foundly in the article of Deity, in which they never diftinguished different fubftances; it seems to me a departure from the fimplicity of the Gospel, and a voluntary inclination to corrupt the idea of a clear truth, by fingular explications, which it becomes neceffary to abuse at least, in order to combat. I believe, therefore, that there is but only One GOD; that his Spirit is not a fubftance diftinct from HIM; and that Jefus Chrift, to whom divinity was very intimately united, is his Son in virtue of that union. This is all the Trinity that I find in the Gofpel; and I cannot conceive that any other Trinity can accord with the Unity of God. I know that many ancient writers have had recourfe to the multiplication of fubftances, to give us an idea of this mystery; and others have imagined other fyftems, more philofophical than evangelical, that have lefs ferved to clear up this matter than to obfcure it. But I diftinguish thefe fyftems from that of the GOSPEL: and, in as much as I find this laft worthy of refpect, it therefore appears to me little effential to adopt notions which often have much obfcurity, and fometimes are even involved in contradiction. The Incarnation has nothing any more contrary to the doctrine of the Unity of GOD, than the Trinity. Accordingly, it is extremely remarkable, that neither Jefus Chrift nor his Apoftles have ever reprefented to us thefe myfleries as including incomprehenfible things, and which it was impoffible to reconcile to reafon. GOD, willing to draw men from their errors and to purify them from their fins, filled Jefus Chrift with his wifdom, invefted him with his power, communicated to him his authority, and gave him his Spirit*, not by measure, as to the prophets, but united himself fo intimately with him, that Jefus Chrift appeared in the form of God +; that he was made Lord and Chrift; Prince and Saviour $; that he was filled with wisdom and with grace ||; that all the fulness of the Godhead refided corporeally in him; and that he received the glory, the honour, the virtue, the strength, and the bleffing, of his Father **; WHO, by the participation which he gave him of his power and authority, made him enter, at the fame time, into a participation' of his glory, in fuch a manner, that he who honours the Son honours the Father who fent him ++. Thus GOD, referring always every thing to himself, and not terminating in Jefus Chrift, who is no otherwife regarded than as the organ and the inftrument of the mercy of his Father, is always GOD alone, who is the object of our adorations; and there is nothing that shocks us in conceiving, that He can communicate himfelf to a man as fully, and as intimately, as he judges it neceffary for his own glory, and for the falvation of mankind. This is the explication of that intimate union of divinity with humanity in Jefus Chrift, which, perfectly fimple as it is, has fo much divided all Christendom. From a willingness to find, in this intimate union of divinity with humanity in Jefus Chrift, all that we *Joh. iii. 34. Acts, v. 31. ** Apoc. v. 12. + Phil. ii. 6. 1 Acts, ii. 6. experience experience in the union of the body and the foul, we have been thrown into embarrassments and contradictions, which it is impoffible either to explain or to conciliate. We talk of hypoftafes, of perfonalities, of idioms, and of every thing that a dark philofophy could imagine, to render things credible, of which it was unable to give us any notion. Some have made a ridiculous mixture of the divinity, with the humanity. Others, in difcriminating too nicely the difference, have seemed to place Jefus Chrift only in the rank of ordinary prophets. Hence the Neftorianifm, the Eutycheifm, the Apolinarifm, and the Monothelifme, which have excited fuch fatal fchifms in the church, and which have, perhaps, as much favoured the progrefs of Mahometanifm in the Eaft, as the ignorance of these nations, and the victorious arms of the Saracens. • To avoid these excefies, we must abide in the fimplicity of the. Gofpel, and content ourfelves with acknowledging, that God, to bring the world back to his knowledge and to his worship, gave birth to Jefus Chrift in a miraculous manner, and united HIMSELF to him in a way the molt close and intimate, fo that it might be faid, that Jefus Chrift was in God *, and God in him; that all that appertained to the Father + was in the difpofition of the Son, by the communication which the Father had given him of His power; that he had refigned all judgment to him ; that, as the Father could raife the dead to life, the Son could do fo alfo §: that the doctrine of Jefus Chrift was not his own, but that of his Father who fent him || that he was only the fame thing with him; that it was the Father who abode in him, and who did all his works **; in one word, that he was the Son of God ++, because that God, on fending him into the world, had fanctified him to fuch a degree, that he who faw him ‡‡, faw his Father, and that he who believed in him, believed alfo in God. • When one has once acknowledged the truth and the holiness of the Gofpe!, all this doctrine concerning the perfon of Jesus Christ appears to me fo fimple, that I cannot conceive how it was poffible to corrupt it by fo many explications, which are good for nothing, but to make Chriftianity appear lefs reasonable, and full of contradictions. In confequence of a continual defire to find new myfteries, an infinitude of imaginations have been confecrated; and it is ftill more lamentable, that thefe imaginations are become a part of religion, by the authority of fome, and by the acquiefcence of others; fo that a man pafles for an unbeliever, or an irreligious perfon, if he does not fubfcribe to the predominant fyftem, and if he happens to have too much understanding to fubmit to received prejudices, or too much fortitude to be overawed by violence. It is not fo much the perfon of Jefus Chrift, as his doctrine, that is the object of the Chriftian religion; and though we ought to honour the Son as we honour the Father, because he had His miffion, and was clothed with His authority, it is, however, to GOD only that Jefus Chrift reclaims our attention; and he affumes no other John, x. 38. § v. 21. ** xiv. 10. + xvii. 7. 10. v. 22. ¶x. 30. II xi. 44, 45• confequence to recommend himself to the Jews, than as having been fanctified by his Father, to come and announce His doctrine, and to inftruct us in truths unknown to the Gentiles, and very much altered by the Jews.' On other topics of controverfy, Dr. Courayer fpeaks with equal clearness and freedom. The original work was given in manufcript to the late Princefs Amelia, and left by her Royal Highnefs as a legacy to Dr. Bell, who published it according to the Author's inftructions, and remarks, in his Advertisement, that "the laft fentiments of a writer of Mr. Le Courayer's celebrity, placed in fo particu lar a situation, are furely, in themfelves, fufficient to excite the curiofity of the learned, and of every person who has any ferious regard for religion." The Tranflator, whofe name is concealed, profeffes to have given a ftrictly faithful, and almoft veroal, verfion of the work. To this gentleman, who, we believe, was chaplain to the Princefs, the Public are obliged for feveral learned and ingenious publications; for which our General Index may be confulted: turn to the name, in the lift, at the end of vol. I. ART. XIII. Transactions of the Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures, and Commerce. Vol. V. concluded: See our laft Month's Review, p. 468. PAPERS on AGRICULTURE. F we have not, in the prefent publication, fo many articles on this important branch of fcience, as were contained in fome of the preceding volumes, yet thofe which are here communicated to us, are fufficient to fhew that the labours of the Society have not been in vain. In the firft paper is given an account of a very extenfive plantation of trees at Butsfield, in Durham, belonging to Thomas White, of Retford, Nottinghamshire, Efquire, on whom the Society had formerly beftowed feveral honorary premiums for planting many different kinds of trees. A fenfe of gratitude,' fays Mr. White, for fuch liberal and diftinguished marks of the Society's favour and attention, paid to my feeble endeavours to profecute fo ufeful a work, has encouraged me to trouble you with this letter.' The Public are much obliged to Mr. White for this useful communication, and few, we believe, will think that the endeavours of that man have been feeble, who has converted, in a few years, FIVE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-SEVEN acres from a barren waste almost entirely into fine plantations of thriving trees. Those who wish to imitate fo laudable an example, will do well to read the prefent account, where they will meet with many useful practical obfervations on the fubject, the refult of experience, that cannot fail to prove highly beneficial to them. them. Of thefe ufeful hints, &c. our limits only permit us to take notice of two, which perfectly accord with our own obfervation and experience; viz. That it is much more beneficial to plant trees of a small fize (not exceeding a foot or 18 inches in height, Mr. White fays; we would fay not exceeding fix inches or a foot) than fuch as are larger, where they are not liable to be choaked by luxuriant weeds-And that the larch is, in general, a much better nurfe for plantations of young trees than the common pine, ufually employed for that purpofe. In the course of his letter, Mr. White mentions the following curious experiment in agriculture, which was tried by Mr. Jones, gardener to the Earl of Darlington, at Raby caftle; his account of which we fhall present to our Readers: He fowed,' fays Mr. W. peas, which is fuppofed to be rather a meliorating than an impoverishing crop, for ten years together, upon a piece of rich land; the refult of this experiment was, that for the first two years, the crop was abundant; but after that time, it gradually became more and more puny and meagre, fo much fo, that on the tenth year of fowing, the earth was fo drained of the proper nutriment this plant required, that the peas would not even vegetate within it, but lay till they became putrid; after which, without any previous manuring, he planted ftrawberrys upon the fame ground, which produced an excellent crop.' On this experiment we would barely remark, without impeaching the authenticity of the fact (which, however, we would be fcrupulous of implicitly admitting), that our knowledge of the manner in which foils can be rendered more or lefs fitted to produce particular vegetables in preference to others, is yet fo imperfect, that it would be extremely rafh in us to draw general inferences from particular facts. This is not a proper place for engaging in a deep difcuffion on the queftion concerning the nourishment of plants, or an inveftigation of the nature of meHorating or exhaufting crops; but we fhall here content ourfelves with briefly ftating a fact relating to this fubject, that is very generally known. Many perfons, who have been long in the practice of cultivating onions, are convinced that no mode of culture is so favourable for obtaining an abundant produce of this valuable efculent, as that of cropping the ground fucceffively with the fame plant, without any change, for a great number of years. We had an opportunity to fee this once done, and the experiment continued for near twenty years running; the fpot on which the onions had thus been reared was then converted to another ufe, and although every exertion was made to obtain an abundant crop of onions on an adjoining spot of the fame ground, yet it was feveral years before they could be brought to be nearly fo good a crop as the former. The second paper contains fome experiments and obfervations on the culture of turnips, by Mr. Winter, of Charleton, near Bristol. Bristol. Thefe experiments are by no means conclufive. They are also published in Mr. Winter's Compendious Syftem of Hufbandry; our Review of which will speedily appear. Thomas Boothby Parkyns, Efq, communicates, in the third paper, a hafty account of the culture of the plant called, in France, Racine de difette, which feems, as we formerly remarked, to be nothing but a fpecies of Beet*, the virtues of which, we fufpect, have been much exaggerated. It comes to us from Germany, through the medium of France; and we know the French are usually very fanguine in their expectations from new discoveries of this nature. As the feeds of this plant are now to be had in England, we have not a doubt but its real qualities will be foon afcertained: though, like Burnet, Timothy grafs, &c. it will probably have its run among the credulous. Mr. Ailway, in the fourth paper, mentions an experiment for deftroying the red fpider, that infefts hot-houses and pineries; and which proved effectual, in the laft feafon, in the hothoufe of Mr. Clutterbuck, junior, of Watford, Herts. The walls were carefully washed, by means of a painter's brush, with a folution of four ounces of fublimate in two gallons of water; fince which time neither the red fpider, nor ants (which alfo infefted it) have been seen, as he says, in that hot-house. In the fifth paper, we have an account (with a plate) of a new-invented machine for cutting ftraw, for feeding horfes, by James Pike, watchmaker, of Newtown Abbot, Devonshire. The machine is fimple in its conftruction; and by the atteftations, which accompany it, from those who had feen it work, it is faid to be decidedly preferable to the other machines that have been hitherto employed for that purpose. The fixth and seventh papers contain accounts of experiments made on drilling grain, by Mr. Cooke's patent drill-machine; which turn out much in favour of the practice of drilling, and tend to recommend the use of that machine. The first experiment is that of Mr. William Malcolm, of Kenning on Nurfery, in Surry. Two acres were divided into three unequal parts, two of them of 80 rods, or half an acre each; and the third of 160 rods, or one acre. The first and the last divifions were fown with oats, drilled by Mr. Cooke's machine (width of the drill not specified); quantity of feed 3 bufhels. The middle divifion was fown the fame day with oats broad caft, and required 2 bushels of feeds. This is the fame root which is recommended to public notice by Dr. Lettfom, under the name of Mangel Wurzel; for an account of which, fee our Review for Auguft last, p. 166, where we gave our reafons for fuppofing the plant to be the Beta cicla of LINNE; which opinion is now confirmed by the concurrent teftimony of the Author of the prefent Memoir, and others. See alfo an account of the Paris Agricultural Society's Memoirs, in our prefent Appendix. Produce |