terms Christ and God are used as interchangeable, and as having precisely the same meaning. But how can Mr. Porter prove this? is it asserted in the passage ?-no, verily. Our Lord, in this declaration, first announced that the Father must be worshipped in spirit and in truth; and if we do not believe the latter term God to have a more general signification, he in the 24th verse merely repeats that which he had announced in the 23d, which would amount to a complete tautology; we are therefore disposed to interpret this latter term "God" as not interchangeable with the Father, but with Jehovah, and then we have a general announcement of the spiritual character of that worship which is demanded of us when we call upon the " name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." But the text merely inculcates a truth which every Trinitarian most positively believes that in our worship of the Father, we must render it in spirit and in truth; but is there one word in it to prove that the Father alone is God, to the exclusion of the Deity of the Word? Not one syllable. Is it said in this passage that the word is not God, or that we are not to worship him in spirit and in truth?

The succeeding class of proofs adduced by Mr. Porter, were "Texts wherein," as he alleged, "the one God is expressly distinguished from the Lord Jesus Christ, in such a manner, that the alleged Deity of the latter is entirely excluded." There were texts in which "the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ" is spoken of-we need not quote any of themevery reader of the Bible must be aware that such a mode of expression is of frequent occurrence in the Sacred Volume. But what meaning does Mr. Porter attach to the expression -the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ-what relation does this point out as subsisting between the Father and the Son? Take the term first in its ordinary meaning, which no man, however, will for a moment suppose is the one which we ought to attach to it in any of these passages; and will this prove that a father is the creator of his son? certainly not. Take it again as pointing out the distinction between the Father and Son in the Godhead, and that is precisely what we understand by the term. But Mr. Porter in his first proposition asserts, that "There is one self-existent God, the Father, who is God alone"-and hence he must believe in the eternity of the Father; but if he was from all eternity a Father, which Mr. Porter, according to the terms of his proposition must maintain, he must necessarily also from all eternity have had a Son, so that this proposition contains in it the elements of the destruction of the Arian system; because, if the Son be eternal, or

from all eternity, he must be God. Thus we may perceive the utter futility of all arguments for the exclusive Deity of the Father built upon texts of this description-all that they prove is what every Trinitarian admits, the distinction of persons in the Unity of the Godhead.

The next class of passages adduced by Mr. Porter, page 76, &c. are those "In which," as he alleged, "Christ teaches that God the Father is the only object of religious worship." But not one of his quotations prove this point; all that they prove is, that the Father is to be glorified and worshipped, but nothing more. Take his first quotation-Matt. vi. 16, "Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven." But does this passage say that we are to glorify the Father only, to the exclusion of the Son? Most assuredly not. Every Trinitarian believes that he, in accordance with this declaration of our Lord, is bound to glorify our Father who is in heaven; nor do we conceive we are necessitated to deny that we are to render religious homage to the Father preparatory to our rendering the same to the Son. We believe that all men are to honour the Son, even as they honour the Father. When the Father commanded all the angels of God to worship the Son --Heb. i. 6, are we to consider that he commands them to do this alone to worship the Son only, and not to worship himself? Certainly not. We are aware that every man who is acquainted with the Trinitarian doctrines, will at once perceive the total irrelevancy of all arguments built upon such texts as these to the controversy between Arians and us; and we feel that we ought almost to apologize to our readers, for occupying our space in commenting upon such puerile conceits; yet upon such arguments, if such they can be called, flimsy and unsubstantial as they are, does the boasted Unitarian hypothesis rest. After this, Mr. Porter brings forward other texts to prove that Christ himself addressed prayers to the Father only. But if he became really flesh-if he were really a man, as the Scriptures abundantly assert that he was; and as Trinitarians believe, but which Mr. Porter, according to his system, must deny, we ask what argument can be built upon such passages? Why, simply that Christ, during the period of his humiliation, was a perfect example to us; that as man, he performed the duties of a man to God the Father, and that he fulfilled all righteousness. Can Mr. Porter bring us forward any passage in which it is asserted that Christ, in his glorified state, worshipped the Father? No, we are aware he cannot: we read of him receiving equal honour with the Father in heaven.

In Rev. v. 13, "Every creature" is represented as ascribing Blessing, and honour, and glory, and power, unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and unto the Lamb for ever and for ever." We should imagine that Unitarians will be obliged to abandon their principles before they be able to join in this worship of the inhabitants of heaven, otherwise they must be provided with a heaven of their own; for the employment of "every creature," in those realms of eternal light and glory, is that of adoring him that sitteth upon the throne, and the Lamb for ever and for ever. Can those who would reckon it idolatry here to worship the Lamb, join there in the universal song of creation to celebrate his glory with that of the Father; or can there be idolatry amongst the pure and unfallen hierarchy of heaven, and amongst the spirits of just men made perfect? This declaration of the Sacred Scriptures we believe to be true, and no Unitarian can deny its truth; and if so, the representation which it gives of heaven, upon their principles, is that of a universal temple of idolatry. But their principles, besides leading to this blasphemous conclusion, when applied to this text, would prove that the Lamb in heaven worships himself; they believe him to be a creature, and “ every creature" the apostle describes as worshipping the Lamb, so that the Lamb there must worship himself. Such are the consequences which flow from the antiscriptural systems of Arianism and Socinianism;-systems which have withered, as the snow of the desert does the loveliness of nature-the moral principle of evangelical godliness in every heart over whose sympathies this chilling influence has been breathed.

Mr. Porter's next attempt to prove that the disciples of Christ addressed worship to God the Father only, was equally abortive with those which we have already noticed in reference to other points of the controversy. We do not deny that they did offer worship to God the Father, but we do deny that they offered it to him only. One passage, Acts vii. 59, 60, proves the very contrary of Mr. Porter's position; for Stephen, even when full of the Holy Ghost, worshipped Christ; and Mr. Porter's attempted criticism upon this and similar passages, only proved the extreme weakness of his cause, when he was obliged to have recourse to a principle which every Greek scholar knows to be contrary to the idiom of the language, and such as will not bear him out in his endeavour to establish a different translation from the present. He next attempted to show that the titles given to Christ are such as decidedly prove his inferiority to the Father. We need not go over all these -they simply prove that Christ the Mediator is perfect man,

as well as perfect God. He referred to the meaning of the term Word, as applied to Christ in John i. 1, and gave a variety of acceptations, which he read from Schleusner, but we prefer to take the interpretation of the inspired apostlethe Word was God. It is no matter what meaning the term primarily bears, if, by an apostle under the influence of the Holy Spirit, it is affirmed that the being to whom it was applied was God. Does it prove that Jehovah is not God, because the term is applied to an idol? Let Mr. Porter, or any other Unitarian, bring us forward a passage in which it is affirmed that the Word was NOT God, and then he will have done something to establish his point; but until he has done this, we must refuse to pay the slightest attention to his "wiredrawn" conclusions. He also referred to the title given to the Saviour-the Son of God; and he inferred from this that he was inferior to the Father. Now if this inference be correct, when he is called the Son of man, this would prove him to be inferior to man; so that Mr. Porter's principles would, in their consequences, degrade the Saviour even below the ordinary level of humanity. He is called a " Prophet," a "High Priest," &c. and we believe them all; they are in perfect accordance with our opinions respecting the person of Christ; but he is not said to be a Prophet only, or a High Priest only. But we are surprised that Mr. Porter should have been so foolish as to have brought in, as an argument, the term man, as applied to the Redeemer in his state of humiliation, after he had avowed himself as an Arian. That he is a man, and a perfect man, every Trinitarian believes; so that all the passages which go to prove this, only gives support to the Trinitarian system. But how do such passages comport with Mr. Porter's avowed Arianism? why they just prove that is not the doctrine of the Scriptures respecting the person of Christ. If Christ was a man, as the Scriptures abundantly testify, he could not be the superangelic intelligence of the Arians. Every passage which goes to prove the humanity of Christ, goes also to prove the utter falsehood of the Arian theory-a theory so utterly inconsistent with reason and Scripture, that we only wonder how any man of common sense can desecrate the understanding given to him by God, by professing his belief in it.

In our next paper we shall take up Mr. Porter's attempted proof that the Word is a mere creature-his criticisms upon those passages which prove the True Deity of the Word-and in conclusion, Mr. Bagot's triumphant vindication of that doctrine. (To be continued.)

EHUD.

OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH.

(Extract from the Evidence of Dr. Farre before the Select Committee of the House of Commons, on the Observance of the Lord's Day.) "I HAVE been in the habit during a great many years of considering the uses of the Sabbath, and of observing its abuses. The abuses are chiefly manifested in labour and dissipation. The use, medically speaking, is that of a day of rest. In a theological sense it is a holy rest, providing for the introduction of new and sublimer ideas into the mind of man, preparing him for his future state. As a day of rest, I view it as a day of compensation for the inadequate restorative power of the body under continued labour and excitement. A physician always has respect to the preservation of the restorative power, because if once this be lost, his healing office is at an end. If I shew you, from the physiological view of the question, that there are provisions in the laws of nature which correspond with the divine commandment, you will see from the analogy, that the Sabbath was made for man,' as a necessary appointment. A physician is anxious to preserve the balance of circulation, as necessary to the restorative power of the body. The ordinary exertions of man run down the circulation every day of his life; and the first general law of nature by which God (who is not only the giver, but also the preserver and sustainer, of life) prevents man from destroying himself, is the alternating of day with night, that repose may succeed action. But although the night apparently equalizes the circulation well, yet it does not sufficiently restore its balance for the attainment of a long life. Hence one day in seven, by the bounty of Providence, is thrown in as a day of compensation, to perfect by its repose the animal system. You may easily determine this question as a matter of fact by trying it on beasts of burden. Take that fine animal, the horse, and work him to the full extent of his powers every day in the week, or give him rest one day in seven, and you will soon perceive, by the superior vigour with which he performs his functions on the other six days, that this rest is necessary to his wellbeing. Man, possessing a superior nature, is borne along by the very vigour of his mind, so that the injury of continued diurnal exertion and excitement on his animal system is not so immediately apparent as it is in the brute; but in the long-run he breaks down more suddenly: it abridges the length of his life and that vigour of his old age, which (as to mere animal power) ought to be the object of his preservation. I consider therefore that, in the bountiful provision of Providence for the preservation of human life, the sabbatical appointment is not, as it has been sometimes theologically viewed, simply a precept partaking of the nature of a political institution, but that it is to be numbered amongst the natural duties, if the preservation of life be admitted to be a duty, and the premature destruction of it a suicidal act.

www

NOTICES OF BOOKS.

LETTERS on SANCTIFICATION. By the Late Rev. J. BROWN, Whitburn; with a Memoir of his Life and Character, by the Rev. DAVID SMITH, Biggar. W. OLIPHANT & SON, Edinburgh. P. p. 356. 1834.

"THE mercy of the Lord is from everlasting to everlasting upon them that fear him, and his righteousness unto children's children; to such as