power, prompted by his will. A first causer is of necessity a being of power, otherwise he cannot cause: a being of free will; otherwise he cannot begin to cause: a being of intelligence; otherwise he cannot form a plan of causing. Thus we see how prolific a positive property is in enucleating the nature of the Infinite. Grant him to be a causer, he is and must be a spirit. Now, we have already seen that the absolute, if existent, and therefore possible, is necessarily related within itself. Let one of its qualities be will, and there may be internal change, as far, at least, as the expatiations of intellect, which is presupposed in will, are concerned. Let there be power, or more particularly causativity, which, in the absolute, must accompany the will, otherwise it would be impotent, and there may be creation, and so a universe full of change and life. In a grand and true sense all this is within the power, and therefore ultimately within the essence of the Absolute, and so it is still externally unrelated. But in another and not less real sense, may be said to be external to it: and so a volitive Absolute has the remarkable peculiarity, that it may become in a certain respect externally related to a world of its own creating. It does not, cannot cease to be absolute by the sovereign acts of its own will, simply because these acts, however beyond its essence, are yet within its potence.

it

Thus we see how the first cause emerges from the Absolute, as soon as it is recognised as having a free will. This first cause is the voluntary act of power, and has in it all that is in that act, and might have all that is in the power from which it springs. It is at the same time the pure correlative of the whole effect that follows. Granted, then, that the Absolute has a will, or is a spirit, it naturally admits of cause and effect.

23. To be a mind, to have thought, will, power, however, is to be a person; and all this implies condition, limitation, relation; and this, it has been and is said, cannot be in the unconditioned, the infinite, and the absolute. But we have seen that the totally unconditioned is either impossible or nothing; the totally infinite, impossible or unreal; and the totally absolute, nothing. Hence it appears, that if we are to talk of such. a BEING, we must conceive of him in a possible form, and exclude the contradictory. The possible form is the partly unconditioned, the partly infinite, the externally absolute. The bare exclusion of the contradictory is a manifold, some might recklessly say an infinite, condition, limitation, and relation. At all events, how many positive conditions soever there may be, the exclusion of each one necessarily implies the inclusion of its contradictory, in that which is possible or actual. Hence it follows that the real must have condition, limitation, and at least internal relation. Personality is not therefore

excluded from the unconditioned, infinite, and absolute BEING, because it is a condition, limitation, or relation, as some of these must be found in the possible and the real. May we not add, that all worthy attributes, that is, conditions, limitations, and internal relations, must have their place in the great unconditioned, infinite, and absolute Being?

24. This is a criticism, not a treatise, on philosophy. If it had been otherwise, it would have been necessary to have begun at an earlier stage, to have traced from experience the laws of the contemplative faculties, and cleared away certain preliminary errors that have crept into our recent philosophy of the mind, and then we should have been better prepared for exhibiting the unsoundness of the daring theory it propounds of the unconditioned and the infinite. As it is, we have been under the necessity of merely appealing to the commonly acknowledged laws of human thought. In a formal treatise, also, we should not have been content with endeavouring to remove a weak stone from the foundations of human knowledge, without attempting to supply more than a hint of the solid truth. But our limits and our object will not permit us to pursue the inquiry farther. We are persuaded that Mr Mansel's doctrine of the infinite, which is traceable to Sir William Hamilton's theory of the unconditioned, embodies a grave and pernicious His "Bampton Lectures" are replete with learning and with valuable and instructive thought. But their main scope, which is the building up of religious faith, totally fails; first, because, even if the infinite God were proved to be inconceivable and incognisable, faith would thereby be deprived of any ground to stand upon, as we cannot believe in what is neither conceivable nor knowable; secondly, because, if the Infinite God be in a just sense, and in a reasonable measure, conceivable and perceivable by the human intellect, the chief ground of the whole reasoning which pervades the volume is taken away, and so its argument falls to the ground; and thirdly, because faith, if made to stand not only in its own place, but also in the stead of reason in the process of cognising and acknowledging the infinite God, has a task imposed upon it which it will be found utterly unable to discharge.

error.

But our aim has extended farther than the mere criticism of the argument of the Lectures on the limits of religious thought. Even if these had never been published, the position of Sir William Hamilton, of which they are the legitimate fruit, would still remain, in its portentous boldness, to embarrass the minds of earnest inquirers after divine things. If it be solid, it will easily withstand the assaults of its opponents. If unsound, in whole or in part, the sooner it is removed out of the way the better for the interests of eternal truth.

ART. IV.-Theories of the Lord's Day-Dominical and Sabbatarian.

1. Sunday, its Origin, History, and present Obligation, considered in Eight Lectures (the Bampton Lecture for 1860). By JAMES AUGUSTUS HESSEY, D.C.L., &c.

2. The Christian Sabbath, viewed in the light of Reason, Revelation, and History, with Sketches of its Literature. By the Rev. JAMES GILFILLAN, Stirling. 2d Edition. Edinburgh: Andrew Elliott. 1862.

THESE two works have already taken a high place in the recent theological literature of our country. On the subject of the Lord's day, they are the most important English works that have appeared in this generation.

Dr Hessey's work is a very admirable sample of what the church may expect from such an institution as the Bampton Lecture, planted in the rich and generous soil of English Christian scholarship. It exhibits a great amount of learning, and considerable ability and eloquence. Its leading positive doctrine, that the Lord's day is apostolic, scriptural, divine, is one which we would be glad to see heartily embraced by the powerful Church of England; and which we are thankful to find so ably advocated, in a position so well fitted to gain a favourable hearing to the truth. But regard for truth constrains us to add, that the merits of the work, unquestionably high, are counterbalanced by serious defects. It is the production of a first-rate general scholar, who has set himself to "get up" a work for an occasion, rather than of one who has been long familiar with the subject, and who speaks from the fulness of mature meditation. Its learning is much more imposing in appearance than sound in reality, and bears evidence of having been accepted from one-sided authorities at second-hand. views on Lord's day observance, though, we believe, sound in the main, indicate considerable confusion of mind, unripeness or crudeness of thought: the lecture on this subject strikes us as singularly weak, inconclusive, and even self-contradictory. And above all, while its positive doctrine is well defended against the ecclesiastical theory, yet Dr Hessey is no less earnest, if not somewhat bitter and supercilious, in advocating a negative doctrine against what he calls the Sabbatarian or Puritan theorya negative which withdraws from his own positive doctrine its living foundation in the system of revealed truth, and so far seriously injures that cause, of Lord's day observance, which the author has at heart.

Its

Mr Gilfillan's work is a sample still more admirable of what may be achieved, unaided, by a laborious minister who earnestly sets himself to the study of a subject. To the rhetorical qualities of its English contemporary it makes no pretension: per

haps it will make the deeper and more lasting impression on this very account, that it is written in the style of a quiet and earnest thinker, and lacks the pungency of platform address, or polemical pamphleteering. Its temper is much in its favour: with all the earnestness of a Christian apologist, Mr Gilfillan has none of the rancour of a controversialist. His learning, less imposing in its form than Dr Hessey's, is really more conscientious, thorough, and exhaustive. His view of the subject is much more comprehensive, especially in its practical applications to man, in all his interests, material, mental and spiritual, individual, domestic, social, and political-the work, throughout, is redolent of the pastorate. Mr Gilfillan teaches with authority, as one who is no novice, but has long and deeply thought on the subject of which he speaks. Ripeness, meditation, is written on every page. His work is no mere pamphlet ;" it is one which could not be "got up" for an occasion, but which must have grown out of the labours of a studious life. It is a thorough "book," reminding us, by its fulness of learning, thought, and earnest Christian wisdom, of the great works of our great "old divines." Above all, Mr Gilfillan teaches, we believe, for substance, "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," on the subject. And in all our recent literature we know not one other work that approaches his work in value, as a veritable treasury of argument and information, of all that a Christian minister or man most needs to know on the subject of "the Christian Sabbath." In the following pages, it will be understood we occupy substantially the same ground with Mr Gilfillan; and, therefore, our critical remarks will be mainly directed to Dr Hessey.

big

For eighteen centuries, the Christian world as a whole has observed the first day of the week as a religious rest, in memory of the resurrection of Christ. But Christians are not agreed on the question, What is the reason of this observance, the ground of our obligation to observe the Lord's day? Some hold that the institution, in its origin and authority, is merely ecclesiastical; that the church has made the day (and therefore, we presume, can unmake it if she will); that the ground of our obligation to observe it, is her sense of its desirableness. In opposition to this ecclesiastical theory, Dr Hessey contends for what he calls the dominical, maintaining that the Lord's day is apostolic, scriptural, divine; that it originated in the church while she was under the authoritative guidance of the apostles of the Lord; that in instituting it they acted as they were moved by the Holy Ghost; and that therefore the institution is sealed with the seal of their divine inspiration. Mr Gilfillan goes still further. He holds that the Lord's day is "the Christian Sabbath;" that this religious rest of the New

1

Testament church is one in substance with the Sabbath of the Old; that the Sabbath law is part of the law of nature, whose obligation is permanent and universal; that is, was first revealed in Eden, and then declared anew on Sinai; and that the ultimate ground of our obligation to observe the Lord's day is not a mere positive precept of the apostles, but the moral law, as declared in the fourth commandment of the Decalogue. This may be called the Sabbatarian theory of the Lord's day. It is held in substance by the mass of "Evangelical" Christians in the British Isles, North America, and our Colonial Empire, especially by that great presbyterian church which holds by the Westminister Standards; and therefore may be described as the Puritan theory.

Against this Sabbatarian or Puritan theory, Dr Hessey contends that the Lord's day is not the same in substance with the Sabbath; that it has no foundation in the fourth commandment; that the Sabbath law is no part of the law of nature; that the fourth Commandment is not moral in any relevant sense, but merely a part of that Mosaic ceremonial which was swept away by the death of Christ; and that the Lord's day is merely a positive institution, which had no existence before the apostolic age. Thus the Dominical and Sabbatarian theories are at one in affirming that the Lord's day is of divine institution and authority: they differ in this, that while the dominical affirms that it is a merely positive institution emanating from inspired apostles, the Sabbatarian affirms that it is founded on the moral law, as declared in the fourth commandment. Now it might be imagined, that if Christians be agreed on the observance of the day, it matters little though they should differ as to the reason of observing it. But the Puritan will tell us that recognition of, and acquiescence in, the revealed reason, constitute one element in the due observance, as an exercise of faith in God speaking in his word. Dr Hessey will tell us that his theory is the only safeguard against the (alleged) evils of a Puritan Sabbath on the one hand, and a Continental Sunday on the other. And history tells us that, on a large scale, the theory and the observance, the doctrine and the practice, distinguishable in thought, are inseparable in fact; that men's practice varies with their doctrine,-either the high doctrine gradually elevates and assimilates their practice to itself, or the low practice leads to the adoption of a doctrine such as may serve for its theoretical justification. We are not, therefore, merely engaging in an interesting speculative discussion, but doing our part towards the due observance of the Lord's day among the peoples, when we endeavour to discover and to vindicate the true theory, the God-given Scripture doctrine of the subject.