to an untimely grave, was not punished too severely by his unprincipled persecutors. Let their names be had in timely remembrance. Let every British female that can exert an honourable influence, think of the shameful practice of subjecting women to the whip of a brutal task-master,-of wives torn from their husbands, and children from their mothers, in consequence of the state of the law which makes them mere chattels, and remember who are the men who plead, in a British House of Commons, for the toleration of these enormities, the cry of which is going up to heaven. Let every Christian minister remember, that this is not a political question, like that of Catholic Emancipation, nor one in which neutrality can be innocent. The blood of the Missionary Smith, the sufferings of the Missionary Shrewsbury, call upon them to exert themselves within the proper sphere of their influence, in giving a right direction and impulse to public opinion.* It is their duty to inform themselves fully on this question, and to bring forward, in a popular form, the grand principles which it involves, in order that the operation of that opinion may not be blind, impassioned, and momentary, but steady and intelligent, founded on a distinct view of the nature and enormities of the system. Let the claims of 630,000 unconverted fellow-subjects in our West India colonies, be remembered too when the Missionary prayer-meeting is convened, and the address or recital given. Let the solemn and affecting language of the Litany remind the worshipper, of these children of misery, when, to the supplication, That it may please thee to shew 'pity upon all prisoners and captives,' and, That it may please thee to defend and provide for all that are desolate and op'pressed,' he utters the response, We beseech thee to hear us, Good Lord.' And let the luxuries at our tables at times recal the pathetic expostulation of the Apostle, "Destroy not him with thy meat for whom Christ died.'

* We notice with satisfaction some efforts of the kind on the part of individuals, to which we can only refer by mentioning the titles. 1. A Sermon on Slavery. Preached at Kettering. By John Keen Hall, M.A. 8vo. Hamilton. 1824. 2. Observations upon Slavery; setting forth, that to hold the Principle of Slavery is to deny Christ. By Robert Lindoe, M.D. 8vo. Hatchard. 1824. 3. Is the System of Slavery sanctioned or condemned by Scripture? 8vo. Arch. 1824. There may be some others which have escaped our notice. Mr. Wilberforce's Appeal (8vo. Hatchard. 1823.) ought to be in the hands of every one.

Art. II. Joannis Miltoni Angli de Doctrina Christiana Libri duo Posthumi.-A Treatise on Christian Doctrine, compiled from the Holy Scriptures alone: By John Milton. Translated by Charles R. Sumner, M.A. Librarian and Historiographer to His Majesty. 4to. London, 1825.

(Concluded from Page 18.)

WE have dwelt the longer upon that part of the Treatise beforefus which relates to the Deity of Christ, because it is the only one on which either the authority or the arguments of Milton can be likely to mislead. We have seen, that he has the advantage of the argument, so far as his objection bears on the unguarded attempts at explication on the part of certain orthodox divines; but, as he proceeds to substantiate and clear his own scheme, he lays himself open to the remark of Waterland, that it is far easier for an objector to shew the ignorance of the other party and to betray his own, than it is for either party to extricate a subject out of all perplexity and doubtfulness. • When the Socinian is to prove that Christ is a man only, or an Arian, that he is a creature, and that Scripture can bear no other possible interpretation, they come off so indif⚫ferently and with such manifest marks of disadvantage, that they do but expose themselves'-we will not say with this haughty bitter polemic, to the pity or derision of their adversaries, but to an easy refutation. It is, as he argues, an indirect proof of the Catholic doctrine,'—a presumption at least in its favour, that whereas there are but three schemes, in the main, Arian, Socinian, and Catholic, one of which 'must be true,'-and it can be shewn that the former two are utterly repugnant to the whole Scripture taken together,—the third is the only one that can be true according to the ScripWe have already remarked, that the Arian creed, with which Milton's but too closely symbolized, is very far removed from scepticism. We should say that it was more nearly allied to dogmatism, which ought to be its opposite, were not doubters the most credulous persons, and sceptics the greatest dogmatists in the world. But what we mean is, that the Arian creed is not made up of the mere negations of disbelief, like that of the Unitarian, but includes a series of propositions far more staggering to reason than even the arithmetical contradiction disingenuously imputed to the Trinitarian doctrine,propositions which involve alike faith, reason, and practice in perplexity.

ture.

It must be admitted on all hands, that difficulties,—or ra

*Preface to Eight Sermons on Christ's Divinity.

ther, impassable barriers limit our inquiries into this awful and momentous subject. Were there no difficulties, there could be no foundation for the controversy which has employed and foiled the most strenuous researches of the acutest intellects for nearly two thousand years. Those difficulties then confessedly exist, and it must be admitted that they are occasioned we do not say caused by Revelation. The cause lies in the limitation of our knowledge, and probably in that of our faculties; so that, had it pleased the Author of Revelation to make any clearer discoveries on this mysterious subject, they might not have removed the darkness which ever presses upon the sphere of mental vision. But the occasion of these difficulties is Revelation itself, to which we owe all the light we possess respecting the nature of God, and which has furnished Reason with the very materials out of which she would fain build her systems. But the Scriptures were not written to furnish support to systems and hypotheses. They reveal certain facts-facts wholly out of the range of experience and previous knowledge the practical inferences from which are extremely clear and plain, but which, from their very nature, connect themselves with metaphysical inquiries respecting the nature of matter and of spirit, the mode of the Divine Existence, the origin of matter, and of evil, physical and moral, which Revelation was not designed to satisfy. The soi-disant Unitarian, indeed, cuts the knot at once, by denying that the Scriptures contain any revelation of the kind; and the only difficulty in the New Testament arises, in his view, from the awkward and unhappy manner in which the apostles have expressed themselves, so different from what a modern Unitarian would adopt in recording the life and sayings of a pious teacher and martyr. With him, however, we do not now contend. The Arian is one who is fully persuaded, that, in order honestly to embrace the bare, unembarrassing assertion of the Jew and the Socinian, that Jesus of Nazareth was a mere man, he must renounce his New Testament altogether. To the Arian, not less than to the Catholic believer, the difficulty occasioned by Revelation lies in the nature of the subject: by the Socinian, who denies that there is any difficulty attaching to the subject, it is transferred to the volume of Revelation itself. The Deist, finding the Socinian hampered by a Revelation which is of no use to him, and which, he cannot but see, favours the opinions which the Socinian denies, rejects the Bible altogether.

Nature teaches me, that is, our senses and our conscience inform us,-that, besides my own conscious being, there are other beings like myself, and some Being or Beings of a su

perior nature to whom I must refer the existence of the things that are seen and of myself. Whether those things were created by one or by many, nature does not tell me; for, at the same time that there is a manifest unity of design, there seems also an opposition-a disorder, which looks like the effect of a contest between a good and an evil principle. Reason, however, leads me to adopt the supposition, that the First Cause of all things must be One and Eternal; but in what sense One, or what is included in that Infinite Essence which is One and Self-originate, who can inform me ?

Revelation comes to the aid of Reason, unable by searching to find out God, and confirms the wavering dictate of philosophy, that the Creator is the Only True God. But it discloses further this additional and all-interesting fact, that the actual creator " by whom are all things," the administrator to us of the Divine Government, the only medium through which Deity has manifested itself to the creature, is One who was, in the beginning," in the bosom of the Father." The titles under which this Divine Person are announced to us are, The Logosas if to express that he is the Godhead communicating with man -and The Son of God, whose relation to us, rather than to the Father, is, we apprehend, the principal idea; the Son of the Eternal Father, as at once" the Image of his hypostasis" and the Minister of his dispensations. This Divine Person, it is moreover declared by the inspired record, was made flesh, voluntarily assumed human nature, in order to sustain the further relation and accomplish the work of a Redeemer of lost man. And this act of infinite condescension being in pursuance of the purpose of the Father, it is also represented as the highest conceivable expression of the love of Deity to a revolted world. "God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish.'

Thus far, it will be allowed by both parties, that all is clear and undeniable. And here, by the way, so far as regards the Person of our Lord, the Apostles' Creed, the most ancient formula, stops. Before we venture another step, let us advert to the ultimate design of this revelation, or of the facts revealed. As regards its object, it is altogether practical. That Jehovah is the only True God, the Creator and Governor of all things, is revealed with the view to our worshipping, serving, and trusting in Him alone; and that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, is revealed for this purpose, that all men should ho nour the Son even as they honour the Father, by worshipping, serving, and putting their trust in Him. To this end, our Lord himself declares that He is in the Father, and the Father in the Son, to engage towards Himself on this ground the

faith and love of his disciples. Now the whole sum of man's duty is comprehended in his loving God his Creator with all his heart and mind and strength, and his neighbour as himself. The homage and affection which our Lord claims, must, therefore, be due to Him either as a fellow-man, or as God. But it is clearly of that nature which we are under the most solemn and awful sanctions forbidden to pay to any creature. The Unity of God, his Oneness, expressly relates to Him a as the Object of worship, and is revealed that we may worship Him alone. Whatever metaphysical scheme we may adopt, if Christ be not in this respect One with the Father, and entitled as such to all the love and worship required of the creature by the first and great commandment,-we practically abandon the doctrine of the Divine Unity, and the original and fundamental law built upon it, by calling upon His name and yielding the honour which he claims. We will not charge the Arian with idolatry in worshipping and loving a Created Saviour, because idolatry implies a state of heart the very opposite of that with which love to Christ is compatible, and because we believe that no error of judgement that consists with love to the Son of God, can bring a man under this awful charge. But we maintain, that no difficulty of an abstract, philosophical kind attaching to the doctrine of the Trinity, which the Arian rejects, is so great as the practical difficulty of reconciling, on his scheme, the love, faith, and devotion due to the Saviour with the commands and claims of God. His hypothesis seems to lessen the mystery which presses on the understanding, but it does so, only to transfer the mental perplexity from the Object of faith to the matter of practice, and to entangle the conscience and affections in a worse dilemma than the intellect has evaded.

The Unity of God is revealed, we have said, for a moral purpose. It may not be improper then to consider, by which scheme that purpose is best secured, the Catholic scheme which, identifying the Son with the Father in essence, teaches us to regard the Object of Worship as essentially one, or the Arian hypothesis, which, to preserve inviolate the metaphysical Unity of the Godhead, introduces a secondary object of worship. Important as it is, and must be, to think aright of the nature of the Divine Being, it is so chiefly in reference to the love and obedience which he claims. But it is observable, that neither from Jesus Christ himself, who knew the proneness of men to fall into idolatry, nor from his Apostles in writing to heathen converts, did ever one word of caution fall, that might guard us against thinking too highly of our Lord's personal dignity, or paying him honours that might infringe on the prerogatives of