her Creeds,) that there are facts revealed to us, not of this world, not of time, but of eternity, and that absolutely and independently; not merely embodied and indirectly conveyed in a certain historical course, not subordinate to the display of the Divine character, not revealed merely relatively to us, but primary objects of our faith, and essential in themselves, whatever dependence or influence they may have upon other doctrines, or upon the course of the Dispensation. In a word, it has taught the existence of Mysteries in religion, for such emphatically must truths ever be which are external to this world, and existing in eternity;-whereas this narrow-minded, jejune, officious, and presumptuous human system teaches nothing but a Manifestation, i. e. a series of historical works conveying a representation of the moral character of GOD; and it dishonours our holy faith by the unmeaning reproach of its being metaphysical, abstract, and the like,-—a reproach, unmeaning and irreverent, just as much so as it would be on the other hand to call the historical facts earthly or carnal.

I will quote some passages from Mr. E.'s work, to justify my account of his view, and then shall be able, at length, to take leave of him.

"It may be proper to remark, that the acts attributed to the Divine Government are usually termed 'doctrines,' to distinguish them from the moral precepts of a religion." p. 25.

Thus the doctrine of the Trinity, as such, is not a doctrine of the Gospel. Again:

"It is not enough to show, in proof of its authenticity, that the facts which it affirms concerning the dealings of GOD with His creatures, do exhibit His moral perfections in the highest degree; it must also be shown that these facts, when present to the mind of man, do naturally, according to the constitution of his being, tend to excite and suggest that combination of feelings which constitutes his moral perfection. But when we read a history which authoritatively claims to be an exhibition of the character of GOD in His dealings with men, if we find in it that which fills and overflows our most dilated conceptions of moral worth, &c. ; . . . . and if our reason farther discovers a system of powerful moral stimulants, embodied in the facts of this history; if we discern that the spirit of this history gives peace to the conscience, &c. ; .... we may then well believe that GOD has been pleased in pity, &c. . . . . to clothe the eternal laws which regulate His spiritual government, in such a form as may be palpable to our conceptions, and adapted to the urgency of our necessities." pp. 18, 19.

....

"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 argument consists in a relation of facts." p. 55.

..its

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.

D

§ 3. Remarks on Mr. Abbot'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