Vv

>x

Mwvzif

THE
COMPARATIVE TENDENCY
OP
UNITARIANISM and CALVINISM
TO PROMOTE
LOVE TO GOD
AND LOVE TO MAN.

THE
COMPARATIVE TENDENCY
OF
UNITARIANISM and CALVINISM
TO PROMOTE
LOVE TO GOD
AND LOVE TO MAN,
CONSIDERED,
IN A DISCOURSE, DELIVERED AT BRIGHTHELMSTONE,
ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 30, 1813, BEFORE
THE SOUTHERN UNITARIAN SOCIETY.

BY W- J. FOX.
Mt

SECOND EDITION.

HonHon :
PRINTED BY R. AND A. TAYLOR, SHOE-LANE.
SOLD BY ROWLAND HUNTER, ST. PAUL'S CHURCHYARD,
ANP D. EATON, 187, HIGH H0LB0KN.
1816.

A DISCOURSE, &c.

Luke x. 25, 26, 27, 28.
And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and
tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I
do to inherit eternal life ? He said unto
kirn, What is written in the law ? How
readest thou? And he, answering, said,
Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all
thy heart, and ivilh all thy soul, and with
all thy strength, and with all thy mind j
and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said
unto him, Thou hast answered right : This
do, and lliou shalt live.
.However the pages of history may be stained
with crimes -and errors, it is cheering to find
that, in every age and country, and under
every form of religion and government, there
have been examples of splendid virtue. I con
sider this as an indisputable fact. Many of
the sages, legislators, and heroes of antiquity
a 3

exhibited a moral greatness which Christians
may be allowed to contemplate with admira
tion. Their characters remain, like the monu
ments of their genius, to claim the praise,
and excite the emulation, of succeeding ages.
Among the worshippers of the celestial bodies,
of deified heroes, or of imaginary beings,
there have lived those whose actions demon
strated that the errors of education had not
been able to obliterate the law of God, written
in their hearts. The very spirit and essence
of the gospel appears embodied in such men
as Fenelon, Jortin, Campbell, Doddridge, and
Lindsey ; yet were they scattered through all
the differing and hostile parties of professing
Christians. What do we hence infer ? That
religious opinion is a matter of complete indif
ference ? That truth and error are alike favour
able to virtue ? That it is of no consequence
whether we adore the host of heaven, the
shades of our departed ancestors, the Hindu
triad, the pseudo- christian trinity, or the one
God and Father of all ? By no means. A
flower may grow in many a clime, which yet
requires a peculiar soil and culture for the full

display of its beauties ; and virtue, though it
may co-exist with almost any system of opi
nions, still is more indebted to some specula
tive views than to others for its general proi
duction, rapid progress, full development and
complete maturity. While some men are made
good by their creeds, others are good in
spite of their creeds. That one Opinion tends
to promote virtue, and another vice ; and that
systems. which have, upon the whole, a bene
ficial tendency, yet differ in the extent of their
influence, is full as obvious as that *here are
valuable characters in all parties. Let the one
fact preserve us from uncharitable judgement,
and the other excite us to zealous exertion.
We are associated for the promotion of unita
rian principles, not only because we think them
more consistent than popular notions with rea
son and with scripture, but because we are
convinced of their superior efficacy for the
production and advancement of devotion and
morality. We blend, in the object of our
union and exertions, the knowledge of the
scriptures with the practice of. virtue. The
declaration of our Lord concerning false p*o-
A 4

phets, " By their fruits ye shall know them*,"
is fairly applicable to systems of doctrine. It
is a test which we wish all parties to use, as
its application will familiarize them with the
idea that truth is chiefly valuable as the means
of promoting holiness . The text warrants our
asserting that to make men love God, and
each other, is the great end for which revela
tion was given to mankind f. That view of
the doctrines of the gospel in which they ap
pear most conducive to this object has strong
claims upon our preference. Our present in
quiry is into the relative efficiency for this

* Matthew vii. 20.
f Some have supposed the language of the text to
be ironical, and the real doctrine of Christ to be, that
we cannot yield such an obedience to the will of God
as he has graciously promised to reward with eternal
life, but must rest our hopes upon imputed sufferings and
an imputed righteousness. If Jesus taught the notions
now so extensively propagated under the sanction of
his name, this interpretation will perhaps be unavoidable.
To the candid inquirer it must appear inconsistent with
his character, his general mode of teaching, the con
nexion of the text, and the obvious sentiment of such
passages as the following : Matthew xxii. 35—40.
Acts x. 34. . 1 Tim. iv. 8., &c.

purpose of the Unitarian and Calvinistic inter
pretations of the New Testament ; and we have
to do, therefore, not so much, directly, with
their truth or falsehood, as with their influence
upon the hearts and lives of those by whop
they are believed.
This limitation of the subject will also ex
clude many interesting considerations which
would naturally suggest themselves in an at
tempt to explain and enforce the important
duties of love to God, and love to man. It
would be delightful to trace the divine bene
volence flowing like a rich stream from an
exhaustless source, and every where bearing
with it beauty, fertility and delight : to observe
it in the shady grove, the flowery mead, the
luxurious vineyard and the golden grain, the
solid earth, the rolling ocean, and the azure
heavens spangled with countless orbs of light :
to mark it in the myriads of sentient beings
which people every part' of this wide world,
and whose organs are so many channels through
which the full tide of pleasure flows to them
from surrounding objects ; in man, gifted with
powers so vast and various, and formed for
a 5

10
happiness the most exalted ; in the conduct of
Providence, oft indeed inscrutable, yet still,
upon the whole, displaying to every observer
a profusion of wisdom, power and love: or
to unfold those kindly charities, prompted by
nature and enjoined by revelation, which make
man a partner in the joys and sorrows of his
fellow man, and, while by gentlest bonds
they connect us with each other, unite us also
with him whose nature and whose name is
love; the God in whom we all " live, move,
and have our being *." But we have not now
to delineate the richness of the soil, or beauty
cf the prospect ; we must ascertain the pro
vince to which it belongs. Our task is, not
to paint its loveliness, but to vindicate its pos
session. It is not difficult to compare the influence of
Calvinism and Unitarianism upon our feelings,
as, in their leading, peculiar principles, they
are directly opposed to each other. Unitari
anism teaches that God is, strictly and pro
perly, one ; " one being, person, or mind :"
* Acts xvii. 28.

11
Calvinism, that his one essence subsists in three
persons. Unitarianism, that he is the universal
parent of his creatures: Calvinism, that he
loves, with an eternal and effectual love, only
the elect. Unitarianism, that he forgives sin,
on repentance, freely ; from his own essential
and spontaneous mercy : Calvinism, that his
character restricts him from ever pardoning sin,
or remitting its penal consequences to the of
fender, unless a proper substitute make atone
ment to his justice. Unitarianism, that punish-
ment is temporary and remedial : Calvinism,
that it is vindictive and eternal. It cannot be
that notions so opposite should produce the
same effects on the hearts of men.
Every one must observe, on the very first
view of our subject, that Unitarianism, if true,
possesses one decided advantage over Calvinism,
in exciting love to God, inasmuch as it cleanses
his worship from that idolatrous leaven which
has been mingled with it by the adoration of
his son and messenger, Jesus Christ : of him
w ho declared that he could of himself do no
thing; that he knew not the day of judgement;
that we should ask nothing of him, but of This
a6

12
Father ; that his Father, who dwelt in him,
wrought his miracles; that his words were not
his own, but the Father's, who sent him ; and
that his Father was the only true God*: but
whom, in defiance of these solemn and re
peated declarations, his followers have, as if
resolved to surpass the Jews, whose bitter
mockeiy only decked him in the insignia of
an earthly sovereignty, placed, in imagination,
on the throne of that Father whom he adored,
and whose sole worship he uniformly enjoined
and practised. If, on this subject, Unitarians
err, theirs is the error of loving God too much j
of confining too rigidly to him the supreme
homage of their hearts and lips : if Calvinists
err, it -is from being too ready to render to
another that which is due to God alone.
It is replied to this statement, that the wor
ship of Christ is consistent with that love to
God which Christianity enjoins, because it was
practised by the first teachers of Christianity.
Let us grant, for the sake of argument, that

* Vide John v. 30. Mark xiii. 32. John xvi. 23.
xiv. 10. xii. 49. xvii. 3.

13

the facts recorded in the New Testament^
which are by many supposed to be acts of
adoration to Christ, really were such. Still
they are few, very few * : they bear scarcely.

* The extensive meaning of the term worship, which
includes all kinds of respect and homage, will surely
prevent the reflecting Calvinist from regarding as adora
tion the honours paid to Jesus while on earth by many
who were relieved by his miraculous power from various
diseases : especially as, if he really were the supreme
God, it could not be known to them. His supposed
scripture examples will then be reduced to Acts vii. 59.
2 Cor. xii. 8, 9. and the ascriptions of glory to CnrisC
in the Revelations. But, with Stephen and Paul, Jesus
¦was personally present ; he was the depositary of that
miraculous power which was communicated to them as
the interests of his cause required j their applications to
him were no more divine worship than are our petitions
for protection to a powerful friend, or a magistrate.
Waving, however, this reply, the following argument
as to the application of their example appears to me
unanswerable. " If they (the apostles) worshipped
Christ, they acted in direct contradiction to his own
direction. In that day, (said he, John xvi. v. 23.) ye
shall ask me nothing : verily; verily, I say unto you,
whatsoever ye shalt ask the Father in my name, He will
give it you. If the apostles, therefore, worshipped Jesus
after this strong declaration, they either did from error
what they had no authority to do, or they indulged in
a practice which, whatever. its use in the apostolic age.
is not to be followed or observed by Christians now. In
A?

14
an assignable proportion to the numerous in-
stances in which worship is addressed to his
Father, and our Father. Were it impossible
to explain them on Unitarian principles, they
would only warrant an occasional and infre
quent adoration of the Son. The same love
to God which influenced the first Christians
would induce us, like them, to make him ge
nerally the object of our worship. But a be
lief in the equality of the S,on with the Father
tends to produce, and in Calvinistic devotions
does produce, a much larger relative propor
tion of homage to the Son, than, granting
either case their practice is of no avail." {FullagaAt
Observations on Christian Doctrine and Duly.) The ascrip
tions of praise to Jesus in the Revelations are addressed
to him as the lamb ivho ivas slain .¦ Those who contend
that such ascriptions are acts of worship must therefore
admit either that he was adored as man, or that he died
as God ; both which inferences they warmly disclaim.
One of them, however,' must be admitted, or all sup
port of their practice from such passages must be relin
quished. Strange is it that on such grounds the Son
should have been associated with the Father as an equal
object of worship ; and still stranger that a third divine
person should have been introduced, for whose worship
it is not even pretended that scripture furnishes either
example or precept !

every instance which they contend for, would
be sanctioned by scripture' example. That
cannot be an apostolic doctrine which leads us
to differ from apostolic practice ; nor that sy
stem most conducive to the love of God which
tends to diminish the honours allowed by all
to have been paid him by the first Christians.
Personal distinctions in the Deity are unfa
vourable to the supreme love of God. They
divide, and, by dividing, diminish our affection
towards him. All Christians look to God for
similar blessings. We, with Calvinists, hum
bly expect from him • a continuance of that
kind, providential care, which has hitherto
guarded and guided us ; a complete redemp
tion from sin, suffering, and mortality ; all that
is really good for us in this life ; and an end
less life of happiness hereafter : but for these
mercies we rely upon one divine person only.
He may employ various means and agents-:
through active and ingenious men may come
the advantages and comforts of this life j
through Christ may flow the blessings of reli
gion, and the hope of immortality .• still he is
the sole and ultimate source, the author of
a a

lfj

every good and perfect gift ; and every one
of this multitude of favours leads us in grate
ful acknowledgement, humble dependence, and
dev.out affection, directly to himself. They
expect one blessing from the Father, another
from the Son, another from, the Holy Ghost.
These persons take different parts, fill different
offices in the plan of redemption ; each is an
original and independent source of good ; and
hence unavoidably results a division of affec
tion ; a gratitude and love to each person pro
portionate to the importance of his office, and
the extent of his bounties ; a gratitude and
love distinct from that excited by mercies
which it is the peculiar province of either of
the other persons to bestow : in short, to each
divine person a limited and partial affection,
which neither is in itself, nor can become by
connexion with the love borne to the other
persons of the trinity, such a supreme and
boundless affection as is due to the one infi
nite God.
If any such distinctions have the effect of
dividing, distracting, and diminishing our love
to God, what shall we say of those popular

17
representations which tend completely to ex
clude the Father of all from the hearts of his
creatures and his children ? Trinitarians, too
often, make such a distribution of divine of
fices and operations as to transfer all that is
lovely from the Father to the Son. Do we
inquire who created the universe ? We are
told, The Son. Who, by his providence, sup
ports and regulates all things ? The Son. Who
redeemed sinners ? The Son. Who sanctifies
the depraved? The Spirit, procured by the
sufferings of the Son. From whom will flow,
and in whom will centre, the bliss of heaven?
The Son. The Father, all benignity as he is,
appears but as the foil to his excellence, the
shade to his brightness. He comes forward
but as the minister of vengeance, to exact the
sufferings and blood of the incarnate Son, and
to dispense just that portion of favour which
is thus purchased of his justice, and then re
tires from view. Nor is the obvious inference
from this statement to be eluded by calling
. Christ the gift of his Father. He is so called
in scripture ; and Unitarians, believing that he
was dependent on the Father, may use such
a 9

IS
language with propriety. In the mouths of
those who assert the complete independency
of the Son, and his strict equality with the Fa
ther, it is emptiness and vanity.
We have been, hitherto, occupied with con
siderations arising directly out of the doctrine
of the Trinity : Calvinism has other tenets, re
lative to the divine character and conduct,
which now claim our attention.
Can it promote love to God to believe that,
by his decree, " for the manifestation of his
glory, some men and angels are predestinated
unto everlasting life, and others fore-ordained
to everlasting death *?" Is there aught lovely
in a glory which requires, for its display, that
eternal flames should be kindled, and fed with
immortal victims ? Is it possible to love a Being
who is represented as giving life to millions of
creatures with the express design of connecting
with that life intolerable misery to all eternity ?
Or if we substitute for this sentiment the ap
parently milder one of moderate Calvinism,
that he did not decree the destruction of the
* Assembly's Confession, c. iii.

19
non-elect, but only omitted to decree their'
salvation ; (and this, when we are speaking of
an omnipotent Being, is rather a variation'of
words than of idea ;) does this present us
with so amiable a Being as he who exercises
his creating power with a view to his creatures'
happiness, and whose glory consists only in
their purity and felicity ?
Can it promote love to God to believe that
he established such a moral constitution as that,
by one sin of one man, the whole human race
have " lost communion with God, are under
his wrath and curse, and so made liable to all
miseries in this life, to death itself, and to the
pains of hell for ever * ? " Some instances are
furnished by the annals of despotism in which
the wantonness of power has doomed all the
relatives of an offender to death ; but none in
which the offender's race has been perpetuated
only to train up victims for the hand of the
executioner. This was a refinement of cruelty
reserved for theologians to invent, and attri
bute to the gracious Parent of the Universe.
* Assembly's Catechism.

20
In the present state of society, if the mightiest
monarch upon earth were to adopt, in the
distribution of temporal punishment, a prin
ciple similar to that on which God is here
represented as inflicting eternal punishment,
he not only would not be loved, he would not
be endured. An universal combination would
immediately stop his career; and his power, if
not his life, would be presented, as an accept
able offering, at the shrine of insulted huma
nity. Well is it that the thousands of children
who are taught to lisp the assertion just quoted
know little of the. meaning of what they utter.
If they were to have a full conception of the
sentiment which their expressions convey, we
might apprehend that there would be engen
dered in their hearts a feeling towards God too
horrible to be mentioned.
Can it promote love to God to believe that
the way in which he has chosen to remit the
punishment of sin is by transferring its guilt,
or the consequences of its guilt, from the sin
ner to an innocent person, his eternal and
equal Son in an incarnate state, whose infinite
dignity makes his sufferings of infinite value,

21
thus satisfying every claim of law, and ren
dering the salvation of man an act, not of
mercy, but of justice ? Is not grace excluded
by such a system ? If the punishment of every
sin . be inflicted, (whether on the transgressor,
or his substitute, it matters not,) there is no
need of mercy in God ; no opportunity for
the exercise of that glorious attribute. He
whose debts are discharged claims his deliver
ance of justice, not of favour. Is there a man
of generous heart who would accept a throne,
or even the empire of the world, on condition
that he should never pardon an offender,
however penitent, unless some faultless subject
were content to suffer in his stead f Who
would not spurn dominion, if proffered on
such degrading terms ? And does this restric
tion fetter the omnipotent hand that grasps the
sceptre of universal empire ? No. God hath
mercy on whom he will have mercy; He is
the God of pardons ; He is the Father of the
returning prodigal, receiving him back with
free, unpurchased kindness * : therefore we
* Exod. xxxiii. 19. Nehem. ix. 17. Luke xv.

22
rejoice that the Lord reigneth, and love him
though arrayed in all the majesty of universal
sovereignty. Can it promote love to God to believe that
he punishes vindictively ? that he causes suf
fering, not to make it the source of good, but
merely as a sacrifice to retributive justice ?
that he designs not, what every humane ma
gistrate wishes, to make punishment the means
of reformation ? Will the exertion of Omni
potence to eternalize sin and misery advance
his glory, increase his happiness, or excite our
affection ? Can there be music to his ears in
the groans, the agony, the deep despair of
millions, whom he has made immortal, but
whom he never intended to make happy ?
Let the teachers of religion pause, ere they
ascribe to the God whom they call upon us to
love principles which themselves would blush
to own, and at the imputation of which they
would feel indignant.
It has been " argued in favour of the ten
dency of Calvinistic doctrines to promote the
love of God, that upon those principles we
have more to love him for than upon the

23
other*." They are said to represent the state
of the world as more deplorable, and God's
gift of his Son, for its redemption, as of
greater value. Our condition is indeed de
plorable, if, as descendants of Adam, we in
herit an irresistible depravity of nature, and
the eternal curse of God. It will scarcely be
contended that we should love God for having,
in consequence of a transaction to which we
could not be parties, brought us into being
under such dreadful circumstances. Calvinists
must reconcile the depravation and condemna
tion of the human race, on account of the sin
of Adam, to the justice of God, before they
can represent it as a display of goodness and a
motive to gratitude. Their love to God must
arise, not from his placing us in such a situ
ation, but from his bringing us out of it. This

* Fuller's Systems compared, p. 134. 2d ed. — For
an able reply to the argumentative part of this book,
see Dr. Toulmin's " Practical Efficacy of the Unitarian
Doctrine." Its pretended statements of fact are best
refuted by the memoirs of Lindsey, Priestley, Jebb,
Mrs. Lindsey (Monthly Repository, Feb. 1812), &c
but at these the admirers of that work can seldom be
induced to look.

2*

is effected by the gift of his Son. But what
propriety is there in loving the Father for giv
ing the Son, if the Son be omnipotent and
independent ? On their principles,, the Father
could no more give the Son than the Son
could give the Father. We must have a right,
by creation, purchase, or possession, in what
we give : To acquire such a right over a person
properly and essentially independent is mani
festly impossible.
The love to God which arises from Unitarian
principles has less of selfishness in it than that
which the opposite system tends to produce,
The Calvinist loves God for selecting him for
bliss, while millions of his fellow-creatures,
not more guilty than himself, are irremediably
doomed to never-ending torments. The Uni
tarian loves God, not only for favours bestowed
upon himself, but because his tender mercies
are over all his works ; because he is the God
of pardons and mercies ; because he is the
Father, the God of love, not to an elect few,
but to all that live and feel. O lovely idea of
the loveliest of Beings ! While we thus con
template him our bosoms glow with an ardent.

25
sacred, generous affection ; every narrow, mean,
selfish feeling is annihilated; we behold all
worlds and all beings encircled in the arms
of boundless benevolence ; our love rises into
rapturous devotion, and we burst forth in his
praises who is all in all.
It is necessary now to proceed to the other
branch of our subject; the comparative ten
dency of Calvinism and Unitarianism to pro
mote the love of our fellow-creatures.
Love to man is connected with^and founded
upon, the love of God. If one believes that
God only loves the elect, and another that he
loves all men, is it not fair to infer that the
benevolence of the first will be bounded by
the limits which he assigns to that of his God;
while that of the other will be, in like manner,
extensive ? Can. the former heartily desire and
pray for the happiness of all, while he believes
that God only designs to bless a select portion
of mankind ? If the Calvinist does not profess
to love all mankind, to love them so as to de
sire their final happiness, he yields the palm of
superior benevolence to the Unitarian. If he
does profess it, he then claims the honour of

26
greater benevolence than he attributes to his
Deity. Complacency is not essential to benevolence:
we may wish well to a being possessed of no
amiable quality whatever. Yet benevolence is
promoted by complacency. A deeper interest,
a stronger affection, must be excited by objects
in which good is blended with evil, than by
those which are uniformly and totally corrupt.
If we believe that children are completely de
praved, and that it is the dictate of their nature
to hate God, and to love all evil, we cannot
feel for them so strong affection, as if we think
that " of such is the kingdom of heaven*.51
Calvinism represents man as " wholly defiled
in all the faculties and parts of soul and body:"
as, by original corruption, " utterly indisposed,
disabled, and made opposite to all good, and
wholly inclined to all evil f." We believe that
man, being placed in a state of trial, on his
conduct in which his future happiness depends,
is by nature qualified for a moral probation,
and alike capable of displaying the most ex-
* Matt. xix. 14. f Assembly's Confession, c. vi.

27
alted virtues, and the most degrading vices.
We think that, in fact, the human character
is of a diversified cast, the best being not with
out numerous failings, and the most depraved
sometimes manifesting that " the law of God
written on the heart" cannot be wholly ob
literated. On which view is it easiest to obey
the command of heaven, and love our neigh
bour as ourselves ? It must be easier to love a
friend than an enemy ; a being with some vir
tues than one of pure 'malignity ; man con
sidered as an imperfect race, which in its
brightest characters has some shades of vice,
and in its worst some traces of goodness, than
man by nature thoroughly depraved and vi
cious, a. loathsome, compound of every moral
evil, and deservedly under the tremendous. and
universal curse of God.
Christian charity " thinketh no evil." A
censorious disposition is opposed to the spirit
of the gospel and the essential graces of the
Christian character. We are not to judge as
we would not be judged. For those who hold
that before man has undergone a supernatural
change, called regeneration, it is impossible for

28
him to think a good thought or to perform a
good action, it must be extremely difficult to
avoid censoriousness. They trace their own
good deeds to the principle of divine grace
implanted within them. But those wha are not
conscious of such a change as they imagine
essential to the production of any thing really
good, in man, frequently act in a manner ap
parently virtuous, and so as to leave no dif
ference, in external circumstance, from their
own good works. To reconcile this fact with
their theory of the natural depravity of man,
they are obliged to suppose an obliquity of
motive, of which no evidence can be adduced,
and which, if it exist, can only be known to
the individual and his God. Can any thing
be more unjust than that the moral character
of men's actions should be determined by their
creeds? that the same deed, proceeding avow
edly from the same motive, should be in one
the result of divine grace, and in another sin
ful ? Calvinism teaches that the unregenerate
sin even when they do what God has com
manded * : what is the tendency of this senti-
* Assembly's Confession, c. xvi. § 7.

29
ment but to destroy all confidential inter
course, and fill the world with suspicions and -
slanders ?
Were the doctrine of Satisfaction pushed to
its legitimate consequences, what would be
come of the great Christian duty of forgiving
injuries ? ¦ When we pray that our Father in
heaven would forgive us our trespasses, as we
forgive them that trespass against us ; or are
told to be kind, tender-hearted, forgiving one
another as God, by Christ, has forgiven us*,
is it meant that we should only forgive when
our claims are granted, and justice is fully sa
tisfied ? Are we only to release our debtors
when some one has discharged their debt ? or
only to pardon those who have injured us
when they, or some innocent person in their
stead, has suffered the full extent of legal
punishment ? Such we are taught by Calvinists
is the divine mode of forgiveness ; and con
sequently such would be practically theirs,
were it not that they held principles inconsist
ent with their system, or that they suffer their
* Matt. vi. 12. 14. 15. Ephes. iv. 32,'

feelings to gain a righteous victory over their
creeds. Paul asserts the resurrection of Jesus to be
the only essential truth of Christianity*. Does
it promote love to our neighbour to consider
him as not entitled to the name of Christian
because he does not, in addition to this, be
lieve a number of propositions, which may or
may not be true, but which he cannot discover
in the New Testament, and without which he
lives a holy life ?
Love we our fellow-creatures better for be
lieving that the time will come when our feel
ings will be thoroughly reconciled to their
eternal misery, and we shall rejoice in it as a
display of the divine glory ? On the contrary,
does k not attach us much more firmly to them
if we view the whole race as children of an
impartial and tender parent, who loves us all,
and who, by a wise, though, in some cases,
a long and severe discipline, is promoting the
good of all ?
* Romans x. 9. — " lftHhou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe jn thine heart
that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved."'

31
The contrast which has been thus far pur
sued would admit of more extended ampli
fication, and might be applied to the sub
ordinate parts of the opposite systems, and to
the minuter feelings and duties of the Christian.
From what has been stated a fair estimate may
be formed of what would be the general result.
Whether facts accord with this view of the
relative influence of doctrines is best known,
and can indeed only be known, by the Searcher
of hearts. To drag into the glare of day the
failings of one class of professing Christians,
in order to display in greater lustre the virtues
of another class, is what I shall not attempt.
It is enough that in the list of Unitarians
science finds enrolled its most successful vota
ries ; our country its brightest ornaments ;
Christianity its ablest defenders, and humanity
its best benefactors*. We need not endeavour
to exalt these by depretiating others. It is our
duty, it is our delight, to trace, to love, to
praise, and to imitate virtue, wherever it be
* That this is not an empty boast, witness the illus
trious names of Locke, Newton, Lardner, Priestley,
Lindsey, Jebb, &c.

32
found. From the writings of our oppo
nents would we cull the flowers of devotion
and benevolence, though to wound us they
were surrounded with the thorns of contro
versy. From their lives would we copy the
virtues which adorn them, though their hearts
own not for us a brother's love, and their
tongues refuse us the name of Christian. We
know that " in every nation," and in every
sect, " he that feareth God, and worketh
righteousness, is accepted with him* ;" and
what God has sanctified we dare not, we de
sire not, to call unholy. While we assert the
superior efficacy of the truths which we be
lieve, we desire not so much to obtain a con
troversial triumph, as to excite humility, that
our characters so little correspond with these
high pretensions, and exertion, to perfect in
us that which is wanting. While we oppose
the notion of a plurality of divine persons, let
us not neglect to render to the one God the
homage of our hearts and lips. While we
vindicate the Father from the unlovely attri-
* Acts x. 35.

33
butes with which some have darkened his cha
racter, let our love towards him be more pure
and fervent than theirs. While we assert the
freeness of his mercy, let us never be revenge
ful or itnplacable. If we have different views
from others of the nature and the state of
man, let those views make us more charitable
towards our fellow-creatures, more severe to
wards ourselves. Thus shall we best advocate
the cause, and promote the interests, of truth
and virtue.
To ascertain the tendency, and not the truth,
of opinions has been the object of this dis
course. If, however, we have shown the su
periority of Unitarianism to Calvinism in its
moral tendency, this cannot but be considered
as a valuable argument for its truth. That
system which best promotes the designs of
Christianity has a strong presumption in favour
of its being the genuine doctrine of Christ.
Truth and utility are connected. If both ap
pear to characterize our sentiments, we are jus
tified in endeavouring to disseminate them. We
are bound to do so, and let Unitarians feel all
the force of the sacred obligation. The die-

34
tates of conscience, the example of the apostles,
the state of the religious world, the progress
of education and inquiry, the best interests of
man, the honour of God, the commands and
promises of revelation, all unite to call us to
exertion, and to promise us success. Yet a
little while, and genuine Christianity shall rise,
like its great author, glorious and triumphant^
from the abodes of darkness and corruption,
to reign for evermore !

THE END.

Printed byxR. and A. Taylor, She Lane, London.

Published ly the same Author,
1. Letters to the Rev. John Pye Smith, D.D. on
the Sacrifice of Christ. 2s. 6d.
2. A Reply to Popular Objections against Unita
rianism : A Sermon, preached at Bristol, 21st
June, 1815, before the Western Unitarian Society.
Is.
3. A Sermon on Freb Inquiry in Matters of Reli
gion. Is.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 09863 2079