arrears.

Our silence in the present case has not been owing to any want of a favorable estimation of Mr. Hamilton's Lectures, for we regarded them as valuable contributions to our stock of controversial and doctrinal theology, when we first read them, and we so regard them now.

The first of these Lectures is designed to prove the utility of religious inquiry and discussion, and is an excellent introduction to the remainder of the course. The second is on the Unity of God. The third is occupied in showing, that the Divine Person whom our Saviour and his Apostles commonly called "the Father," is the only true God. In the fourth, proof is abundantly offered, that Jesus Christ was, both in nature and office, inferior to and dependent upon the Father. The fifth is on the meaning of the phrase "Holy Spirit," in which the writer maintains the opinion, that it means commonly, if not invariably, in the New Testament, miraculous gifts. The sixth consists of comments on the evidence which is chiefly relied on, to prove the doctrine of the Trinity. The seventh is on the death of Christ. The eighth treats of the character of man as a moral being; and the ninth of the sufficiency of the Scriptures.

Mr. Hamilton is remarkably happy in presenting well known passages of Scripture in the most convincing positions for the argument he has in hand. They are passages which we have always seen to be anti-trinitarian, but not so positively and exclusively so as since we have been led by his few comments upon them to behold them in a fresher and stronger light. The comments are not labored or ingenious, but quite simple and direct. Take the following instance:

"In reply to the scribe's question, 'Which is the first commandment of all?' our Saviour answered and announced the doctrine of the unity of God in the language of the Old Testament. 'Hear, O Israel, the Lord our God is one Lord.' Observe that Christ did not intimate at this or any other time, that he had any new revelation to make, or any new doctrine to teach, in relation to the unity of God. But his language should be understood as a clear declaration to the contrary, a declaration, that he himself received the doctrine in the same sense, in which it was understood by his nation generally. The Jews have always worshipped God as one, absolutely and perfectly one being, mind, spirit, or person." - pp. 15, 16.

Here is another:

"I now invite your attention to another remarkable passage; remarkable because there could not have been stronger testimony given to the great truth, that the Divine Person called 'the Father,' is alone the only true God. I refer to the language of Christ as recorded by John xvii. 3.

"It was on an interesting occasion not long before our Saviour's crucifixion, after he had discoursed to his disciples on the things which should happen subsequently to his death, that he lifted up his eyes to heaven and said, - 'Father, the hour is come, glorify thy Son,' - and in the course of his prayer 'This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom thou hast sent.' To whom was this language addressed? - This is the only inquiry that we need make, that we may learn who is the only true God. Observe that Jesus Christ addresses this prayer to a Divine Person;

'that they might know thee, the only true God'; and from the commencement of the prayer it is manifest that this Divine Person is the one, who, in the New Testament, is commonly denominated 'the Father.' Christ's words are, 'Father, the hour is come' - 'This is life eternal, that they might know thee, the only true God.' It is the Father alone who is here called the only true God; the Father alone, therefore, is the one Jehovah whom the Jews worshipped. Besides, if the Divine Person called the Father is the only true God, no other person can be the true God. And is not that language of Christ in this prayer absolute, and exclusive of the claims of all other persons or beings to supreme worship? 'That they might know Thee, the only true God.' When he, whom the Father had sanctified and sent into the world, declares in a solemn act of worship, that thre person called the Father is the only true God, what presumption is it in an uninspired, fallible man, to affirm that any other person is the only true God. We have Christ's example in an act of religious worship, and his solemn declaration, to teach us that only the Father is the true God. This is the natural and obvious interpretation of the passage." pp. 25, 26.

The following extract from the fifth Lecture is a still more striking example of the author's clear manner of exhibiting Scripture evidence. It is a comment on a text, which appears to us conclusive against the doctrine of the distinct personality of the holy spirit.

"Before I leave this branch of my subject, I would invite your attention to a striking passage in John vii. 39. "This he spake of the spirit, which they that believe on him should receive; for the holy ghost was not yet given, for Jesus was not yet glorified.' The word 'given' is not in the original, and it is accordingly, in the common version, printed in italics. The Evangelist, then, does affirm in so many words, 'There was no holy spirit yet, because Jesus was not yet glorified!' The meaning of this declaration agrees perfectly with the signification which I think the phrase almost always has in the New Testament; but it is utterly inconsistent with the doctrine that there is an eternal intelligent agent, distinct from the Father and equal with him, and whose appropriate or distinguishing name was, Holy Spirit. 'There was no holy spirit yet,' says the sacred writer; meaning that there had not been any communication of the extraordinary gifts which Jesus had promised, because he was not yet glorified. Had it been the doctrine of Christ, or the doctrine of the ancient prophets, that there is a person or being eternal, almighty, infinite, equal with the Father, and at the same time distinct from him, and whose distinguishing name was Holy Spirit; who can believe that the Evangelist would have made the declaration, 'There was no holy spirit yet, because Jesus was not yet,'" &c. - pp. 54, 55.

To those who wish to see clear and striking views of the subjects embraced in these Nine Lectures, we unhesitatingly recommend them. The author speaks as to wise men, and calls on them for their judgment. If they will hear him candidly, and as wise men should, we believe that their judgment will be most favorable to him and his cause.

ART. III. - The African Repository.

PERHAPS no professedly charitable institution ever founded in this country has been the object of more opposition, or the occasion of more prejudice, in a given number of years, than the American National Society for the Colonization of the Free Blacks. This circumstance, we confess, is not much of a marvel in our eyes. We have never expected that this Society would command universal admiration, or even approbation, so far as its principles were understood, and still less where they were misunderstood and misrepresented. Good men might ever so devoutly pray, and ever so diligently labor, for such a consummation of unanimity, but wise men could hardly be supposed to rely upon it. There never has been, and probably never will be, - in this country, least of all others, - a project so popular as not to be obnoxious to the contradiction and the counteraction of a party. It will be opposed, if for no other reason, because it is popular.

We would not be thought to say that all the hostility, and far less all the indifference, encountered by the Colonization Society, is attributable to no other motive than this. On the contrary, while we ascribe the latter generally to a lack of information or reflection respecting the interests in question, we regard and receive the former for what it purports to be, - an hostility grounded on certain causes, and supported, after some fashion, by certain reasons, and with this view, at this time, we propose very briefly to allude to some of those alleged causes and reasons. It remains to be seen whether the friends of African Colonization have, conscientiously, any thing more to fear from the objections, than from the exertions, of their opponents.

A writer in the last Number of this Journal, whose order of argument we shall follow to some extent, for the sake of convenience, brings forward against the Society an exposition of views which appear to be substantially identical with those of a class of people commonly called Abolitionists. These, it is well known, are not merely anti-slavery men; for that characteristic not only belongs also, as will be seen in the sequel, to the Colonizationists, but to all New England without doubt, and we rather apprehend to a great majority of the residue of the whole country, including the Southern States. The Abolitionists distinguish themselves by exclusively insisting, in a particular manner, on a particular mode of opposing slavery. We say exclusively, because it seems to us that they tolerate no argument, but their own. They habitually designate the Colonization Society, for example, as a set of "men-stealers!"

In justice to the writer just referred to, we should observe that he makes use of none of this foul language; and hence it is that we feel the greater willingness to notice the process of ratiocination by which he has undoubtedly persuaded himself, and would of course persuade his readers, to oppose and despise the institution which we have undertaken to defend. It gives us pleasure also to find that he has dropped the stale calumny about the Society's compelling, or conniving at, the compulsion of the transportation of emigrants. At least, he does not avow it as a distinct charge, though he seems to have spared no pains to extend his line of battle by introducing as many accusations as could well be made to stand together. Indeed, he talks in two or three instances of the expulsion of our colored population by the Society, and even professes to believe that he has shown that to be their "aim"; but as there is neither proof, nor pretence of proof, to support such a position, we are charitable enough to account for the insinuation on the score of an old habit and bad company. Whether, however, it is slander aforethought, or mere jargon (to use the only applicable word which occurs to us), may be fairly left to the conscience of the writer himself to decide.

His objections to the Society, though somewhat more formidably spread out, amount substantially to the following: 1. They propose to effect impossibilities.

2. So far as the removal of our black population is possi ble, it is not desirable.

3. The Society discourage and abuse the free blacks. 4. They encourage slavery and the slave-trade.

5. They use inconsistent and contrary arguments in their appeals to the North and the South respectively.

Previously to replying to any of these charges in detail, but in general reference to them all, let us summarily explain what we understand to have been, and to be, the real objects of the Colonization Society. This may be considered the more proper, that it is not uncommon among our fellow citizens of this part of the country, to mistake those objects for the mere expectations or calculations of some of the individual friends of the institution, - generally of the most ardent temperament, and not always the best informed about the Society itself, its principles, or its history. The cause has unquestionably suffered, however unreasonably, by being confounded with all the multifarious schemes and whims, foreign to it in fact, but connected with it by its advocates. Let us separate, as far as justice demands, the one from the other, lest we unadvisedly imitate the example of that brilliant people of olden VOL. XIII. - N. S. VOL. VIII. NO. III. -37