obtaining the remission of our sins, and becoming the foundation of our hopes of eternal life: but none of these things have any place in the system of our opponents. And, though they would persuade us that they hold the sentiments embraced by primitive Christians, yet they cannot follow them in these important particulars. Their views of things will not suffer them to speak of his taking upon him flesh and blood; of his taking upon him not the nature of angels, but the seed of Abraham; of his being in the form of God, and yet taking upon him the form of a servant, and being made in the likeness of men; of our being forgiven for his sake ; or of the promise of an eternal inheritance being received by means of his death.* According to their principles, his coming into the world was no act of his own; he had no existence, prior to his existing in flesh and blood; it was not a matter of choice with him, whether he would be made an angel or a man; he never existed in any other form, nor sustained any other character than that of a servant; his death had no influence on the forgiveness of our sins, or in procuring eternal life: none of these things, therefore, afford to them any foundation for gratitude.

The substance of this argument was stated in my fourteenth Letter; but neither of my opponents has thought proper to take any notice of it. It might be their wisdom to decline this part of the subject, which is so strongly supported by the express declarations of scripture.

Mr. Kentish seems to feel, that love to Christ makes but a diminutive figure in the Socinian scheme; and, therefore, apologizes for it. To suppose Christ to have been possessed of " a superhuman nature, and so to regard him," he says, "would be infringing upon our pious gratitude to the adorable Being whom we are commanded to love with an entire affection." To this I reply: Our belief of a doctine which our opponents will not allow us to believe, namely, the Divine Unity, enables us to repel this objection: we believe (and that, on the first of all authority,) that Christ and the Father are so one, that he who hath seen him hath seen the Father; and that he who honoureth him, in so doing, honoureth the

* Heb. ii. 14. 16. Phil. ii. 6, 7. Ephes. iv. 32. Heb. ix. 15.

*

Father. The idea thrown out by Mr. Kentish, and which enters into the essence of his system, is what the scriptures are utterly unacquainted with. They require us to love creatures in different degrees. But, inasmuch as this love, if carried to excess, would dishonour the Divine Being, these requirements are accompanied and limited by various cautions. Thus, we are required to love all mankind as our fellow-creatures; but we must take heed of improper attachment, lest we worship the creature more than the Creator. We are commanded to love and honour our parents; but, if they stand in competition with Christ, we are required comparatively to hate them. Christians are enjoined to love their ministers, who are over them in in the Lord: but, if even the servants of Christ be idolized, it shall be demanded, on their behalf, Who then is Paul, or who is Apollos, but ministers by whom ye believed? Was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul? We are doubtless, obliged to love angels, because they are our brethren, and are employed as minisistering sprits to the heirs of salvation; but, if any attempt to worship them, they will profess themselves to be what they are, and direct to the worshipping of God. Now, if Christ be only a creature, it might have been expected, that the numerous commands to love and honour him, should also have been accompanied with some such cautions; lest in complying with them, we should "infringe" upon the honour due to the Father. The great honour to which Christ was exalted, above all other creatures, rendered such cautions peculiarly necessary; since love to him would be in the greater danger of being carried to excess; and it is a fact, that the great body of those whom our opponents will allow to have been serious Christians, in almost all ages, have actually worshipped him as God. Yet there is not a single caution against this sort of excess, in all the New Testament; nor the least intimation, that, in giving glory to the Son, we may possibly "infringe" upon the glory of the Father. On the contrary, when the topic of love to Christ occurs, every thing is said to inflame it, and nothing to damp it. There is a becoming jealousy in the

* John x. 30. xiv. 9. 11. v. 23.

+ Rev. xxii. 9.

Divine Being expressed, in other cases, but never in this; if any thing of this kind be expressed, it is on the other side. If a man love me-my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him.-If any man serve me, him will my Father honour.-The Father judgeth no man ; but hath committed all judgment unto the Son, that all men should honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. He that honoureth not the Son, honoureth not the Father which hath sent him.*

Mr. Kentish, as if he felt no pleasure in discoursing upon the character and work of Christ, as the grounds of love to him, proceeds to remark, with some apparent satisfaction, upon certain expressions of it. "From the lips of our divine instructor himself,"

he says, "let us learn the lesson of love to him; let us hence be informed, in what this principle consists. If a man love me, says Jesus, he will keep my words.-He that loveth me not, keepeth not my sayings, Ye are my friends, if ye do whotsoever I command you. These things I command you, that ye love one another. Who can here refrain from observing, how truly rational is this language, how remote from mystery and enthusiasm! But, while Christ declares, that such as obey his laws, as imbibe his spirit, manifest love to him, let none of his followers be so ignorant and presumptuous, as to insist upon other testimonies of affection to their master. Of better they cannot possibly conceive; upon stronger they cannot possibly rely."*

I have no dispute with Mr. Kentish concerning what are the proper expressions of love to Christ; but his insinuating, that to plead for his deity and atonement, as grounds of love to him, is to "insist upon other testimonies of affection towards him;" testimonies which are "mysterious and enthusiastic," is calculated to perplex the subject. To say nothing of the "decency" of his pronouncing upon our conduct, in this instance, as "ignorant and presumptuous ;" it is but to manifest, that he wishes to confound the reasons of love with the expressions of it, and, under a show of regard for the one, to draw off the reader's attention from the other. Mr. Kentish may recollect, that the same language is used Pages 18, 19.

John xiv. 23. xii. 26. v. 23, 23.

of love to God, as of love to Christ: This is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.* Now, an enemy to the infinitely-amiable moral character of the Deity, as the primary ground of love to him, might here exclaim, with Mr. Kentish, "Let us hence be informed, in what the principle of love to God consists: it is to keep his commandments. Who can here refrain from observing, how truly rational is this language, how remote from mystery and enthusiasm! But, while God declares, that such as keep his commandments, manifest love to him, let none be so ignorant and presumptuous, as to insist on other testimonies of affection to him.-Let them not talk of " contemplating infinite power employed to execute designs which proceed from infinite benevolence, and of filial affection towards God, as enkindled by such contemplations." Mr. Kentish would probably reply, to this effect: The grounds or reasons, of love to God are one thing; and the appointed expressions of it, another and your depreciating the former, under a pretence of exalting the latter, is as if you were to kill the root, in order to preserve the fruit. Such is my reply to Mr. Kentish.

From the love of God and Christ, Mr. Kentish proceeds to dis. course on the fear of God. I do not recollect having advanced any thing, in my letters, on this subject. I may observe, however, that the definition given of this virtue, does not appear to me to answer to the scriptural account of it. It is said to be "the veneration of infinite grandeur." But this approaches nearer to a definition of admiration, than of fear. The moral excellence of the Deity, as the object of fear, enters not into it; neither is there any thing of a moral nature included in it. Without taking upon me to define this heavenly virtue, I may observe, that a holy dread of offending God, or of incurring his displeasure, enters into its essence. The main objection that I feel to the scheme of my opponent, on this head, is, that the divine goodness, according to his notion of it, necessarily pursues the ultimate happiness of all creatures, pure or impure, penitent or impenitent, men or devils. This, as I have already stated, undermines that respect to the divine character, which is the foundation of both love and fear. + Page 19.

* 1 John v. 3.

† Page 12.

That God is the Father of all his creatures, is true ;* but it is also true, that he is a Father to those that believe in his Son, in such a sense as he is not to the rest of the world. The Jews boasted that God was their Father: but Jesus answered, If God were your Father, ye would love me.-To as many as received Christ, and no more, was power given to become the sons of God, even to them who believed on his name. This adoption by Jesus Christ is not the common heritage of men: It is a subject of special promise. Come ye out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing, and I will receive you, and will be a father unto you and ye shall be my sons and daughters saith the Lord Almighty. And it ought to be observed, that it is this evangelical relation, and not that of creatures to their Creator, that converts our "afflictions into fatherly corrections." There have been characters in the world, of whom it has been said, He that made them will not have mercy on them: and he that formed them will show them no favour. These things ought not to be confounded.

After considering the fear of God, our author proceeds to discourse on confidence in him.‡ In this, as in most other of his discussions, Mr. Kentish appears to me to forget that he is a sinner; representing the Divine Being, and his creature, man, as upon terms of the most perfect amity. His persuasion of the power, wisdom and goodness of the Deity, begets confidence. But nothing is said of his going to God, under a sense of his helpless and perishing condition as a sinner, and under the warrant of the gospel invitations or of his confiding in him for eternal salvation. The confidence which Mr. Kentish describes, is more suitable to the condition of holy angels, than of guilty creatures, who have incurred the just displeasure of their Maker.

There is one subject included in the scripture exercises of devotion, which Mr. Kentish has passed over; namely trusting in Christ. Under the article of love to God, he considered love to Christ; and trusting in Christ is no less an exercise of Christian devotion, than love to him; an exercise, too, with which our eternal salvation stands connected In his name shall the Gentiles trust.—That ye should be to the praise of his glory, who first trusted * Page 20. + John viii. 42, i 12. 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18. + Page 21. VOL. II.

40