CHAPTER II.

THE

CERTAIN RESTORATION

OF

JUDAH AND ISRAEL.

THE subject of this chapter is introduced with a concise view of the expulsion of the ten tribes of Israel from the promised land. The ten tribes revolted from the house of David, early in the reign of Rehoboam, son and successor of king Solomon. They received from this young prince treatment, which was considered impolitick and rough; upon which they separated themselves from that branch of the house of Israel, who, from that time, have been distinguished by the name of Jews. They submitted to another king, Jeroboam. And this breach was never after healed. Jeroboam, to perpetuate and widen this breach, and apprehending that if the Jews and ten tribes amicably met for publick worship, according to the law of God, the rupture between them would probably soon be healed, set up two golden calves, one in Dan, and one in Bethel; and ordered that the ten tribes of Israel should meet there for their publick worship. He thus "made Israel to sin." And would to God

he had been the last who has made the professed worshippers of Jehovah "to sin," by assigning them different places of worship, from motives not more evangelical than those of Jeroboam.

The ten tribes thus went off to idolatry. A line of kings succeeded Jeroboam; but none of them, to the time of the expulsion, were true worhippers of the God of Israel. By their apostasy, folly, and idolatry, the ten tribes were preparing themselves for a long and doleful rejection, an outcast state for thousands of years.This Moses had denounced; Deut. xxviii. And this God fulfilled.

Tiglah-Pilnezer, king of Assyria, captured the tribes of Reuben and Gad, and the half tribe of Manassah, who lay cast of Jordan, and placed them in Halah, Harah, and Habor, by the river Gozen.-1 Chro. v. 26. About twenty years after, (134 years before the Babylonish captivity of the Jews, and 725 years before Christ,) the rest of the ten tribes continuing impenitent, Shalmanezer, the succeeding king of Assyria, attacked Samaria, took the remainder of the ten tribes, in the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, carried them to Assyria, and placed them with their brethren in Halah and Habor, by the river Gozen in Media-2 Kings, xvii. This final expulsion of Israel from the promised land, was about 943 years after they came out of Egypt. The king of Assyria placed in their stead, in Samaria, people from Babylon, Cutha, Ava, Hamah, and Sapharvaim. Here was the origin of the mongrel Samaritans:

From this captivity the ten tribes were never recovered. And they have long seemed to have been lost from the earth. They scem to have been indeed "outcast," from the social world,

SECTION IV.

NO BENEFIT RESULTS FROM A SUPPOSED DERIVATION OF CHRIST'S DIVINITY.

Among arguments which have been adduced, in favour of a derivation of the Divinity of Christ from God, are found such as the following, either expressed, or implied:-That such a derivation would be most congenial to the idea of the divine paternal affection toward his Son; and most congenial to the idea of Christ's filial affection toward his Father. And that this scheme must magnify the love of God toward our fallen world; in that he would send a Son whose Divinity was derived from him, the Father, and therefore the most dear possible. That herein we may form a due estimate of the love of God to our sinful race :-And that we can have no medium so suitable and striking, on any other plan, to lead us to form a suitable estimation of the love and grace of God, in the scheme of gospel salvation.

To creatures like men cloathed in flesh, circumscribed, and most sensibly impressed with the feelings of parental and filial affections, arguments like the above, ably expressed, may appear forcible. But in this thing we must not judge after the outward appearance; but must judge righteous judgment. On reading, and attempting to weigh such arguments, questions like the following have occurred with force to my mind. I will just ex

press them as the only refutation, which I shall attempt, of the above arguments. If they strike others as they do me, they will afford all the refutation necessary. Relative to this, the reader will make up his own opinion.

Why should a derivation of the Divinity of Christ be deemed necessary? Must Christ be unable to feel in the best possible manner, that affection toward God the Father, which is most becoming the mediatorial character, unless he is in his divine nature actually derived and dependent? Or must the Mediator, if he be of underived Divinity, be less capable of feeling that tender affection toward mankind, which if derived and dependent he might possess? Is the Father incapable of feeling, in the best possible manner, the most suitable parental affection toward the Person of the Mediator, unless he be literally a Father to the Divinity of Christ? It is said among men, people do not know the parental affection, till they learn it from experience. Can the same thing be applicable to the Most High? "He that formed the eye, shall he not see," unless he have material eyes? He that made the ear, shall he not hear, though he have no organ of hearing like our's ? And he that implanted the parental affection, shall he not know what it is, even if he have not learned it, as have human parents, from experience? May not the Person of Jesus Christ be the dearest possible to the Father, unless Christ's Divinity be actually derived and dependent? May not the love of God to this fallen world be as real, as great, and as gloriously exhibited, in sending a Saviour who is possessed of Divinity that is underived and eternal; as in sending a Saviour derived and dependent? Why may not the economy of grace, in such a case, be as great and wonderful? May not

One, of underived Divinity, love and be loved as intensely, as a person produced and dependent ? Why may not such Persons of real Divinity, as the Trinitarians have conceived the Three in the Godhead to be, love each other with as real and intense affection, as God in one Person only could be supposed to love a Son actually begotten of the divine nature? Can derivation or dependence lay a foundation for the exercise of love, which cannot exist in the infinite God underived and independent? What excellency can derivation communicate, which underived eternal Divinity must be unable to supply? Can any being be more excellent, or adequate to every needful purpose, than the infinite God? Can it be more grateful to the feelings of piety to contemplate a Saviour derived and wholly dependent, than to contemplate one possessed of underived Divinity, in union with real humanity? Shall we say, such a derivation and dependence bring Christ nearer to man, and render access to him more easy and pleasing? It does indeed bring him down infinitely nearer to a level with man! It makes him a creature like ourselves. But is not the glorified humanity of Christ sufficient to render access to him (or to God through him) sufficiently easy and pleasing to the godly soul? Or is underived Divinity so dreadful an idea to the godly person, that it would be more unpleasant to view it as existing in the Person of our Saviour, or standing so near to us, as in union with the glorified humanity of Christ? Can we have more proper and exalted ideas of the love and grace of God toward fallen man, should we admit that Christ is of Divinity derived and dependent, than can be conceived upon the ground of his being underived and independent? Is it not a selfevident fact, that the love and grace of God are