bowels gushed out.

Now, that he might hang himself and fall, and thus cause his bowels to gush out, cannot be denied. Nay, the very fact that his bowels did gush out argues a much more serious fall than what could result from merely stumbling, and thus supports the very statement it is brought to contradict.

15. "Jesus," it is said, "promised his twelve apostles that they should sit upon twelve thrones, judging the tribes of Israel (Matt. xix., 28; Luke xxii., 30). In Matthew's gospel, Jesus says this in answer to Peter's question,— 'Behold we have forsaken all, and followed thee; what shall we have, therefore!' In Luke's it is said in reply to the strife among the apostles as to which of them should be the greatest. And among the twelve to whom this promise is represented to have been made was Judas, who betrayed his master, and committed suicide!"

Here there is a series of blunders. We wonder it never occurred to the objector that the same remark might be made on two different occasions. The variety of phraseology in the present case, together with the context, is clearly in favour of this. The possibility, nay, the probability, of such a thing occurring, destroys, therefore, the validity of the infidel objection. The promise, moreover, is not made to Judas; for it was confined to those who followed Christ in the regeneration." Judas did not follow him, and therefore could not look for the reward. A more careful study of the gospel narratives and more candour would have greatly aided the writer, who has adduced these instances of contradictions in saving himself from being held up as an example of the blighting effects of scepticism upon the intellect.

Critical Notices.

A DEFENCE OF RELIGION. By Henry W. Crosskey [Minister of the Unitarian Congregation, Glasgow]. London: John Chapman.

This work is not a defence of revelation against the attacks of scepticism, such as some Unitarians have written. It is indeed in itself really a sceptical work. The religion for which it contends is that pitiful sentimentalism which Parker and his school support. The authority of the Scriptures is ignored; Isaiah and the prophets, Paul and the apostles, and Christ himself, have no inspiration differing in point of fact from that which other noble religious spirits have. Such are the views of a minister who occupies the pulpit which Mr. Yates occupied, and who claims to be a teacher of Christianity. With justice, therefore, does Mr. Yates complain that Mr. Crosskey's opinions are "completely at variance with the principles and design of the founders" of the Glasgow Unitarian church.*

The design of Mr. Crosskey's work is to defend his Parkerism against the Secularists; and certainly, if the question were one of superior influence, there can be no doubt that his views are infinitely better than the vulgar atheism of Mr. Holyoake. But Mr. Crosskey makes an indifferent controversialist. He is painfully flippant, and as painfully shallow. He has no calm, clear, cogent argument; on the contrary, he treats us to assertion and declamation. When he argues against orthodoxy, he almost invariably misrepresents it; and thus proves himself as incapable of attacking our faith with power as he is of defending his own with success. The "absolute religion" which he professes to uphold is a miserable abortion. It is a mere production of fancy; it has no intellectual basis; it does not fit into all the features of man's moral nature, and gives him no light amidst the surrounding darkness. We care not what Mr. Crosskey says he believes concerning God; we hold that, independently of revelation, he can entertain with reason no notion which is fitted to furnish him with a sure basis for his hope of a life of peace and purity beyond the grave. He may allege that "the future is all radiant with unclouded glory," that "perfection alone meets the gaze, and [that] not a stain, not a flaw, not a shadow mars the eternal blessedness;" but he can offer no proof; and the hungering soul receives from his hand a stone for bread.

With respect to the religion of sentiment which Mr. Crosskey professes, Vinet has the following admirable remarks:-"The love of God, if by this you mean a

* Glasgow Unitarian Church Monthly Magazine-No. 21, p. 105.

love, real, earnest, dominant, is not natural to the heart of man. And let us be honest; how can we love with such a love a God from whom we are removed by our sins and the worldliness of our affections; a God who, in our better moments, cannot appear to us except in the aspect of a judge; a God whose paternal providence is veiled from our minds, because we know no better, or do not know at all, the adorable secret of all his procedure toward us? How can we love him so long as we cannot account for the disorders of the physical and moral worlds, and while the universe appears to us a vast arena, in which chance puts in competition justice and injustice, and coldly decides between them! A doubt, a single doubt, on the end of life and the intentions of God would serve to tarnish, nay, more, to extinguish in the anxious heart the first germs of love. But this is, more or less, the condition we are in without the light of revelation. To what, then, is love reduced, and, by consequence, the religion of sentiment in the greater number of persons who appear to have approached the nearest to its attainments. What! does he, think you, love God who opens his heart merely to the fugitive emotion which is excited by the view of his beneficence spread over the whole face of nature? Does he love Him who, following the degree of sensibility with which he is endowed, yields to an involuntary tenderness at the thought of that immense paternity which embraces all animated beings, from the seraph to the worm? One may experience this kind of love, and never be changed. If anything is evident, it is that the sensibility which frequently overflows in tears often leaves in the heart a large place for selfishness; just as our fellow men do not always derive any advantage from the tenderness we have felt at a distance from them. Love, true love of God, is a love of His truth, of His holiness, of His entire will; true love is that which is reflected in obedience,-that which renews and purifies the conscience."*

We entreat the believers in Mr. Crosskey to ponder these observations. They will find more truth in them than in the impassioned ravings of their chief prophet, Parker, or in the declamation of their minor prophet, whose work we have been passing under review.

MORMONISM. London: Longman, Brown, Green, and Longmans.-This is a reprint from the "Edinburgh Review" of an article on the rise, progress, tenets, and present state of Mormonism and the Mormons. It contains an admirable account of Joe Smith and his clumsy religion, in brief compass. It shows his system to be an abominable imposture, abominable in its origin, abominable in its teachings, and abominable in its practical workings. As a specimen of the moral tenets held by the disciples of Joe, we may quote a question and its answer put forth by the Chancellor of the University of Deseret:-"What reward have men who have faith to forsake their rebellious and unbelieving wives in order to obey the commandments of God? Ans.-"AN HUNDRED-FOLD OF WIVES in this world, and eternal life in the next." It appears also, that after the resurrection each Mormon will retain all those wives which have been sealed to him by the President. He will thus have a celestial harem! Such is a specimen of the debasing teachings of these Latter-day Saints.

A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE NON-ESTABLISHED PRESBYTERIAN COMMUNIONS OF SCOTLAND. By Sir George Sinclair, Bart. Paisley: Alexander Gardener.— We would not commit ourselves to every statement of Sir George; the subject which he handles, the desirableness and practibility of a union among the bodies he addresses, is certainly an important one, and deserves serious attention; and we know no better means of awakening the christian community to a sense of its duty in this matter than the circulation of this tract. It is ably and earnestly written. This is a cheap issue, and therefore affords facility for being widely distributed.

OAKE.

DISCUSSION BETWEEN THE REV. BREWIN GRANT, B.A., AND MR. G. J. HOLYPart First. Glasgow: Robert Stark.-This part contains a report of the first two nights of a discussion which is to be continued for six. Mr. Grant makes a frightful exposure of his opponent. After such an unmasking, we wonder how any man can speak of the "brave sincerity" and the "reverence for truth and justice" of Mr. Holyoake. It is high time for Mr. Holyoake to close his pack. His wares have been proved to be far from genuine, and his mode of exhibiting and disposing of them by no means creditable.

* Vital Christianity: the Religion of Man and the Religion of God.
+ See Mr. Crosskey's Dedication of his "Defence" to Mr. Holyoake.

Selections.

THE WORD "SELAH."- -The translators of the Bible have left the Hebrew word "Selah," which occurs so often in the Psalms, as they found it-and of course the English reader often asks his minister, or some learned friend, what it means. And the minister, or learned friend, has most been obliged to confess ignorance, because it is a matter in regard to which the most learned have by no means one mind. The Targums, and most of the Jewish commentators, give to the word the meaning of eternally, for ever. Rabbi Kimchi regards as it a sign to elevate the voice. The authors of the Septuagint translation appear to have regarded it as a musical or rythmical note. Herder regards it as indicating a change of tone; Matheson as a musical note, equivalent, perhaps, to the word repeat. According to Luther and others, it means silence. Gesenius explains it to mean— "Let the instruments play and the singers stop." Wocher regards it as equivalent to sursum cordaup my soul! Sommer, after examining all the seventy-four passages in which the word occurs, recognises in every case "an actual appeal or summons to Jehovah." They are calls for aid and prayers to be heard, expressed either with entire directness, or if not in the imperative "Hear, Jehovah!" or "Awake, Jehovah!" and the like, still earnest addresses to God that he would remember and hear, &c. The word itself he regards as indicating a blast of trumpets by the priests. "Selah" itself he thinks an abridged expression used for Higgaion Selah-Higgaion indicating the sound of the stringed instruments, and "Selah" a vigorous blast of trumpets.-Bibliotheca Sacra.

VOLTAIRE AND ROUSSEAU.-In their whole character and movements, we see the same diversity, the same contrasts. The one does his best to add to the influence of talents that of position and riches; the other glories in being nothing, and in having nothing. Voltaire speaks of "my chateau," and is none the prouder at bottom; Rousseau complains of the high price of bread, and you can see pride peeping through the holes in his mantle. They both spend their lives in complaints the poor man of his voluntary poverty, the rich one of his failing health, still endurable after living eighty years. But Voltaire passes jests on his maladies, even when real; Rousseau would fain that the whole human race should weep with him over his, even when imaginary. Often, moreover, they both make themselves ridiculous-the one by his seriousness about trifles, the other by his levity on both subjects. But the latter, with his inexhaustible malice, is sometimes kindly; the former, with his universal philanthropy, has always some gall in his ink, and sometimes a great deal. Even when he is in the right, his tone is that of a sophist rather than that of the man who is himself convinced; Voltaire, even when in the wrong, is natural, and, in some sort, candid. You find him lie, and that often; but he does not mix up with his lies fervent apostrophes to truth and virtue. He makes victims, and boasts of doing so; Rousseau tries to make them, yet, to hear him speak, you would think there is no victim but himself. He loves to say and to believe that he is surrounded with enemies he makes it his glory to agree with nobody; and Voltaire, on the contrary, loves to repeat that everybody is of his way of thinking, except some downright fools, to whom public reason will soon have done justice. An independent and great lord, he is thankful for the services of the smallest persons; Rousseau, on the contrary, needs help from everybody, and you cannot be of use to him, but forthwith he sets himself to hate you. He is, on the whole, not so good as his writings; Voltaire is often better than his. Voltaire and his Times.

I AM not so much inclined to pass a peremptory sentence of damnation upon all that never heard of Christ, having some more reason than I knew of before to think that God's dealing with such is unknown to us, and that the ungodly here, among us Christians, are in a far worse case than they.-Baxter.

RECOGNITION.-I observe that all animals recognise each other in the face, as instinctively conscious that there the being is peculiarly present. What a mysterious sentiment there is in one's recognition of a conscious being in the eye that looks at one, and emphatically if it have some peculiar significance with respect to one's self. A very striking feeling is caused by the opening of one of the eyes of any considerable animal if it instantly have the expression of meaning. While the eye is shut the being seems not so completely with us as when it looks through the opened organ. It is like holding in our hand a letter which we believe to contain most interesting meanings, but the seal secludes them from us.-John Foster.

THE PENALTY OF SIN.-This is indeed the dread punishment attached by nature to habitual vice, that its impulses wax as its motives wane.-Coleridge. VANITY.-There are persons who would be prostrate on the ground if their vanity or their pride did not hold them up.-Guesses at Truth.

HUMILITY.— Humility is a virtue all preach, none practise, and yet every body is contented to hear. The master thinks it good doctrine for his servants, the laity for the clergy, and the clergy for the laity.—Selden.

GENIUS. One of the strongest characteristics of genius is—the power of lighting its own fire.-John Foster.

Consolations of Religion to the Poor.

THERE is a mourner, and her heart is broken;
She is a widow; she is old and poor;

Her only hope is in that sacred token

Of peaceful happiness when life is o'er.

She asks nor wealth nor pleasure; begs no more
Than Heaven's delightful volume, and the sight

Of her Redeemer. Sceptics, would you pour

Your blasting vials on her head, and blight

Sharon's sweet rose, that blooms and charms her being's night?

She lives in her affections; for the grave

Has closed upon her husband, children; all

Her hopes are with the Arm she trusts will save

Her treasured jewels. Though her views are small,
Though she has never mounted high to fall
And writhe in her debasement, yet the spring
Of her meek, tender feelings cannot pall
Her unperverted palate, but will bring

A joy without regret, a bliss that has no sting.

Even as a fountain, whose unsullied wave
Wells in the pathless valley, flowing o'er
With silent waters, kissing as they lave
The pebbles with light rippling, and the shore
Of matted grass and flowers-so softly pour
The breathings of her bosom when she prays,
Low-bowed, before her Maker; then no more
She muses on the griefs of former days;

Her full heart melts, and flows in Heaven's dissolving rays.

And faith can see a new world; and the eyes

Of saints look pity on her. Death will come :
A few short moments o'er, and the price
Of peace eternal waits her, and the tomb
Becomes her fondest pillow: all its gloom
Is scattered. What a meeting there will be

To her and all she loved here! and the bloom

Of new life from those cheeks shall never flee.

Theirs is the health which lasts through all eternity. PERCIVAL.

GLASGOW, NOVEMBER, 1854.

Printed at 62 Argyle Street, by WILLIAM RANKIN, residing at 35 Charlotte Street, and Published by ROBERT STARK, at 33 Glassford Street; all in the Parish of Glasgow.

Rise and Progress of Arianism in the Fourth Century.

THE true nature of Christ has been a subject on which men have been divided from the earliest times. The heresy of the Docetae, involving a denial of the proper humanity of Jesus, sprang up even in the days of the Apostles; and not very long after, the heresy which we are to sketch, and which denied Christ's proper divinity, arose. Doubtless, one cause of this diversity of opinion is to be found in the mysterious character of the doctrine of the Trinity. It was evident that, if Jesus was admitted to be divine, and the Holy Spirit also, there would appear to be three Gods, unless the Sabellian view was taken. How trinity could be reconciled with unity-the assertion of three persons, with the fact of one God-was the grand problem, which was the means of turning many aside from the truth. Human reason was paralysed in its attempt to comprehend the mystery; but, rather than be defeated, it doubted, and at last denied. The discussion of the doctrine of the Trinity does not properly come under our investigation as a doctrine. It is with the history rather than the merits of a heresy we are concerned. But there are certain points in the controversy which demand attention; and on these we shall briefly comment as they come in our way.

While we do not homologate the views of those who, according to orthodox notions, have made shipwreck of their faith on this point, we cannot help sympathising with them in their difficulties. The subject is dark and mysterious; and, if some have reeled back from the attempt to fathom its mystery quite confounded, and have become sceptics, surely they are to be regarded with other feelings than those of harshness. We are all fallibleall groping our way after truth-all trying to spell out the meaning of God's Word; and it becomes us, therefore, to extend charity and forbearance to our neighbours who appear as earnest as ourselves, although they may be erring. In these circumstances, we shall endeavour to look at the facts as we find them, and not through the medium of our own theories. The author of the heresy to which we have referred as the subject of essay, was Arius, a presbyter at Alexandria. The circumstances which gave rise to the avowal of his sentiments are differently detailed. By some, it is said that Arius had conceived a dislike to Alexander, the bishop; and that, as he could find nothing in his life on which to fasten a charge, he tried to find fault with his doctrine. Of this, however, there is not the slightest proof. There can be little doubt that the cause of the promulgation of his views was the way in which Alexander stated and defended the doctrine of the Trinity. That bishop alleged-1st, That the Father derived His existence from no onethat He is unbegotten. 2d, That the Son is begotten of the Father by a divine generation. Now, whatever truth there may be in this latter statement, ,* certain it is that we cannot comprehend it. We have not the smallest conception of what is meant by generation, when it is said to be eternal or from eternity; nor can we understand what is meant by derivation of essence, when the being who is said to derive His essence is co-eternal with God. And, if so, is it heresy to refuse to take human explanations of a fact above our comprehension? Is it not more wise to take the fragmentary statements of Scripture as we find them, and attempt neither to harmonise them nor to philosophise upon them? But neither party did this. Arius bringing reason to act beyond its province, asserted the creatureship of the Son. He acknowledged His divinity; but then that divinity was marred by the fact that it existed in and through the creative power of another. In some respects the doctrine of Arius, if not more scriptural than that of Alexander,

The Scriptures are clear in this point; they explicitly declare that the Son is begottten of the Father-See John i. 14-18 Indeed, they are remarkably explicit on the Divinity of the Son; He is said to be "over all, God blessed for ever."-Rom. ix. 5. Arianism is thus unscriptural, and therefore unsafe. The Christ whom the adherents of tkat doctrine declare is not the Christ that Paul preached.

M