John i. 1, accords not with Gen. i. 1; no such instrument is there noted all along, ch. ii. 2, and the word only in John. But if we have two Creators, the one primary or supream, the other immediate, secondary and subordinate, by whom, &c. how comes it to pass that our translators stuck at it, when in so many texts (according to the Hebrew idiom) we read in the original (tho' joyned with a verb singular mostly) of Gods creating the heaven and the earth, Gen. i. 1, 27, and Gods our Makers, Job xxxv. 10, Ps. cxlix. 2, and Creators, Eccles. xii. 1, &c., all plural; that they render such texts in the singular number, (as in the Apostle's Creed too,) if indeed we are to own more than one Creator or common parent, as being the immediate offspring of Christ? Acts xvii. 26, 28. Where by the way it appears, that the assertion of Gods more than one were more defensible from the phrase of Scripture-writing, than that of divine persons more than one, for that not only we find it no where so written as of the former, but for as much as the latter exegetically added serves to ascertain and compleat the notion or idea of distinct Gods being the same thing in plainer terms. Three all knowing, all-mighty persons, are every such divine person, a God. If one such make a God, more such make Gods. A Father and a begotten Son, either of them God Allmighty, is plain enough, but each of them a person by himself and to be God and Lord, speaks more out. The Sabellians of old, adhering to the numerical unity of God, (as our nominal Trinitarians now,) denied the proper personality of the Son as a distinct intelligent being and agent. The Arian and Semi-arian party firmly asserted it, and became the most prevalent. Those again touching the substance and nature and essential propertys of the person of the Son, fell into three divisions, the Mono, the Homoi, and the Hetero-usion parties. The two former of the Nicene Council were at length forced to a verbal accord centering in the Homousios, an ambiguous term that might be construed to either of their senses, (one substance in number or one in kind only the like,) and so their forces united, they together overnumbered the strict Arian party and there condemned them. Who soon after did as much for those in diverse greater following councils. But the Homousians afterward again getting up, and running down the Arians, quite divided between themselves, the greater part of them to this day are real Trinitarians, (as all the vulgar,) i. e. for three divine all-knowing persons, whereof the Logos or Son is one. But then again owning the consubstantiality, both of them; the greater number of them, in a subdivision, are for the coeternity and coequality of the Father and Son; the other, holding both to be very God Almighty, and each a person by himself, affirm the coeternity of Father and Son, to that end explaining the procession of the Son from the Father, by the way of necessary natural emanation, as light, &c., but denying the equality with the ancient fathers, neither did those of Nice at all assert it. This way goes Dr. Cudworth and of late Dr. Fowler, not asserting with the former the omnipotence of the Son to be ab extra only, or the Father's concurse at pleasure. My friend to whom this is directed, goes the Arian way in the main. He denies the consubstantiality, eternity, and coequality of the Son, as also the hypostatical unity with the Divine Being of the man Christ Jesus. But affirming the preexistence of the one nature of his person and his instrumentality therein, in the creation of all beings and things under God, efficiently causing them to spring out of nothing; he centers in a God of God, a begotten God, however produced, (tho' a creature too,) made omnipotent and omniscient potentially, (as Dr. Cudw.,) the former de facto exerted in the creation, the latter when God pleases to concur with him. In short, God can make an infinite secondary cause, i. e. that may or can know, effect and do, all that ever himself (without him) ever did or can do to make another world. Nothing of immediate efficiency being his peculiar, besides the causation of an instrument, (if the Holy Spirit be not such another as Christ too,) a God Almighty from without, as to his capacity ever potent to all things possible to be. Now, however, I would not derogate from Christ, as yet I can't see thro' all that. What has followed on it? SIR, remarks on latter sense, and perhaps the only feasible one, does it prove any doctrine, develope any opinion, illustrate any argument, or lessen the influence of any error connected with our common profession of Christianity? If it is of practical importance only, it YOUR correspondent's terammental derives its efficacy, as all other mo test in our Inns of Court, [XX. 738,] contain a striking evidence of the growing liberality of the age, and I would hail this liberality as a proof of more correct views of the nature of this test than what have formerly prevailed. In the examination of the history of the Sacrament or Supper of our Lord at its commencement, we find in it no act of worship, no ceremonial of a religious nature otherwise than the gratitude and thankfulness of our Divine Master for his food, and according to his uniform custom upon other occasions. We will not now stay to inquire whether this repast was the Passover with a new designation imperative on the Jewish proselytes to Christianity only, or whether it was intended for universal adoption. Its history, its mystery, and its sacredness, (the last a term, in Dr. Johnson's opinion, that ought to be exclusively applied to the Supreme Being,) form altogether one of the most lamentable proofs of the imbe. cility of the human understanding, to which the Christian Church in all its periods has been too prone. Avoiding, therefore, the adoration of the host adopted by the Catholic Church, the creeds and confessions of faith attached unto the Supper of our Lord by many of the modern and reformed sects, and "the order of the holy communion," as by law established, I would briefly inquire into that view of the subject which seems now to limit its celebration to the professed members of a particular society, as an avowal of the tenets there propagated, or a test of church membership therewith connected. The universal prevalence of this rite is by some adduced as a perpetual and standing evidence of the origin of Christianity. Does not the adoption of it, by all Christian communities, apart from "its shewing forth the Lord's death until he come," demonstrate the importance that has ever been attached unto it as a badge of Christian fellowship? But in the tives to virtuous conduct must do, from fitness, propriety, or the obligation of obedience enforced by a divine commandment. Allowing, therefore, the authority of the lawgiver of the church for its institution, and apart from its idolatrous perversion, may not all Christian communities adopt, with equal propriety, their own form of celebration? But still farther, may not any sincere Christian, if equally well-informed, join with equal satis faction, or with equal propriety, any other denomination of the Christian community into which the great body of the Church is divided, in the accustomed form of the administration of this rite belonging to each? Does participating with a Calvinist make me a disciple of Calvin, or with the Church of England make me a Trinitarian? On the contrary, does not my participation prove that I am ready to acknowledge the members of one or the other church as my brethren ? In this point of view, the Supper of our Lord amongst his real followers is analogous to the pipe of peace smoked in the wigwam of the North American savages. Far from requiring any uniformity of opinion or declaration of faith peculiar to a class, its requisites are brotherhood, benevolence and peace. This mode of consideration, I am glad to learn, is not greatly at variance with that of Milton's, developed in his "Treatise of Christian Doctrine," respecting this ordinance. It may likewise be alleged as an apology for the test required by law for eligibility to offices of civil trust or emoIument. Supposing such a test necessary, could the legislature in a Christian community have ordained one less objectionable? The homogeneity of the term Christian is claimed by all the various classes under which man has been arranged and identified as a follower of our Lord. In all these classes the ordinance of his Supper has been perpetuated. Could a badge of Christian fellowship be de vised equally common to the great family of the Church? And if common to all, where is the intolerable grievance of substituting it on admission to offices of trust? It is not my intention to vindicate, much less to support the measures of our governors in this case of arbitrary enactment; it is only to submit, that one of less encroachment to a liberally-informed mind could not well have been devised. We have often had to witness and deplore the taunt and reviling mani fested when gentlemen of true Dissenting principles and education have found it necessary, as a qualification for magisterial or other public duties, to submit to this test of Christianity. I so denominate it, because common to all the Christian world; instituted without any prescribed rule or form, and therefore, as discretion may point out, liable to the regulation and form best adapted to its usefulness and perpetuity. Did our Lord sit with the Pharisee at meat, and shall we refuse to sit down with any of his followers at his table? When will sectarianism manifest its strength without schism to support it? When will Christianity so far prevail that men shall only recognize them as a friend and a brother? If this rite has practical influence, does it consist in the brotherhood of participation, or in the form in which it is administered? If in the former, how subordinate and insignificant the form of its celebration; if in the latter, to what importance * is the rite itself diminished! W. H. be over-rated; yet it is easy to see that they are little likely to do good in the world unless themselves deeply impressed by a sense of what they have to do and what they ought to be. We have no hope of the minister who is not in youth zealous, perhaps enthusiastic, in his notions of the important part he has to perform. Let him also have a quick, perhaps exaggerated notion of the difficulties before him. It is of some conse quence, however, that he should nei ther be misled by other people nor blind, himself, to the real nature of the principal among those difficulties. If his vigilance be turned into a wrong channel; if he hears, for instance, chiefly of the enmity, bigotry and intolerance with which he will be regarded by other sects, where it is his business as a young man and a minister of the gospel of peace, to begin his career with kindness in his heart and conciliation on his tongue, he will not be likely to give himself the opportunity of forming correct notions respecting the characters of individuals with whom he will be brought too soon, perhaps, by the very nature of his office, into a state of polemical warfare. If he comes rather with the feelings of a soldier than a shepherd, an appointed leader destined to head his people in a contest with other sects, the principal difficulty will still be kept out of view. He may fight well-nay, may conquer-but he will not have advanced in that knowledge of human nature, in a variety of situ ations and under the influence of a variety of opinions, which is essen tial to his being an effective preacher for the people. It must ever be la Thoughts on some Difficulties in the mented that the general expediency LL Christian Ministry. A real Christians must hail among their ministers of a disposition to regard with great seriousness the difficulties which present themselves in connexion with the important office they have taken upon them. For their own sakes and for the sake of the congregations to which they minister, it may be wished that their individual responsibility should not of choosing a profession early in life, tends to multiply the number of young men who enter the ministry without having had any previous op portunity of acquiring that branch of knowledge of which we have just spoken. We know not how it should be otherwise; but so it is. Let not, however, so completely optional an evil as wilful prejudice and blindness Let the world, by all means, be viewed be added to this original disadvantage. in a just light by the young minister. We wish not to see him imbued with * Our correspondent means, we pre- any poetical ideas of the victories he sume, how little importance. ED. will achieve, the benevolence with which he will be received, the power of truth to the overcoming of prejudice and error; but what we do wish him to feel is, that he has many things to learn from and of his fellow christians before he can be qualified to enter into their feelings; that the question is not simply one of truth and error, because early associations and habits take so fast a hold on the minds of men that many cannot diseem or distinguish between them; and that, of course, the most hopeful way of proceeding is to make one's self intimately acquainted with these. To attack the majority of Calvinistic believers with no more knowledge of them than can be gained from their creeds and confessions and a few controversial books, savours but little of the spirit of sound philosophy. But, it may be asked, how, after all, can Unitarian ministers become intimately conversant with orthodox believers ? And that it is difficult we have admitted;-difficult, but not impossible. One great impediment arises from the Calvinistic persuasion that Unitarians, while they remain such, cannot be saved: another, from the feelings of pride and resentment which this opinion arouses in our minds. Till this last impediment be removed, how ever, nothing can be done: that it should be expelled from our breasts is plain, not only from the general scope of that law which commands us to return good for evil, but from the consideration that we are resenting, not a feeling, but an opinion-not a movement of malice against ourselves, but, in a large proportion of cases, a deep-rooted dread of our opinions arising out of misconceptions as to our doctrines and their tendencies. With every allowance for original in tolerance of spirit, fearing, as we see too much reason, that some doctrines abet and encourage this spirit-with the opinion, the simple opinion itself, we have nothing to do but to refute it, if we can. To suppose that because a man thinks he sees in the Bible that persons holding my sentiments cannot be saved, is therefore evilly and unkindly disposed towards me, would be monstrous injustice. “But it is galling to be placed by our fellow-creatures on a footing of inferiority to those whom we know to be beneath ourselves both in talent and VOL. XXI. G information!" It is so; but this and many other humiliating things will be supportable to him who has learned to love his fellow-creatures with a Christian's love, who has so read the book of God as to understand the nature of his obligations to his Maker, and so studied the hearts and minds of men as to feel the incalculable blessings which a knowledge of the truth" as it is in Jesus," is calculated to convey. Such a man will not simply regard his differing brethren with a distant and philosophic candour; he will put his kind feelings in action; he will endeavour, by every possible means, to meet those with whom he cannot meet in the house of prayer, on common and undisputed ground, in works of mercy and love, in the offices of a neighbour and friend; and he will not be baffled by those failures of attention to him, those marks of favouritism shewn to the holders of the popular creed, which may and often do spring from a mistaken principle, not a bad state of the affections. A Unitarian should be willing to allow that a Calvinist cannot regard him as so fitting an agent in any good work as the person whom that Calvinist believes to be in a better state with regard to the prospect of final salvation. What is there in this that should offend the Unitarian or turn him from any clear duty? If a form of trial like this cannot be borne, if we are driven from the discharge of our duties because another man has an intolerant creed and is too much governed by it, it looks ill for our Christianity and our cause. To him, however, who is not thus easily disconcerted, but strives to know other Christians in "a more excellent way," there will be difficulties of another kind, perhaps, and not less trying. There will be conflicts with his own spirit and the spirits of other men; there will probably be times when he will feel it difficult to resist the kindness of those whose bigotry and cruelty he once dreaded. The desire to advance his spiritual interests may sometimes subject him to importunity, while in some cases, perhaps, silence may be sufficiently trying. The admiration he cannot fail to feel, if he puts aside prejudice, for self-denying and patient workers in what they believe to be the cause of God, will be seducing too. But, if strong in the love of truth, these temptations will not overpower him. And what will be the result of his trial? A heart imbued with feelings of Christian tenderness towards other men, a knowledge, an intimate know ledge of their feelings, their prejudices, their habits of judging; no cold abstraction, but a genuine living picture of what his fellow-creatures are. Instead of a vague, general desire to spread the truth, he will have attained a personal insight into its value; a sense of its adaptation to the purposes for which it was originally promulgated; a facility in communicating his ideas in such language as experience has taught him will most effectually accomplish the end he has in view; in fine, a determination to become "all things to all men," if by any means he may save some. There is nothing visionary or romantic in all this: imagination is exercised about what is partially, rather than what is wholly, known. When we accustom ourselves to speak of or preach to differing Christians without accurate knowledge of their peculiarities, we are very liable to exercise our fancy rather than a sound judgment. Experience and "integrity of attention" to the various forms under which human nature presents itself, correct this propensity, and give a character of solidity to our reasonings, which procures them a degree of respect from those who differ from us, never yielded to the individuals by whom they feel they are not understood. There is another difficulty connected with the ministerial office which it is worth mentioning. The knowledge of human nature derived from metaphysical studies is very valuable, but is apt to stand in the way of a young minister's success with the people for a considerable time after he commences his active ministry. Few proceed to that perfection of philosophical attainment at which all the previous steps of the process are scarcely to be perceived or detected, to that point at which, a certain result being obtained, there exists no longer in the mind a perpetual reference to parts of the long process by which it was led into its present state. While the studies themselves are going on, the student is apt to forget that the multitude must have a shorter road to truth. He loses time in proving to them by the light of philosophy what they believed before by the light of revelation; they want to be impressed, and he labours chiefly to inform. It is not easy, besides, for one accustomed to close argument and reading to descend to the easy and popular style. Neither can a mind which has for some time had its best powers turned into this channel, readily allow the subordinate importance of what, if a pursuit at all, is generally a favourite, and, therefore, seducing pursuit. It seems ungrateful to say to philosophy, "We will borrow all your lights, make use of all the aids you bring us, but you yourself shall be unseen, unfeltyour aid unacknowledged: we must use you as if we used you not, and have you as if we had you not ;" and yet how can a Christian minister hope for great or general success but by this entire subordination of mental attainment to the purposes of his ministry? His is indeed a difficult office. We expect from him much, too much. We call him from his retired studies to fill the station of a leader, a teacher, a guide to our young men and old men, and we blame him for failures in things which have formed no part of his education, which he has therefore to acquire after the period of his settling with a congregation. Still the acquisition is very attainable, "if there be first a willing mind," and if the various ways and means of spoiling or discouraging him be not put into action in too unsparing a manner. If there be any truth in the old maxim, “Defend a man from his friends," &c., it is a truth that particularly applies here. The lessons he may learn from those he too easily calls "adversaries" and "opponents," are to the full as useful, and are less dangerous, than those he may gain among friends and partizans. There is a species of injustice also, to which Unitarians are but too prone. They talk of their ministers as if they were not liable to the same influences as themselves. They blame them for not rising very |