LETTER XIV.

A COMPARISON OF MOTIVES, EXHIBITED BY THE TWO SYSTEMS, TO GRATITUDE, OBEDIENCE, AND HEAVENLY MINDEDNESS.

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, whichever of the systems it is that excels in this particular, that of course, must be the system which has the greatest tendency to promote a holy life.

One very important motive, with which the scriptures 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 whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. Herein is love; not that we 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 up 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 consisting, not in his overlooking their frailties, not 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 establishing this point, since Dr. Priestley has fully acknowledged 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

* John iii. 16. 1 Johu iv. 10, 11. Rom. v. 8. and viii. 32.

and obedience."* As this is a matter of fact, then, allowed on both sides, it may be worth while to make some inquiry into the reason of it; or, why it is that so great a stress should be laid, in the scriptures, upon this motive. To say nothing of the strong presumption which this acknowledgment 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 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.

HIS

If there be any meaning in the words, the phraseology of John iii. 16, God so loved the world, 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 bestowment of it, is considered as inexpressible and inestimable. We are not told how much he loved the world, but that he SO loved it that he gave 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 truly 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 instruct 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 apperance 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 Moses, or any other prophet, there are sufficient sources of gratitude and devotion. I myself," continues Dr. Priestley, "have gone through all those changes; and I think 1 may assure you, that you have nothing to apprehend

* Defence of Unitarianism, for 1786, p. 102.

from any part of the progress. In every stage of it, you have that consideration on which the scriptures always lay the greatest stress, as a motive to gratitude and obedience; namely, the love of God, the Almighty Parent, in giving his Son to die for us. And whether this 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 ultimately 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 method of 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 thousand, 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 obedience, 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 gratitude and obedience, and that in the same degree ; it must be because the greatness or smallness of the gift, is a matter of no consideration, and has no tendency to render a motive stronger or weaker. But this is not only repugnant to the plainest 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 apostacy, and the magnitude of * Defence of Unitarianism, for 1786, pp. 101, 102, 26

VOL. II.

redemption, will induce 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 does, "Every thing that Christ hath done, is to be referred to the love of God." 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, without 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, AND LAYING DOWN HIS LIFE FOR US. Let this mind be in you which was also in Christ Jesus; who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: but made himself of 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 was rich, yet for your sakes he became poor, that ye through his poverty might be made rich.-Forasmuch as the children were partakers of flesh and blood, he also himself took part of the same; that through death he might destroy him that had the power of death, that is the devil.-Verily, he took not on him the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham.-The love of Christ constraineth us; because we thus judge, that if one died for all, 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 offering, and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour.- -To him that loved us, and washed us from our sins in his own blood, be glory and dominion for ever 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: whereas, in the system of our opponents, they have scarcely any force at all. The following observations may render this sufficiently evident.

and

We consider the coming of Christ into the world, as a voluntary undertaking. His taking upon him, or taking 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, 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 establish this idea. For this we feel our hearts bound, by every consideration that love unparalleled can inspire, to gratitude and obedience. But our opponents, by supposing Christ to have been a mere man, and to have had no existence till he was born of Mary, are necessarily driven to deny, that his coming into the world 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 obedience to the command of the Father, and not in consequence of his own proposal." But the idea of his coming, 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.*

T

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 form of God, and the form of a servant, afford a contrast that fills our souls with grateful astonishment. Dr. Priestley, in the last mentioned performance,t acknowledges, that "the Trinitarian doctrine of the incarnation, is calculated forcibly to impress the mind with divine condescen-. sion." 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

* Defence of Unitarianism, for 1786, p. 103. + Page 103.