* 17^ overlooked, or mistaken th^y liave been, and that by men of solid understanding- and real piety. It was after the death of Christ, when the means of knowledge began to diffuse light around them, that the disciples were for the tirst time reproved for their slowness of heart to believe y in reference to this subject. It was after the death and resurrection of Christ, when the way of salvation was fully and clearly pointed out,, that those who stumbled at the doctrine of the cross were reckoned disobedient, in such a degree as to de- nominate them unbelievers, and that the most awful warnings and threatenings were pointed against them as treading under foot the blood of the Son of God. It is true, our Lord had repeatedly predicted his death, and it was faulty in the disciples not to under- stand and believe it ; yet what he taught on that sub- ject was but little, when compared with what followed. The great salvation, as the apostle to the Hebrews ex-* presses \\, first began to bespoken by the Lord, and.: was confirmed to the primitive christians by those who^ heard him : but then it is added, God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders-, and with divers miracles, and gijis of the Holy Ghosf^ ac' cording to his own will. Now, it is upon this accumu- lation of evidence that he asks, Hoio shall we escape, if we neglect so great salvation /* A belief in the resurrection of Christ is allowed on all hands to be essential to salvation; as it is an event, upon which the truth of Christianity rests, f But the disciples of Christ, previous to the-event, were as much in the dark on this article as on that of the atonement. Even to the last, when he was actually risen from the dead, they visited his tomb in hope of finding him, and could scarcely believe their senses with respect to his * Heb. ii. 1—4. t 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15. Rom. x, 9. i7& ^N CHARITY. [let. 10. Iiavi nor left jt : for as yet they knew not the scripture^ that he must rise ai;ain Jrom the dead. Now if the resLirrection of Christ, though but little utKierstood before the event, may after it be considered as essen- tial to Christianity; there is no reason to conclude btrt that the same may be said of his atonement. Thirdly: It is not clear that the disciples did reject the doctrine of a vicarious sacrifice. They had all their lives been accustomed to vicarious sacrifices : it is, therefore, very improbable, that they should be preju- diced against the idea itself. Their objection to Christ's laying down his life, seems to have been direct- ed simply ag-ainst his dyin^, rather than aoainst his dying as a vicarious sacrifice. Could they have been reconciled to the former, for any thing that appears, they would have readily acquiesced in the latter. Their objection to the death of Christ seems to have been more the effect of ignorance and misguided affec- tion, than of a rooted opposition of principle : and therefore when they came to see clearly into the de- sign of his death, it is expressed not as if they had es- sentially altered their sentiments, but remembered the words which he had spoken to them ; of which, while their minds were beclouded with the notions of a tem- poral kingdom, they could form no clear or consistent ideas, and therefore had forgotten them.* And notwithstanding the ignorance and error which attended the disciples, there are things said of them which imply much more than the objection would seem to allow : — Whither I go, saith Christ, ye h>ow ; and the way ye know. As if he should say, I am not going to a strange place, but to the house of my Father and of your Father; with the way to which you are acquainted, and therefore will soon be with * Luke XXV i, 6— &. LET. 10.] ON CHARITY. 179 me. Thomas said unto kirn, Lord, ive know no( whith- er thou goesty and hoiv can we know the icay ? Jesus said unto him, I am the wai/, the truth, and the life : 710 man cometh unto the Father but by me — lfy€ had known me^ ye should have known my Father also : and from hetweforth ye know him, and have seen him,* From this passage it appears, that the disciples had a general idea of salvation through Christ ; though they did not understand particularly how it was to be acromplished. Farther : Christ taught his hear- ers, saying. Except ye eat my flesh, and drink my blood, ye have vo life in you — and the bread that I will gifw is my flesh, that I ivill give for the life of the world. On this occasion many of his nominal dis- ciples were ofiende*^', and walked no more with him ; but the triH: disciples were not offended. On the contrary, being a.sked, JVill ye also go away ^ Peter ansicered, Lordy to whom shall we go ? Thou hast the words of eternal life.f From this passage, it plainly appears, that the true disciples of Christ were even at that time considered as believing so much on the subject of Christ's giving himself for the life of the \iorleen frequently observed, that Socinians discover as • Monthly Review Enlarged, Vol. vi. page 555 ^ tliT. 10.] ON CHARITY. 181 great an aversion to the reading of Dur writings, as we can discover to the reading of theirs. Sooie will read them ; but not manv. Out of a hundred persons, whose minds lean towards the Socinian system, should you put into their hands a well-written Calvinistic performance, and desire them carefully and seriously to read it over, I question whether tive would comply with your request. So far however as my observation extends, I can pervise ; towards man, more than to mere animals ; and towards men of enlarged powers, if they be but good as well as great, more than to men in common. Ac- cording to the degree of intellect which they possess, 80 much they have of being, and of estimation in the scale of being. A man is of more value than many sparroivSf and the life of David was reckoned to be worth ten thousand of those of the common people. It has been thought to be on this principle that God, possessing infinitely more existence than all the creat- ures taken together, and being as gof)d as he is great, is to be loved and revered without bounds, except those which arise from the limitation of our powers; that is, with all our hearty and soul, and mind and strength. Now, if these observations be just, it cannot be doubted which of the systems in question tends most to promote the love of Christ : that which supposes hina to be equal, or one with God ; or that which reduces him to the rank of a mere fellow-creature. In the same proportion as God himself is to be loved above LET. 11.] LOVE TO CHRIST. IBf man, so is Christ to be loved, supposing him to be truly God, above what he is, or ought to be, supposing him to be merely a fellow-ma n^ The prophets, aposdes, and primitive christians, seem to have felt this motive in all its force. Hence, in their various expressions of love to Christ, they frequently min^^le acknowledgments of his divine dignity and excellency. They, indeed, never seem atraid of going too far, or of honouring him too much ; but dwell upon the dignity and glory of his person, as their darling theme. When David meditated upon this subject, he was raised above himself. Mi/ heart, saith he, is endiiing a good matter : I speak of the things tohich I have made touching the King : my tongue is as the pen of a ready writer I Thou art fairer than the children of men — Thy throne^ O God, isforev" er and ever : the sceptre of thy kingdom is a right sceptre — Gird thy sword «pon thy thigh, O most mighty, with thy glory and thy majesty. The expected Mes- siah was frequently the subject of Isaiah's prophecies. He loved him ; and his love appears to have beeu founded on his dignity and divine excellency. Utito us a Child is born : unto us a Son is given ; and the government shall be upon his shoulders ; and his name shall be called Wonderful^ Counsellor, the mighty God, the everlasting Father, the Prince of peace. He thus describes the preaching of John the Baptist : The voice of him that crieth in the wilderness, Prepare ye the way of Jehovah, make straight in the desert a high way for oua God — Behold the Lord God will come with a strong hand, aud his arm shall rule for him ; behold, his reward is with him, and his work before him. He shall feed his flock like a shepherd ; He shall gather the lambs with his army and carry Wtm LOVE TO CHRIST. [lET. 11. them in his bosom, and shall gently lead those that are with young, — Zdcharias, the father of Jolui the Bap- tist, so loved the INIessiah as to rejoice in his own child chiefly because he was appointed to be his proph- et and forerunner. And thou ch'ild^ said the enraptured parent, shall be called the prophet of thk highkst : for thou shah go before the face of the Lord to pre- pare his ways* John the Baptist himselt, when the Jews artfully endeavoured to excite his jf^alousy on account of the superior ministerial success of Christ, replied ; Ye yourselves bear me witness, that I said I am not the Chrkt — hk that cometh from above IS ABOVE ALL : he that is of the earth is earthly^ and speaketh of the earth : he that comlth from HEAVEN IS ABOVE ALL.f The apostles, who saw the Lord, and who saw the ac- complishment of what the prophets foretold, were not disappointed in him. Their love to him was gieat, ai^d their representations of his person and character ran in the same exalted strain. In the beginning was the Word, said the beloved disciple, and the W rd was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God, All things wehk made by him, AND VniHOUT HIM WAS NOT ANY THING MADE THAT WAS MADE* He was in the world, and the world WAS made by him, and the world knew him not. And • Ps. xlv. 1—6. Isa. ix. 6. xl. 3, 10, 11. Luke i. 76. f John iii. 28 — 31. Qiiery. In what sense could Clirist be* said to come from above, even fi'om heaven^ if he was merely a man, and came into the world like other men ? It could not be on account of his office^ or of receiving his mission from God ; for, in that sense, John was from heaven as well as he. Was it not fur the same reason which John elsewhere gives for his being preftrred before him ; viz. that he was befobc HIM ? John i. 15, 30. LET. 11.] LOTE TO CHRIST. 180 the Word was made Jle shy and dwelt among us^ (and we beheld his glory, the glory a^ q/* the on ly begotten^ OF the Father) yVi// of grace and truth. — Thomas in* sisted upon an unreasonable kind of evidence of the resurrection of his Lord from the dead ; saying. Except I shall see in his hands the print of the nails, and put my fingers into the print of the nails, and thrust my hands into his side, I will not believe. W hen reproved, by our Lord's offering to gratify him in his incredulous proposal, he confessed, with a mixture of shame, grief, and affection, that however unbelieving he had been, he was now satisfied that it was indeed his Lord, and no other, saying, My Lord, and my God ! — The whole Epistle 'to the Hebrews breathes an ardent love ta Christ, and is intermingled with the same kind of lan- guage. Jesus i& there represented as upholding ALL THINGS BY THE WORD OF HIS POWER : as the object of ANGELIC ADORATION : as he to whom it was said, Thy THRONE, O God, is forever and ever : as he who laid the foundation of the earth, and con- cerning whom it is added, the heavens are the work of thine hands : as superior to Moses, the one being the builder and owner of the house, even God that built all things ; and the other, only » servant in it : as superior to Aaron and to all those of his or- der, A GREAT high priest, Jesus the Son of God : and finally, as infinitely superior to angels ; for, to which of the angels, said he at any time, Thou art my Son ? or, Sit on my right hand ? Hence the gospel is considered as exhibiting a great salvation; and those who neglect it, are exposed to a recompense of wratli which they shall not escape,* • John i. 1, 2, 3, 14. XX. 24—28. Heb. u 3, 5, 6, 8^ 10, U^ iii. 3, 4, 5, 6. iv« 14. ii. 3. 19^ LOVE TO CHRIST. [lET. II. Paul could scarcely mention the name of Christ, without adding some strong encomium or other in his praise. When he was eninnerating those things which renderedh his countrymen dear to him, he mentions their being Israelites, to whom pertained the adoption^ and the glory, and the covenants , and the giving oj the laiv, and i\w service oj' God, and ihv promises ; whose wi-re the fathers^ and of whom, as cOiiceming the flesh, Christ came. Here, it seems, he might have stopped ; but, having mentioned the name of Christ, he could not content himself without adding, Who is ovf:r all, God 15LEssv:p forever. Amen» Having occasion also to speak of him in his Epis^tie to the Colossians, as God's dear Son, in whom we have redemption throi.gh Itis blood, even the forgiveness of sins ; he could not forbear adding. Who is the image of the invisible God, the Jir St' born of every creature. For by him were all things created that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers : all things were created by him, and for him : and he is before all things, and by him all things consist /* And now, brethren, I might appeal to you on the justness of Dr. Priestley's assertion, that '* In no sense whatever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much as called God in all the New Testament. "f I might appeal to you, whether such language as the above would ever have proceeded from the sacred wri- ters, had they embraced the scheme of our opponents. But, waving these particulars as irrelative to the imme- diate point in hand, 1 appeal to you whether such love as the'prophets and apostles expressed towards Christ, could consist with his being merely a fellow-creature, ♦ Rom. ix. 4, 5 Col i. 13—17. f Letters to Mr. Burn, Let. i, LET. II.] LOVE TO CHRIST, Igf and their considering hira as such ; whether the raauiier in which they expressed that love, upon the principles of our opponents, instead ot* being accjeptable to God, could have been any other than the height of extrava- gance, and the essence of idolatry ? Judge also for your- selves, brethren, which of the systems in question has the greatest tendency to promote such a spirit of love to Christ as is here exemplified : that which leads us to admire these representations, and on various occasions to adopt the same expressions ; or that which employs us in coldly criticising away their meaning : that which leads us without fear to give them their full scope; or that which, while we are honouring the Son, would ex- cite apprehensions lest we should in so doing dishonour the Father ? The next question to be discussed is. Which of the two systems places the mediation of Christ in the most important point of light ? That system, doubtless, which tinds the greatest use for Chri^t, or in which he occupies the most important place y must have 4:he great- est tendency to promote love to him. Suppose a sys- tem of politics were drawn up, in which civil liberty occupied but a very small portion, and was generally kept out of view ; or if, when brought forward, it was either for the purpose of abating the high notions which some people entertain of it, or at least, of treating it as a matter not absolutely necessary to good civil govern- ment ; who would venture to assert, that such a system was friendly, or its abettors friends, to civil liberty I This is manifestly a case in point. The Socinian sys- tem has but little u?e for Christ ; and none at ail, as an atoning sacrifice. It scarcely ever mentions him, unless it be to depreciate those views of his dignity which oth- ers entertain ; or in such a way as to set aside the abso- lute necessity of his mediation. 192 LOVE TO CHRIST. [I'ET. IK It is not so in our view of things. We find so much use for Christ, if 1 may so speak, that he appears as vhe soul which animates the whole body of our divinity ; as the centre of the system, diffusing light and life to every part of it. Take away Christ ; nay, take away the Deity and atonement of Christ, an J the whole ceremo« nial of the Old Testament appears to ns little more than a dead mass of uninteresting matter : prophecy loses almost all that is interestino- and end-earing ; the gospel is annihilated, or ceases to be that good neves to lost sinners which it professes to be; practical religion is divested of its most powerful motives ; the evangelical dispensation of its peculiar glory ; and heaven itself of its most tranj>porting joys. Tiie sacred penmen appear to have written all along upon the same principles. They considered Christ as the AH in nil of their religion ; and, as such, they loved him with their whole hearts. Do they speak of the^rv* tabernacle ? They call it -d fip^ure for the time then pres^ ent, in which were ojfered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that did the service perfect as per- taining to the eonscience — But Christ being come a High Priest of good things to come, by a greater and more perfect tabernacle, not made icitk hands, that is to sai/', not of this building ; iieither by the blood of goafs and calves, but by his own blood, he entered in once into the holy place, having obtained eternal redemption for us. Do they speak of prophecy ? They call the testi- mony of Jesus the spirit of it. Of the gospel ? it is the doctrine of Christ crucifijd. Of the medium by which the world was crucrtied to tlum, and they to the world ? It is the same. The very reproach of Christ had a value stamped upon it, so as, in their esteem, to surpass all the treasures of the present world. One of the most affecting ideas which they afford us of heaven, consists LET. 11.] LOVE TO CHRIST. 1^3 in ascribing everlasting glory and dominion to him fliat ■ioved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood. Ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands ofthou^ sands were heard with a loud voice, saying. Worthy IS THE Lamb that was slain, to receive power, AND RICHES, AND WISDOM, AND STRENGTH, AND HONOUR, AND GLORY, AND BLESSING I* Let us select a particular instance in the character of Paul. This apostle seemed to be swallowed up in love to Christ. His mercy to him as one of the chief of sinners, had bound his heart to him with bonds of ever- lasting gratitude. Nor was this all ; he saw that glory in his person, office, and work, which eclipsed the ex- cellence of all created objects, which crucified the world to him, and him unto the world. What things were gain to me, those I counted loss for Christ, Yea, doubtless, and I count all things but loss for the excels lency of the knowledge of Christ Jesus my Lord ; for whom I have suffered the loss of all things. Nor did he now rtpent ; for he immediately adds. And do termined, at all events, to believe Christ to be a dif- ferent Beinv,^ from what he really was — that there is no reasoning with them — and that they are to be pitied, and considered as being- under a debility of mind, in tbis respect, however sensible and rational in others ?"* If wise and good men have differed upon the subject in all ages, and that owing to the obscurity with which it is enveloped in the scriptures themselves, why this abusive and insulting language ? Is it any disgrace to a person not to see that clearly in the st^riptures, which is not clearly there to be seen ? Secondly : If the scriptures have indeed left the subject in obscurity, how came Mr. Lindsey to be so decided upon it ? The ** high perfection of knowl- edge'' which he possesses, must undoubtedly have been acquired from some other qitarter ; seeing it made no part of the design of the holy Spirit, in the christian revelation. But, if so, we have no further dispute with him ; as, in what respects religion, we do not aspire to be wise above what is written* Thirdly : Let it be considered, whether the princi- ple on which Mr. Lindsey encourages the e^xercise of charity and mutual forbearance, do not cast a heavy reflection upon the character of God. The scriptures, in what relates to the person of Christ, (a subject on which Dr. Priestley allows the writers to have heeii itifa/lib/e J are left obsure; so obscure, as to mislead readers full of heathen prejudices ; nay, and with the very design of misleading them. God him- self, it seems, designed that they should stumble on in ignorance, error, and disagreement ; till at last, wearied with their fate, and finding themselves united in one common calamity, they might become friends. But what is this friendship ? Is it not at » Catechist. Enquiry VI. 216 VENERATION FOR [LET. 1^. the expense of him who is supposed to have spread their way with snares ; or, which is the same thing, with misleading obscurity ? Is it any other than the friendship of the world, which is enmity with God 9 In perfect harmony with Mr. Lindsey, is the lan- guage of a writer in the Mont hit/ Review, " The na- ture and design of the scripture (he says) is not to set- tle disputed theories, nor to decide upon speculative controverted questions, even in religion and morality--' The scriptures, if we understand any thing of them, are intended not so much to make us wiser, as to make us better; not to solve the doubts, but rather to make us obey the dictates of our consciences."* The holy scriptures were never designed, then, to be a rule of faith or practice ; but merely a stimulative. In mat- ters of speculation, (as all disputed subjects will be termed, whether doctrinal or practical) they have no authority, it seems, to decide any question. What saith the scriptures ? therefore, would now be an im- pertinent question. You are to find out what is truth, and what is righteousness, by your reason, and your conscience : and when you have obtained a systeii of religion and morality to your mind, scripture is to fur- nish you with motives to reduce it to practice. If this be true, to what purpose are all appeals to the scriptures on controverted subjects ; and why do Socinians pre- tend to appeal to them ? Why do they not honestly ac- knowledge, that they did not learn their religion from 4hence, and therefore refuse to have it tried at that bar ? This would save much labour. To what purpose do they object to particular passages as interpolations or mistranslations, or the like, when the whole, be it ever so pure, has nothing at all to do in the decision of our * Rev. of Bishop Horsley's Sermon, Mar. 1793. vl. x. p. 33K LET. 12.] THE SCRIPTURES. 217 controversies ? We have been used to speak ofconscience having but one master, even Christ : but now, it seems, conscience is its own master, and Jesus Christ does not pretend to dictate to it, but merely to assist in the exe- cution of its decisions ! Mr. Belsham carries the matter still further. This gentleman, not satisfied, it seems, with disclaim- ing an implicit confidence in holy scripture, pretends to find author iti/ in the scriptures thetnselves for so doing, '* The Bereans (he says) are commended for not taking the word even of an apostle, but examining the scriptures for themselves, whether the doctrines which they heard were true, and whether St. Paul's reasoning was just,"* I do not recollect, that the Bereans were commended Jbr not taking the word of an apostle; but for not rejecting it without examina- tion, as the Jews did at Thessalonica. But, granting it were otherwise, their situation was different from ours. They had not then had an opportunity of obtaining evidence that the apostles were divinely inspired, or that the gospel which they preached was a message from God. This, surely, is a circumstance of importance. There is a great difference be- tween their entertaining some doubt of the truth of the gospel, till they had fully examined its evi- dences ; and our still continuing to doubt of its particular doctrines and reasoninp-s, even thous^h we allow it to be a message from God. — To this may be addeil, that, in order to obtain evidence, the Bereans searched the scriptures. By comparing the facts which Paul te&tified, with the prophecies which went before ; and the doctrines which he preached, with T * Serm. on Importance of Truth, p. c9. ^18 VENERATION FOR [lET. 12. those of the Old Testament ; they would judge whether his message was from God or not. There is a great difference between the criterion of the Be- reans, and that of the Socinians, The scriptures of the Old Testament were the allowed standard of the former ; and they employed their reason to find out their meaning, and their agreement with New Tes- tament facts : but the authority and agreement of the Old and New Testaments will not satisfy the latter ; unless what they contain agree also with their pre- conceived notions of what is fit and reasonable* The one tried, what, for ought they at that time knew, were mere private reasonings, by the scriptures ; but the other try the scriptures by their own private reasonings. — Finally : If proposing a doctrine for ex- amination, prove the proposer liable to false or unjust reasonings it will follow, that the reasoning of Christ oiight be false or unjust, seeing he appealed to the scriptures, as well ais his apostles, and commanded hia hearers to search them. It will also follow, tliat all the great ^c^^ of Christianity, as well as the reasonings of Christ and his apostles, were liable to be detected of falsehood ; for these were as constantly submitted to examination as the other. These things, said they, were not done in a corner* Nay, it must follow, th^it God himself is liable to l>e iii a wrong cause, seeing he frequently appeals to men's judgment and con- sciences. And noiVy O inhabitants of Jerusalem^ and men of Judah, judge, I pray you, between me arul my vineyard. The inhabitants of Jerusalem, and men of Judah, were exhorted and even entreated, it may be said, not to take matters upon trust ; but to exam- ine for themselves, whether the conduct of Jehovah was just, or whether any thing ought to have been done for his vineyard, that was not done ! LET. 12.] THE SCRlPTURESr 219 But, far as our Eni^lish Socinians have gone m these things, they do not seem to have exceeded, nar hardly to have equalled, those of the same denomi- nation in other countries. These appear to have made great advances, indeed, towards infidelity, Mr, Blackwall makes mention of two, whose language conveys an idea of uncommon disrespect to the sa- cred writings. George Engedin, speaking of the v^ritings of John, says, ** If a concise, abrupt ob- scurity, inconsistent with itself, and made up of al- legories, is to be called sublimity of speech, I own John to be sublime : for there is scarce one discourse of Christ which is not altogether allegorical, and very hard to be understood." Gagneius, another writer of the same spirit, says, '' I shall not a little glory, if I shall be found to give some light to Pa?^/'^ dark- ness ; a darkness, as some think, industriously affect- ed. " — ** Let any of the followers of these worthy interpreters of the gospel, and champions of Chris- tianity, (adds Mr. Blackwall, by way of reflection) speak worse if they can, of the ambiguous oracles of the father of lies. These fair-dealing gentlemcD first disguise the sacred writers, and turn them into a harsh allegory ; — and then charge them with that obscurity and inconsistency which is plainly con- sequent upon that sense, which their interpretations force upon them. They outrage the divine writers in a double capacity : first, they debase their sense as theologues aid commentators, and then carp at, and vilify their language as grammarians and critics.'** Steinbart, Semler, and other foreign Socin- ians, of later times, write in a similar strain. The former, speaking of the narrations of facts contained in the New Testament, says, " These narrations, ♦ Sacred Classics, Pt. IL Ch. V. 220 YENERATION FOR [lET. 1«. true or false, are only suited for ignorant, unculti- vated minds, who cannot enter into the evidence of natural religion.'* The same writer adds, " Moses, according to the chddish conceptions of the Jews in his days, paints God as agitated by violent affections, partial to one people, and hating all other nations." The latter^ in a Note on -2 Per. i. 2, Tlit- prophecy came not in old time b./ the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost, says, " Peter speaks there accorditig to the concep- tion of the Jews;" and, that *« the prophets may have delivered the offspring of their own brains as divine revelations.''* Soeinian writers sometimes profess great respect te the holy scriptures ; and most, if not all of them, would have it thought that they consider their tes- timony as being in their favour. But, if so, why all these pains to depreciate them ? We know who they are that not only undermine their general credit, but are obliged on almost every occasion to have recourse to interpolation, or mistranslation ; who are^ driven to disown the apostolic 7 easoniftgs n^ tx proyier test of religious sentiment, and to hold them as the mere private opinions of men, no way decisive as to what is truth. But is it usual in any cause for per- sons to endeavour to set aside those witnesses, and to invalidate that testimony, which they consider, at the same time, as being in their favour ? This is a question which it does liot require much critical skill to decide. When Soeinian writers have mangled and altered the translation to their own minds, informing us, that such a term 7nai/ be rendered so, and such a * Dr. Erskinc's Sketches and Hints of Cliurch History, No. Ill, p. 95, 71. LET. 12.3 THE SCRIPTURES* 221 passage should be pointed so — and so on — they seem to exjject that their opponents should quote the scrip- tures accordingly ; and, if they do not, are very lib- eral in insinuating that their design is to impose up- on the vulgar. But though it be admitted, that every translation must needs have its imperfections, and that those imperfections ought to be corrected by fair and impartial criticism : yet, \*here alterations- are made by those who have an end to answer by them, they ought always to be suspected, and will be so by thinking and impartial people* If we must quote particular passages of scripture^ after the manner in which our adversaries translate them, we must also avoid quoting all those which they object to as interpolations. Nor shall we stop here : we must, on certain occasions, leave out whole chapters, if not whole books. We must never refer to the reasonings of the apostles, but consider that they were subject to be misled by Jewish prejudices j nor even to historical facts, unless we can satisfy ourselves that the historians, independent of their be* ing divinely inspired, were possessed of sufficient means of information. In short, if we must never quote scripture, except according to the rules im- posed upon us by Socinian writers, we must not quote it at all : not, at least, till they shall have indulged us with a Bible of their own, that shall leave out every thing on which we are to pl&ce na dependance,. A. publication of this sort would doubtless be an accep- table present to the christian warld ;. would be cmn- prised in> a very small compass ; and be of iutinvte service in cutting »hort a great deal of unnecessary^ controversy, inta which, for want of such a crlt€ric*«^, we shall always be in danger of wandering, T 2 222 VENERATION FOR, &C, [lET. 12. Dr. Priestley, in his Animadversions on Mr, Gih* hon's History^ takes notice oF what is implied in that gentleman's endeavouring to lessen the number and validity of the early martyrdoms ; namely, a con- sciousness that they afforded an argument against him. " Mr. Gibbon (says the Doctor,) appears to have been sufficiently sensible of the value of such a testimony to the truth of the gospel history, as is furnished by the early martyrdoms, and, therefore, he takes great pains to diminish their number ; and^ when the facts cannot be denied, he endeavours to exhibit them in the most unfavourable light."* Judge, brethren, whether this picture does not bear too near a resemblance to the conduct of Dr. Priestley, and other Socinian writers, respecting the holy scriptures. I have heard of persons, who, when engaging in a law-suit, and fearing lest certain individuals should appear in evidence against them, have so contrived matters as to sue the witnesses ; and so, by making them parties in the contest, have disqualified them for bearing testimony. Arid what else is the conduct of Dr. Priestley, with respect to those passages in the New Testament which speak of Christ as God ? We read there, that The Word^ who was made Jiesh, and dwelt among us, was God. Thomas exclaimed, Mi/ Lord, and my God — Of whom as concerning the Jieshy Christ came, who is over all, God blessed forever* Unto the Son he saith, thu throne, O God, is forever and ever — Feed the Church of God which he hath purchased with his own blood — Hereby perceive we the love of God, because he laid down his life for w^.f But Dr. Priestley asserts, that " in no sense what- ever, not even in the lowest of all, is Christ so much • Letters to a Phil. Unb. Pt. II. p 217. f J^^" '^ ^' ^^• XX. 28. Rom. ix. 5. Heb, i. 8. Acts. xx. 28. 1 John iii. 16. LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 223 as called God in all the New Testament."* The method taken by this writer to enable him to hazard sueh an assertion, without being subject to the charge of downright falsehood, could be no other than that of laying a kind of arrest upon the fore- going passages, with others, as being either interpo- lations, or mistranslations, or something that shall answer the same end; and by these means imposing silence upon them, as to the subject in dispute. To be sure, we may go on, killing one scripture testimo- ny, and stoning another, till at length it will become an easy thing to assert, that there is not an instance in all the New Testament, in which our o[)inions are confronted. But to what does it all amount ? When we are told, that " Christ is never so much as called God in all the New Testament ;*' the question is, Whether we are to understand it of the New Tes- tament as it was left by the sacred writers ; or, as corrected, amended, curtailed, and interpreted, by a set of controvertists, with a view to make ?t accord with a favourite system ? I am, &c. LETTER XIII. ON THK TENDENCY OF THE DIFFERENT SYSTEMS, TO PROMOTE HAPPINESS Oil CHEERFULNESS OF MIND. Christian Brethren^ NOTHING is more common with our opf)onents, than to represent the Calvinistic system as gloomy ; as leading to melancholy and misery. Our ideas of God, of sin, and of future punishment, they say, must necessarily depress our minds. Dr. Priestley, as we • Letter I. to Mr. Burn. 2j^4 on happin£Ss« [let. la, have seen already, reckons Unitarians ^* more cheer- fuT' than Trinitarians. JNor is this all. li has even been asserted, that the tendency of our principles is to promote " moral turpitude, melancholy, and despair ; and that the suicide practised among the middling, and lower ranks, is frequently to be traced to this doctrine."* This is certainly carrying matters to a great height. It might be worth while, however, for those who advance such things as these, to make good what they affirm, if they be able. Till that be done, candour itself must consider these bold asser- tions as the mere effusions of malignity and slander. It is some consolation, however, that what is ob- jected to us by Socinians, is objected to religion it-' self by unbelievers. Lord Shaftesbury observes, '* There is a melancholy which accompanies all en- thusiasm ;" which, from his pen, is only another name for Christianity. To the same purpose, Mr. Hume asserts, " There is a gloom and melancholy remark-' able in all devout people." If these writers had form- ed a comparison between deists and atheists on the one i^ide, and devout christians on the other, they would have said of the former, as Df. Priestley says of Unitarians, ** They are more cheerful, and more happy." It is granted, that the system we adopt, has noth- ing in it adapted to promote the happiness of those who persist in enmity against God, and in a rejec- tion of our Lord Jesus Christ, as the only way of salvation. While men are at war with God, we do not know of any evangelical promise that is calcu- lated to make them happy. This, perhaps, with some may be a considerable ground of objection to eur views of things ; but then, such objection must • See Crit. Rev. for $ept, ir8r,on Memoirs of Gabriel D' Anville. LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 2til^ equally stand against the scriptures tliemselves; since their language to ungodly men is. Be afflicted^ and^ moiirny and weep. All the prophets, and ministers of the word were, in effect, commanded to sat/ to the wicked. It shall be ill wita him. This, with. us, is one considerable objection against the doctrine . of the final salvation of all men ; a doctrine much circulated of late, and generally embraced by Socin- ian writers. Supposing it were a truth, it must be of such a kind as is adapted to comfort mankind in sin. It is good news : but it is to the impenitent, and unbelieving, even those who live and die such /.^ which is a characteristic so singular, that I question whether any thing can be found in the Bible to re- semble it. If our views of things be but adapted to encourage sinners to return to God by Jesus Christ 5 if they afford strong consolation to those who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before them ; and if sobriety, righteousness, and godliness, here meet with the most powerful motives ; this is all that the scriptures themselves pro{)ose. Our system, it is granted, is not adapted to pro- mote that kind of cheerfulness and happiness to which men in general are greatly addicted ; namely, that which consists in self-deceit, and levity of spirit. There is a kind of cheerfulness like that of a tradesman* who avoids looking into his accounts lest they should disturb his peace, and render him unhappy. This, indeed, is the cheerfulness of a great part of man- kind ; who shun the light, lest it should disturb their repose, and interrupt their present pursuits. They try to persuade themselves that they shall have peace, thoujyh they add drunkenness to thirst ; and there are not wanting preachers who afford them assistance in the dangerous delusion. The doctrines of huma» 226 ON HAPPINESS. [let. 13. depravity, of sinners being under the curse of the law, and of their exposedness to everlasting punish- ment, are tho^e which are supposed to lead us to melancholy ; and we may fairly conclude that the cpposites to these doctrines are at the bottom of the cheerfulness of which our opponents boast. Instead of considering mankind as lost sinners, exposed to everlasting destruction ; they love to represent them simply as creatures, as the children of God, and to suppose that, having in general more virtue than ▼ice, they have nothing to fear ; or if, in a few in- stances, it be otherwise, still they have no reason to be afraid of end/ess punishment. These things, to be sure, make peonle cheerful ; but it is with the cheer- fulness of a wicked man. It is just as wicked men would have it. It is no wonder tfiat persons of *' no religion, and who lean to a life of dissipation, should be the first to embrace these principles." They are Buch as must needs suit them : especially if we add, what Dr. Priestley inculcates in his Sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson, That it is not necessary to dwell in our thoughts upon death and futurity ^ lest it should interrupt ike business of life, and cause us to live in perpetual bondage,* We hope it is no dis- paragement of the Calvinistic doctrine, that it dis- claims the promoting of all such cheerfulness as this. That cheerfulness which is damped by thoughts of death and futurity, is, at best, mere natural joy. It has no virtue in it : nay, in many cases, it is posi- tively vicious, and founded in self-deception. It is nothing better than the laughter of a fool. It may blaze awhile, in the bosoms of the dissipated and the secure ; but, if the sinner be once awakened to just * This is the substance of what he advances, from p. 7 to 12. LET. 13.] eN HAPPINESS. S27 reflection, it will expire like the crackling of thorns under a pot. There is also a kind of happiness which some per- sons enjoy, in treating the most serious and impor- tant subjects with levity; making them the subjects of jest, and trying their skill in disputing upon them ; which is frequently called pleasantry, good-nature, and the like, A cheerfulness of this kind, in Oliver Cromwell, is praised by Mr. Lindsey, and represented as an excellency " of which the gloomy bigot is ut- terly incapable."* Pleasantry, on some occasions, and to a certain degree, is natural, and allowable : but if sporting with sacred things must goby that name, let me be called *' a gloomy bigot,'' rather than in- dulge it. Once more: It is allowed, that the system we embrace has a tendency on various occasions to pro- mote sorrow of heart. Our notions of the evil of &ia exceed those of our opponents. While they reject the doctrine of atonement by the cross of Christ, they have aot that glass in which to discern its ma- lignity, which others have. There are times in which we remember Calvary, and weep on account ot" that for which our Redeemer died. But so far are we from considering this as our infelicity, that, for weeping in this manner once, we could wish to do so a thousand times. There is a pleasure in the very pains of godly sorrow^ of which the light-minded spec- Ailatist is utterly incapable* The t«ears of her that wept, and washed her Saviour's feet, afforded abun- dantly greater satisfaction than the unfeeling calm <5f the pharisee, who stood by making his ill-natured reflections upon her conduct, • Apol. Chap. H* 228 ON HAPPINESS. [lET. 13. If our views of things have no tendency to . pro- mote solid, holy, heavenly joy ; joy that fits true christians for the proper business of this world, and the blessedness of that which is to come ; we will ac- knowledge it a strong presumption against them. If, on the other hand, they can be proved to possess such a tendency, and that in a much greater degree than the opposite scheme, it will be a considerable argument in their favour. Let us examine this matter a little closer. The utmost happiness which the peculiar principles of Socinians are adapted to promote, consists \xt calmness ofmhidy like that of a philosopher contemplating the works of creation. The friends of that scheme conceive of man as a good kind of Being, and suppose there is a greater proportion of virtue in the world than vice, and that things upon the whole are getting better still, and so tending to happiness. They suppose there is little or no breach between God and men ; nothing but what may be made up by repentance, a repentance without much pain of mind,* and without any atoning Saviour ; that God, being the benevolent Father of his rational offspring, will not be strict to mark%iniquity : and that, as his benevolence is infinite, all will be well at last : As with the good, so with the sinner : with him that swear* eth, as with him thatfeareth an oath. This makes theui serene ; and enables them to pursue the studies of phi- losophy, or the avocations of life, with composure. This appears to be the summit of their happiness ; and must be so of all others, if they wish to escape their censure. For if any one pretends to happiness of a superior kind, they will instantly reproach him as an enthusiast. A writer in the Monthly Review, ob- serves, concerning the late President Edwards ; • Such a repentance is pleaded for by Mr. Jardine in his Letters to Mr. Bogue. LKT. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 22^ '• From the account given of him, he appears to have been a very reputable, good, and pious man, according to his views and feelings in religious matters; which those of different sentiments, and cooler sensations, will not fail to consider as all wild ecstasy ^ rapturCy and enthusiasm,'^* The tendency of any system to promote calmness^ is nothing at all in its favour, any further than such calmness >can be proved to be virtuous. But this must be> determined by the situation in which we stand. nVe ouglit to be affected according to our situation. If, indeed, there be no breach between God and men ; if all be right on our part, as will as his, and just as it should be ; then it becomes us to be calm and thankful : but if it be otherwise, it becomes us to feel accordingly. If we have offended God, we ought to bewail our transgressions, and be sorry for our sin ; and if the offence be great, we ought to be deeply affected with it. It would be thought very improper for a convict, a little before the time* appointed for his execution, instead of cherishing proper reflections on the magnitude of his offence, and suing for the mercy of his offended Sovereign, to be eoi ployed in speculating upon his benevolence, till he has really worked himself into a persuasion, that no serious apprehensions were to be entertained, ' either concerning himself, or any of his fellow con- victs. Such a person might enjoy a much greater degree of calmness than his companions : but consid- erate people would neither admire his mode of think- ing, nor envy his imaginary'' felicity. Calmness and serenity of mind may arise from igno- rance of ourselves, and from the want of a principle of true religion. While Paul was ignorant of his true U • Rev. Gf Edwarda' Hist, of Redemption,Vol. LXXX. Art. 68 200 ON HAPPINESS. [lET. 13, character, he was calm and easj^, or as he expresses it, alive without the law; but when the connnandment came, in its spirituality and authority, sin revived, and he died. The Pharisee who was whole in his own esteem, and needed no physician, was abundantly more calm than the Publican, who smote upon his breast, and cried, God be merciful to me a sinner ! While any man is destitute of a principle of true religion, the strong man armed keepeth the house, and the goods are in 'peace; and while things are thus, he will be a stranger to all those holy mournings which abound* in the Psalms of David, and to those inward conflicts be- tween jiesh and spirit described in the writings of Paul. And, knowing nothing of such things himself, he will be apt to think meanly of those who do ; to deride them as enthusiasts, to reproach them with gloominess, and to boast of his own insensibility, under the names of calmness and cheerfulness. Supposing the calmness and cheerfulness of mind of which our opponents boast, to be on the side of virtue ; still it is a cold and insipid kind of happiness, compar- ed with that which is produced by the doctrine of sal- vation through the atoning blood of Christ. One great source of happiness is contrast. Dr. Priestley has proved, what indeed is evident from universal experi- ence, ** That the recollection of past troubles, after a certain interval, becomes highly pleasurable, and is a pleasure of a very durable kind.''* On this principle he undertakes to prove the infinite benevolence of the Deity, even in his so ordering things, that a mixture of pain and sorrow shall fall to the lot of man. On the same principle may be proved, if 1 mistake not, the superiority of the Calvinistic system to that of the So- cinians, in point of promoting happiness. The doc- • Let. to a Phil. Unb. Pt. 1. Let. \1. LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. ^32 t lines of the former, supposing them to be true, are affecting. It is affecting to think, that man, originally pure, should have fallen from the height of righteous- ness and honour, to the depth of apostasy and infamy — that he is now an enemy to God, and actually lies under his awful and just displeasure, exposed to ever- lasting misery — that, notwithstanding all this, a ransom is found to deliver him from going down to the pit — that God so loved the world, as to give his only-begot- ten Son %o become a sacrifice for sin, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have eternal lifel-that the issue of Christ's death is not left at an (Uncertainty, nor the invitations of his gospel subject to universal rejection, but an effectual provision is made in the great plan of redemption, that he shall see of the travail of his soul, and be satisfied — that the Holy Spirit is given to renew and sanctify a people for him- self — that they who v^ere under condemnation and wrath, being justified by faith in the righteousness of Jesus, have peace with God — that aliens and outcasts are become the sons and daughters of the Lord God Almighty — that everlasting arms are now beneath them, and everlasting glory is before them* — These sentiments, I say, supposing them to be true, are un- doubtedly affecting. The Socinian system, supposing it were true, compared with this, is cold, uninteresting, and insipid. We lead of joy and peace in believing — of jot/ uri' speahabhy and full of glory. Those who adopt the Calvinistic doctrine of the exceeding sinfulness of sin, and of their own lost condition as sinners, are prepared to imbibe the joy of the gospel, supposing it to exhibit a great salvation, through the atonement of a great Sa- viour, to which others, of opposite sentiments, must of necessity he. strangers^ The Pharisees, who thought .239 ON HAPPINESS. [let. 1^. well of their character and condition, like the elder son in the parable, instead of rejoicing at the good news of ealvaiion to the chief of sinners, were disgusted at it r and this will ever be the case with all who, like the Pharisees, are ichole in their own eyes, so whole as to think they need no physician. The votaries of the Socinian scheme do not, in o-ener- al, appear to feel their hearts much interested by it. Voltaire could say in his time, «« At least hitherto, only a very small number of those called Unita/-ians have held any religious meetings.*'* And though Dr. JPriestley, by his great zeal, has endeavoured to invig- orate and reform the party : yet he admits tlie justice of a common complaint among them, that " their so- cieties do not flourish, their members have but a slight attachment to them, and easily desert them, though it *s never imagined (he adds) that they desert their prin- ciples. "f All this the Doctor accounts for by allowing, that iheir principles are not of that importance which we suppose ours to he ; and that " many of those who judge so truly concerning the particular tenets of relig- ion, have attained to that cool, unbviissed temper of mind, in consequence of becoming more indifferent to religion in general, and to all the modes and doctrines of it." Through mdifferencey it seems, they come in ; through indifference they go out ; and are very indiffer" ent while there. Yet, it is said, they still retain their principles ; and, 1 suppose, are very cheerful, and very happy. Happiness, theirs, consequentl}^, which does not interest the heart, any more than reform the life. Although the aforementioned writer in the Monthly Review insinuates, that President Edwards's religious feelings were ** all wild ecstasy, rapture aid enthusi- * Additions to Gen. Hist. Art. England, under Charles \\. f Discourses on Various Subjects, p. 94. LET. 13.] &^ HAPPINESS. 233 asm ;" yet headds^ ^' We cannot question the sinceri- ty of Mr. Edwards, who, however he may possibly have imposed on himself by the warmth of his imagination, was, perhaps, rather to be envied, than derided for his ardours and ecstasies, which, in themselves, were at least innocent ; in which he, no doubt, found much delisht, and from which no creature could receive the least hurt/' I thank you, sir, for this concession. It will, at least, serve to shew, that the sentiments and feelings which you deem wild and enthusiastical, may, by your own acknowledgment, be the most adapted to promote human happiness ; and that is all for which I at present contend. President Edwards, however, was far from being a person of that warm imagination, which this writer would insinuate. No man could be a great- er enemy to real enthusiasm. Under the most virulent oppositions, and the heaviest trials, he possessed a great share of coolness of judgment, as well as of calmness and serenity of mind ; as great, and perhaps greatei > than any one whom this gentleman can refer us to, among those whom he calls men of cool sensations. But he felt deeply in religion ; and in such feelings, our ad- versaries themselves being judges, he was to be " envi- ed, and not derided." Why should religion be the only subject in ivhich we must not be allowed to feel? Men are praised for the exercise of ardour, and even of ecstasy, in poetry, in polices, and in the endearing connections of social life; but, in religion, we must either go on with cool indifference, or be branded as enthusiasts. Is it because religion is of less importance than other things ? Is eternal salvation of less consequence than the political or domestic accommodations of time? It is treated by multitudes as if it were; and the spirit of Socinianism, so far as it operates, tends to keep them in countenance, U 2 234 ON HAPPINESS. [let. 13. Is it not a pity but those who call themselves rational christians, would act more rationally ? Nothing can be more irrational, as well as injurious, than to encourage an ardour of mind after the trifles of a moment, and to discourage it when pursuing objects of infinite mag-i nitude. '^ Passion is reason, transport temper here I" The Socinian system proposes to exclude mi/steiy from religion, or, *' things in their own nature incom- prehensible,"* But such a scheme not only renders religion the only thing in nature void of mystery, but divests it of a property essential to the continued com- munication of happiness to an immortal creature. Our passions are more affected by objects which surpass our comprehension, than by those which we fully know. It is thus with respect to unhappiness. An unknown itiisery is much more dreadful than one that is fully known. Suspense adds to distress. If, with regard to transient sufferings, we know the worst, the worst is comm.only over : and hence our troubles are frequently greater when feared, than when actually felt. It is the same with respect to happiness. That happiness which is felt in the pursuit of science, abates in the full pos- session of the object. When once a matter is fully known, we cease to take that pleasure in it as at first, and long for something new. It is the same in all other kinds of happinesF, The mind loves to swim in deep waters : if it touch the bottom it feels disgust. If the best were once fully known, the best would thence be over. Some of the noblest passions in Paul were excited by objects incomprehensible : O the depth of the riches, both of the wisdom and knoivledge of God i How unsearchable are his judgments^ and his * Def. of Unit, for l^SG, p. 67, LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 235 ways past finding out ! — Great is the mi/stery of god^ iiness : God teas manifest in the fleshy justified in the spirit i seen qf angels, believed on in the world, received up into glory ! Now, if things be so, it is easy to see, that, to divest religion of every thing incomprehensible, is to divest it of what is essential to human happiness. And no wonder : for it is nothing less than to divest it of God ! The Socinian scheme, by rejecting the Deity and atonement of Christ, rejects the very essence of that which both supports and transports a christian's heart. It was acknowledged by Mr. Hume, that, " The good^ the great, the sublime, and the ravishing were to be found evidently in the principles of theism." To this Dr. Priestley very justly replies: ** If so, I need not say that there must be something mean, abject, and debasing in the principles of atheism."* But let it be considered, whether this observation be not equally ap- plicable to the subject in hand. Our opponents, it is true, may hold sentiments which are great and trans- porting. Such are their views of the works of God in creation : but so are those of deists. Neither are these the sentiments in which they differ from us. Is the Socinian system, as distinguished from ours, adapted to raise and transport the heart ? This is the question. Let us select only one topic for an example. Has any thing, or can any thing be written, on the scheme of our adversaries, upon the death of Christ equal to the following lines ? " Religion ! thou the soul of happiness ; And groaning Cahary of thee ! there shine The noblest truths ; there strongest motives sting ? There sacred violence assaults the soul My theme ! my inspiration ! and my crown ! * Letters to a Phil. Unb. Pt. I. pref. p. x. ^36 ON HAPPINESS. [let. 13. My strength In age ! my rise in low estate ! My soul's ambition, pleasure, wealth ! — my world ! My light in darkness ! and my life in death ! My boast through time ! bliss througli eternity ! Eternity too short to speak thy praise 1 Or fathom thy profound of love to man I To man, of men the meanest, ev*n to me ; My sacrifice ! my God ! what things are these !'* Again : ** Pardon for. infinite offence ! and pardon, Through means that speak its value infinite ! A pardon bought with blood ! with blood divine ! With blood divine of him I made my foe ! Persisted to provoke ! though woo'd, and aw'd, Bless'd, and chastis'd, a flagrant rebel still ! A rebel 'midst the thunders of his throne ! Nor I alone, a rebel universe ! My species up in arms ! not one exempt ! Yet for the foulest of the foul he dies ! Bound every heart ! and every bosom burn ! Oh what a scale of miracles is here !— Praise ! flow forever (if astonishment Will give thee leave) my praise ! forever flow ; Praise ardent, cordial, constant, to high Heaven More fragrant than Arabia sacrific'd ; And all her spicy mountains in a flame !" Night Thoughts, No. iv. There is a rich, great, and ravishing quality in the foregoing sentiments, which no other theone can inspire. Had the writer been a Socinian, and attempted to write upon the death of Christ, he might, by the strength of his mind and the fire of his genius, have contributed a little to raise his subject ; but here his subject raises him above himself. The dignity of Christ, together with his glorious undertaking, was, as we have seen in Letter XI, a LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 23? source of joy and love to the primitive christians. It was their daHing theme, and that which raised them above themselves. Now, according to our system, christians, may still rejoice in the same manner ; and ffive vent to their souls, and to all that is within them, and that without fear of going beyond the words of truth and soberness ; or of bordering, or seeming to border, upon idolatry. But upon the principles of our opponents, the sacred writers must liave dealt largely in hyperbole; audit must be our business, instead of entering into their spirit, to sit down with '* cool sensations,'' criticise their words, and explain away their apparent meaning. Brethren ! 1 appeal to your own hearts, as men who have been brought to consider yourselves as the scriptures represent you ; Is there any thing in that preaching which leaves out the doctrine of salvation by an atoning sacrifice, that can atford you any re- lief? Is it not like the priest and Levite who passed by on the other side ? Is not the doctrine of atone- ment by the blood of Christ, like the oil and wine of the good Samaritan ? Under all the pressures of life, whether from inward conflicts, or outward troub- les, is not this your grand support ? What but an advocate iciih the Father^ one who is the propitiation for our sins, could prevent you, when you have sinned against God, from sinking into despondency, and .encouri^ge you to sue afresh for mercy ? What else could so divest affliction of its bitterness; death of its sting ; or the grave of its gloomy aspect ? In fine, what else could enable you to contemplate a future judgment with composure ? What hope could you entertain of being justified at that day upon any other footing than this. It is CJirist that died 9 238 ON HAPPINESS. [l>ET. 13, I am aware I shall be told, that this is appealing to the passions, and to the passions of enthusiasts. To which it may be replied ; in a question which relates to happiness, the heart is the best criterion : and if it be enthusiasm to think and feel concerning our- selves as the scriptures represent us, and concerniHg Christ as he is there exhibited, let me live and die an enthusiast. So far from being ashamed to appeal to such characters, in my opinion they are the only competent judges. Men of mere speculation play with doctrines : it is the plain and serious christian that knows most of their real tendency. In a ques- tion, therefore, which concerns their happy or unhappy influence, his judgment is of the greatest importance. Dr. Priestley allows, that ** the doctrine of a gen- eral, and a most particular providence, is so leading a feature in every scheme of predestination, it brings Ood so much into every thing, — that an habitual and animated devotion is the result,'** This witness is true : nor is this all. The same principle, taken in its connection with various others, equally provides for a serene and joyful satisfaction in all the events of time. All the vicissitudes of nations ; all the fu- rious oppositions to the church of Christ ; all the tefforts to overturn the doctrine of the cross, or blot out the spirit of Christianity from the earth, we con- sider as permitted for wise and holy ends. And, being satisfied that they make a part of God's eternal plan, we are not inordinately anxious about them. We can assure our opponents, that when we hear them boast of their increasing numbers, as also pro- fessed unbelievers of theirs, it gives us no other pain than that which arises from good will to men. We have no doubt that these things are wisely permitted ; * Doctrine of Necessity, p. 162. LET. 13.] ON HAPPINESS. 239^ that they are a fan in the hand of Christ, by which he will thoroughly purge his floor ; and that the true gospel of Christ, like the sun in the heavens, will finally disperse all these interposing clouds. We are persuaded, as well as they, that things upon the whole, whether we in our coiitracted spheres of observation perceive it or not, are tending to the general good ; that the empire of truth and righteousness, notwith- standing all the infidelity and iniquity that are in the world, is upon the increase; that it must increase more and more ; that glorious things are yet to be accomplished in ihe church of God ; and that all which we have hitherto seen, or beard, of the gospel dispensation, is but as the first fruits of an abundant harvest. The tendency of a system to promote present hap- piness, may be estimated by the degree of security which accompanies it. The obedience and sufi'erings of Christ, according to the Calvinistic system, con- stitute the ground of our acceptance with God. A good moral life, on the other hand, is the only foun- dation on which our opponents profess to build their hopes,* Now, supposing our principles should prove erroneous, while they do not lead us to neglect good" works, but to abound in them from love to God, and with a regard to his glory ; it may be presumed, that the divine Being will not cast us off to eternity^ for having ascribed too much to him, and too little to ourselves. But if the principles of our opponents should be found erroneous, and the foundation on which they build their hopes, should at last give way, the issue must be fatal ! I never knew a person in his dying moments alarmed for the consequences of * See the quotations from Dr. Priestley, Dr. Harwood^ and Mrs. Barbauld, Let. ix. 240 ON GRATITUDE. [l.ET. 14. having assumed too little to himself, or for having ascribed too much to Christ ; but many at that hour of serious reflection, have been more than a little apprehensive of danger from the contrary. After all, it is allowed, that there is a considerable number of persons amongst us, who are under too great a degree of mental dejection ; but though the nnraber of such persons, taken in the aggregate, be considerable, yet there are not enough of them to ren- der it any thing like a general case. And as to those who are so, they are almost all of them, such, either from constitution, from the want of a mature judgment to distinguish just causes of sorrow, or from a sinful neglect of their duties and their advantages. Those who enter most deeply into our views of things, provided their conduct be consistent, and tliere be no particular propensity to gloominess in their con- stitution, are among the happiest people in the world. I am, &c. LETTER XIV. A COMPARISON OF MOTIVES EXHIBITED BY THE TWO SYSTEMS, TO GRATITUDE, OBEDIENCE, AND HEAV- EN LY-Ml NDEDN ESd. Christian Brethren^ THE subject of this letter has been occasionally noticed already ;. but there are a few things in reserve that require your attention. As men are allowed on both sides to be influenced by motives^ which ever of the systems it is that excels in this particular, that of course must be the system which has the greatest tendency to promoie a holy life. LET. 14.] ON GRATITUDE, 241 Oue very important motive with which the scrip- tures acquaint us, is, the love of God manifested In the gift of his Son. God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son ; that ivhosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life — Herein is love ; not that ive loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be a propitiation for our sins — God commendeth his love towards us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us — He that spared not his own Son, but delivered him vp for us all — Behold, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one another.* The benevolence of God to men is represented in the New Testament as con- sisting, not in his overlooking their frailties, nor so much even in his forgiving their sins, as in giving his only-begotten Son to die for them. Herein was love^ and herein was found the grand motive to grateful obedience. There is no necessity, indeed, for estab- lishing this point, since Dr. Priestley has fully ac- knowled^ed it. He allows that *' the love of God in giving his Son to die for us, is the consideration on which the scriptures always lay the greatest stress as a motive to gratitude and obedience. "f As this is a matter of fact, then, allowed on both sides, it may be worth whilfe to make some inquiry into the reason of it ; or ivhy it is that so great a stress should be laid in the scriptures upon this motive. To say noth- ing of the strong presumption which this acknowledg- ment affords in favour of the doctrine of atonement, suffice it at present to observe, that in all other cases, an obligation to gratitude is supposed to bear some proportion to the magnitude or value of the gift. But W ♦ John iii. 16. 1 John iv 10, 11. Rom. v. 8. and viii. 32. t Def. of Unit, for 1/86. p. 102. 242 ON GRATITUDE, [lET. 14. if it be allowed in this instance, it will follow, that the system which gives us the most exalted views of the dignity of Christ, must include the strongest motives to obedience and gratitude. If there be any meaning in the words, the phrase- ology of John iii. 16, God so loved the ivorld, that he gave HIS ONLY-BEGOTTEN SoN, — conveys an idea of the highest worth in the object bestowed. So great was this gift, that the love of God in the bestow ment of it is considered as inexpr£ssible and inestimable. We are not told hoiv much he loved the world, but that he feo loved it, that he gave his only-begotten Son. If Jesus Christ be of more worth than the world for which he was given, then was the language of the sacred writer fit and proper ; and then was the gift of him tru- ly great, and worthy of being made *' the consideration upon which the scriptures should lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience." But if he be merely a man like ourselves, and was given only to in- struct us by his doctrine and example, there is nothing so great in the gift of him, nothing that will justify the language of the sacred writers from the appearance of bombast ; nothing that should render it a motive to gratitude and obedience upon which the greatest stress should be laid. Dr. Priestley, in his Letters to Dr. Price, observes, that ** In passing from Trinitarianism to high Arianism, from this to your low Arianism, and from this to Socinianism, even of the lowest kind, in which Christ is considered as a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary, and naturally as fallible and peccable as Mo- ses or any prophet, there are sufficient sources of gratitude and devotion, I myself, (continues Dr. Priestley) have gone through all those changes, and I think I may assure you that you have nothing to LET. 14.] ON GRATITUDE. ^i^ apprehend from any part of the progress. In every stage of it you have that coiisideration on which the scriptures always lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience, viz. the love of God, the Almighty Parent, in giving his Son to die for us. And whether tliis Son be man, angel, or of a super- angelic nature, every thing that he has done is to be referred to the love of God, the original author of all, and to him all our gratitude and obedience is ulti- mately due."* Dr. Priestley^ it seems, wishes to have it thought, that, seeing Trinitarians, Arians, and Socinians agree, in considering the gift of Christ as an expression of the love of God ; therefore, their different systems are upon a level, as to the grand motive to gratitude and obedience. As if it made no difference at all, whether that gift was small or great ; whether it was a man, or an angel, or one whom men and angels are bound to adore ; whether it was to die, as other martyrs did, to set us an example of perseverance ; or, by laying down his life as an atoning sacrifice, to deliver •us from the wrath to come. He might as well suppose the gift of one talent to be equal to that of ten thou- sand, and that it would induce an equal return of gratitude ; or that the gift of Moses, or any other prophet, afforded an equal motive to love and obe- dience, as the gift of Christ. If in every stage of religious principle, whether Trinitarian, Arian, or Socinian, by admitting that one general principle. The love of God in giving his Son to die for us, we have the same motive to grat- itude and obedience, and that in the same de- gree ; it must be because the greatness or small- iiess of the gift is a matter of no consideration, • Def. of Unit, for 1786, pp. 101, 102. 244 ON GRATITUDE. [lET. 14. and has no tendency to render a motive stronger or weaker. But this is not only repugnant to the plain- est dictates of reason, as hath been already observed ; but also to the doctrine of Christ. According to this, He that hath much forgiven, loveth much ; and he that hath little forgiven^ loveth little. From hence it appears, that the system which affords the most extensive views of the evil of sin, the depth of human apostasy, and the magnitude of redemption, will in- duce us to love the most, or produce in us the greatest degree of gratitude and obedience. It is to no purpose to say, as Dr. Priestley docs, *' Every thing that Christ hath done is to be referred to the love ofGod,'^ For be it so, the question is, if his system be true. What hath he done ; and what is there to be referred to the love of God ? To say the most, it can be but little. If Dr. Priestley be right, the breach between God and man is not so great but that our repentance and obedience are of themselves, with- out any atonement whatever, sufficient to heal it. Christ, therefore, could have but little to do. But, the less he had to do, the less we are indebted to him, and to God for the gift of him : and in proportion as this is believed, we must of course feel less gratitude, and devotedness of soul to God. Another important motive with which the scriptures acquaint us, is, the love of Christ in coming into THE WORLD, A^ D LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US. Let this mind he in you tvhich ivas also in Christ Jesus : ivho being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God : but made himself if no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men — For ye know the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, that though he teas rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his LET. 14.] ON GRATITUDE. ^ASk' poverty might be made rich — Forasmuch as the children were partakers of Jiesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same ; that through death he might destroy him that had thepoiver ofdeathy that is the devil — Veri'* ly, he took not on him the nature of angels , but the seed of Abraham — The love of Christ constraineth us : be^ cause we thus judge , that if one died for_ ally then were all dead ; and that he died for all, that they who live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him who died for them, and rose again — Walk in love, as Christ also hath loved us, and hath given himself for us, an ojfering, and a sacrifice to Cod for a sweet smelling savour — To him that loved us, and ivashed us from our sins in his own blood, be glory and dominion forever and ever. Amen. Such is the uniform language of the New Testament concerning the love of Christ ; and such are the moral purposes to which it is applied. It is a presumption in favour of our system, that here the above motives have all their force j whereas, in the sys- tem of our opponents, they have scarcely any force at all. The following observations may render this sufl&- ciently evident. We consider the coming of Christ into the world as a voluntary undertaking. His taking upon him, or tak^ ing hold, not of the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham ; his taking upon him the form of a servant^ and being made in the likeness of men, and that from a state of mind which is held up for our example ; and his becoming poor, though previously rich, for our sakes, and that as an act of grace, all concur to estab-- lish this idea. For this we feel our hearts bound by every consideration that love unparalleled can in- spire, to gratitude and obedience. But our oppo» nents, by supposing Christ to have been a mere man, and to have had no existence till he was W 2 240 ON GRATITUDE. [lET, 14> born of Mary, are necessarily driven to deny that his coming into the vvorld was a voluntary act of his own ; and consequently, that there was any love or grace in it. Dr. Priestley, in answer to Dr. Price, contends only that he "came into the world in obedi- ence to the command of the Father, and not in conse- quence of his own proposal." But the idea of his com- ing in obedience to the command of the Father, is as inconsistent with the Socinian scheme, as his coming in consequence of his own proposal. For if he had no existence previous to his being born of Mary, he could do neither the one nor the other. It would be perfect absurdity to speak of our coming into the world as an act of obedience : and on the hypothesis of Dr. Priestley, to speak of the coming of Christ under such an idea, must be equally absurd,* We consider Christ's coming into the world, as an act of condescending love ; such, indeed, as admits of no parallel. The riches of Deity, and the poverty of humanity ; the Jbrfn of God, and the form of a ser-' vant, afford a contrast that fills our souls v?ith grateful astonishment. Dr. Priestley, in the last mentioned performance, acknowledges, that, " The Trinitarian doctrine of the incarnation is calculated forcibly to im- press the mind with divine condescension." He allows the doctrine of the incarnation, as held by the Arians, to have such a tendency in a degree : but he tells Dr. Price, who pleaded this argument against Socinianism, that, '* The Trinitarian hypothesis of the supreme God becoming man, and then suffering and dying for us, would no doubt impress the mind more forcibly still."f This is one allowed source of gratitude and obedience, then, to which the scheme of our adversaries makes no pretence, and for which it can supply nothujg ade- • Def. of Unit, for 1786, p. 103. f Page 103. LET. 14.] ON GRATITUDE. 247 quate. But Dr. Priestley thinks to cut up at one stroke, it seems, all the advantages which his opponents might hope to gain from these concessions, by adding ; *' With what unspeakable reverence and devotion do the Catholics eat their Maker !" That a kind of super- stitious devotion may be promoted by falsehood, is ad- mitted : such was the voluntary humility of those who worshipped angels. But, as those characters, with all their pretended humility, were vainly puj^ed up with a Jieshly mind ; so, all that appearance of reverence and devotion which is the offspring of superstition, will be found to be something at a great remove from piety of devotedness to God. The superstitions of popery, in- stead of promoting reverence and devotion, have been thought, by blinding the mind and encumbering it with other things, to destroy them.* There are times in^ which Dr. Priestley himself '* cannot conceive of any practical use being made of transubstantiation :"f but now it is put on a level with a doctrine which, it is allowed, "tends forcibly to impress the mind with divine condescension." Once more : We believe that Christ, in laying down his life for us, actually died as our substitute; endured the curse of the divine law, that we might escape it ; was delivered for our offences, that w€ might be delivered from the wrath to come ; and all ' this, while we were yet enemies. This is a consider- ation of the greatest weight : and if we have any jus- tice or ingenuousness about us, love like this must constrain us to live, not to ourselves, but to him that died for us, and rose attain ! But, according to our adversaries, Christ died. Jor us in no higher sense * See Mr. Pobinson's Sermon, on 2 Cor. iv. 4, entitled. The Christian Doctrine of Ceremonies. t Def. of Unit, for 1786, p. 33. 248 ON OBEDIENCE. [lET. 14. than a common martyr, who might have sacrificed his hie to maintain his doctrine ; and by so doing, have set an example for the good of others. If this be all, Why should not we be as much indebted, in point of gratitude, to Stephen, or Paul, or Peter, who also in that manner died for us, as to Jesus Christ ? And why is there not the same reason for their death being proposed as a motive for us to live to them, as for his, that we might live to him ? But there is another motive which Dr. Priestley represents as being " that in Christianity vvhich is most favourable to virtue ; namely, a future state of retribution, grounded on the firm belief of the histori- cal facts recorded in the scriptures ; especially in the miracles, the death, and the resurrection of Christ. The man {he adds) who believes these things only, and who, together with this, acknowledges an uni- versal providence, ordering all events ; who is per- suaded that our very hearts are constantly open to the divine inspection, so that no iniquity, or purpose of it, can escape his observation, will not be a bad man, or a dangerous member of society.'** Dr. Priestley, elsewhere, as we have seen, acknowledges that " the love of God in giving his Son to die for us, is the consideration on which the scriptures ahoays lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience;" and yet he speaks here, of "a future state of retribution as being that in Christianity which is most favourable to virtue.'^ One should think, that what the scriptures always lay the greatest stress upon,, should be that in Christianity which is most favourable to virtue, be it what it may. But, waving this, let it be considered whether the Calvinistic system has not the advantage even upon this ground. The * Letter V, to Mr. Burn. LET. 14.] ON OBEDIENCE. 24^ doctrine of a future state of retribution, is a ground possessed by Calvinists, as well as by Socinians ; and, perhaps, it may be found that their views of that subject, and others connected with it, are more fa- vourable to virtue and a holy life, than those of their adversaries. A motive of no small importance, by^ which we profess to be influenced, is, the thought of our own approaching dissolution. Brethren, if you embrace what is called the Calvinistic view of things, you consider it as your duty and interest to be frequently conversing with mortulity. You find such thoughts have a tendency to moderate your attachments to the present world ; to preserve you from being inordinately elated by its smiles, or dejected by its frowns. The consideration of the time being short, teaches you to hold all things with a loose hand ; to weep as though you wept not, and to rejoice as though you rejoiced not. You reckon it a mark of true wisdom, to keep the end of your lives habitually in view ; and to fol- low the advice of the holy scriptures, where you are directed to go to the house of mourning, rather than to the house of feasting ; where the godly are described as praying. So teach us to number our days, that we may apply our hearts unto wisdom ; and God himself assaying, O that they ivere tvise, that they understood this, that they would consider their latter end,* But these things, instead of being recommended and urged as motives of piety, are discouraged by Dr. Priestley, who teaches that, It /^^ not necessary to dwell in our thoughts upon death and futurity^ lest it should inter-' rupt the business of life, and cause us to live in per" petual bondage.f * Eccles. vii. 2. Ps. xc 12. Deut. xxxii 29. f Sermon on the death of Mr. Robinson, p. 7 — 22. 250 ON HEAVENLY-MINDEDNFSS. [lET. 14. The scriptures greatly recommend the virtue of keavenli/'mindedness. They teach christians to con- sider themselves as strangers and pilgrims on the earth ; to be dead to the world, and to consider their life, or portion, as hid with Christ in God» The spiritual, holy, and happy state, 'which, according to the Calvinistic system, commences at death, and is augmented at the resurrection, tends more than a little to promote this virtue. If, brethren, you adopt these views of things, you consider the body as a tabernacle, a temporary habitation ; and when this tabernacle is dissolved by death, you expect a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens. Hence it is, that you desire to be absent from the body, and present with the Lord. There are seasons in which your views are expanded, and your hearts enlarged. At those seasons especially, the world loses its charms, and you see nothing worth living for, except to serve and glorify God. You have, in a degree, the same feelings which the apostle Paul appears to have pos- sessed, when he said, / am in a strait betwixt two^ having a desire to depart^ and to be with Christ, which is far better — For me to live is Christ, and to die is gain. But Dr. Priestley teaches, that the heavenly state shall not commence till the resurrection. He does not suppose that there is any state of existence, strictly speaking, wherein we shall be absent from the body, and present with the Lord ; for he considers the soul as having no existence at all separate from the body. He must, therefore, of necessity be a stranger to any such strait as that mentioned by the apostle. If the question were put to him, or to any of his sentiments. Whether they would choose to abide longer in the jiesh, (which might be profitable to their connexions) or immediately depart this life } LET, 14.] ON HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS. 251 They would be at no loss what to answer. They could not, in any rational sense, consider death as ^aiti* It would be impossible for them upon their principles, to desire to depart. Conceiving that they come to the possession of heavenly felicity as soon, if they die fifty years hence, as if they were to die at the present time, they must rather desire to live as long as the course of nature will admit ; so long, however, as life can be considered as preferable to noi>*- existence. It would indicate even a mean and un- worthy temper of mind, upon their principles, to be in such a strait as Paul describes. It would imply, that they were weary of their work, and at a loss whether they should choose a cessation of being, or to be employed in serving God, and in doing good to their fellow-creatures* The NATOtiE and employments of the heavenly state, deserve also to be considered. If you adopt the Calvinistic view of things, you consider the en- joyments and employments of that state in a very different light, from that in which Socinian writers represent them. You read in your Bibles, that the Lord will be our everlasting lii^ht, and our God our glory — that our life is hid with Christy in God — that when he shall appear, we shall appear with him in glory — And, that we shall then be like him, for ive shall see him as he is. Hence you conclude, that A FULL ENJOYMENT OF GOD, AND CONFORMITY TO HIM, ARE THE SUM OF HfcAVEN. You read • further, that the bliss in reserve for christians, is a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory — that now we are the sons of God, but it doth not yet appear what we shall ^e : and from hence you naturally conclude, that the heavenly state will ABUNDANTLY SURPASS ALL OUR PRESENT CONCEP- 25^ ON HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS. [lET. I4. TIONS OF IT. Again, you read that those who shall be found loorthy to obtain that worlds and the res^ urrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels of God. Hence you conclude, that the employments and ENJOYMENTS OF THAT STATE ARE ALTOGETHER SPIRITUAL AND HOLY. You read of our knowledge here being in part ; but that there we shall knoio even as we are known ; and that the Lamb, ivhich is in the midst of the throne, shall feed us, and lead us to living fountains of water. Hence you conclude, that we shall not only enjoy greater means of knowledge, which, like a fountain, will flow for- ever, and assuage our thirsty souls, but, that our MINDS WILL BE ABUNDANTLY IRRADIATED, AND OUR HEARTS ENLARGED BY THE PRESENCE OF CHRIST ; WHOSE DELIGHTFUL WORK IT WILL BE TO OPEN THE BOOK, AND TO LOOSE THE SEALS ; TO UNFOLD THE MYSTERIES OF GOD ; AND TO CON- DUCT OUR MINDS AMIDST THEIR BOUNDLESS RE- SEARCHES. Once more : You read- concerning those who shall obtain that world and the resurrection, that they cannot die any more — that they shall go no more out — that the inheritance to which they are re- served is incorruptible, and fadeth not aivay — and that the weight of glory which we look for is eternal. Hence you conclude, that the immortality prom- ised TO christians is certain and absolute. These are very important matters, and must have a great influence in attracting your hearts toward heaven. These were the things which caused the patriarchs to live like strangers and pilgrims on the earth. They looked for a habitation, a better country, even a heavenly one. These were the things that made the apostles and primitive chris- LET. 13] ON HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS. 25^ tians consider their afflictions as light and momentary. For this cause, say they, ice faint not; hut though our outward man perish^ yet the inward man is renew* ed day by day. For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, icorketh for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory : while we look not at the things ichich are seen, but at the things which are not seen ; for the things which are seen are temporal ^ but the things which are not seen are etemaL But if you adopt the Socinian view of things, your ideas of the heavenly state, compared with the above, will be miserably flat and cold ; and consequently, your affections will be more set on things below, and less on thino^s above. Dr. Priestley, in his Sermon on the djath of Mr, Robinson, is not only employed in dis- suading people from too much thought and fear about death ; but from too much hope respecting the state beyond it. He seems to fear lest we should form too high expectations of heavenly felicity, and so meet with a disappointment. The heaven which he there des- cribes, does not necessarily include any one of the fore- going ideas ; but might exist if they were all excluded I Take his own words : " The change of our condition by death may not be so great as we are apt to imagine. As our natures will not be changed, but only improved, we have no reason to think that the future world (which will be adapted to our merely improved nature) will be materially dij/erent from this. And indeed why should we ask, or expect any thing more ? If we should still be obliged to provide for our subsistence by exercise, or labour ; is that a thing to be complained of by those who are supposed to have acquired fixed habits of in- dustry, becoming rational beings, and who have never been able to bear the languor of absolute rest, or indo- lence ? Our future happiness has, with much reason, X 254 ON HEAVENLY-MINDEDNESS. [lET. 14» been supposed to arise from an increase of knowledge. But if we should have nothing more than the means of knowledge furnished us, as we have here, but be left to our own labour to find it out; is that to be complained of by those who will have acquired a love of truths and a habit of inquiring after it ? To make discoveries our- selves, though the search may require time and labour, js unspeakably more pleasing than to learn every thing by the information of others.* If the iminortality that is promised to us in the gospel should not be necessary^ and absolute, and we should only have the certain means of making ourselves immortal, we should have much to be thankful for. What the scriptures inform us concerning a future life is expressed in general terms, and often in figurative language. A more particular knowledge of it is wisely concealed from us.'*f You see, brethren, here is not one word of God, or of Christ, as being the sum and substance of our bliss 5 and, except that mention is made of our being freed from ** imperfections bodily and mental," the whole consists of mere natural enjoyments ; differing from the paradise of Mahometans chiefly in this, that their enjoyments are principally sensual, whereas these are mostly intellectual. Those are adapted to gratify the voluptuary, and these the philosopher. Whether such a heaven will suit a holy mind, or be adapted to draw forth our best affections, judge ye. I am, &c. • Is not this the rock on which Dr. Priestley and his breth- ren split ? Have they not on this very principle coined a gos- pel of their own, instead of receiving the instructions of the sacred writers ? f Page 18. LET. 15.] TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM, &C. 255 LETTER XV. ON THE RESEMBLANCE BETWEEN SOCINIANI&M AND INFIDELITY, AND THE TENDENCY OF THE ONE TO THE OTHKR. Christian Brethren^ I SUPPOSE we may take it for granted, at present. That Christianity is favourable to true virtue, and that iDfidelity is the reverse. If it can be proved, therefore, that Socinianism resenables infidelity in several of its leading features, and has a direct ten- dency towards it, that will be the same as proving it unfavourable to true virtue. It has been observed, and I think justly, that " there is no consistent medium between genuine Christianity, and infidelity." The smallest departure from the one, is a step towards the other. There are different degrees of approach, but all move on in the same direction. Socinians, however, are not will- ing to own that their scheme has any such tendency. Dr. Priestley appears to be more than a little hurt, at being represented by the bigots (as he politely calls those who think ill of his principles) as under- raining Christianity ; and intimates, that by their rigid attachment to certain doctrines, some are forced into infidelity, while others are saved from it by his conciliating principles.* Many things to the same • Here the late Mr. Robinson of Cambridge is brought in as an exarnple ; who, as some think, in an excess of complai- sance, told the doctor in a private letter, that, ** But for his friendly aid, he feared he should have gone from enthusiasm to deism." Letters to Mr. Burn, Preface. To say nothing whether the use Dr. Priestley made of this private Letter was warrantable, and whether it would not have been full a» ^56 TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM [lET. 15» purpose are advanced by Mr. Lindsey, in his Dis~ course addressed to the congregation, at the Chapel in Essex'Street, Strand ; on resigning the pastoral office among them. We are to accommodate our religion, it seems, to the notions and inclinations of infidels, and then they would condescend to receive it. This principle of accommodation has been already noticed in Letter ill. And it has been shown, from the ex- ample of the popish missionaries in China, to have no good tendency. To remove every stumbling-block out of the way of infidels, would be to annihilate the gospel. Such attempts also suppose what is not true; That their not believing in Christianity is owing to some fault in the system as generally received, and Tiot to the temper of their own minds. Faults there are, no doubt : but if their hearts were right, they would search the scriptures for themselves, and form their own sentiments according to the best of their capacity. The near relation of the system of Socinians to that of infidelp, may be proved from the agreement of their . princiiiles, their prejudices, their spirit, and their success. First : There is an agreement in their leading prin^ ciples, — One of the most important principles in the scheme of infidelity, it is well known, is, the suffi- ciency OF HUMAN REASON. This is the great bul- wark of the cause, and the main ground on which modest to have forborne to publish to the world so high a compliment on himself ; supposing not only the thing itself to have been strictly true, but that the conduct of Dr. Priestley was as strictly proper, what does it prove ? Nothing, except, that the region of Socinianism is so near to that of deism, that Tjovv and then an individual, who was on the high road to the one, has stopped short, and taken up with the other. LET. 15.] TO INFIDELITY. 257 its advocates proceed in rejecting revelation. If the one, say they, be sufficient, the other is unnecessary. Whether the Socinians do iiot adopt the same principle, and follow hard after the deists in its application too, we will now inquire. — When Mr. Burn charged Dr. Priestley with making " the reason of the individual the sole umpire in matters of faith ;" the doctor de- nied the charge, and supposed that Mr, Burn must have been " reading the writings of Bolingbroke, Hume, or Voltaire, and have imagined them to be his f ' as if none but professed intidels maintained that principle. This, however, is allowing it to be a principle pertaining to intidelity ; and of such im- portance, it should seem, as to distinguish it from Christianity, If it should prove, therefore, that the same principle occupies a place, yea, and an equally important place in the Socinian scheme, it will follow that Socinianism and dfism must be nearly allied. But Dr. Priestley, as was said, denies the charge ; and tells us that he ** has written a great deal to prove the insujpciency of human reason :" he also accuses Mr. Burn of " the grossest ai.d most unfounded cal- umny," in charging such a principle upon him.* If what Mr. Burn alleges, be '* a gross and unfound- ed calumny," it is rather extraordinary that such a number of respectable writers should have suggested the same thing. I suppose there has been scarcely a writer of any note among us, but who, if this be calum- ny, has calumniated the Socinians, If there be any credit due to Truiitarian authors, they certainly have hitherto understood matters in a different light from that in which they are here represented. They have supposed, whethec rightly or not, that their opponents X 2 • Letter IV. to Mr. Burn. ^S/St TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM [lET. 15« in general do hold the very principle which Dr. Priest- ley so strongly disavows. But this is not all. If what Mr. Burn alleges be a gross and unfounded calumny, it is still more extraor- dinary, that Socinian writers sliould calumniate them- selves. Mr. Robinson, whom Dr. Priestley glories in as his convert, affirms much the same thing, and that in his History of Baptisin ; a work published after he had adopted the Socinian system. In answering an ob- jection brought against the Baptists as being enthusi- asts, he asks ; '' Were Castelio, and Servetus, Socinus, and Crellius enthusiasts ? On the contrary, they are taxed with attributing too much to reason, at^d the SUFFICIENCY OF REASON IS THE SOUL OF THEIR SYSTEM."* If the last member of this sentence be true, and if Dr. Priestley have maintained the same principle as much as any of his predecessors ; then is what Mr. Burn alleges true also, and no calumny.— Further: If Mr, Robinson's words be true, the system of a Socinus, and of a Bolingbroke, however they may diifer in some particulars, cannot be very wide asunder. They may be two bodies ; but the difference cannot be very material, so long as those bodies are inhabited by ONE SOUL. But was not Mr, Robinson mistaken ? Has he not inadvertently granted that which ought not in justice to have been granted ? Suppose this to be a fact, why might not the same construction have been put upon what is alleged by Mr. Burn, and other Trinitarian writers, instead of calling it by the hard name of *' gross and unfounded calumny ?" If we say no worse of our opponents than they say of themselves, they can have no just grounds of complaint ; at least, they should complain with less severity, » Page A/r. I^T. 15.] TO INFIDELITY. 25^ Further : If Mr, Robinson was mistaken, and if Dr. Priestley do really maintain the insupi ciency of human reason in matters ot religion ; it will ioUpw, after all that he has pleaded in behalf of reason, that he is no better friend to it than other people. The doctor often reminds his Calvinistic opponents of an old sayings that " No man is against reason, till rea- son is against him." Old sayings, to be sure, prove much in argument. This old saying, however, is very just, provided the term reason be understood of the real fitness of things. Dr. Priestley's opponents are not against reason, in this sense of the word ; but against setting up the reason of the individual SiS um- pire in matters of faith : and this, we see, is no more than the doctor himself disavows ; in that he sup- poses a principle of this kind is no where to be found, except in such writings as those of Bolingbroke, or Hume, or of Voltaire. He tells us that he has " writ- ten much to prove the insufjiciency of human reason, and the necessity of divine revelation." He is then professedly against reason in the same sense as his opponents are ; and the deisms might remind him of his *' old saying" with as much propriety as he re- minds other people of it. Once more : If Mr. Robinson was mistaken, and if his concession be beyond the bounds of justice and propriety ; it will follow, that notwithstanding what Dr. Priestley has said of saving him from infidelity^ he was not saved from it after all. Whether Mr. Rob- inson*s words convey a just idea of Socinianism, or not, they must be allowed to express what were his own ideas of it. Whatever, therefore, Dr. Priestley believes, he appears to have believed in the s^ifiieiency of reason* But if none besides infidels maintain that principle, it must follow, that Dr. Priestley's glory- 26d TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM [l.ET. 15. iiig in Mr. Robiiison is vain : and that, so far from saving hiin from iutidelity, as he boasts, he was not . saved from it ; but was the disciple of a Bohngbroke, of a Hume, or of a Voltaire, raiher than of a Priestley. Bui, after ail, was Mr. Robinson indeed mistaken ? Is not ♦' the sufficiency of reason the soul of the Socinian system V^ It is true, Socinians do not openly plead, as do the deists, that reason is so sufficient, as that revelation is uniiecessary ; nor is it supposed that Mr, Robmson meant to acknowledge that they did. But do they not constantly advance what amounts to the same thing ? I do not know what publications Dr. Priestley refers to, when he speaks of having written a great deal to prove the " insuffi- ciency of human reason, and the necessity of divine revelation :" but if it be upon the same principles as those which he avows in his other productions, 1 do not see how he can have proved his point. Ac- cording to these principles, the sacred writers were as liable to err as other men, and in some instances ac- tually did err ; producing "lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings ;** and that it is the province of reason not only to judge of their credentials, but of the particular doctrines which they advance.* Now, this is not only " making the reason of the individual the sole umpire in matters of faith," but virtually rendering revelation unneces- sary. If the reason of the individual be to sit su- preme judge, and insist that every doctrine which revelation proposes shall approve itself to its dictates, or be rejected ; the necessity of the latter might as well be totally denied. If it be necessary, however, it is no otherwise than as a French parliament used * See Letter xii. LET. 15.] TO INFIDELITY. 26l to be necessary to a French king ; not in order to dictate to his majesty, but to alford a sanction to his resolutions ; or, at most, to tender him a little advice, in order to assist him in forming his judgment ; which advice, notwithstanding, he might receive or reject, as best suited his inclination. Dr. Priestley often suggests, that he makes no other use of human reason than all protestants make against the papists, when pleading against the doc- trine of transubstantiation ; that is, where the literal sense of a text involves an absurdity, he so far fol- lows the dictates of reason as to understand it tigura- tively. But this is not the case : for the question here does not at all respect the meaning of scripture, whether it should be undt;rstood literally or figura- tively : but whether its allowed meaning ought to be accepted as truth, any further than it corresponds with our pre-conceived notions of what is reason I According to the principles and charges before cited, it ought not ; and this is not only summoning reve- lation to the bar of our own understandings, but actually passing sentence against it. The near affinity of Socinianism to deism is so manifest, that is in vain to disown it. Ts'obody sup- poses them to be entirely the same. One acknowl- edges Christ to be a true prophet ; the other consid- ers him as an impostor : but the denial of the proper inspiration of the scriptures, with the receiving of some part of them as true, and the rejecting of other parts even of the same books as '* lame accounts, improper quotations, and inconclusive reasonings,'* naturally lead to deism. Deists themselves do not so reject the bible as to disbelieve every historical event which is there recorded. They would not deny, I suppose, that there were such characters in the 262 TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM [lET. 15. world as Abraham, Moses, and Jesus ; and that some things which are written concerning each, are true. In short, they take what they like best, as they Y^ould from any other ancient history, and reject the rest : and what does Dr» Priestley even pretend to more ? He does not reject so much as a deist : he ad- mits various articles which the other denies ; but the difference is only in degree. The relation between the first and leading principles of their respective systems is so near, that one spirit may be said to per- vade them both ; or, to use the imagery of Mr, Rob- inson, one soul inhabits these different bodies. The opposition between faith and unbelief is so great in the the scriptures, that no less than salvation is promised to the one, and damnation threatened to the other ; but if they were no further asunder than Socinianism and deism, it is passing strange that their consequences should be so widely different. Another leading principle common to Socinians and deists, is, The non^importance of principle itselfy in order to the enjoyment of the divine favour, — Nothing is more common than for professed infidels to ex- claim against Christianity, on account of its rendering the belief of the gospel necessary to salvation. Lord Shaftesbury insinuates, that the heathen magistrates, in the first ages of Christianity, might have been justly offended " with a notion which treated them, and all men, as profane, impious, and damned, who entered not into particular modes of worship, of which there had been formerly so many thousand kinds instituted, all of them compatible, and sociable, till that time."* To the same purpose is what Mr. Paine advances : who, I imagine, would make no pretence of friendship • Characteristics, Vol. 1, § 3. LET. 15.] TO INFIDELITY. 263 towards Christianity^ ** If we suppose a large family of children, (says he) who on any particular day, or particular circumstance, made it a custom to present to their parents some token of their affection and grat- itude, each of them would make a different offering, and most probably in a different manner. Some would pay their congratulations in themes of verse, or prose, by some little devices as their genius dictated, or according to what they thought would please ; and, perhaps, the least of all, not able to do any of those things, would ramble into the garden or the * field, and gather what it thought the prettiest flower it could find, though, perhaps, it might be but a simple weed. The parent would be more gratified by such a variety, than if the whole of them had acted on a concerted plan, and each had made ex- actly the same offering/'* And this he applies, not merely to the diversified modes of worshipping God, which come within the limits of the divine command; but to the various ways in which mankind have in all ages and nations worshipped, or pretended to svorship a deit3\ Tlie sentiment which this writer, and all others of his stamp, wish to propagate, is, That in all modes of religion men may be very sincere : and that, bf^iiig so, all are alike acceptable to God, This is infidelity undisguised. Yet this is no more than Dr, Priestley has advanced in his Differences in Religious Opinions, '* If we can be so happy, (he says) as to believe, that — all differences in modes of worship may be only the different methods by which different men (who are equally the offspring of God) are endeavouring to honour and obey their common parent, our differences of opinion would have no ten- dency to lessen our mutual love and esteem. ''f • Rig^hts of Man, Pt. H. near the conclusion, f Sect. II. 264 TENDENCY OF SOCINIANISM [leT. 15. Nor is Dr. Priestley the only writer of the party who unites with the author of The Age of Reason^ in maintaining that it matters not what religion we are of, if we be but sincere in it. Dr. Tbw/?wm has laboured to defend this notion, and to prove from Acts X. 34, 35. and Rom, ii. 6, 10, 12. that it was maintained by Peter and Paul.* But before he had pretended to palm it upon them, he should have made it evident that Cornelius, when he feared God and tvorked righteousness, and those Gentiles, when they are supposed to have worked good, and to be heirs of glory, ho lOur, and peace, were each of them actually living in idolatry ; and being sincere, that God was well pleased with it. It is no part of the question, whether heathens may be saved ; but whether they may be saved in their heathenism ; and whether hea- thenism and Christianity be only different modes of worshipping our common Father, and alike accep- table to him ? Several other principles might be mentioned in which Socinians and deists are agreed ; and in which the same objections that are made by the one against Calvinism, are made by the other against the holy scriptures. Do Socinians reject the Calvinistic sys- tem, because it represents God as a vindictive Being ? For the same reason the scriptures themselves are rejected by the deists. Are the former offended with Calvinism, on account of the doctrines of atonement, and of divine sovereignty ? The latter are equally of- fended with the Bible for the same reasons. They know very well that these doctrines are contained in the scriptures ; but they dislike them, and reject the scriptures partly on account of them. The sufficiency of repentance to secure the divine favour — the evil of * Practical Efficacy, pp. 164, 165, 2d e particular passages in the writings of Unitarians, and suggested that I ought rather to have applied my arguments to the general, the fundamental principles- of their system ; ** That there is one God^ the Father, and one Mediator between God and man, the man Christ Jesus.'* To this it was answered, « The unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, then it seems, are the principles which 1 ought to have attacked ; that is, I ought to have attacked principles which I profess to believe, and not those which i profess to disbelieve.' — " But (says Dr. T. in reply) does he receive these principles in iYte pure mid simple forirt in which Unitarians embrace them ?"* The doctor ought to have expressed his funda* mental principles in his own ttords, and not in those of scripture. Every controversial writer, who does not wish to beg the question, will do so. He ought to have said, Mr. Fuller, instead of animadverting on particular passages in the writings of Unitarians, should have attacked their first principles ; That God IS one person, and that Christ is merely a 7nan, This had been fair and open : and had the objection been made in this form, I might have replied to this ef- fect ; — My object was not to attack particular princi- ples, so much as the general tendency of their religion, • Page 81. Note, 286 POSTSCRIPT. taken in the gross ; and the passages on which 1 an- imadverted, chiefly related to this view of (he subject. Yet, in the course of the work, I have certainly at- tempted to prove the divinity of Christ ; and whatever goes to establish this doctrine, goes to demolish those leading principles, which, it is said, I ought to have attacked : for if Christ be God, he cannot be merely a man, and there must be more than one person in the Godhead. — But not contented with expressing his leading principles in his own words, Dr. Toulmin chooses scripture language for the purpose. This, I contended, was begging the question ; or taking it for granted that the terms one God^ in scripture, mean 07ie person^ and that Christ's being called a man de- notes that he was merely a man. To shew the im- propriety of this proceeding, I alleged, that I believ- ed both the unity of God, and the humanity of Christ ; and therefore ought not to be expected to oppose either of them. '* But does he receive these princi- ples (says Dr. T.) in the pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them?'* What is this but saying, that 1 do not admit the Socinian gloss upon the apostle's words ? Dr. Toulmin may contend, that the scriptures express his sentiments so plainly as to need no gloss ; but a gloss it manifestly is. He may call it a pure and simple form^ or what he pleases ; but nothing is meant by it beyond a gloss, nor proved, except the prevalence of his easy-besetting sin, that of begging the question. To show in a still stronger light the unfairness of a controversial writer's attempting to shroud his opin- ions under the phraseology of scripture, I supposed it to be done by a Calvinist, and asked what Dr. Toulmin would say to it in that case ? I could say for example. There is a Father y « Son, and a Holy Spirit , in POSTSCRIPT. a^y^ whose name we are baptised — The Word teas God — Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures ; and could require Sociuians not to animadvert on par- ticular passages in Calvinistic writers, but on these our leading principles* Would they admit, or ought they to be expected to admit of these as our leading prin- ciples ? No : Dr. Toulmin has given proof that he does not, and has thereby justified me in refusing- to admit the same thing on his side of the question. He will not allow that our leading principles are expifssed by these passages of scripture, because they say noth- ing of the F'ather, Son, and Spirit being one God, nor o^ 2l sameness of essence, Sfc* ^c* Very well : Neith- er do I allow that his leading principles are expressed by the passages he has produced ; for they say noth- ing of (lod's bting one person, or of Christ's being merely a man. If the scriptures which I alleged, ex^ press my sentiments as fully as the passages he has produced express his, that is sufficient. My object was not to join issue in endeavouring to prove that my sentiments were expressly and fully coritained in scrip- ture language ; but to shew the futility of such pre- tences on either side. So far from " ait'ecting to shew that the first principles of the Calvinists are to be ex- pressed in the words of scripture," it was manifestly mv design to shew that the practice of so expressing them in controversif^ was objectionable, in that it takes for granted that which requires to be proved. It is true, as Dr. Toulmin says, that if he, or any other person, were to offer to subscribe the passages which 1 have produced, as exhibiting a creed tanta- mount to ours, we should demur to admit it in this view. But this, instead of overturning my reasoning, confirms it, and cuts the throat of his own argument : • Page 5, 6. Note. 285 POSTSCRIPT, for it is no less true that if I, or any other person, were to offer to subscribe the passages produced by hini» €is exhibiting a creed tantamount to his, he would demur to admit it in this view. Nay more : in his case it is beyond supposition. I have actually offered to subscribe the apostle's words, and he has actually refused to admit my subscription, alleging, that 1 do not receive them in that pure and simple form in which Unitarians embrace them. According to his own reasoning, therefore, the words of the apostle by which he would express his leading principles do not contain the ichole of them, and he must have failed in his at- tempt to express them in scripture language ; and consequently, the '^ boasted superiority" of his scheme, even in this respect, is without foundation. If we can believe Dr. Toulmin, however, the scriptures not only expressly declare God to be one, but one person. '* This simple idea of God, that he is one single person, (says he from Mr. Lindsey) lit- erally pervades every passage of the sacred volumes." To this 1 have answered, among other things, * It might have served a better purpose, if, instead of thi^ general assertion, these gentlemen had pointed us to a single instance in which the unity of God is literally declared to be personal.' And what has Dr. Toulmiu said in reply ? ** The appeal, one would think, might be made to Mr, Fuller's own good sense. What can be more decisive instances of this than the many pas- sages in which the singular personal pronouns, and their correlates are used concerning the Supreme Being ; as /, mey my^ mine, ^'c."* Whatever may be thought of my good sense, or of that of my opponent, I appeal to good sense itself, whether he have made good his asser- tion* To say nothing of his reducing it from every * Page 85. Note. POSTSCKIPT. 289 passage, to »m»y passages, which probably strikes out ninety-nine passages out of a hundred in the sacred vohimes : If the singular personal pronouns be a literal declaration that God is one person, the plural personal pronouns, Let us make man in our image, &c. must equally be a literal declaration that he is more than one. The singular personal pronouns also which are frequently applied to the Holy Spirit,* contain a de- cisive proof, yea, a literal declaration of his personality ; nnd which inevitably draws after it the doctrine of the trinity. Dr. Toulmin has said much ohout judging the hearty (pp. 95 — 101, Note :) but his objection does not seem to lie against judging, so much as judging Unitarians, If I affirm what the scriptures uniformly teach, f That a false and immoral system has its origin not in simple mistake, but in disaffection to GQd,J this is highly presumptuous, this is judging the heart : but if Dr. Toulmin pronounce my mode of arguing to be ** sa- vouring of spleen and ill-nature, and evidently designed to fix an opprobrium and disgrace," (p. 134) tHe case is altered. It is right to judge of the disposition of the heart by *' overt acts ;" that is, by words and deeds : but where this judgment is directed against Unitarians, it is not right after all ; for it is possible we may judge un- candidly and unjustly ! It is right for Dr. T. to dis- regard the profession of his opponent, when he declares * John xiv. 26. xv. 26. xvi. r— 15. 1 Cor. xii. 11. f 2 Thess. ii. 10, 11. 2 Pet. ii. 1. 1 John iv. 6. Jude 4. t The reader will recollect that what is affirmed at the close of the Letters is merely hypothetical, and rests upon the supposition of Socinianism being what I had attempted to prove it— a false and immoral system. A A ^90 POSTSCRIPT^ his belief in the unity of God, and the humanity of Christ, and expresses that belief in the words of scrip- ture, because he does not <» receive these principles in the pure and simple Jbrm in which Unitarians em- brace them/* But if we disregard their professions, and require any thing more than a declaration of their faith in the words of scripture, we set up " our gos- pel, or the gospel according to our views of it ;" and act contrary to our professed principles as Protestants, as dissenters, and as Baptists. When our creed and worship are such that they cannot conscientiously join them, they have a right to separate from us, otherwise they could not ** keep the commandments of Jesus pure and undefiled :'' But whatever be their creed, or the tenor of their conversa- tion, or prayers, we have no right to refuse communion with them. If we do not model our professions, preaching, and worship, so as to give no offence to an individual of their principles, we '* assume a power which no chris- tian, or body of christians possesses :'* yet they do not model their professions, preaching, or worship, so as to give no offence to us ; nor do we desire they sliouW. They do not confine themselves to the words of scrip- ture; nor is it necessary they should. They inquire whether our professions accord with the meaning of scripture .; and we claim to do the same. The reason why Dr. T. will not allow of this and other claims, must, I should think, be this : Their views of the gospel are *^ pure ^nd simple^'' and ours are corrupt. Thus it is, reader, that he goes about to prove that he does not " take for granted the principles on which he argues," and that " he assumes nothing !" — If Dr. T. caa persuade himself and his friends, that he POSTSCRIPT. 291 has not shifted the ground of the argument, has not assumed what he should have proved, and, in short, has not tacitly acknowledged Sociniaoism to be indefensible on the ground of its moral tendency, they are welcome to all the consolation such a persuasion will afford them. All I shall add will be, a brief defence of the prirt' ciple on which the foregoing Letters are written. To undermine this, is a point at which all my opponents have aimed. The practical efficacy of a doctrine in the present age is a subject, it seems, which ought not to be discussed as the test of its being true. They are to a man, however, against it : a pretty clear evi- dence this, that it does not speak good concerniDg them. Mr. Bel sham, in his Review of Mr. Wilherforce, glancing at The systems compared, says, *« The amount of it is ; we Calvinists being much better christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must of course be true.'' — " The Unitarians (he adds) will not trespass up- on the holy ground. We have learned that not he who commendeth himself is approved^ hut whom the Lord commendethJ*^ And, *' Be it known to Mr. Wilber- force, and to all who like him are disposed to condemn their brethren unheard, that if the Unitarians were inclined to boast, they have whereof to glory. And if they took pleasure in exposing the faults of their orthodox brethren, they likewise hare tales to unfold which would reflect little credit on the parties, or on their principles. But of such mutual reproaches there would be no end.'** Dr. Toulmin alleges that " It is a mode of arguing very unfavourable to candour^ and fair discussion, savouring of spleen and ill-nature, principally calcu- • Pages 267, 268, 274. %§lt POSTSCRIPT, lated to misrepresent a id irritate, and evident^y de- signed to fix aij opprobrium and diso^race'' — that when our Saviour cautioned his followers to heio are of false prophets, who should be known by their fruits, he meant not persons who would te^^ch false doctrine, and whose lives would accord with it ; but persons of in- sincere character, whose doctrine mio^ht nevertheless be true — and that his brethren have not reasoned against Calvinism from the immoral lives of Calvinisti;, but merely from the immoral tendency of their prin- ciples.* If the mode of arguing pursued in the foregoing Letters be liable to all these objections, it is rather singular that it should not have been oVjjected to till it was pointed against Socinianism, If it can be shewn to be a mode of arguing consonant to the directions given by our Saviour, and actually used by the apos- tles, the fathers, the re formers, the puritans, and even by our opponents themselves, their objecting to it in this instance will prove nothing, except it be the weakness of their cause. Our Saviour warned his followers to beivare of false prophets^ and gave this direction concerning them : Ye shall knoiv them by their fruits.f This direction, founded in self-evident truth, and enforced by the head of the christian church, appeared to me to furnish a proper criterion by which to judge of the claims, if not of every particular opinion, yet of every system of opinions, pretending to divine authority. Mr. Kentish admitted that " The effects produced by a doctrine was a proper criterion of its value, but not of its truth,'' But the value of a doctrine im- plies its truth. Falsehood is of no value : whatever* • Pages 134, 148, 154. f Matt. vii. 15—20. POSTSCRIPT. 293 proves a doctrine valuable, therefore, must prove it to be true. Mr. Kentish farther objects : " This celebrated saying of our Saviour is proposed as a test of character^ and not as a criterion of opinion,'* To the same pur- pose Dr. Toulmin alleges, that ** This is a rule given to judge not concerning principles^ but men ; not con- cerning the sentiments promulgated by them, but con- cerning their own characters and pretensions. — The persons here pointed at are hypocrites and false proph- ets : such as would falsely pretend a commission from God. Their pretensions might be blended with a true doctrine; but their claims were founded in dissimu- lation. They would be discovered by their covetous- ness, love of gain, and lasciviousness." p. 148. These writers are in general exceedingly averse to judging men, considering it as uncandid, and presump- tuous, and plead for confining all judgment to things ; but in thi« case things seem to be in danger, and there- fore men are left to shift for themselves. According to this exposition, it is the duty of chris- tians, when ministers discover an avaricious and ambi- tious disposition, though sound in doctrine, and in time past apparently humble and pious, to set them down as hypocrites. And this is more candid, it seems, and savours less of spleen and ill-nature than drawing an unfavourable conclusion of their doctrinal prin- ciples. But waving this : The saying of our Saviour is given as a test o^ false prophets, or teachers ; an epithet never bestowed, I believe, on men whose doctrine was true» That false prophets and teachers were men of bad char- acter, I admit, though that character was not always A A 2 ^94 POSTSCRIPT. apparent :* but that they are ever so denominated on account of their character,* as distinct from their doc- trine, does not appear. When any thing is said of their doctrine, it is invariably described as false. If any man shall say unto you^ lo here is Christy or lo therCy BELIEVE HIM NOT: for falsc Christs, and false PROPHETS, bearing witness in their favour, shall arise — There ivere false prophets among the people^ even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall 6ri«^ m d^^mnable heresies, even de- nying the Lord that bought them, ayid bring upon themselves swift destruction — Beloved, believe not every spirit, but try the spirits whether they be of God : because many false prophets are gone out into the world — Every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God — Whosoever transgressethj and abideih not in the Doc- trin E OF Christ, hath not God — If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed : for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds.'f If the false prophets described by our Saviour were such as might teach '* a true doctrine," the descriptions given by the New-Testament writers, uniformly repre- senting them as teaching falsehood, are at variance with those of their master. That there were hypocrites who taught a true doc- trine, may be allowed : but they are never denominated false prophets, or false teachers. Balaam w3fe a wicked character, and is called a prophet ; but as the subject matter of his prophecies were true, he is not called a * 2 Cor. xi. 14. Matt, vii 15. I Mark xiii. 21, 22. 2 Pet. ii. 1. 1 John iv. 1—3- 2 John 10, 11. POSTSCRIPT. 295 false prophet. Judas also was a hypocrite and a thief, at the same time that he was a preacher and an apostle ; but as what he taught was true, he is not described as ^ false teacher, or -a false apostle. These things considered, let the impartial reader de- termine. Whether our Saviour did not mean to direct his followers to judge by their fruits, who were the pat-- Tons of false doctrine ? With respect to the use which has been made of this direction, I appeal in the tirst place to the apostles^ and New-Testament writers. I presume they will not be accused of self-commendation, nor of spleen and ill- nature; yet they scrupled not to represent those who believed their doctrine as washed and sanctified from their former immoralities ; and those who believed it not as having pleasure in unrighteousness,* All those facts which Dr. Toulmin has endeavoured to press into the service of modern (Jnitarianism are evidences of the truth of the primitive doctrine, and were considered as such by the New-Testament writers. They appealed to the effects produced in the lives of believers as living epistles, known and read of all men, in proof that they had not corrupted the word of God^ but were the true ministers of Christ. f VVith the fullest confidence they asked. Who is he that overcometh the world, but he that helieveth that Jesus is the Son of God ?% Plainly inti- mating that truth was well known by its effects. Nor was error less so : those who introduced false doctrines are invariably described as unholy characters. || To quote the reasonings of the fathers on this princi- ple, were to co[)y a large proportion of their apologies. I question whether there be one of thetn which does not » 1 Cor. vi. 9—11. 2 Thess. ii 12. f 2 Cor. ii. 17. iii. 1— S. 4 1 John V. 5. II 2 Pet. ii. 1—3. Jude. 1 Cor. xv. ^3, 34. 296' POSTSCRIPT, contain arguments for the truth of Christianity on the ground of the holy lives of christians ; and which does not infer, or in some form intimate, the falsehood of heathenism from the known immorality of heathens. Their opponents having no better answer at hand, might posjjibly charge this reasoning with vain boacting, spleen, and ill-nature : but 1 do not recollect that it was ever imputed to these causes by christians. As to the reformers^ the most successful attacks which they made upon the church of Rome, were founded on the dissolute lives of her clergy, and the holiness and constancy of those whom she persecuted unto death. The general strain of their writings may be seen in Fox's Martyrology, which is in eftect an ex- hibition of the moral character of the persecutors and the persecuted, from which the world is left to judge which was the true religion : and 1 may add, a consid- erable part of the world did judge, and acted accord- ingly. Dr. Toulmin suggests from Mosheim, that the re- formers, and particularly Calvin and his associates, neglected the science of morals.* But Mosheim's prejudices against Calvin and his associates render his testimony of but little weight, especially as the reader may satisfy himself of the contrary by the writings of the parties, which are yet extant. The eighth chapter of the second book of Calvin's Institutes is sufficient to wipe away this slander. The morality there inculcated is such as neither Antinomians, nor '* great numbers'* amongst modern Unitarians, can endure. That there were some among the gospellers, as they were called, who were loose characters, is admitted : such there are in every age : but take the reformed as a body, and » Page 153. POSTSCRIPT. 297 they were not anly better christians than their persecu- tors, but than those their successors, who, while pretend- ing to teach the "science" of morality, have deserted the great principles by which it requires to be animated, and debased it by allowing the amusements of the thea- tre, and other species of dissipation, to be consistent with it. The historian of the Puritans has recorded of that persecuted people, that '* While others were at plays and interludes, at revels, or walking in the fields, or at the diversions of bowling, fencing, &c. on the evening of the Sabbath, they, with their families, were employed in reading the scriptures, singing psalms, catechising their children, repeating sermons, and prayer — That neither was this confined to the Lord*s day, but they had their hours of family devotion on the week-days, esteeming it their duty to take care of the souls as well as of the bodies of their servants — and that they were circumspect as to all the excesses of eating and drink- ing, apparel and lawful diversions ; being frugal in house-keeping, industrious in their particular callings, honest and exact in their dealings, and solicitous to give to every one his own."* These things might not be alleged in proof of the truth of every particular opinion which they held ; nei- ther have T inferred from such premises the truth of every opinion maintained by Calvinists : but they were alleged in proof that their religion in the main was that of Jesus Christy and the religion of their adversaries a vert/ near approach to that of Antichrist, Nor do I recollect that the writer has been charged, unless it be by those who felt the condemnation which his story im- plied, with vain-boasting, spleen, or ill-nature, • Neale's Hist. vol. i. chap. viii. a9& POSTSCRIPT. Finally : Will our opponents accuse themselves of these evils for having reasoned upon this principle as far as they are able ? That they have done this is mani- fest, though Dr. Toulmin affects to disown it, alleging,, that they have not reasoned on the lives of men, but merely on the tendency of principles,* That they have reasoned o\\ the tendency of principles, is true ; and so have I : such is the reasoning of the far greater part of the foregoing Letters. But that they avoided all refer- ence to the lives of Calvinists, is not true. Was it on the tendency of principles, or on the lives of men, that Dr. Priestley reasoned, when he compared the virtue of Trinitarians with that of Unitarians, allowing that though the latter had more of an apparent conformity to the world than the former, yet upon the whole they approached nearer to the proper temper of Christianity than they ?f Did he confine himself to the tendency of principles, in what he has related of Mr. Badcock rj Does he not refer to the practices of Antinomians in proof of the immoral tendency of Calvinism, represent- ing them as the legitimate offspring of our principles ?|| And though Mr. Belsham now affects to be dis- gusted with this mode of reasoning, yet there was a time when he seemed to think it would be of service to him, and when he figured away in the use of it. Did he not affirm, that '' they who fire sincerely pious, and diffusively benevolent with our 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 ?" And what is this but affirming, that those of his sentiments are hettet and happier in general than others ? * Page 154 \ Dis.on Var. Sub. p 100 % Fam. Let. Let. xxii. ii See the quotation, p. 95, of the foregoing Letters. POSTSCRIPT. 299 "Vet this gentleman affects to despise the foregoing Letters, for that the sum of thera is, " We Calvinists being much better christians than you Socinians, our doctrines must of course be true."* Strange, that a writer should so far forget himself, as to reproach the performance of another for that which is the char- acteristic of his own ! Nor is this all — In the small compass of the same discourse, he expresses a hope that Socinian converts would ** at length feel the benign influence of their principles, and demonstrate the excellence of their faith, by the superior dignity and worth of their char* acter,^^ If the excellence of principles, (and of course their truth, for nothing can be excellent which is not true) be not demonstrable by the character of those who embrace them. How is superior dignity and worth of character to demonstrate it ? Such was once the ** self-commending" language of Mr. Belsham : but whether his converts have dis- appointed his hope, or whether the ground be too *« holy" for him, so it is, that he is now entirely of a different mind; and what is worse, would fain per- suade his readers that it is ground on which he and his breUn-en have never " trespassed." This is the man, who after throwing down the gauntlet, declines the contest ; and after his partisans have laboured to the utmost to maintain their cause, talks of what they could say, and do^ were they not withheld by motives of generosity ! One would imagine from Mr. Belshara*s manner of writing, that 1 had dealt largely in tales of private characters. The truth is, what tales have been told ^re of their own telling. I freely acknowledged that * Review of Mr. Wilberforce, p. 274. 300 POSTSCRIPT. < I was not sufficiently acquainted with the bulk of Sociiiians, to judge of their oio ral character,'* Ev- ery thing was rested on their ow.n concessions ; and this it is which is the galling circumstance to Mr. Belsham and his party. They may now insinuate what great things they could bring forward to our dis- advantage, were they not restrained by motives of modesty and generosity : but they can do nothing. They might indeed collect tales of individuals, and point out many faults which attach to the general body : but they cannot prove it to be equally immoral with the general body of Socinians. Before this can be consistently attempted, they must retract their concessions ; and this will not avail them, for it must be manifest to all men that it was only to answer an end. The reader is now left to judge for himself, whether the principle of reasoning adopted in the foregoing Letters, be justly liable to the objections which have been raised against it ; whether our opponents did not first apply it against us ; and whether any other reason can be given for their present aversion to it, than that they feel it to be unfavourable to their cause, A. F. See page 9^, of the Letters. FINIS. 14 r>*v c> — > 3 3 r- r- fD o 3 o 3 3- ir i Q 3 5" Q o Q CL 3 3 1 rr Q 3 3 Q Q CTcr > -< OB m CD fD (D yo fD fD s 3 Q n ir Q 3 > 3 CD 0) Q- a ^^ > m yo Q ^ Q J^ 3 3 N4 Q_ (O (D o Q 3 O > >< CD CO -< on O Oi O ?-n O VI NO I A 04198