THIS discourse was delivered at the ordination of Rev. JONATHAN COLE, as Pastor of the First Congregational Society in KINGSTON, Mass. A few copies were printed in an 8vo form for the Society, and it is now, by permission of the author, adopted into the series of tracts published by the AMER. UNIT. Assoc. with such slight alterations, as were necessary to prevent its retaining the appearance of an occasional sermon.

BOSTON,

Press of Isaac R. Butts.

DISCOURSE.

CHRISTIANITY is, certainly, a rational system, but it is not therefore merely speculative and cold. It has its foundation, indeed, in the convictions of the mind, but it is not therefore excluded from the heart. It is not merely a truth, but a sentiment; a deep, penetrating, thorough, soul-felt sentiment. It is not merely belief, nor yet merely practice; but while it includes both, it implies something more than either; something to render faith operative and practice efficient; namely, a consistent, an energetic, an enlightened, a devoted zeal.

There is reason to believe that the distinguishing views of Unitarian Christians are, in this respect, often misunderstood, or misrepresented. It is stated as a serious objection to them, that they exist chiefly but as a barren notion of the head; that they are wanting in power over the affections; that they can breathe no new and fervid life into our spiritual natures; and that they tend, in consequence, to produce in those who profess them, lukewarmness and indifference to the whole subject of religion. I believe this objection to be unfounded and injurious. Believing, moreover, a fair discussion of great principles to be an essential, if not the only means, which God, in his providence, has appointed, of ascertaining the

truth, I shrink not from a defence of those which are believed to be unutterably important, even though they should be controversial in their nature. And if, in the following remarks, I shall contrast our views of Christianity with those of the more popular theology, to the disadvantage of the latter, it is because I shall feel compelled to do so in the conscientious vindication of our own, and by the line of argument I have deemed it proper to pursue. I have no desire to widen the differences in opinion between our fellow Christians and ourselves, still less to exasperate feelings already but too much excited; and my earnest prayer for them and us is, that the Spirit of Truth may lead us both into all important truth. I propose, first, to examine the true nature and value of the objection above mentioned; secondly, to remark on some circumstances which may have conspired to give it an appearance of reality; and, thirdly, to show, in some particulars, that, in point of fact, our views of christian truth are not justly liable to any such objection.

My first remark, in examining the validity of the objection, is, that the truth or value of any system of faith is not to be decided by the conduct of its professors. It is obvious that there are many influences continually operating upon men's minds, which interfere with and counteract the legitimate effects of their religious belief. I cannot stop to illustrate so plain a point as this. Examples enough present themselves on every side. Each individual who hears me has reason to mourn, that his conduct is so little answerable to his acknowledged rules of duty. Indeed, if a system is to be tried by the conduct of its followers, Christianity itself will be found liable to objection, even as exhibited by the earliest and best of its followers. St Paul most feelingly declares, "the

good that I would, I do not; but the evil which I would not, that I do." Was St Paul's faith therefore incorrect, inoperative and dead? Is it not obvious that any and all systems are to be estimated according to their principles, and not according to the conduct of those who embrace them? Could it therefore be substantiated, that as a class of Christians we want zeal and earnestness, it could only prove our own unworthiness, but would leave untouched the substantial value of our faith.

I next observe that if the general conduct of any class of Christians be no decisive evidence of the value of their religious system, still less is that excitement and fervency of spirit which is commonly denominated zeal. It is certainly no evidence either of real christian attainment, or of the truth, or of the value of religious opinions.

Not, first, of christian attainment. It is worthy of remark, the Scriptures more frequently speak of a bad and perverted, than of a praiseworthy zeal. If undirected by higher principles, like any other blind excitement of the feelings, it will become a fever of the heart and brain. Instead of diffusing a cheerful and life-inspiring warmth into the soul, it will become a consuming fire. Instead of exciting all the kind and generous affections into a healthy action, it will call to its aid all the fierce and angry passions; passions which will rage yet more relentlessly, that they are summoned at the call of conscience. "I bear them record," says an apostle, "that they have a zeal of God, but not according to knowledge;" and the world has never been without examples of the same ignorant zeal. An excitement of mind on the subject of religion, which leads men, in a disregard of the proprieties of person, place, time, and occasion, to obtrude sacred themes, where they will only be slighted or ridi

culed; an undue attention to the forms and means of religion, with an utter forgetfulness of its substance and end; a narrow and bigoted attachment to some peculiar doctrines, which closes the mind against further light;— all these are examples of an uninstructed zeal. And, again, "we may be zealously affected, but not well." Instances are, by no means, rare of what has been emphatically called a "cursed ungodliness of zeal;" a zeal which sins against the primal law of christian charity; a zeal which has trampled upon all the rights of men; the rights of property, person, and life; the right of private judgment; a zeal which has lighted the fires of persecution, and led forth armed hosts to legislate for men's consciences; and to write its creeds on men's hearts with the sword's point. And shall we, with these examples before us, take mere zeal as the criterion of the christian character?

Nor, secondly, is this zeal any decisive, nay, any evidence at all, of the truth of religious opinions. If it were, the criterion of truth would be feeling, passion, and not judgment and reason; and the greater the heat and ferment which could be excited in behalf of any opinions, the greater would be the evidence of their truth. But are any willing to abide by the necessary consequences of a rule like this? If so, let them remember, that Heathens, Pagans, Mahometans, Infidels, must have their claims allowed; for all, if not zealots, have zealots among them, and zeal is the decisive characteristic of truth. Nor may we stop here. There is not a sect in Christendom that has not been surpassed in zeal by the votaries of dark and dreadful superstitions. And are these to be preferred before those humble followers of Jesus, whose zeal is chastised into a more serene and sober fervency?