Adam, the children of Seth, the Romans and Philippians, and all true Christians. Jesus resembled all the rest of the creation in this, that he derived his existence from Jehovah, and was therefore like them "a son of God." But he is styled emphatically in Scripture "the Son," that is, the peculiar Son of God." And to this distinction he was, in several respects, justly entitled. He best deserves the name of "the Son" who renders most strict obedience to his Father. This perfect obedience Jesus, and Jesus alone, exhibited; and therefore he, and he alone, is "the Son." Besides, the marks of affection which God bestowed upon him, raised him to the eminent station of his peculiar Son. "The Son of God" is the Son whom God best loves and mostly honours. Now, God frequently styles Jesus his "beloved" Son; as he also does in this chapter. God selected him to be the bearer of the glad tidings; God gave him the Spirit without measure; God heard him always while he remained on earth; God raised him from the dead, and then declared him to be his own Son with power; God has since highly exalted him to be a Prince and a Saviour; God has appointed him to judge the world in righteousness;—God has set him down at his own right hand in heavenly places. Well, then, is Jesus styled "the Son of God;" well did the voice from heaven proclaim, at his baptism, "This is my beloved Son, in whom I an well pleased."

wwwwwwwwww

am

ON SEEING A POLYANTHUS IN BLOOM IN JANUARY.

WELCOME, Sweet harbinger of Spring,
Thrice welcome, lowly gentle thing!
But wherefore from thy bed of earth
Dost thou spring thus early forth?
Is it to tell the languid eye,

Of healthful breeze and brightening sky?
To whisper peace, to whisper hope,
And tinge with joy pale sorrow's cup?
Guest of earth, pure child of Heaven,
So kindly lent, or kindly given;
Oh may thy fragrance, form, and hue,
My incense point where it is due!

Glasgow, January, 1840.

REVIEW.

Unitarianism Confuted: a Series of Lectures, by Thirteen Clergymen of the Church of England. Liverpool, Perris; Hamilton, Adams, & Co., London.

Unitarianism Defended: a Series of Lectures, by Three Protestant Dissenting Ministers of Liverpool. Liverpool, Willmer & Smith; John Green, London.

SEVERAL of the Lectures contained in these volumes we have already reviewed. To the remainder we intend to devote a few brief remarks, concluding with some general observations on the whole. The seventh in the series on the Trinitarian side, is that of the Rev. David James, entitled "The Doctrine of the Trinity proved as a consequence from the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ." The lecturer takes a wider range than his title indicates. He proposes to prove the Trinity generally; and in so doing, he has advanced four propositions,—the first of which is, that from the works of creation we cannot discover the moral character and unity of God; and the closing one, that One Jehovah and three distinct Agents, possessing divine perfections, are presented to our notice throughout the Bible. In disowning the testimony of nature, as valid proof of the moral character and unity of God, (in order to make room for patched-up evidence of the Trinity, derived from the modern argument of Hebrew plurals, and texts-but not their meaningsgathered from Genesis to the Apocalypse,) Mr. James has laid the foundation of universal scepticism, instead of driving us, as he wished, into belief in a revealed Trinity. For if, as he maintains, for anything we can learn from creation, God may be one, or two, or ten thousand; and if the good and evil in the world, as he thinks, more naturally lead to the conclusion that there are two opposite Divine Agents-of good and evil-than that God is One, the question will occur, when a revelation is offered, exhibiting signs of divine authority, Is this revelation an emanation from one, or two, or all the Divine Agents who may have created the world, and whose number a study of nature had not previously determined, because, according to our lecturer, it could not determine? The question will occur, If nature teaches more probably

the existence of two Gods than of one, is the revelation presented to us, a real emanation from the good Deity, because its signs are good? or is it an imposture in his name, emanating from the evil Deity, and to be disregarded, because it employs signs of goodness only to decoy to purposes of unknown evil? If Mr. James' scepticism of nature be reasonable, these further doubts follow as matters of course, nor can we avoid thus falling into universal scepticism. Our lecturer, however, probably did not foresee this conclusion, whatever "consequence" the title of his lecture promises; otherwise he who is so bold in his asseverations without proof of Unitarian infidelity, would have steered clear of such a dangerous termination to his speculations. We question whether the majority of his brethren will thank him for giving up so much, and risking so much more, even to maintain the Trinity. It is also questionable, whether they will hold his explanation entirely orthodox, or serviceable, by which he attempts to overturn the Unitarian argument, that Christ is not God, because his subordination to the only God, the Father, is maintained in so many passages of Scripture. This subordination Mr. James admits, but he contends that it results not from Christ's being unequal to God, the Father, in his nature, but from a mutual covenant between Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, by which the three, though in their nature essentially equal, agree to act certain parts towards men, requiring subordination of office. "In this covenant, which was one of mutual agreement between the sacred three, it was arranged that the Father should sustain in his own person the original dignity and inherent rights of Godhead, as Creator and Moral Governor of the world, and make his demands accordingly; that the Word should become officially subordinate to the Father; * * that the Holy Ghost should take charge of all that was to be done in man, in the way of renewing the heart, &c. And as this work of the Spirit was, in point of order, supplemental to that of the Son as Redeemer, and altogether founded upon it, it was expedient that the Spirit should act in official subordination to the Son as well as the Father. * * Such is precisely the point of view in which the three Divine Persons are presented to our notice in the

New Testament. The Father is always described as sustaining the full dignity of Godhead, as the commanding mind, the originator of man's salvation, the Head of Christ, to whose will everything is resolved. The Son is constantly set forth in his mediatorial capacity, as our Prophet, High Priest, Lord and King, &c." p. 400, 401. If this be true, how can Mr. James prove the co-equality of three Divine Persons? If the works of creation be silent, and the New Testament always describe the Father as the commanding mind, as sustaining the full dignity of Godhead, &c., how did our lecturer learn the doctrine of a co-equal Trinity? His explanation, in vainly attempting, by an ingenious device, to destroy a Unitarian argument, has involved in imminent peril the orthodoxy he seeks to establish; not every one, we suspect, of his brethren will venture so far, even in the delightful sport of hunting down Unitarianism.

Mr. Thom's lecture is not a reply to his opponents' peculiar arguments; yet it implies the overthrow of his labours, by proving "The Unscriptural Origin and Ecclesiastical History of the Doctrine of the Trinity." This subject Mr. Thom has moulded into a shape at once highly useful and agreeable to readers, for which he deserves the more praise, when it is considered how many repulsive elements occur in ecclesiastical investigations. The Church of England's three Creeds form the text of his exposition, in describing the progress of Trinitarianism from its petty spring-like beginning, till it reaches the breadth and fulness and strength of a mighty river, as we see it in the Athanasian symbol. The nature and influence of the Platonic Philosophy he has ably portrayed, to which, more than any other cause, the departure from the primitive faith of Jesus is to be attributed. The anti-Trinitarian character of the Scripture is also forcibly stated. The lecturer concludes his highly interesting discourse with a brief summary of his argument,— that neither nature nor Scripture teaches a Trinity; but "Gentile Philosophy and Ecclesiastical History are Trinitarian. In their passages we find this subject. Ecclesiastical History has narrated the rise and progress of these doctrines, and to Ecclesiastical History shall they finally be referred, when another chapter is added-a chapter

that unhappily yet remains to be written-the history of their decline and fall."-p. 75.

The Rev. R. P. Buddicom's lecture, "The Atonement indispensable to the necessities of guilty man, and shown to stand or fall with the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ," has some points worth discussion; but after giving considerable space to Mr. M'Neile's ingenious pleadings on very similar ground of debate, we must here forbear. One difference of this lecture from Mr. M'Neile's, lies in the more extensive notice which it takes of Unitarian objections and explanations. The lecturer is pleased to ascribe to the Editor of this Journal some share in originating the present controversy, on account of a volume of lectures published by him in Liverpool about twenty years ago. If, indeed, after this interval, the Editor's lectures have been instrumental in awakening such discussion as the present, he has certainly no reason to be ashamed, but cause to rejoice that public attention has been directed to the great questions of religion, moral duty, and human happiness. It is not controversy that is to be deprecated, but the unfair mode in which it is often conducted, and the uncharitable spirit which it often manifests.

The foundation on which Mr. Buddicom's argument is laid is, that man is fallen from the state in which God created him, without powers capable, by a natural process of developement and discipline, of finding favour in the sight of God. This foundation is overturned-and, consequently, the argument built on it is overthrown-by the Rev. Henry Giles's Lecture, "Man the Image of God." It conceals not man's defects, while it depicts his powers for goodness and for greatness. It disguises not the fact of his sins; but it ascribes, and that truly, these sins to a contradiction of the design of his being, not to conformity with a fallen nature. The problem of man may not be fully solved, the human mind may not yet know all the destiny of humanity; but so far as facts warrant, so far as Scripture has revealed, Mr. Giles has taken up the subject, and forcibly and eloquently proved that, with all his errors, man is still made in the image of God. "Sin," says Mr. G. " is not a following of nature, but a violence on it-not conformity, but contradiction to it.