EVENING PRAYER AT A GIRL'S SCHOOL.

By Mrs. Hemans.

Hush! 'tis a lonely hour!—the quiet room Seems like a temple, while yon soft lamp sheds A faint and starry radiance, through the gloom, And the sweet stillness, down on bright young heads,

With all their clustering locks, untouch'd by care, And bow'd-as flowers are bow'd with night-in prayer.

Gaze on, 'tis lovely! childhood's lip and cheek, Mantling beneath its earnest brow of thought! Gaze, yet what seest thou in those fair and meek And fragile things, as but for sunshine

wrought?

Thou seest what grief must aurture for the sky, What death must fashion for eternity!

O joyous creatures! that will sink to rest! Lightly when those pure orisons are done, As birds with slumber's honey-dew oppress'd,

Mid'st the dim folded leaves, at set of sun; Lift up your hearts! though yet no sorrow lies Dark in the summer-heaven of those clear eyes. Though fresh within your breast th' untroubled springs

Of hope make melody where'er ye tread, And o'er your sleep bright shadows from the wings

Of spirits visiting youth be spread; Yet in those flute-like voices, mingled low, Is woman's tenderness-how soon her wo! Her lot is on you!-silent tears to weep, And patient smiles to wear through suffering's hour,

And sumless riches, from affection's deep,

To pour on broken reeds-a wasted shower! And to make them idols, and to find them clay, And to bewail that worship-therefore pray! Her lot on you!—to be found untir'd

Watching the stars out by the bed of pain, With a pale cheek, and yet a brow inspir'd,

And a true heart of hope, though hope be vain! Meekly to bear with wrong, to cheer decay, And, oh! to love thro' all things-therefore pray!

And the thought of this calm vesper time,

With its low murmuring sounds and silvery light,

On through the dark days fading from their prime,

As a sweet dew to keep your souls from blight! Earth will forsake-Oh happy to have given Th' unbroken heart's first fragrance unto heaven!

OBITUARY.

Died, August 2, ult. R. F. Muller Esq. merchant, a native of one of the West India Islands.

He had been an elder in the Collegiate Church; and was justly and highly respected. He died in the serenity and peace of the devout christian. His last words, which he feebly articulated were, "Into thy hands, Lord Jesus, I commend my sou!."

It is with unfeigned sorrow that we record the death of that very distinguished Episcopal cler gyman, and most amiable man, the REV. MR. DUFFIE, Rector of St. Thomas's Church, NewYork. The following just tribute to the memo ry of this excellent man we copy from Mr. Stone's Paper of the 22. ult. "Died on the 20 of August, in the thirty-eighth year of his age the Rev. CORNELIUS R. DUFFIE, Rector of St. Thomas Church. It may be permitted to one whom long acquaintance has in some degree qualified to speak of the deceased with knowledge, to pay last sad tribute to his memory. Of a liberal education, with most prepossessing manners, and a vigorous and well cultivated mind, Mr. Duffie, after some years spent in commercial pursuits, resolved to follow the bent of early inclination, and qualify himself for the ministry. With his previous acquirements and natural talents, aided as they were by the earnestness and sincerity of his present purpose, he was very soon in a conditon to receive orders. Being thus admitted to the high privilege, and as he felt it, to the higher responsibility of a christian teacher, his next endeavor was to form a congregation. In this he was eminently successful. From a very small begining, by the collection in a room at the corner of Broome-street, of some half dozen fami lies, to the rearing of the stately edifice known as St. Thomas' Church, and the gathering together there under his pastoral charge, of a nummerous and respectable congregation, the progress of Mr. Duffie was rapid and sure. It was most emphatically a tribute to his personal worth, and truly edifying demeanor and character as a clergyman-and never has the stroke of death, in severing the ties which bind man to his fellows here on earth, burst asunder bonds more firmly rivetted by affection and respect, than those that endeared this lamented pastor to the flock which his hands had gathered to the fold. This connec tion, in the moment that it was becoming most advantageous to the church, and most gratifying to its minister, it has pleased the Almighty Disposer of Events, in his inscrutable wisdom, to dissolve; and we may not murmur. But the deep, lasting, and affectionate recollection of the unaffected humility, the sincere piety, the earnest devotion, and tender solicitude for the wel fare of those committed to his charge, which dis tinguished the ministry of Mr. Duffie, will be long and sacredly cherished by his congregation, and frequently reverted to, with the joy of grief." It only remains for us to add, that the closing scene of the life of such a man as we have described Mr. Duffie, was in harmony with all the rest. He met death with the resignation and hopes of a pure and pious Christian-without steeling himself against the natural feelings of a man, a brother, and a father. To those who, in him, have lost their parent, brother, guardian, friend, we presume not to offer consolation-they will seek it where he by his example and precept taught them it was alone to be found in humble reliance upon their God."

no relation to the Father. If in no relation, then he is a distinct God. If in a certain relation, what is that relation? St. John answers it in these terms. He calls him the only BEGOTTEN SON OF God.

Besides, this Sonship does not consist simply in an eternal co-existence with the Father. For 1st, the eternal co-existence of the Father would make him the Son of Christ, by the same mode of argument. 2d. It would on the same principles, make the Holy Spirit the Son of the Father, and the Son of Christ. 3d. It would make Christ also the Son of the Eternal Spirit. And 4th, simple co-existence is not generation. If when it is said the Father God "BEGAT" his "only begotten Son," it means their mutual co-existence, then on this principle of explaining language, it will cause us to infer the co-existence of each son with his own father. Nay, the coexistence of two or more eminent cotemporaries would establish the relation of filiation among them all mutually.

Nor can we suppose the peculiar Sonship of Christ to arise, merely, out of his mission into the world as Mediator, instead of an eternal, necessary, and unspeakable generation. He is the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON OF GOD, in a sense much higher than any thing merely OFFICIAL.

This we will consider more fully before we shall close.

It is this peculiar opinion which we wish to present before the Christian public at present. The Reformed Church of Holland, as is evident from her acts of Synod, particularly in the case of Roell in A. D. 1692; and also from her eminent divines, have ever deemed the denying of the eternal, and necessary, and proper generation of Christ, an error-inferring deposition-and excommunication.I appeal to the "Famous Judgment of the Synods of Holland, against Roellius:" And to Bernhardin De Moore Vol. i. p. 760-771. "The

faith by which we are saved," says the Church of Holland by the lips of her purest divines-"does not consist in the belief of those words, that Christ is the proper and only begotten Son of God: but in the firm belief of the thing itself expressed by those words of the Holy Spirit." They did not deem this doctrine of a light, or unimportant nature. It was a necessary article of their holy faith. And, as we shall see in the progrees of our discussions, they deemed it an all important, and essential article of faith, delivered to the saints.

And the belief of the Reformed Dutch Church in the United States has been uniformly, and most strictly the same. From the Tenth Article of her Confession; and from the thirty-third question of her Heidelbergh Catechism, it is evident that she has pronounced it with the deepest solemnity-an article of her faith for which she contends-that CHRIST is the "only begotten Son of God," "begotten from eternity," "the eternal and natural Son of God. And the denial of this, she has ever deemed error; and the teaching the contraryheresy.

So do all the branches of the Reformed Church in France, Britain and the North of Europe. Particularly so do all the Reformed Churches in the United States. The Presbyterian Church, the Associate Church; the Reformed Church; the Associate Reformed Church-do all hold up the same Confession of Faith as their Constitution and the Confession of their faith. I mean that which was composed by the Divines, met in the Assembly at Westminster, in A. D. 1642

1647.

This Confession of Faith, and the Catechisms are perfectly at one with ours. I beg leave to refer to the Confession, chap. ii. sect. 3. And to the larger Catechism, questions 10 & 36, &c. Now all these Churches do solemnly declare that the doctrine of the eternal, and natural Sonship of Jesus Christ is an article of the Faith

delivered to the Saints, for which they profess solemnly to contend. And they do pronounce the opposite doctrine, or that which denies the eternal, necessary and natural Sonship of Christ to be an error; and the teaching it to be heresy. Hence no Presbytery is authorised, in honesty, to licence any who deny this essential article of faith. They violate their duty to the Church and to God. They contravene that Confession and Con

stitution which they have subscribed; and have solemnly sworn, in their ordination vows, to sustain, to teach, and to defend. Men may make light of this. But the Holy God sees us and our hearts. We assert and declare, that no man who denies this doctrine can with an honest mind subscribe our Confession and Articles of Faith; or the Presbyterian Confession of Faith. No man can honestly remain in that Church, and deny it, or teach others to deny or who write against it. He lays his violent hands on the constitution. He violates his solemn pledge. Can he be an honest man who, being a monarchist in his heart, and no republican-does yet seek to gain the office of a magistrate in our happy Republic? We compel no man's conscience. We persecute no man. When

a man has other views-let him in honesty, cease to remain in that Church. If a man be a Monarchist— let him, in common honesty, leave the Republic or remain in privacy.

The following discussion on this scriptural and truly important Article of our Confession, is from the pen of my venerable and esteemed father, the Rev. John Anderson, D. D. of Pennsylvania; late Professor of Theology under the Associate Synod of North America. And here I beg leave to refer my readers to his valuable work, against the new school divinity, a duodecimo volume entitled "Precious Truth, or some points of Gospel doctrine vindicated, against Bellamy

and others."

"We

propose, first, to state, in some

particulars, the doctrine of the eternal generation of the Son; and, secondly, to confirm the truth of it.

1. Human generation bears some sort of analogy to the eternal generation of the Son of God and is some shadow of it. The son amongst men is of the same nature with the father, and bears his image or likeness. So the eternal Son is of the same nature with the eternal Father: he is the brightness of the Father's glory, and the express image of his Person. But,

2. There is an infinite disproportion, and difference between the Divine generation of the Son, and human generation. By human generation the father and the son, though of the same specific nature, are two bẹings. But, by this Divine generation, the Father and the Son are of the same numerical nature; or, in other words, they are one Being. Hence, while a father, and his son, among men, have different endowments, the excellencies, and perfections of the Divine Father and his Son are necessarily the same.-By human generation, the son exists separately from his father, and without his father; but in the Godhead, though the Son be a distinct person from the Father; yet he has no subsistence without the Father. Hence it is said of these Divine Persons, (what cannot be said of a human father and his son) that the Father is in the Son, and the Son in the Father; and that he who hath seen the Son, hath seen the Father.No human son can say to his father, what Christ says to his Father, All things that are mine are thine, and that are thine are mine.* Human generation is temporal; the father is in time before the son, and begets one younger than himself. But the Divine generation of the Son is eternal. For the generation of the Son is the eternal act of the eternal Father; both

co-existing eternally in the same in

* Joha xvii. 10. So the Greek words may be most properly rendered..

dividual essence. The generation of the son amongst men is contingent : an event that may be—or may not be. But the generation of the Son of God is as necessary as the being of God. For it is as necessary for God to be whatever he is, as it is for him to be at all. Thus, though there be some faint analogy between the Divine generation of the Son, and human generation; yet we are by no means to admit that the former is properly comparable with the latter; as the Divine perfections are not properly to be compared with any shadows of them among creatures. Isai. xlvi. 5. To whom will ye liken me, and make me equal, or compare me, that we may be like? And yet it may be justly said, that the generation of the Son of God is the most proper and perfect generation; in regard that he, the express image of the Father's Person, is the same Divine being with the Father.

3. The generation of the Son does not imply an inequality to the Father. For according to this generation, the Father and the Son possess the same individual Godhead, or Divine nature; and they possess it eternally: so that there can be no priority of the Father to the Son.

4. The Divine essence is neither the principle, nor the term of this generation. It is not the principle, or that which begets; for that is the person, as such, of the Father; nor is it the term, or that which is begotten, for that is the person, as such, of the Son. Hence our saying, that the Lord Christ, considered as the Son, is not of himself, but of the Father, consists well with our saying, that he is God of himself. He is of the same necessarily existent, underived, independent, absolutely eternal Godhead with the Father.*

*On the pages of the very famous divines of Holland there was a little difference, I presume, however, merely in the mode of expressing them. selves. No one of the orthodox said that the essence begat the essence. For there is one divine essence and no more. But one class of our Di

5. The manner of this eternal generation is to us absolutely incomprehensible. If it be asked, how the Son comes to be of the same numerical, or individual nature with the Father, and yet co-equal and co-eternal with the Father; we must answer, we cannot tell. Nor is it any just objection against the eternal generation of the Son, that we cannot understand the manner, nor find out the reason of it. For the finite mind can have no positive conception but of finite things; being absolutely incapable of fathoming what in infinite. Nor does it follow that it is unprofitable to seek the knowledge of this mystery because a true knowledge of what God hath revealed concerning it, is attainable and necessary to our salvation; necessary to our preservation from soul-ruining errors with regard to the Person of our Redeemer.

That Jesus Christ is the Son of God in the sense now declared, and not, as some assert, by his mediato

vines there-and this includes some great names and all the antagonists of Roell, whose doctrine [For he was guilty of denying the true and eternal sonship of Christ,] whose doctrine was con⚫ demned in Holland, A. D. 1692.-These divines held that the person of the Father begat the person of the Son, per communicationem ejusdem essentia." The other side, in the words of Maccovius against James Arminius, taught that "not the essence, but the personality was communicated to the Son." But the difference may be removed by the manner of rendering the word communicatio. All would agree in this idea-and this is used by those who denounced the heresy of Roell, when his doctrine was condemned-The person of the Father begat the person of the Son, through a common participation of the same one essence. Their own words are "The Father has communion with the Son, and they both have communion-or a common parti cipation with the Holy Spirit in the same, one and eternal essence." That is, the same eternal and divine essence is common to the Father, and to the Son, and to the Holy Spirit. That is,these three persons, distinguished by their per sonal properties are one in divine essence. The very famous Lampe, however, seems to take their words "communicatio essentiæ"-in a different sense, and he rejects and opposes the expression. And, surely, when a word is so very liable to such exceptions, we ought to abide by those which are more simple, as in those of Dr. Anderson, and our other modern orthodox divines. [See Bern de Moore i. p. 747, and Tarret vol.i. p. 321. &c.]