his affording this display of his perfections, through a material vehicle? What is there so revolting in the supposition, that he who has lavished upon matter all his creative skill and power-who has formed out of it, in the scenes of the external universe, a mirror to reflect his eternal power and Godhead? and, above all, who has honoured it, by associating with it the pure and immortal principle of mind?-what is there, I say, so revolting in the supposition, that he who has so employed and so honoured matter, should, for purposes worthy of his love and benevolence, have assumed himself that form, which is the masterpiece of his divine skill, and condescended to become Immanuel"God with us?"

But to enter more directly on our subject, the moral purposes the doctrine of the incarnation subserves, and the elevating and powerful influence it is calculated to exert on the human mind. In the first place, it gives us, what must be at the basis of all true religion, a far more clear, familiar, and legible transcript of the divine character and perfections, than is afforded by any other system. Religion, we all admit, has God for its ob. ject; religion, we all admit, is to exert a practical influence; and that would appear, therefore, the best system of religion, which at once gives us the clearest views of the Divine Being, and those views in a manner most likely to impress the heart; advantages which we believe attach only to the doctrine of the incarnation. The lifeless contemplation, or, at best, heartless sentimentalism of deists and philosophers; all attest that their sublimated views of Deity have but little power to impress the mind and prove that devotion and religion are not mere abstractions. I do not think it would be very difficult

to prove, from the very constitution of our nature, from the tenacity with which we cling to material objects, and from the very slight practical effect of abstract and speculative notions, however true, that for all impressive views of the divine character, we must have something more than a mere catalogue of the divine perfection; a more definite, palpable, and embodied representation of him.

So evident is this, that every religion where the true one has been unknown, has assumed the form of idolatry. So incapable is human nature in general of entertaining those cold abstractions, and vague unimpressive views of the Divine Being, which are the boast of the Deist and the Unitarian. Now it is precisely in this point of view that the transcendant glory and peculiar excellence of the doctrine of the incarnation are seen. It is exactly suited to the circumstances of man. The views it presents of God are far removed from the impalpable abstractions of Deism and the degrading representations of idolatry. It at once adapts itself to that frailty of our nature, which demands something more than metaphysical ideas of God, while the perfections thus embodied are so sublime, so grand, so worthy of the Godhead, that Deity is not degraded by the association. In this incarnate form of Deity we see an affecting accommodation to the infirmities of man, and yet nothing derogatory to the glory of God; in this incarnate form of Deity, the refined and elevated mind may see, (only in far more legible characters than he can ever see elsewhere,) those perfections and those glories which hitherto formed only the cold subjects of his abstract musing; while the ignorant and degraded beings, including by far the greater part of our species, who have never been

taught to rise to these abstract contemplations, can here read, in this condescending and familiar exhibition of God, the outline of the divine lineaments; by this the material and embodied form they are enabled to arrive at ennobling views of the Divine Being himself; they now find the mystic book of the divine perfections translated into a language which even they can understand, and, for the first time, "behold the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ."

And it is to be observed, that this manifestation of God not only affords us a clearer and more familiar knowledge of the divine character in general, but especially of those moral perfections, which are principally exercised in reference to man's redemption, and concerning which the world of nature is either totally silent, or affords us but faint and imperfect traces of them.

But secondly. The incarnation not only presents to the mind of man a far clearer, more familiar, more intelligible transcript of the divine perfections, suited to the capacities and condition of all mankind, but the manner in which these perfections are presented in the Christian doctrine of the incarnation exerts the most overwhelming influence over man's confidence and love. It awakens his fullest confidence. Without the doctrine of the incarnation, the incomprehensible mysteries of the divine character, and the unsoftened austerities of the divine attributes only appal and terrify man, especially when conscious guilt assures him that these attributes are justly his enemies, and compels him to feel as an outcast from the Divine presence. But confidence must be restored, and man must come back as a child to a father; and how can this be so completely ef

fected, as when man, who dared not lift his guilty eyes to heaven, finds, in the doctrine of the incarnation, heaven itself stooping down to earth?-When the child of clay is oppressed with the idea of the divine majesty and glory, and absolutely lost in the thought of divine infinitude, and when this awe is darkened into terror as he recollects that his guilt has set this terrific being in array against himself, what can change this awe into love; what can chase these terrors away, so well as the familiar exhibition of the divine character, “as God in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself?" It is true we see the Divine Being, but it is in such a familiar garb that we feel no terrors; we see the splendours of godhead, but their full blaze is so shaded and attempered, that they do not dazzle us; we behold "the brightness of the Father's glory," but it comes to us through the darkening veil of the Redeemer's humanity, in a flood of such soft and mellowed radiance, that it does not overpower us, and here for the first time we "behold God and live."

And surely it is almost unnecessary to add, that the doctrine of the incarnation, when properly received, must exert an absorbing influence upon that which is the very key-note of all moral harmony-the love of God. Let our opponents say what they will of the moral tendency of the doctrine,

we

are confident that we here stand on sure ground. Let the humble and devout Christian fill his heart with the thoughts of the incarnation, and believe that the High and Lofty One has thus condescended, and he is filled with motives to love God and to obey him, of which nothing else either in heaven or earth can afford us any conception.

The Law of the Sabbath, Religious and Political. By Josiah Conder. 8vo.

Holdsworth and Ball. Four Letters on the Law of the Sabbath, as contained in the Scriptures. By Henry Forster Burder, D. D. London: F. Westley, and A. H. Davis. 1831. Discourses on the Sabbath. By Ralph Wardlaw, D. D. 18mo 1832. Glasgow: Fullarton and Co.

A Treatise on the Authority, End, and Observance of the Christian Sabbath. By Rev. Duncan Macfarlane. Glasgow: Lectures on the Christian Sabbath. By

William Collins.

William Thorn. Seventh Edition. London: Holdsworth and Ball. The Modern Sabbath examined, 1 vol. 8vo. Whittaker, Treacher, and Arnott.

Three Sermons on the Lord's Day. By the Rev. John Forbes, Minister of the outer High Church, Glasgow, 18mo. 1831. Brief Remarks on the History, Authority, and Use of the Sabbath. By J. J.

Gurney. Second Edition. London:

J. and J. Arch.

A FEW months since we commenced a review of the above mentioned important works; various circumstances have prevented our resuming it till now.

In our former article we restricted ourselves to a consideration of the "Political Law of the Sabbath," or the foundation on which the civil magistrate's authority to appoint such a day rests, and the limits within which that authority should be exerted. We maintained that it was perfectly competent to him to enjoin the periodical cessation of all public business,-proved by experience to be absolutely necessary to preserve the health of the community; that he had no right, however, to say in what religious exercises such days should be spent, or whether in any at all: but that it would be not only his

N. S. No. 93.

duty, but a matter of necessity, to choose those days which the bulk of the community would consecrate toreligion,-inferior sects, who might choose other days for religious purposes, being subjected to the unavoidable inconvenience, resulting from such a choice, for the sake of securing great public good. This has, in fact, been always the practice of civil communities in reference to this very subject.

In taking such a view of the subinsinuate that the Sabbath was oriject, we did not, of course, mean to ginally an institution of a purely religious character, and that those temporal benefits which flow from its observance were not contemplated in its institution. Far from it; such a view of the matter would contradict the plainest evidence. Those institutions which are indeed of divine origin, (like all other arrangements of the same all-foreseeing mind,) fulfil a vast variety of purposes, and sustain, at one and the same time, a great multiplicity of relations. The Sabbath was intended not only to afford that repose which was so necessary to the jaded energies of men, and without which the whole machinery of the animal world must soon be disturbed, and ultimately destroyed; but (while doing this) to afford opportunity for fulfilling far higher and more important purposes,-the very leisure which was necessary for the refreshment of the body being just

that which was wanted for the calm exercise of the noblest powers of the soul. Our object, therefore, in making such a complete 4 B

distinction between the civil and religious consecration of the day, was not to imply they were ever intended to be, or that they ever will be, in fact, kept separate, but in order to adjust with the necessary precision the limits of the civil magistrate's office.

We now come to the important and much-disputed point of the obligation to the religious observance of the Sabbath. This resolves itself into two questions: 1st, As to whether the Divine Being demands of all mankind an appropriation of a seventh of their time to religious purposes? and 2dly, whether, supposing this to be correct, and that, (as all would then admit,) the seventh was the day originally instituted, it was intended that the first day should, under the Christian dispensation, take its place.

Before referring to the direct proof (afforded by Scripture), which may be adduced to substantiate the first of these propositions, we would mention two or three à priori arguments to evince the reasonableness of supposing that the Divine Being would legislate upon this subject. All Christians will allow that the frequent worship of the Supreme is a solemn duty; that it should often be performed in that entire abstraction from earthly cares, with that happy freedom from the immediate and pressing demands of businesswith that calmness and deliberation which are never allowed by those short and unsatisfactory snatches, which are all that the affairs of life leave to the bulk of mankind. In other words, there must be some intervals (either stated or recurring irregularly), in which there shall be a complete suspension, so far as possible, of all worldly engagements. Well, then," some objector may say, "let these intervals recur irregularly, or

let them, at all events, be left to the choice of the individual; the worship of which you speak is indeed a duty, but the appointing of any particular time-the consecration of any one day rather than another-appears unworthy of the Divine Being, and of the genius of that Christianity which, busying itself only about what is really important, looks down with contempt upon what is merely indifferent." Yes; but is this merely indifferent? It is true that the frequent and undisturbed worship of God is the object to be attained; and if this is attained, it little matters what are the means; but if it be proved that it is not likely to be obtained without some such authoritative regulation as that for which we are contending, the consecration of a particular day becomes no such matter of empty ceremonial. The due performance of religious duties is indeed the great object: the consideration of time is merely an accident, but, in this case, one of such importance that it cannot be overlooked. It little matters, abstractedly, what day is fixed, but there must be some one or another. Well, then, you say, "let each individual choose for himself.” Not to press the consideration that what may be done at any time, is too apt to be altogether neglected; not to mention the happy facility which a regular and punctual recurrence of duty proverbially af fords to the formation of the habit of duly performing it, we reply, it would be impossible for any individual to secure these intervals, let him be ever so disposed to the strict observance of them, unless all with whom he is likely to have any transactions, have also fixed the same periods for the same purposes.-Again, all Christians admit that the public worship of God is a duty; but