Saviour and the Holy Spirit has been precluded, as a vain attempt to penetrate into a secret not at all revealed. These topics have nevertheless been discussed in the remaining sermons, and therefore require to be here examined, that the opinions particularly advocated by the author may be proved to be inconsistent with the genuine interpretation of the sacred writings.

That these opinions will not bear the test of a fair examination of the scriptures, every man indeed, who reverences the whole of the sacred volume, and regards it as recording the dictates of divine wisdom, will naturally be led at once to conclude. The writer himself, by his anxiety to reduce the authoritative communications of our faith, not merely to the narratives of the evangelists, but even to a digest of that which has been explicitly declared in common by all, has suggested a peruasion, that his opinions could not be maintained, if the other parts of the New Testament be allowed to have authority; and by his other distinction, which rejects, as an undesigned and merely speculative communication, every doctrine except that of the existence of a God, he has even taught us to conclude, without further enquiry, that the little residue of the New Testament, to which he would allow authority, would be found to contain statements repugnant to his system, which must therefore by such a distinction be

excluded from the discussion. The conclusion thus suggested by the preparatory observations of doctor Bruce, will, it is believed, be amply justified by a detailed examination of his te

nets.

Of the fifth sermon, which treats of the nature of God, it does not appear necessary to make any observation, except that it concludes with stating a principle, which, by the ambiguity of a word, may lead into an important error. Remember," says the author, "that mysteries can make no part of a covenant." If by mysteries be meant things not at all revealed, and therefore wholly unknown, they most certainly can make no part of a covenant, because the condition of a covenant, to be observed, must be known. But if the term be understood to signify things made known by revelation, which could not naturally be known; or things partly so made known, and partly remaining unrevealed, no reason appears, why they might not constitute a part of such an engagement, as it requires only that the immediate condition be sufficiently understood for regulating the conduct of men. If the revelation be complete, why should it be at all excluded from a covenant? If it be partial, why should it not be admitted, so far as the communication may extend? All that can be necessary to the existence of a covenant in any case, is that the stipulation on each side should be

so far understood, as to induce the observance of the engagement. The stipulation may however be connected, and in fact is always connected, with something which we are naturally incapable of knowing, yet without annulling the agreement. The principle of life in organized beings is probably for ever undiscoverable, yet the obligations of all the covenants concluded between men, are necessarily connected with this unknown principle of living existence, for a man can engage himself only on the supposition that he, or some other person, shall be alive at the time, when the performance of the condition may be required. The merchant does not refuse to accept, or pass a bill, because the payment involves a consideration of the life of man; the speculator and the contractor, in their various engagements, calculate on the agency of the same principle, not only in men, but in brute animals, and vegetables; and the insurance-company does not hesitate to enter into covenants, the very subject of which is the operation of the truly mysterious principle of vitality. If however no covenant can exist between us and God, involving any relation to his mysterious nature, how could any of these covenants exist between one man and another, dependent as they are at least on the continuance of the lives of the parties, perhaps also on the agency of the living principle in surround

ing objects? We are as ignorant of the animating principle of the meanest vegetable, as of any mystery connected with a doctrine of religion.

To the observations, which doctor Bruce has made on predestination, election, and reprobation, so far as they are opposed to the notion of an arbitrary determination of the eternal happiness or misery of men, no regard being had to the moral conduct of the individuals so discriminated, the author of this treatise will offer no reply. These doctrines he does not himself esteem as truly expressing the sense of the sacred writings, and therefore, as far as they are concerned, he is willing to make with the author of the sermons a common cause. He is himself far from believing "that God, by an absolute decree, hath elected to salvation a very small number of men, without any regard to their faith or obedience whatever, and secluded from saving grace all the rest of mankind; and appointed them, by the same decree, to eternal damnation, without any regard to their infidelity or impenitency." This appalling doctrine he does not hold, because he considers it to be not warranted by any authority of the sacred writings; not reconcilable to our notions of the moral attributes of God, to which he has himself appealed; and contradictory to numerous passages of the scriptures, inviting all persons to repentance, and offering alike to all

the benefits of the divine mercy in the great plan of human redemption.

But, though the author of this treatise agrees with doctor Bruce, in rejecting the doctrine of arbitrary, and, as they are termed, irrespective, election and reprobation, he is by no means disposed to concur with him in the opinion, which he would establish in its place. Doctor Bruce, as the alternative, has adopted on this subject an opinion, which had been advocated by Locke and Taylor, that predestination relates exclusively to that outward calling of the gentiles, by which they were invited to become, together with the chosen people, members of the church of Christ. It must indeed be acknowledged, that some passages of the sacred writings, in which the writers address, as the elect of God, collective bodies of men, may appear to bear this meaning, because among these numbers must have been some individuals, who could not be supposed to have been objects of the divine acceptance. But even in such passages it may easily be understood, that the terms elect and predestinate may still be referred to individuals in a looser application, in the same manner in which a numerous body of men may be denominated christians, though neither can this appellation be properly applicable to every individual.

Doctor Bruce has endeavoured to confirm the interpretation of Locke and Taylor by remark