of a Gospel Minister, and its inhabitants endured grievous persecutions for their attachment to the Presbyterian church. Prelacy, however, having been abolished in Scotland at the Revolution, Mr. Bruce became their first Minister after this happy change. He continued in this charge, in peace and comfort, till his death, which happened in the year 1693. He lies buried in the church of that parish; but we have not been able to ascertain whether any stone remains to mark the spot, or record the virtues of this man of God.

Such were the singular vicissitudes that chequered the life of this venerable worthy, the Rev. MICHAEL BRUCE! He was thirty-seven years a Minister, in connexion with two Presbyterian Churches, those of Ireland and Scotland. The first five years he spent in peaceful and zealous labours in Killinchy, three in itinerant preaching in Ulster, under daily dread of fine and imprisonment, and four under similar perils in Scotland. Wounded and taken prisoner, he was nearly two years in confinement at Edinburgh and London. Released, through the zeal of a faithful wife, he was permitted to return to the early scene of his labours. He then enjoyed an uninterrupted rest of nineteen years. But again driven forth, he spent the remaining four years of his life a Minister of the parent church, from whom he had first received his license to preach. Yet throughout all these unprecedented vicissitudes, he never changed his principles, or swerved from his integrity. He was, indeed, a man of unbending rectitude of conduct, and of unshaken attachment to the Gospel. He was a genuine son of the Reformed Church of Scotland, AN ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN, maintaining the doctrines of her confession of faith, and adhering to her communion, through honour and dishonour, through evil report, and through good report. He does not appear to have ever written any thing for the press. Five sermons by him have indeed been published. But they were printed from notes taken by his more attached hearers; and though occasionally striking and impressive, are con. sequently very imperfect. One is entitled, "The rattling of the dry bones: a Sermon, preached at Chapel-yard, Carluke," printed in the year 1672. A second was published after his death, with this title, "Six dreadful alarms, in order to the right improving of the Gospel; or the substance of a Sermon." The three other sermons are

published in a volume, entitled, "A Collection of Lectures and Sermons, preached mostly in the time of the late Persecution in Scotland, by these faithful and eminent servants of Jesus Christ, Messrs. William Guthrie, Michael Bruce, &c," The texts of his discourses are Gen. xlii. 25, Psalm cxix. 133, and Mark ix. 13.

His character is thus described by Mr. Reid, to whom we have already referred, who was ordained in Killinchy in the year 1702, not many years after Mr. Bruce's death, and who continued in this charge during the long space of fifty-three years :

"Mr. Bruce was frequently invited to preach abroad, especially to assist at sacraments in several counties, and was much regarded and loved, admired and followed where ever he was. He was a man of great faith; and though he was far from enthusiasm, or pretending to a spirit of prophecy, yet, (which might also have been observed of Mr. Livingston,) as a gracious return of his fervent and effectual prayers, he had frequently such strong impressions of matters which concerned the public interests of Christ's church, as well as some particular members or enemies of it, that sometimes from the pulpit, and sometimes in private, he could not forbear to intimate his thoughts of what should fall out. Many yet living do remember and delightfully talk of particular instances of this kind, and they all observe them to have been punctually fulfilled, and that not any one of them failed of accomplishment. Mr. Bruce was much noted for self-denial, humility, contempt of the world, and conversation in simplicity and godly sincerity. He was of great charity, doing good unto all men, but especially the distressed members of Christ. His liberality and great hospitality to such Christians as were sometimes forced to fly out of Scotland for conscience sake, is too well known to need any representation."

We shall conclude this sketch of Mr. Bruce, by noticing a singular circumstance connected with his posterity. Six of his descendants, in uninterrupted succession since his death, have been Ministers of Presbyterian congregations in Ireland; so that, excepting an interval of about twenty years, from the death of Robert to the ordination of Michael Bruce, this name, rendered illustrious by the virtues and sufferings of these its earlier possessors, has never disappeared from the records of the Presbyterian Church, from the days of Knox till the present time! It

is right to add, however, and we do it with unfeigned regret, that the religious principles of the venerable founders of the family have been deserted by their descendants in the ministry. The ORTHODOX PRINCIPLES of "the olden time" have been publicly impugned, and we wish truth did not compel us to say, grievously misrepresented, by Dr. William Bruce of Belfast, the fourth in descent from the subject of this memoir. 66 Fuimus,' we have been told, is the Doctor's favourite motto;-we less lament the reverse of fortune to which it seems to refer, than the inelancholy change of religious sentiment of which it may be equally descriptive.

UBIQUITY OF CHRIST.

A FRIEND has lately directed my attention to an article by an Unitarian writer, who takes the name of "Erasmus," in which an attempt is made to invalidate the conclusions which I had adduced from the Rev. Henry Montgomery's declaration, that he believed in the " omnipresence of the Lord Jesus Christ," as stated by me in the Eleventh Number of The Orthodox Presbyterian. In the execution of this attempt, Erasmus has, in my opinion, not only completely failed, but in the course of his argument he stands, in some instances, directly opposed to Mr. Montgomery himself, whose cause he advocates, and in others, to the plain dictates of Holy Writ, and the practice of the Patriarchs, the Apostles, and the primitive Church of GOD,-nay, even to his own statements and assertions.

The whole of this writer's attempted refutation of my reasoning, may be classed under three distinct heads.The first consists of abuse; the second of a total change of the subject at issue; and the third of misrepresentation.

Under the first head I class the gratuitous charges which he brings against me, of profaneness, presumption, vanity, temerity, vain boasting, and bravado. To all these heavy accusations, I do not deem it necessary to give any other reply than merely to request your readers to turn back to your Eleventh Number, and examine whether the letter signed, "A Member of the Established Church,” contains

* "We have been," in reference probably to the departed royalty of the "Bruce of Bannockburn."

any thing which can justify Erasmus in the use of such harsh language. To that writer, however, I beg leave to say, kind Sir, you are, with respect to these accusations, directly opposed to Mr. Montgomery himself, who, in the Twelfth Number of The Orthodox Presbyterian, says, in his letter to its Editor, "Your Correspondent (meaning me) appears to be a person of a Christian temper," and states, that he is duly sensible of his friendly feelings. This, indeed, is not very consistent with Erasmus's charge of profaneness, presumption, vanity, temerity, vain boasting, and bravado!! How different are the conclusions drawn by the two gentlemen, respectively, from the same premises! In the eyes of one I seem possessed of a Christian temper,-the other views me as a profane man! So much for the first head-abuse. Now for the change of subject.

Yes, Erasmus has indeed changed the subject matter of debate, and shrunk from the very ground-work of the whole argument; and here again he is completely at issue with Mr. Montgomery. That Rev. Gentleman publicly, and without the slightest hesitation, declared his belief in the omnipresence of the SAVIOUR. There was no equivocation-no shuffling-no limitation in this manly declara. tion. He clearly avowed his faith, that "the Saviour was present in all places." Now what says Erasmus respecting this so strongly asserted Ubiquity of the SON OF GOD? “Presiding (says he) over his church, or being present with two or three disciples, and going away and coming again, is not the omnipresence of Him who fills all space at all times." He is "present (says Mr. Montgomery) in all places." He comes and goes, intimates Erasmus, and this "is not the omnipresence of Him who fills all space at all times." Now I tell Erasmus, that I did not rest my arguments and my deductions on this system of going and coming, which he attributes to the Son of God, nor on any single text of Scripture, as he unjustly intimates. No. I grounded them on the admitted Ubiquity of the Saviour, and on the declaration of Holy Writ, that he was the Creator of all things. Once more I remind Erasmus, that, if Christ be present in all places, then in Him we live, and move, and have our being, and this is one of the characteristics of the omnipotent GOD. Again, if, as is undoubtedly certain, He created all things visible and invisible, then He who fills every part of space, knows the real essences, substances, qualities, powers, and propensities of all those things which He himself has called into

existence, and having also (as proved by John x. 16) an intimate knowledge of GOD THE FATHER, He is omniscient another attribute peculiar to the Divine nature. Upon these things I based my argument, and from these I drew my conclusion, that the person who believed in the omnipresence of CHRIST, ought also, as the proper result of his faith, to adore Him as GOD. Has Erasmus ventured to grapple with this argument? No. He has evaded it,→ he has shifted his ground, he has had recourse to abuse, to misrepresentation, and finally, to the accumulation of a series of texts generally applicable to the human nature of Christ, and irreconcileable to numerous and highly important passages of Scripture, on any other view of the subject, than that Christ is at once both GOD and Man. That view renders them consistent with the whole tenour of Holy Writ.

Now though these texts have, in fact, no manner of relation to the subject in debate, I shall probably analyze them in a future number of The Orthodox Presbyterian, and show that Erasmus has mistaken the meaning of some of them, and misapplied and drawn erroneous conclusions from others. At present I shall not, on this point, tres pass on your space farther, than by observing, that from these texts he makes three most extravagant inferences, viz.-first, that creation is an act of delegated power; se cond, that the Son of God ought not to be worshipped, and has forbidden prayer to be offered to him; and third, that he is not Almighty!!! Now we read in the first chapter of the Gospel according to St. John, that "in the beginning was THE WORD, and the WORD was with GOD, and the WORD was GOD. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not any thing made that was made." And St. Paul informs us, that by Him were all things created that are in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible. Now if he Himself be a created being, as Mr. Montgomery and other Arians affirm, and if all created things were made by Him, through the power of a delegated authority, then He must have created himself,-He must have been amazingly, nay infinitively active before He existed,He must have created the Creator of all created things in heaven and in earth, visible and invisible, when as yet He himself was a nonentity!! Such are the strange results which flow from the assertions made by Erasmus! But the Scripture context plainly contradicts the assertion, that (the Word) THE SON OF GOD, is a