in this country,—it is painful to remark, evinces a perceptible advancement in the principles on which we have ventured to animadvert, and is more thoroughly imbued by an anti-evangelical spirit. As yet, however, he is ranked among the moderate writers of the new school of American Divines, and on that account is perhaps capable of doing greater injury than an ultra Neologian. At all events, the writer of these pages would not have felt that he had discharged his duty, had he not offered these or similar cautionary suggestions as to the theological productions of this learned and popular critic.

Such, it is presumed, are the only two points on which the author may be thought to have in any degree transgressed the spirit of his own pacific professions. The foregoing explanations, however, he hopes will be satisfactory to all candid readers. In respect of the subject itself, nothing can be imagined of a less irritating character. "It is an investigation," says Dr. Kidd, “calculated to elevate the immortal spirit to communion with Him, who, in immense love and intelligence, inhabiting the depths of eternity,' has infused love and intelligence into the angelic armies of heaven,-into the 'just men made perfect,'-and in a state of progressive improvement into those inhabitants of earth whom he has chosen. The examination conduces, when properly conducted, to a charitable and beneficent frame of mind. There is no scope arising from the subject itself for the display of angry passions. Regarding pure uncreated essence, employed in the research of that God who is love, the survey ought not to produce discordant feelings; but ought, in the spirit of Him whom we seek to discover in his own revelation, to reflect that love, the eternally related state of which, in the persons

of the Godhead, it is our essay to explore. The question ought not to engender one unharmonious emotion."*

And yet, it will probably be replied, it has been the occasion of much "unharmonious emotion;" and its discussion has inflicted wounds not yet healed. Why then, by its renewal, risk a recurrence of feelings so painful as those elicited by a former investigation? There certainly is force in this mode of putting the objection it is to be recollected, however, and the fact is therefore again brought before the reader,-that we are not the parties to whom such an expostulation can be appropriately addressed. We only claim the right calmly and soberly to defend a scriptural doctrine which is frequently and perseveringly assailed. This surely will never be denied us; nor on this account alone can we equitably be held responsible for any accidental painful results which may ensue.

Let us not alarm ourselves without occasion, however. Many circumstances combine to encourage anticipations more favourable than those on which the present objection is founded. Thus, the very quiet with which, during a series of years, the renewed attacks upon the doctrine in question have been received, is of itself auspicious. It indicates at least a removal of the feverish jealousy upon the subject, which at one time was remarkable; and from the state of the public mind the present period is probably, on the whole, more favourable to the calm and equitable investigation of the question than any of recent occurrence. In the former painful controversy, upon which our objectors lay their

* Kidd on the Eternal Sonship of Christ, pp. 16, 17.

principal emphasis, there were besides such peculiarities as are never likely to recur,-peculiarities at least from which the present undertaking is wholly exempt.

For example; an undue prominence was then given to personal considerations: and, as always occurs in such cases, these imparted unusual acerbity to the discussion. There was nothing new in the denial of our Lord's divine filiation. The arguments by which it was assailed were merely repetitions of what had been alleged by former writers. Nor did the replies or rejoinders suggest any thing material which had not in substance been advanced ages before. Nothing, therefore, could be more absurd than to father either the one or the other upon any living theologian. To the mass of readers, however, these facts were unknown: the principal writers on each side were men of great and merited influence: the views which they espoused became associated in the minds of their friends with their personal reputation: and thus considerations which could not fail to prejudice and exasperate were allowed to supersede the pure love of truth and lofty impartiality. This was one of the leading errors of that controversy; and in general, whatever emotions of anger or resentment it may have left still unsubdued, are undoubtedly to be traced to the indulgence of this gross, but by no means uncommon, indiscretion.

The mode in which the former discussion was carried on was another circumstance which exerted an unhappy influence upon its spirit. That a great book is a great evil is a maxim, in spite of its venerable age and its all but universal acceptance, more remarkable for its euphony than for its truth. Of such a book the greatest misfortune, especially in the present age, is that it is not likely to be read. But of positive evil, as all who have

had experience in the matter will allow, the large amount is effected, not by great but by small books. It certainly is so in controversy; and it was one of the unhappy circumstances of the discussion in question that it was a war of pamphlets. Every one can write a pamphlet; but then a pamphlet must be vivacious, and harmless vivacity is not a talent of common occurrence. Sarcastic and vituperative personalities are, however, attainable and negotiable substitutes, and, in the case before us, these unhappily were not wanting. On either hand irritating papers were put forth; and to the more discreet and pious of their writers still surviving, it must be the highest satisfaction that, for the most part, their productions are now forgotten.

Of the present volume, little, it is presumed, need be said in these respects. Of personal partisanship it knows nothing; to patronage, properly so called, it is equally a stranger; while its writer is an individual so obscure that few indeed will feel concerned on personal grounds for the failure or the success of his argument. It may be added, that the reader has here a book which, whatever may be its other faults, was neither hastily written, nor hastily published; one which, without the slightest pretensions to brilliancy, has cost, at intervals, the labour of years; but which, notwithstanding, would never have seen the light could its writer suppose it justly exceptionable by any class or party in the Christian church. Here, therefore, the great occasions of disturbed and unquiet feeling in the former case are entirely cut off.

On the other hand, a thoughtful reference to that controversy suggests a train of solemn and tender reflections which can scarcely be encouraged without advantage. With few exceptions, the principal writers

on that occasion have passed from this clouded and uncertain state into the clear light of eternity. How vain to their spirits will now appear every thing but the truth! What to them is the learning of mortals? What the acuteness of intellect, the play of fancy, the flash of wit? What the utmost attainable amount of human reputation? How far below scorn will they count all controversy not purely devised and purely conducted; and to their lofty and refined perceptions, what mere child's play will seem the most skilful and triumphant exhibitions of theological gladiatorship! Such thoughts, properly cherished, "like the shadow of a great rock in a weary land," will cool down the heat and distemperature of passion; and, beyond a present happy influence, may assist to prepare for that solemn but inevitable event, of which we are thus forcibly reminded.

So far for the principal objections to which our undertaking may be thought liable. The remaining topics which require attention may be more briefly disposed of. As in general the persons most interested in this inquiry are Trinitarians, the fundamental doctrines of orthodoxy are not here brought into question. Yet since these in reality give its highest importance to the more direct subject of investigation, it has been the object throughout to supply collateral arguments in their favour; and especially to place the filiation of our Lord's divine nature in a position of proper subserviency and support of his eternal Deity. Never was the mind of the writer so deeply impressed with that great doctrine, in respect of its absolute certainty, its vast moment, and the conclusiveness and amount of its proofs; and in the midst of many infirmities, where his interest might possibly have flagged in the question immediately entertained, he has been sustained and impelled by the