Mr. Abbott's irreverence towards the Saviour. 119 This brief explanation of Mr. Abbott's theological system may be fitly followed up by some specimens of the temper and tone of his religious sentiments. In this way we shall be able to ascertain the state of mind which such speculations presuppose and foster. "Jesus Christ had a taste for beauty, both of nature and art; He admired the magnificent architecture of the Temple, and deeply la. mented the necessity of its overthrow, and his dress was at least of such a character, that the disposal of it was a subject of importance to the well paid soldiers who crucified him." pp. 50, 51, I put aside the utter unreasonableness of this last remark; but let us think seriously, is CHRIST God, or is He not? if so, can we dare talk of Him as having "a taste for nature?" It is true Mr. Abbott does speak in this way of the Almighty Father also; so that it may be said rather to prove that He has a grovelling conception of God than of CHRIST. Perhaps it will be more truly said that his irreverence towards the Saviour has led on to the other more direct profaneness. Yet a "taste for beauty of art!" This of the Eternal Son of God, the Creator; will it be said that He is man also ? true; but His personality is in His Godhead, if I may express myself in theological language. He did not undo what He was before, He did not cease to be the Infinite God, but He added to him the substance of a man, and thus participated in human thoughts and feelings, yet without impairing (GOD forbid) His divine perfection. The Incarnation was not "a conversion of the Godhead into flesh, but a taking of the manhood into Gon." It seems there is need of the Athanasian creed in these dangerous times. A mystery, indeed, results from this view, for certain attributes of Divinity and of manhood seem incompatible; and there may be some revealed instances in our Lord's history on earth of less than divine thought and operation: but because of all this we never must speak, we have utterly no warrant to speak, of the Person of the Eternal Word as thinking and feeling like a mere man, like a child, or a boy, as simply ignorant, imperfect, and dependent on the creature, which is Mr. Abbott's way. In saying this, I am quite aware that the sensitiveness of a Christian mind will at once, without argument, shrink from a passage such as that commented on, but I say it by way of accounting for its aversion, which, perhaps, it may not be able to justify to others. To proceed : "Jesus Christ was in some respects the most bold, energetic, decided, and courageous man that ever lived; but in others he was the most flexible, submissive, and yielding." p. 51. The Son of God made flesh, though a man, is beyond comparison with other men; His person is not human; but to say "most of all men," is to compare. : : : i i "There never was a mission, or an enterprise of any kind, con. ducted with a more bold, energetic, fearless spirit, than the Saviour's mission." p. 52. This sentence may not seem objectionable to many people, and as it is similar to many others in the work, it may be right to remark upon it. The truth is, we have got into a way of what may be called panegyrizing our Lord's conduct, from our familiarity with treatises on External Evidence. It has been the fashion of the day to speak as to unbelievers, and, therefore, to level the sacred history to the rank of a human record, by way of argument. Hence we have learned to view the truth merely externally, i. e. as an unbeliever would view it; and so to view and treat it even when we are not arguing; which involves, of course, an habitual disrespect towards what we hold to be divine, and ought to treat as such. This will in part account for the tone in which the history of the Jews is sometimes set forth. And it is remarkably illustrated in the work before us, which though pointedly addressed only to those who "have confessed their sins and asked forgiveness," who "strive against temptation, and seek hep from above," (vid. p. 1.) yet is continually wandering into the external view of CHRIST's conduct, and assumes in a didactic treatise, what is only accidentally allowable in controversy. "There is something very bold and energetic in the measures He adopted in accomplishing His work.... In fact, there perhaps never was so great a moral effect produced in three years, on any community so extensive, if we consider at all the disadvantages incident to the customs of those days. There was no press, no modes of extensive written communication, no regularly organized chan. nels of intercourse whatever between the different portions of the community. He acted under every disadvantage." pp. 53, 54. Under no disadvantage, if He were God. But this is only part of one great error under which this writer lies. "There was no press!" What notions he has concerning the nature, the strength, and the propagation of moral truth! "He sought solitude, He shrunk from observation; in fact, almost the only enjoyment which He seemed really to love, was his lonely ramble at midnight, for rest and prayer.... It is not surprising, that after the heated crowds and exhausting labours of the day, He should love to retire to silence and seclusion, to enjoy the cool and balmy air, the refreshing stillness, and all the beauties and glories of midnight among the solitudes of the Galilean hills, to find there happy communion with his Father, &c." p. 55. The more ordinary and common-place, the more like vulgar life, the more carnal the history of the Eternal Son of God is made, the more does this writer exult in it. He exults in sinking the higher notion of Christ, and in making the flesh the ἡγεμονιχον of a Divine Essence. Even a prophet or apostle might be conceived to subdue the innocent enjoyments of His lower nature to the sovereignty of faith, and enjoy this world as an emblem and instrument of the unseen. But it is the triumph of Rationalism to level every thing to the lowest and most tangible form into which it can be cast, and to view the Saviour Himself, not in His mysterious greatness, acting by means of human nature, and ministered unto by Angels in it, but as what I dare not draw out, lest profane words be necessary, -as akin to those lower natures which have but an animal existence. "Another thing which exhibits the boldness and enterprise that characterized His plans for making an impression on the community, was the peculiarly new and original style of public speaking He adopt. ed." p. 55. "This then is the key to the character of JESUS CHRIST in respect to spirit and decision." p. 57. " For the real sublimity of courage, the spectacle of this deserted and defenceless sufferer coming at midnight to meet the betrayer and his band, far exceeds that of Napoleon urging on his columns over the bridge of Lodi, or even that of Regulus returning to his chains." pp. 59, 60. One seems to incur some ceremonial pollution by repeating such miserable words. "He evidently observed, and enjoyed nature. There are many allusions to His solitary walks in the fields, and on the mountains, and by the sea side; but the greatest evidence of His love for nature is to be seen in the manner in which He speaks of its beauties. A man's metaphors are drawn from the sources with which he is most familiar, or which interest him most." p. 60. .. "We learn in the same manner how distinct were the impressions of beauty or sublimity, which the works of nature made upon the Saviour, by the manner in which He alluded to them. Look at the lilies of the field, says He... A cold heartless man, without taste or sensibility, would not have said such a thing as that. He could not; and we may be as sure, that Jesus CHRIST had stopped to examine and admire the grace and beauty of the plant, &c." pp. 61, 62. "NOW JESUS CHRIST noticed these things. He perceived their beauty and enjoyed it." p. 62. Surely such passages as these are direct evidence of Socinianism. Does any one feel curiosity, or wonder, does any one search and examine, in the case of things fully known to Him? Could the Creator of nature "stop to examine" and "enjoy the grace and beauty" of His own work? Were indeed this said of Him, we should say, "Here is one of the Mysteries which attend on the Incarnation;" but since we cannot suspect such writers as Mr. Abbott of inventing a Mystery for the sake of it, we must take it as evidence of a carnal and Socinian view of the Saviour of mankind. " He observed every thing, and His imagination was stored with an inexhaustible supply of images, drawn from every source, and with these He illustrated and enforced His principles in a manner alto. gether unparalleled by any writings, sacred or profane." p. 63. So this is the ashes to be given as children's meat, to those who "confess" and repent, and try to know Gop's will in the Gospel. "Even His disciples, till they came to see Him die, had no con. ception of His love. They learned it at last, however. They saw Him suffer and die; and inspiration from above explained to them something about the influence of His death. They enjoyed its benefits long before." All this is presumptuous, and unsatisfactory, but let it pass. "It is hard to tell which touches our gratitude most sensibly; the ardent love which led Him to do what He did, or the delicacy with which He refrained from speaking of it, to those who were to reap its fruits." p. 94. -that is, the delicacy towards sinners of an injured Creator, coming to atone in some mysterious way by His own sufferings for their sins in the sight of God and His Father. "There is in fact no moral or spiritual safety without these feel. ings, and our Saviour knew this full well." p. 204. "Jesus Christ understood human nature better... He was wiser than the builders of the pyramids. The Saviour did the work, and did it better, by a few parting words." p. 217. ... Such are the feelings which this writer ventures to express concerning Him, who is his Lord and his God. In condemning, however, his most unclean and miserable imaginings, I have neither wish nor occasion to speak against him as an individual. We have no concern with him. We know nothing of his opportunities of knowing better, nor how far what appears in his writings is an index of his mind. We need only consider him as the organ, involuntary (if you will) or unwitting, but still the organ, of the spirit of the age, the voice of that scornful, arrogant, and self-trusting spirit, which has been unchained during these latter ages, and waxes stronger in power day by day, till it is fain to stamp under foot all the host of heaven. This spirit we may steadily contemplate to our great edification; but to do more than denounce it as such, to judge or revile its instruments would involve another sin besides uncharitableness. For surely, this is a spirit which has tempted others besides those who have yielded to its influences; and like an infection of the air, it has perchance ere now, in some degree, not perhaps as regards the high doctrines of the gospel, but in some way or other, breathed upon those, who, at the present crisis of things, feel themselves called upon solemnly to resist it. The books of the day are so full of its evil doctrine in a modified shape, if not in its grosser forms, the principles (I may say) of the nation are so instinct with it or based in it, that the best perhaps that can be said of any of us, or at most of all but a few, is that they have escaped from it, "so as by fire," and that the loudness of their warning is but a consequence of past danger, terror, and flight. I view the works, then, of this writer, whether in their publication, or in their general reception, as signs of the religious temper of this Age. What shall be said of the praise that has been lavished on them? the popularity they have acquired? Granting that there are many things in them, from which a religious mind may gain something (for no one accuses Mr. Abbott of being deficient in quickness and intelligence, and he evidently has had opportunities of studying human nature, whatever success has attended him in it, and it must be confessed that his first work published here was of a less objectionable character, and might well interest at first sight those who "thought no evil,") but, allowing all this, yet it may be fairly asked, is the book from whick I have cited, one which can come very near to Christian minds without revolting them? How is it then that so many men professing strict religion, have embraced and dwelt on its statements without smelling the taint of death which is in them? And is there not something of a self-convicted mischief in that view of religion, which its upholders, independent of each other, and disagreeing with each other materially in other points of doctrine and discipline, attempt to support by editing a book, as conducive to it, which turns out to be all but Socinian? The reason (I believe) why many pious persons tolerate a writer such as this, is, that they have so fully identified spirituality of mind with the use of certain phrases and professions, that they cannot believe that a person who uses them freely and naturally can be but taught of the Holy Spirit: to believe it otherwise, would be unsettling their minds from the very foundation, which indeed must take place sooner or later whether they will or not. With some quotations from the preface of one of Mr. Abbott's editors, one of the most learned, orthodox, and moderate of the Dissenters of the day, I will bring this discussion to an end. "Mr. Abbott has so much of originality in his manner of thinking, and of unguarded simplicity in his style of expression," [as render a friendly editor useful.] "There might be peril that, without such a precaution, some readers would take a premature alarm, when they found some essential doctrines of Christianity conveyed in terms of simplicity, and elucidated by very familiar analogies, which appear considerably removed from our accredited phraseology..... What. ever use we make of the language of the theological schools, we should |