Page:Tracts for the Times Vol 3.djvu/199

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
as a Specimen of popular Religion.
51

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. A.'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..... Whatever use we make of the language of the theological schools, we should never go beyond our ability to translate it into the plain speech of common life."

As far as the words go, this means, when duly explained, though the writer could not of course intend it, that Mr. A.'s merit consists in having translated Trinitarianism into Socinianism. And that this is no unfair interpretation of the words, is plain from what presently follows, in which he speaks of the prejudice which the orthodox language and doctrine of divinity create against orthodoxy in the minds of those who are orthodox, all but receiving these orthodox statements. In other words, expressly specifying the Socinians, he requires us to adopt Mr. A.'s language in order to reconcile them to us. I quote his words.

"But there is one department in the inseparable domain of theology and religion, upon Mr. Abbott's treatment of which, I should be very blameable, were I to withhold my convictions. Among us, as well as in the