that the leading idea of the Gospel is revealed to us. 17

that the object of the Christian revelation is ascertainable by us. It is asserted that its object is "to bring the character of man into harmony with that of God." That this is an object, is plain from Scripture, but that it is the object is no where told us; no where is it represented as the object in such sense, that we may take it as a key or rule, whereby to arrange and harmonize the various parts of the revelation,-which is the use to which the author puts it. God's works look many ways; they have objects (to use that mere human word) innumerable; they are full of eyes before and behind, and like the cherubim in the Prophet's vision, advance forward to diverse points at once. But it is plainly unlawful and presumptuous to make one of those points, which happen to be revealed to us, the réλoç tɛλɛlóratov of His providence, and to subject every thing else to it. It plainly savours of the Rationalism already condemned; for what is it but to resolve, that what is revealed to us, is and shall be a complete system; to reject every thing but what is so complete; and to disallow the notion of revelation as a collection of fragments of a great scheme, the notion under which the most profound human philosophy is accustomed to regard it?

'Christianity," says Bishop Butler, "is a scheme quite beyond our comprehension. The moral government of GOD is exercised by gradually conducting things so in the course of His providence, that every one at length and upon the whole shall receive according to his deserts; and neither fraud nor violence, but truth and right, shall finally prevail. Christianity is a particular scheme under this general plan of providence, and a part of it, conducive to its completion, with regard to mankind; consisting itself also of various parts and a mysterious economy, which has been carrying on from the time the world came into its present wretched state, and is still carrying on for its recovery by a divine person, the Messiah, who is to gather together in one the children of GOD, that are scattered abroad,' and establish an everlasting kingdom, wherein dwelleth righteousness.' Parts likewise of this economy, are the miraculous system of the HOLY GHOST, and His ordinary assistance as given to good men; the invisible government which CHRIST exercises over His Church ....and His future return to judge the world in righteousness, and completely re-establish the kingdom of GOD...... Now little, surely, need be said to show, that this system or scheme of things is but imperfectly comprehended by us. The Scripture expressly asserts it to be so. And, indeed, one cannot read a passage relating to this great mystery of godliness, but what immediately VOL. III.-73.

....

C

runs up into something which shows us our ignorance in it, as every thing in nature shows our ignorance in the constitution of nature 1."

In this passage the great philosopher, though led by his line of argument to speak of the Dispensation entirely in its reference to man, still declares that even then its object is not identical with man's happiness, but that it is justice and truth; while viewed in itself, every part of it runs up into mystery.

Right reason, then, and faith combine to lead us, instead of measuring a divine revelation by human standards, or systematizing, except so far as it does so itself, to take what is given as we find it, to use it and be content. E.g. Scripture says that CHRIST died for sinners-so far we may systematize; that He rose for our justification, that He went that the SPIRIT might come. Such and such like portions of a scheme are revealed, and we may use them, but no farther. On the other hand, the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity is a mere juxtaposition of separate truths, which to our minds involve inconsistency, when viewed together; nothing more being attempted, for nothing more is told us. Arrange and contrast them we may and do; systematize (i. e. reduce them into an intelligible dependence on each other, or harmony with each other) we may not; unless indeed any such oversight of Revelation, such right of subjecting it to our understandings, is committed to us by Revelation itself. What then must be thought of the confident assumption, without proof attempted, contained in the following sentence, already quoted?

"The first faint outline of Christianity presents to us a view of GOD operating on the characters of men through a manifestation of His own character, in order that, by leading them to participate in some measure in His moral likeness, they may also in some measure participate in His happiness."

That God intends us to partake in His moral likeness, that He has revealed to us His own moral character, that He has done the latter in order to accomplish the former (to speak as a man), I will grant, for it is in Scripture; but that it is the leading idea of Christianity, the chief and sovereign principle of it, this I altogether deny. I ask for proof of what seems to us an assumption, and (if an assumption) surely an unwarranted and presumptuous one.

1 Anal. ii. 4.

Notice was above taken of the selfishness of that philosophy, which resolves to sit at home and make every thing subordinate to the individual. Is not this painfully instanced in one of the foregoing passages ? "What is the history of another world to me, unless it have some intelligible relation to my duties and happiness?" Was this Moses' temper, when he turned aside to see the great sight of the fiery bush ?

Further, be it observed, the above theory has undeniably a tendency to disparage, if not supersede the mysteries of religion, such as the doctrine of the Trinity. It lays exclusive stress upon the character of GOD, as the substance of the Revelation. It considers Scripture as a Manifestation of God's character, an intentional subjecting of it in an intelligible shape to our minds, and nothing more. The author says:

"The reasonableness of a religion seems to me to consist in there being a direct and natural connexion between a believing [its] doctrines, and being formed by these to the character which it recommends." .

Again :

"These terms ['manifestation' and 'exhibition'] suit best with the leading idea which I wish to explain, viz. that the facts, [i. e. doctrines, as is just before explained] of revelation are developments of the moral principles of the Deity, and carry an influential address to the feelings of man." p. 26.

Now, is the theological doctrine of the Trinity such a development? Is it influentially addressed to our feelings? Is it "an act of the divine government," as the author expresses himself? Further, does he not also tell us the "reasonableness of a religion seems to consist in there being a direct and natural connexion between a believing the doctrines which it inculcates, and a being formed by these to the character which it recommends?" We need not dwell on the assumption hazarded in this passage; for surely it is conceivable that reasons may exist in the vast scheme of the Dispensation, (of the bearings of which we know nothing perfectly,) for doctrines being revealed, which do not directly and naturally tend to influence the formation of our characters, or at least which we cannot see to do so. We have at least the authority of Bishop Butler to support us in considering that, "we are wholly ignorant what degree of new knowledge it were to be expected GOD would give mankind by Revelation, upon supposition of His affording one;

or how far, or in what way, He would interpose miraculously, to qualify them to whom He should originally make the Revelation, for communicating the knowledge given by it; and to secure their doing it to the age in which they should live, and to secure its being transmitted to posterity 1."

But even though Butler, and other deep thinkers, had not said a word on the subject, the immediate and inevitable result, or rather operation of Mr. Erskine's principle, when applied to the matter of the Scripture Revelation, is a sufficient refutation of it. It will be found to mean nothing, or to lead pretty nearly to Socinianism. Let us take an instance: he says, that the reasonableness of a religion, and therefore its claim on our acceptance, consists in there being a direct and natural tendency in belief in its doctrines to form that moral character which it recommends. Now, I would ask,-do we never hear it asked,-have we never been tempted to ask ourselves,-"What is the harm of being e. g. a Sabellian ?" And is not the habit of thought, from which such questionings proceed, owing to the silent influence of such books as this of Mr. E.'s? Further, do we not hear persons say, "As to the Athanasian doctrine, I not deny there is a Mystery about the Manifestations of the Divine Nature in Scripture, but this Mystery, whatever it is, as it does not interfere with the practical view of the doctrine, so, on the other, it cannot subserve it. It is among the secret things of GOD, and must be left among them;"-as if we might unthankfully throw back again into the infinite abyss, any of the jewels which God has vouchsafed to bring us thence.

"This is an

The reader may at first sight be tempted to say, overstrained handling of Mr. Erskine's words. What he does mean, is, not that the want of connexion between doctrine and precept is an objection, (though his words strictly taken may say this,) but, that where such a connexion does exist, as we see it does in Christianity, there is a strong argument in behalf of the divinity of a professed Revelation." Probably this was his original meaning, and it would have been well had he kept to it. But it is the way with men, particularly in this day, to generalize freely, to be impatient of such concrete truth as existing appoint

1 Anal. ii. 3.

ments contain, to attempt to disengage it, to hazard sweeping assertions, to lay down principles, to mount up above God's visible doings, and to subject them to tests derived from our own speculations. Doubtless He, in some cases, vouchsafes to us the knowledge of truths more general than those works of His which He has set before us; and when He does so, let us thankfully use the gift. This is not the case in the present instance. Mr. E. has been led on, from the plain fact, that in Christianity there is a certain general bearing of faith in doctrine upon character, and so far a proof of its consistency, which is a token of divine working,-led on, to the general proposition, that "in a genuine Revelation all doctrines revealed must have a direct bearing upon the moral character enjoined by it;" and next to the use of it as a test for rejecting such alleged doctrines of the Gospel, e. g. the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, as do not perceptibly come up to it.

That I am not unfair upon Mr. Erskine will appear from the following passages.

"The abstract fact that there is a plurality in the unity of the Godhead, really makes no address either to our understandings, or our feelings, or our consciences. But the obscurity of the doctrine, as far as moral purposes are concerned, is dispelled, when it comes in such a form as this,' GOD so loved the world, &c.' or this,' But the Comforter which is, &c.'-Our metaphysical ignorance of the Divine Essence is not indeed in the slightest degree removed by this mode of stating the subject; but our moral ignorance of the Divine character is enlightened, and that is the thing with which we have to do." p. 96.

Now I do not say that such a passage as this is a denial of the doctrine of the Athanasian Creed; but I ask, should a man be disposed to deny it, how would the writer refute him? Has he not, if a Trinitarian, cut away the ground from under him? Might not a Socinian or Sabellian convince him of the truth of their doctrine, by his own arguments? Unquestionably. He has laid down the principle, that a Revelation is only so far reasonable as it exhibits a direct and natural connexion between belief in its doctrines and conformity to its precepts. He then says, that in matter of fact the doctrine of the Trinity is only influential as it exhibits the moral character of God; that is, that so far as it does not, so far as it is abstract (as he calls it) and in scientific form, i. e. viewed as the Catholic Doctrine, it is not influential, or reasonable, or by