Dr. Clarke, and wished Mr. Drew to enter the controversial arena. The other terminates a long epistolary discussion of the subject with Dr. Kidd of Aberdeen. "MY DEAR SIR, "St. Austell, April 10th, 1818. "I was not at home when your letter reached this place, otherwise I would have noticed it much earlier. I have been into several parts of the west, and wherever I have been, 'What do you think of Mr. Watson and Dr. Clarke ?" has been a leading question. Aware of these interrogations, I omitted reading Mr. W.'s pamphlet, because I was not disposed to make any observations which might tend to agitate the public mind, already in too great a state of ferment, for what I cannot avoid calling a contemptible trifle. But I have noticed in every company, during my fortnight's tour, a decided majority in favour of Dr. Clarke. "Since my return, I have been so busily employed that I have not been able to give Mr. Watson's pamphlet an attentive perusal. I have, however, looked into several of its pages, and am inclined to think that it would not be attended with insuperable difficulties to detect the fallacy of his reasoning, and to vindicate both Dr. Clarke and the views he has taken, from the conclusions which Mr. W. has too hastily drawn. The real subject of dispute being merely the proper or improper use of a given phrase, theology is wholly out of the question; and Mr. W. had no more occasion to introduce it, than either himself or his predecessor Moore had to insinuate that Dr. Clarke was verging to Socinianism. They have actually magnified a mole hill into a mountain. * * * * "On some of Mr. W.'s positions I can scarcely withhold a smile. He labours hard to prove that there may be nothing contradictory in a contradiction; that for a given fact to be contradicted, means the same as for it to be incomprehensible; and that, although positions may be destructive of each other, this furnishes no proof why we should hesitate to believe them! I do readily allow that credulity may swallow what faith may reject; but perhaps credulity and faith mean the same thing! * * * * * "The divine nature of Christ was either begotten or it was not. If begotten, then it was not underived, and, consequently, cannot be eternal; but if not begotten, then the eternal nameship, rather than sonship, must be given up. As the term Eter nal Son is not to be found in Scripture, no man has a right to teach for doctrines the commandments of men; and it is highly illiberal to load with opprobrious epithets a man who hesitates to subscribe to what he conceives to be contradictory proposi tions. "On Mr. Watson's pamphlet I have made a few remarks as I have read, but would much rather that its contents should be buried in oblivion than that the controversy should be prolonged. 66 Wishing every blessing, I remain, "MY VERY DEAR SIR, "St. Austell, Cornwall, Nov. 25, 1818. "On the subject of the eternal nameship or sonship, as it is called, my objection to adopt the phrase lies within a very narrow compass. In my view, the term Son necessarily includes commencement of existence: but the adjective eternal necessarily precludes all commencement of existence. Here, then, we have two ideas which are mutually subversive of each other. If you, by any process of reasoning, can remove the contradictoriness of these ideas, then all my further objections are of little weight. But until this be done, all that I have ever seen advanced amounts to nothing. I do not doubt that the Person denominated the Son of God is eternal in his essence; but I doubt whether the term Son is suitable to express that idea. The point in debate is not, therefore, a doctrine, but a question of philology; although I find that all who have written in favour of eternal sonship have lost sight of the philological import of the phrase, and have conjured the phantom up into a doctrine, in which fancy has seen the Trinity involved. To these points any person who would convince me of the propriety of that phrase must direct his arguments, otherwise all is lost labour. You have advanced many things in your last, now before me, in favour of the eternal personality of the divine nature of the Son; but I can find nothing that makes it appear that the term Son can be made to express eternity of existence. To this point I had, in all my letters, I believe, called your attention; but found, from your replies, that I had invited you to it in vain ; and I was not solicitous to prolong a controversy which presaged a termination just where it began. "When Mr. Watson's pamphlet on the Eternal Sonship appeared, I had some thoughts of writing a reply to it; but fear wast. h a reply would not be attended with any beneficial conices, I desisted until Conference with the Methodists When that period arrived, I found that nothing was said; and, as the affair was likely to sleep in its own insignificance, I dismissed from my mind all thoughts of renewing the subject. * * * * * "I frankly acknowledge that I am not convinced by your arguments in favour of the Eternal Sonship; but I can have no objection that you view them in all that force which I have not been able to perceive. The reason why I cannot attach weight to your arguments is, that you have not met my objection arising from the incompatibility of the two terms eternal and Son. The term Son seems founded on earthly analogy; but I am at a loss to conceive it possible that this term can express unoriginated existence. I should not ask how these things can be: an explanation that should render their mode of existence comprehensible is not to be expected. All I can hope to learn from investigation is, that no contradictory ideas are included in the proposition; and, when this is perceived, all besides must be resolved into the unfathomable ocean of infinity. But if, on the contrary, in any proposition, two ideas are introduced which are mutually subversive of each other, it is totally impossible that such a proposition can become an object of my belief; and, consequently, no interpretation of Scripture can be right which inevitably leads to such contradictory ideas. On this simple ground I take my stand; and no moral argument can dislodge me from it, unless the contradictoriness of the ideas included in the terms eternal and Son be done away. This is a task which I do not recollect any person has attempted to perform, amid all that has been said and written on the present occasion; nor have I any expectation of ever seeing the arduous task accomplished. To raise an outery of heresy, as several have done, against Dr. Clarke,* and to bring forth the authority of fathers and councils, will form but a poor substitute for argument. It * An American correspondent of Mr. Drew's, in a letter dated August, 1818, referring to the year 1785, when Dr. Clarke was stationed at St. Austell, observes, "I remember å sermon he preached, from "Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee.' Old Charles Slade was present. The opinion of which you speak was then advanced, and it seemed to shed new light into the old man's mind. Heresy was cried up, by the Calvinists especially, and by all others who had pinned their faith upon the ancient Trinitarian system. Some, however, dared to think for themselves, and thought that Adam might be right after all." does not require a long life to learn that the defenceless part of every creed is generally guarded with anathemas. If, my dear friend, you can advance any thing to prove that Son or begotten can be united to eternal without involving contradictory ideas, I shall have no objection to the use of these phrases. I do not want arguments to prove a Trinity, nor to prove the eternity of Him who is known to us as the Son of God. I only doubt the propriety of the terms used to express that idea. 66 I remain, my very dear friend, "Yours most sincerely and truly, "Rev. Professor Kidd, Aberdeen." SECTION XXII. Mr. Drew's removal to Liverpool-His friendly reception there-Commencement of the Imperial Magazine-Intimacy with Dr. Clarke's family-Destruction of the Caxton premises by fire. WE open now a new page in the history of Mr. Drew's life, -his removal from his native county. This occurred in January, 1819. The occasion will, we think, be presented to the reader more agreeably in the original correspondence than in any other form. "MY DEAR SAM, "Millbrook, Prescot, Lancashire, "Oct. 29, 1818. "I now write to know what you are doing, and the reason is the following. The partnership between Messrs. Nuttall, Fisher, and Dixon is dissolved; and the whole is now in the hands of Mr. Fisher. When I found he was quite settled, I earnestly recommended you to him, as a writer and editor, and soon proved to him that it might be to his advantage to have such a person in his employ; at the same time, that he should make it worth your while to be thus employed. He came into my plan, and I told him I would write to you. I told him I hoped his salary would be a rising one; but that you must commence with a sufficiency to keep the wolf from the door. This he quite admitted; and I believe any thing I could in conscience and honour name, he would not hesitate to give. "Now, I most cordially recommend the place,—and have no doubt of its being a comfortable maintenance for you for life: and if you will work, to get things out of hand (for he is a wonderful man for despatch), then you will well agree. You may enter on the work any hour you please,-the sooner the better. Now, can you come? and will you come, first, and spy out the land? This, I think, would be well. You will find in Liverpool such society as will be pleased with you, and you with them. Drop me a hint what you would expect, that I may the better know how to shape my course. I need not say that it will be a pleasure to me to have you near me; and perhaps my direction and advice, in some things which I should know better than you, may be useful. "Write immediately. I think you will vastly like the country, the place, and the society. I shall get you the acquaintance of the first literary men in England. "Yours, dear Drew, affectionately, "Mr. Samuel Drew, St. Austell, Cornwall." "DEAR SAM, "Millbrook, Prescot, Nov. 9, 1818. "Late on Saturday evening I received your letter; went int the same evening to Liverpool, and laid it before Mr. F.; and have now to communicate the following information :- "1. To answer Mr. F.'s purpose, you must live in Liverpool. Such is the nature of his business, that out of it you would be of little or no use to him. "2. He considers Dr. Coke's terms as nothing by which he should be guided; as he knows not of any similar example in the trade. "3. He thinks that you might leave your present business in the hands of your family, at least for a few months, and come down and begin work; and in that time you could look about you. He wishes to publish the first number of a Magazine on the 1st of January, 1819; and, to compile that number, you should be immediately on the spot. The time is very short; I fear, too short. "4. You can have a comfortable lodging at one of our friends', and reasonable; and therefore there would be no need of an immediate family establishment. 5. Though he would not bind himself to any thing in future, yet he wishes, bona fide, if you and he agree, and you should find it your interest, and he his, that the employment |