be the testimony of God, we cannot but feel something to be positively erroneous, and much also doubtful or obscure.

The volume has at least one element of value to the general reader, not always to be met with. It teaches him to think. The matter seldom lies on the surface. Some intellectual exercise is required, to possess ourselves of the author's meaning. That being accomplished, often with some doubtfulness, we have next to bring it closely to the only standard of truth, and so to "prove all things," as to "hold fast"-that only-" which is good." This second exercise is especially needful: for though we would with the apostle repudiate a "yea and nay" declaration,1 yet we must confess that Mr. Vaughan's semi-oracular decisions often produce in us scepticism rather than assurance,-feeling as we do, that a strong dogmatical tone is not always the evidence of solid scriptural testimony.

We were wisely prepared by the editor to meet with what would at first sight surprise or perplex the reader." To this we should not object, provided only that at the second sight the surprise and perplexity should issue in clear light and assurance. In this case however, we must say, that our darkness and difficulty increase rather than diminish,-mingled with regret that a mind of such power and independent thinking, should throw out assertions more or less determinate, which we are fully persuaded will not stand the trial of a scriptural test.

We scarcely expected to see Mr. Vaughan, in company with that erratic mind—Mr. Irving-insisting upon the legitimate application of the phrase "sinful flesh," to our Lord's humanity. Peccability would indeed more accurately express our author's meaning, as he professes to imply, not actual sin, but only the liability of his nature to sin. Our objection in limine is-that the phrase is not scriptural. And though we do not think of limiting our modes of expression to the precise words of holy writ, yet so large is the diversity of sacred phraseology, that it surely had been easy to have selected terms expressive of the intended meaning, which are not open, as this is to say the least-to a misconception of the truth. But apart from this-when we see a miracle expressly wrought to produce the Divine incarnation; and when we find the incarnation thus produced, denominated by anticipation-"that holy thing" 3-by what transformation, and at what subsequent period, we might ask, was it converted into its revolting opposite sinful flesh? We are aware that we shall come under Mr. Vaughan's rebuke as "clamouring against the term; "4 but nevertheless we

1 2 Cor. i. 17-19.

2 Pp. i. 101, 281.

3 Luke i. 35.

* Page 14.

hesitate not to give our decided judgment, that its strict grammatical meaning admits of no satisfactory explanation; and that it is not less abhorrent to the mind of God, than dishonourable to that adorable Person, whom it professes to designate.1

In Mr. Vaughan's view, the entire abrogation of the moral law is a matter of unquestionable certainty, and the main ground of the rejection of the Jewish sabbath. Now our eyes seem to see its permanent authority established at least as clearly as Mr. Vaughan saw it to be abrogated. The solemn denunciation against "breaking one of the least of the commandments," includes the fourth; and consequently stands as a plain though implied command, for what Mr. Vaughan denies to be found in the New Testament, the keeping of the sabbath. Obviously therefore the code was not abrogated at that period: while at a later period, under the full light of the New Testament dispensation, we find the apostles recognizing its undoubted authority as the rule of life and conduct.

Mr. Vaughan conceives our Lord's sabbath miracles to have been purposely wrought to cast a slight upon the Jewish ordinance.5 But we would put it to any intelligent Christian conscience, whether the sanctity of the Lord's-day sabbath be violated by works of mercy or of necessity? The former constitute the very essence of pure and undefiled religion, the latter are the acknowledgment of the law of nature, necessary for existence both of man and beast; and both are consonant alike to the liberty of the Gospel, and to the character of a God of mercy and love. Such theories as these we must denominate crude and unscriptural,— even though they be accredited by a name of honour in the Church of God.

We find occasional fancies also of lesser moment, not as we think, indicative of a sober and well-balanced judgment. Perhaps the hypothetical distinction between coming to Christ and believing

Mr. Vaughan lays great stress upon the Psalms, as the actual language of the mystical David. Study,' says he, especially the xxxist., and understand, which is as demonstrable as any moral proposition can be, that that Psalm, from first to last, belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ; and then see whether you can hesitate to receive the truth, that his flesh was sinful flesh. He speaks of his sin. Now we should be very sorry to have the foundations of our faith to rest upon moral propositions' so little demonstrable as Mr. V's. The only specific ground for this decision, would be our Lord's quotation of verse 5, and his dying commendatory prayer to his Father. Luke xxiii. 46. Whereas the next clause of the same room is palpably inapplicable to him; nor do we ever see in the most agomizing of his conflicts, the counterpart of that unbelieving "haste," which the Psalmist was led in the after review to confess as his infirmity. (verse 22.) Might we not conceive our Lord to quote the expression of David's confidence, as suitable to his own condition, without having recourse to an hypothesis, which involves so many difficulties and contradictions. 2 Pp. 485, 486, 491. 8 Matt. v. 19. Rom. xiii. 9, 10. James ii. 8-12. • James i. 27.

5 Page 487.

on him, may belong to this remark. The former Mr. Vaughan refers to the first introduction to Christ by baptism; whereas we might have supposed the manifest interchange of these terms one for the other, to have been sufficient to supersede the necessity for a refined distinction without a real difference.

Some other points might have given occasion for remark,-but the uncertainty upon our minds, even after repeated reading, whether we have correctly fathomed our author's mind, induces us to forbear.

But were we to confine ourselves to the language of animadversion, we should convey to our readers a very inaccurate impression of the character of this volume. If the statement of our differences with Mr. Vaughan have necessarily occupied more prominence of remark, we would carefully balance the judgment by giving our decided conviction, that the sermons contain much solid scriptural instruction to a reflecting mind. The two sermons on Repentance, formerly published as a tract, (excepting however his unscriptural error of the abrogation of the moral law,) may be pointed out as a full and eminently practical exhibition of this Gospel grace. The case also of the Young Rich Man is thoughtfully worked out with much searching application. With deep unction and clearness docs Mr. Vaughan set out "the supreme value of the knowledge of Christ," in rebuke of the superficial apprehensions of most professors upon this primary point :

"To be impregnated with the doctrine of what Christ is, in connection with the counsel of God, with the purpose of God, and with the results which God is achieving, to be thus acquainted with Christ, is to have the foundation of all power and bliss. O beloved,"-adds the preacher with animated earnestnesstake hold of my words; it is to have the foundation of all power and bliss." (p. 365.)

This is indeed the genuine doctrine of the Gospel in its expansion and glowing results. Superficial apprehensions make loose and unstable professors. To be growing up into this knowledge of Christ, is holiness, happiness, consistency, and establishment in grace.

1

Page 75.

2 John vi, 35, (the context of Mr. V's text) vii. 37, 38.