Sherlock eloquently demanded of the infidel, availing himself of the knowledge communicated by revelation, "the withered arm, which Christ has restored, be lifted up against him ?"

The two doctrines of irrespective or arbitrary predestination, and of the direct imputation of the guilt of Adam to his posterity, appear to have been extreme opinions generated in the vehemence of theological disputation. Neither bas been adopted in the articles of our church. For the former it has substituted an assemblage of the expressions of the sacred writings, with admonitions against the abuses of an extreme interpretation. In regard to the other it has been silent, maintaining however the transmission of a moral corruption, by which all the posterity of Adam have become inclined to evil. Doctor Bruce, on the other hand, has permitted himself, in his rejection of these opinions, to be hurried into others which are not less extreme. Condemning the doctrine, which represents human salvation as the arbitrary work of God, not having any reference to the conduct of the individuals who are its objects, he has pronounced that the prcdestination, of which the apostle speaks, must relate only to that outward calling, by which men are brought into the visible church of God, comprehending conseqnently many, who cannot be among the objects of divine acceptance, and therefore not connected with the future condition, of indivi

duals.

This indeed is an opinion, which, though it appear not reconcileable to the language of the apostle, may however be safely entertained, if the fundamental doctrine of our dependence on Jesus Christ for salvation be notwithstanding preserved inviolate. But when doctor Bruce, in opposition to the extreme interpretation of the doctrine of original sin, contends that the nature of man is still as upright as in the beginning, and consequently that it depends only on our own free choice, whether we shall conform to the commandments of God, it must be manifest, that "boasting" is no longer "excluded," since it must be still possible, according to such a view of human nature, that every individual should by an undeviating obedience entitle himself to the favourable acceptance of God.

The condition of our nature having been so far considered, it is now time to turn our view to that being, who is the grand agent in the plan of human redemption, and to compare with the scriptures the representation which doctor Bruce has given of his nature and functions.

The nature and character of Jesus Christ constitute indeed the main principle of the religion, which we profess. We cannot properly appreciate our redemption, if we form an unworthy conception of him, who was the grand agent in our deliverance from the

penalties of sin; nor can we, without a just notion of his dignity and office, determine what sentiments we are bound to entertain in regard to him, what conduct we are bound to observe in relation to his person. This subject of enquiry has accordingly engaged attention from the first period of the christian church. The apostle John found it necessary to assert the divinity of Jesus Christ against the heretics even of the apostolic age; Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, proposed in the fourth century the opinion, which has received its denomination from him, that the second person of the trinity was totally and essentially distinct from the first, and but the noblest of created beings; and we are in the nineteenth century called to prove that this doctrine is not consonant to a just interpretation of the sacred writings, and to establish the divine character of the redeemer of mankind.

Doctor Bruce indeed would dispose of the whole question by a definition. "The strictest assertors of the divinity of Christ," says he, " acknowledge him to be a derived beingNow the primary and fundamental idea, which we annex to the word God, is that he is himself underived, and the cause of every thing that exists." Thus to prove that Christ is not God, all that we have to do, is to define God to be a being underived, for the conclusion will follow by a necessary inference. It may however

be easily shown, that this argument is merely an example of the fallacy denominated petitio principii, or begging the question. The question is whether any distinction can exist in the divine nature, by which that nature, acknowledged to be itself underived, may yet be communicated to various persons. To assume that the divine nature must in every case be underived, is to take for granted, that no such distinction can exist, as is the very subject of enquiry. It is indeed acknowledged that Jesus Christ is a derived being, and that the divine nature is in itself underived; but it is contended that Jesus Christ participates by derivation that nature, which is underived in the Father. This question must be determined by scriprural authorities, not by a definition, by which the conclusion is assumed.

Another general argument urged by doctor Bruce, is that to embrace the arian doctrine is the best method of escaping from difficulties. This may perhaps be admitted. But what is the legitimate inference? That the arian doctrine cannot be the truth. Difficulties should be expected to be found, when mortals endeavour to penetrate the mystery of their redemption; the plan in its whole extent must be too vast, the agents in their exalted nature must be too sublime, for our very limited comprehension. The absence of difficulties should therefore rather be understood to indicate, that

the mind had erred in its enquiries into divine truth, and that the system, which it had framed, was of man, and not of God. It was once happily observed to the writer of this treatise, that, if we could suppose the present difficulties to be explained by a fuller revelation, other and more numerous difficulties would probably present themselves, as the boundary of our knowledge had been extended, and the things which we should know, would thus be connected with a larger portion of those, which were still unexplained, and perhaps wholly inexplicable. If such be a reasonable view of this high subject, to escape from difficulties must be to abandon the truth. It is our duty to consider, not what is the system of opinions most nearly level to our comprehensions, but what is that, which most aptly corresponds to the declarations of the sacred records of revelation.

Among these declarations that of the apostle John demands our first attention, because, according to its literal meaning, it expressly ascribes to our Saviour a divine character, and the genuiness of the passage admits no controversy. It is not easy to conceive any testimony to the divinity of Jesus Christ more direct and explicit than these acknowledged words of the evangelist: "in the beginning was the word,

*

*The Greek term λóyos, which is here translated word,