of a portion of his presbyterian brethren, but also for the moderate articles of the established church.

Doctor Bruce has in his system admitted the preexistence and the intercession of Jesus Christ, acknowledging him to be a being far superior to man, to have existed in glory with God before the creation of the world, and to have been rewarded for his obedience with the office of interceding with him in behalf of men, and with the power of bestowing salvation on them according to his pleasure: but he has denied that this being is divine, and that our prayers should be addressed to him; and the Holy Spirit he has pronounced to belong to a yet inferior class of existence. In these opinions concerning Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit he differs indeed from the unitarians, for these hold that the former was a mere man, and deny the distinct personality of the latter. In regard to our nature however he agrees with them, for he denies that it has experienced any degeneracy, and, with the doctrine of our corruption, he rejects also, like them, that of an atonement effected directly by the death of Christ, regarding this event only as a part of the obedience, for which he was constituted the lord of the christian church. He also agrees with them in attributing no present influences to the Holy Spirit. Though he has admitted, that this being was employed in forwarding the

work of salvation after the departure of Christ, yet this agency seems to have been in his opinion limited to the period, in which extraordinary powers were exercised for the early propagation of the knowledge of christianity, since he has not, in any of these sermons, spoken of any salutary influence, which christians might now expect to receive from the Holy Spirit for the support and invigoration of their piety. In regard to the deeply interesting question of future punishment, he differs from the followers of Priestley, in preferring temporary punishment to purgatorial discipline, one arbitrary supposition to another.

If we more briefly compare this arian scheme of religion with that of the unitarians, we perceive that the former possesses only these advantages, that it gives us an intercessor indeed, but without any proper atonement, and acknowledges the existence of the Holy Spirit, while it rejects the belief of his sanctifying. influences; that while the unitarians agree with the church of Rome in maintaining the doctrine of a purgatory, the arians combine with a long period of actual suffering the infidel's hope of annihilation; and that both agree in regarding man as still naturally capable of observing the commandments of God, and securing his own acceptance.

The distinctions of the two systems seem to admit an easy solution, if they be considered as

departing to different distances from the same common original of calvinistic christianity. The arian and the unitarian, alike offended at the tenet of arbitrary and irrespective decrees, go together into the contrary extreme of the sufficiency of man, and consequently concur in rejecting the belief, both of the atonement effected by the death of Jesus Christ, and of the influences of the Holy Spirit in assisting the feebleness of the moral power of our nature. The arian however, rejecting only the atonement of Jesus Christ, and retaining the belief of his intercession, preserves still some imperfect scheme of human redemption; but the unitarian, abandoning wholly the hope which is in Jesus, is driven to seek a succedaneum in the doctrine of philosophical necessity, reducing man to the class of a moral machine, and converting the future punishment denounced against the wicked into purgatorial discipline. The succedaneum is indeed analogous to the original doctrine, for it only substitutes a necessity of moral mechanism in the place of a necessity created by a divine decree, whereas a doctrine of intercession supposes the existence of human liberty, without which there can be no responsibility, and consequently no proper punishment. The purgatorial discipline of the unitarian was a consequence of the doctrine of philosophical necessity, since there could be no guilt meriting punishment, where there was no freedom

of action. The notion of the final extinction of the wicked after a long period of suffering, may have been adopted in some undefined feeling of the imperfection of a system, which promised no divine assistance, and provided no specific atonement.

The system of the unitarian has, it must be confessed, the merit of superior consistency and completeness. It is obvious however that, while it avoids an acknowledgment of inward influences communicated by the Holy Spirit to the minds of men, these have been conceived to be so entirely subjected to the outward action of motives and circumstances, that they are deprived of all self-direction. Strange, that the unitarian, in asserting the sufficiency of human reason, should be driven to degrade his nature to mere mechanism, and in narrowing his admission of revealed doctrine should adopt the purgatory of superstition!

If we now consider more particularly what is that form of christianity, which has been advocated by doctor Bruce, we find in heaven two created beings, as the agents of our redemption, one of them, the Holy Spirit, inferior to the other, and employed but for a temporary occasion, which is now long past: on the earth we are taught, contrary to all experience, and indeed to the acknowledgment of doctor Bruce himself, to regard man as naturally adequate to the discharge of his duties; we are not encou

raged to believe, that any spiritual assistance shall be vouchsafed to him, as indeed it cannot be necessary, if his moral strength be unimpaired, and sufficient for his support; and we are directed to regard the death of Jesus Christ, as an event but indirectly and contingently connected with our salvation, being instrumental to it only as a part of the obedience of Christ, and not at all essential to the general plan of our redemption. With the existence and functions of the Holy Spirit we have now, according to this doctrine, no concern; and, being sufficient of ourselves for our moral direction, we should look to Jesus Christ only for his intercession on account of those offences, which it is acknowledged that all, notwithstanding their natural sufficiency, do occasionally commit. If however any persons, conscious of the manifold and deep-seated infirmity of their nature, should doubt, whether such a doctrine presents a satisfactory view of their future prospects, some consolation is provided in the conjecture, that, when the more grievously wicked shall have been sufficiently punished, the mercy of God may perhaps be interposed for their annihilation.

Though doctor Bruce has represented that his doctrine is making an extensive progress among his presbyterian brethren of Ulster, there is good reason for believing, that a reaction is at this time operating, which disposes