"I mean to show that there is an intelligible and necessary connection between the doctrinal facts of revelation and the character of GOD.... and farther, that the belief of these doctrinal facts has an intelligible and necessary tendency to produce the Christian character, &c." p. 20, 21.

"The object of this dissertation, is to analyse the component parts of the Christian scheme of doctrine, with reference to its bearings both on the character of GOD and on the character of man; and to demonstrate that its facts, not only present an expressive exhibition of all the moral qualities which can be conceived to reside in the divine mind, but also contain all those objects which have a natural tendency to excite and suggest in the human mind, that combination of moral feelings which has been termed moral perfection." p. 16.

"GOD has been pleased to present to us a most interesting series of actions, in which His moral character, as far as we are concerned, is fully and perspicuously embodied. In this narration, &c." p. 55.

"It [the Gospel] addresses the learned and the unlearned, the savage and the civilized, the decent and the profligate; and to all it speaks precisely the same language! What then is this universal language? It cannot be the language of metaphysical discussion, or what is called abstract moral reasoning......its argument consists in a relation of facts." p. 55.

Now that in these passages, the doctrines of the Gospel are resolved into facts which took place in God's governance, and that its mysteries are admitted, only so far as they are qualities or illustrations of these historical facts, seems to me, not only the true but the only interpretation to be put upon his words. If they do not mean this, let this at least be proposed, as an approximation to the real meaning; in the meanwhile, let it be observed, that nothing which has been said in the former portions of this discussion is at all affected by any failing, if so, in having fully elicited it.

VOL. III.-73.

Ꭰ

A

TY

§ 3.

Remarks on Mr. Abbott's " Corner Stone."

HERE then we have arrived at a point where we part company with Mr. Erskine, and join Mr. Abbott, who advances further in a most perilous career. The principle with which Mr. E. began has been above discovered to issue in a view of the Gospel, which may be contemplated apart from that principle. That the human mind may criticise and systematise the divine revelation, that it may identify it with the Dispensation, that it may limit the uses of the latter to its workings through our own reason and affections, and such workings as we can ascertain and comprehend, in a word, that the Gospel is a Manifestation, this is the fundamental principle of Mr. Erskine's Essay. Mr. Jacob Abbott seems so fully to take this principle for granted, that it would be idle to do more than notice his doing so; it will be more to the purpose to direct attention to his treatment of the theory, in which Mr. Erskine's principle seems to issue, viz. that the Gospel is a collection of facts. I am now referring to Mr. Abbott's work called "the Corner Stone," which I do not hesitate to say approaches within a hair's breadth of Socinianism: a charge which I would by no means urge against Mr. E., whatever be the tendency of his speculations.

In the work in question, Mr. Abbott disclaims entering into theological questions, properly so called (Preface, p. vi.); nor is there any necessity for his entering into them, so that the line of discussion which he does take, does not intrude upon them or provoke them.

"I have made this exhibition of the Gospel," he says, "with reference to its

moral effect on human hearts, and not for the purpose of taking sides in a controversy between different parties of Christians."

Again,

"A system of theology is a map or plan, in which every feature of the country must be laid down in its proper place and proportion; this work is on the other hand a series of views, as a traveller sees them in passing over a certain road. In this case, the road which I have taken, leads indeed through the heart of the country, but it does not by any means bring to view all which is interesting or important. The reader will perceive that the history of JESUS CHRIST is the clue which I have endeavoured to follow; that is, the work is intended to exhibit religious truth, as it is connected with the various events in the life of our SAVIOUR. In first introducing Him to the scene, I consider His exalted nature as the great moral Manifestation of the Divinity to us. Then follows a view of His personal character, and of His views of religious duty, &c." pp. vi. vii.

Let us observe here the similarity of language between the two writers I am speaking of. They are evidently of the same school. They both direct their view to the Gospel history as a Manifestation of the Divine Character; and though, in the above extracts, Mr. Abbott speaks more guardedly than Mr. Erskine, there will be found to be little or no practical difference between them. But there seems this most important distinction in their respective applications of their theory, though not very distinct or observable at first sight; that Mr. E. admits into the range of divine facts such as are not of this world, as the voluntary descent of CHRIST from heaven to earth, and his Incarnation, whereas Mr. A. virtually limits it to the witnessed history of Christ upon earth. This, so far as it exists, is all the difference between orthodoxy and Socinianism.

For this encroachment Mr. E. indeed had prepared the way; for he certainly throws the high doctrines of religion into the background; and the word "Manifestation" far more naturally fits on to a history witnessed by human beings, than to dispositions belonging to the unseen world. But Mr. E. certainly has not taught this explicitly.

If we wish to express the sacred Mystery of the Incarnation accurately, we should rather say that God is man, than that man is GOD. Not that the latter proposition is not altogether Catholic in its wording, but the former expresses the history of the Economy, (if I may so call it,) and confines our LORD's personality

to His divine nature, making His manhood an adjunct; whereas to say that man is GOD, does the contrary of both of these,— leads us to consider Him a man personally, with some vast and unknown dignity superadded, and that acquired of course after His coming into existence as man. The difference between these two modes of speaking is well illustrated in the recent work of a Socinian writer, whom on account of the truth and importance of his remarks, it is right, with whatever pain, to quote.

....

"A quick child, though not acquainted with logic,.... will perceive the absurdity of saying that Edward is John..... As the young pupil must be prepared to infer from the New Testament, that a perfect man is perfect GOD, he must be imperceptibly led to consider the word GOD as expressing a quality, or an aggregate of qualities, which may be predicated of more than one, as the name of a species; just as when we say John is man, Peter is man, Andrew is man...... ...And so it is, with the exception of a few who, in this country, are still acquainted with that ingeniously perverse system of words, by means of which the truly scholastic Trinitarians (such as Bishop Bull and Waterland, who had accurately studied the fathers and the schoolmen,) appear to evade the logical contradictions with which the doctrine of the Trinity abounds; all, as I have observed for many years, take the word GOD, in regard to Christ, as the name of a species, and more frequently of a dignity."-Heresy and Orthodoxy, p. 91.

It will be observed of this passage, that the writer implies that the orthodox mode of speaking of the Incarnation is not exposed to a certain consequence, to which the mode at present popular is exposed, viz. the tendency to explain away CHRIST's divinity. Man is GOD, is the popular mode of speech; GOD is man, is the Catholic. To return. It seems then that Mr. Erskine proceeds in the orthodox way, illustrating the doctrine that God became man; Mr. A. starting with the earthly existence of our LORD does but enlarge upon the doctrine that a man is GOD. Mr. Erskine enforces the Atonement, as a Manifestation of God's moral character; Mr. A. the life of CHRIST with the same purpose, with but slight reference to the doctrine of the Expiation, for of course he whose life began with his birth from Mary, had given up nothing, and died merely because other men die. Here then is something very like Socinianism at first sight.

But again, let us see how he conducts his argument. Here

again he differs from Mr. E. The latter considers the incarnation of the Son of GOD to be a manifestation of God's mercy. Here then in his view, which so far is correct, there is a double Manifestation-of the SON of GOD personally in human nature, and of GoD morally in the history and circumstances of his incarnation; though Mr. E.'s argument leads him to insist on the latter. Mr. A. assumes the latter as the sole Manifestation, thus bringing out the tendency of Mr. E.'s argument. In other words, he considers our LORD JESUS CHRIST as a man primarily, not indeed a mere man, any more than the conversion of the world was a mere human work, but not more than a man aided by GoD, just as the conversion of the world was a human work aided and blessed by GOD; a man in intimate union, nay in mysterious union with God, as Moses might be on the Mount, but not more than Moses except in degree. He considers that certain attributes of the Godhead were manifested in JESUS CHRIST, in the sense in which the solar system manifests His power, or the animal economy His wisdom; which is a poorly concealed Socinianism.

-So this, it appears, is what really comes of declaiming against "metaphysical" notions of the revelation, and enlarging on its moral character!

That I may not be unfair to Mr. A., I proceed to cite his words:

"In the first place, let us take a survey of the visible universe, that we may see what manifestations of GOD appear in it. Let us imagine that we can see with the naked eye all that the telescope would show us; and then, in order that we may obtain an uninterrupted view, let us leave this earth, and, ascending from its surface, take a station where we can look, without obstruction, upon all around. As we rise above the summits of the loftiest mountains, the bright and verdant regions of the earth begin to grow dim. City after city, &c. As the last breath of its atmosphere draws off from us, it leaves us in the midst of universal night, with a sky extending without interruption all around us, and bringing out to our view, in every possible direction, innumerable and interminable vistas of stars...... Our globe itself cuts off one half of the visible universe at all times, and the air spreads over us a deep canopy of blue, which during the day shuts out entirely the other half. But were the field open, we should see in every direction the endless perspective of suns and stars, as I have described them.... The conception of childhood, and it is one which clings to us in maturer years, that above the blue sky there is a heaven concealed, where