and had suffered for his faith, in circumstances the most trying, that he was a true man, an Israelite indeed, they received him into their fellowship, and it being deemed advisable that his admission into the Christian Church should take place in public, he was regularly baptized by a Christian minister in the presence of his Christian brethren.

He is still in Warsaw, venerable from his age, and more venerable from his character. At his own desire he still wears his Jewish beard, but he holds fast his Christian profession and spends his remaining strength in zealous, and we hope, not fruitless efforts to convince his unbelieving kinsmen that Jesus is the Christ. We feel great honour for "old grey-headed believing Abraham." We that, like his great name-father, he pray be blessed and made a blessing.

LOVE TO THE BRETHREN.

BY THE REV. WILLIAM OLiver, Minister of the Presbyterian Church, Dunluce, Ireland. No. III.

ITS NATURE.

may

BROTHERLY love, like any other affection of the mind, is simple and elementary: every definition, to those who feel it, can only render the subject more intricate and perplexing. Were all professing Christians animated with this principle; did they enjoy it in its full perfection; and had the Holy Spirit conveyed it to their hearts, in all its richness, in all its sweetness, and in all its expansion, we would have only to point a searching personal appeal, and the finger of experience would depict it more accurately than the strictest metaphysical definition. But, alas! there are many who are absolute strangers to it, who are ignorant of its character, and destitute of its power. There are some who brand it as downright enthusiasm; there are some who hardly consider it entitled to an equal rank among the Christian virtues; while others greatly deceive themselves, confidently believing they really possess it, while they retain not one feature of its aspect, nor one element of its nature. For their sakes, it is essential to unfold its character and exalt its position; and these objects will be best accomplished, by carefully removing it from a numerous class of social affections with which it is liable to be confounded.

1. We are apt to interchange with it the sentiment of esteem and admiration. There is often an obsequious homage paid to virtue by characters the most abandoned. Sinners, deeply immersed in the dregs of guilt, frequently admire and venerate holiness, when presented in its loveliest and purest form. The introduction of Christianity has whetted the conscience, both of the renewed and unrenewed. It has elevated and refined the general standard of morality. And from the convictions, which even the wicked possess, of the truth of its doctrines, the certainty of its promises, the terror of its judgments, and the sanctity of its laws, they are sometimes involuntarily compelled to reverence that in others which they have no inclination either to imitate or pursue. The case is very general in society. Many nominal Christians, who have despised their privileges, and disgraced their profession, admire the purity, and envy the hopes, though, at

times, they may affect to pity the weakness of a true disciple. They are inwardly convinced of the importance of religion. They know, from Scripture, that their future blessedness and permanent delight are indissolubly connected with faith in Christ. And, perhaps, their conscience is partially alive to the deformity of vice and the beauty of holiness. Under these impressions, they often break the seal. They highly approve of the consistency of the righteous. They give them full credit for sincerity of intention. They are anxious, in every possible way, to serve them. They speak of them in terms of strong commendation. And they appear to delight in holiness, until the subject is brought home practically to themselves. Then their former complacency is put to flight. Their previous associations rise up in arms. Their passions and prejudices obtain the mastery; and with all their apparent admiration of virtue, the first recurrence of temptation finds them its willing victims; and they still remain either the subjects of indifference, or the slaves of sensuality. Let not admiration, therefore, be mistaken for love. A slight esteem for vital Christians may dwell with those who entertain no congenial feelings; who are totally averse to a full renovation of their habits, their purposes, their principles, their ways.

2. Love to the brethren must be carefully distinguished from philanthropy. Philanthropy may be a natural affection, and exclusively relate to the bodies, and not to the souls of men; to their temporal wants, and not to their spiritual destitution. Besides, it is an indiscriminate feeling, excited by every tale of misery, every scene of suffering, every sigh of distress. Viewed under these lights, far be it from us to deny to the unregenerate the fact of its presence, the power of its influence, or the merit of its effects. The unrenewed bosom has often proved susceptible of the tender and more endearing sympathies of human nature. Many have wept in bitterness over the woes of our unhappy race, whose hearts had not been penetrated by the softening influence of religion. The sight of poverty has moved them to tears; a knowledge of family bereavements has excited their sympathy; to witness excruciating pain, has led to ingenious and successful modes of relief; and their hearts have burned with a laudable desire to ameliorate, to the extent of their power, the temporal condition of our dejected brethren. We are firmly persuaded that even this species of philanthropy cannot be brought to its highest stage of cultivation, apart from the refining operation of the Gospel. Religion melts down the heart, and renders it susceptible of all the tender emotions. The first and most prominent place is doubtless given to the interests of the souls of men; but along with this there is minute attention paid to their temporal wants, their pangs, their griefs, their sorrows, their afflictions. philanthropy requires the influence of religion to consolidate and refine it, is evident from the life of the unrivalled Howard. That unwearied benefactor, the pride and the admiration of modern days, could never have endured the difficulties, undergone the fatigue, braved the hardships, and exhibited the self-denial which marked his career, had he not been inwardly upheld by a principle more than human. His unblenching fortitude in so noble a cause, is a sufficient attestation of genuine piety; and his brilliant example

That

will descend to ages, as a lesson to infidelity, that practically overlooks the interests, however it may deify "the rights of man."

Still, the philanthropy of Howard is not to be confounded with love to the brethren, although in him the feelings were united, and the one appears but an expan- | sion of the other. Philanthropy may limit its exertions to the body; brotherly love extends both to body and soul. The element of the former is that of pity; the element of the latter is that of affection. The objects of the one may be immoral and guilty; the objects of the other sincerely religious. In short, the one is a general feeling, extending to all the suffering portion of the human race; the other is a restricted feeling, confined to those who are members of Christ's mystical body, partakers of his grace, candidates for glory, heirs of heaven.

3. We must distinguish this affection from gratitude. Our simple emotions so frequently blend and commingle that it requires the nicest scrutiny to disunite them, and to inscribe upon each its appropriate title and designation. The human mind may be likened to a common channel, in which a number of tides mix their waters. Previous to the union the current of each was plain, distinct, easily discernible, but after their junction we experience the greatest difficulty in finding out their respective names and their former direction. The same difficulty is felt in separating the component elements of feeling. Several of the emotions so nearly resemble, that, if their objects be the same, they are viewed as identical. For this reason, gratitude is often mistaken for Christian love. If we have been assisted by the saints in the time of adversity; if our wants have been relieved, our pain assuaged, charity extended, and comfort given, resulting gratitude will glow in any sensitive bosom; they will occupy a prominent place in our regards; and they will ever be held in high and merited estimation. An insult offered to them, however small, will provoke our indignation. And we will be ready to serve them at any personal risk, or any possible sacrifice. These feelings of gratitude we believe to be more generally extended to the righteous. In their sentiments they are more humane, and in their character they are more obliging. They are more alive to the sufferings of humanity, and they are more anxious to redress them. Hence, there is a peculiar reason why we should beware, lest we conclude from the existence of a merely natural feeling, that we are really endowed with that vital principle, which the Lord Jesus declares to be an evidence of our faith, and an earnest of our salvation.

Love to the brethren is not strictly founded upon the recollection of any benefit received or intended. This would alter its character, lower its position, and render it extensible to any human benefactor.

Gifts may

heighten, but they cannot awaken it. Good offices may deepen its flow, and quicken its movements; but they do so, principally, because they are pledges of our conversion

that "the love of God has been shed abroad in our hearts, sent down from heaven." In distinguishing between these two principles, let us consider, whether the mind recurs to any proffered benefit, to any obliging act, to any kind deed, to any expression of benevolence. If it do, we pronounce the sentiment gratitude; and however amiable in itself, it is no infallible

Let us farther examine,

token that we are saints. whether, upon our first introduction to believers, having never been put in a position to require their aid, on account of their pious conversation, their clear insight into the mysteries of redeeming mercy, the desire they evinced for religion, and their experimental knowledge of its spirit and its power-whether, for all these reasons, we loved them with a holy love, and felt the bond to be indissoluble. We then declare the affection to exist in its genuine form-to be that sacred, that sweet, that celestial tie, which cements the society, heightens the bliss, and spiritualizes the felicity of heaven.

4. Love to the brethren is essentially distinct from those bonds of union that connect the various relations of human life. A Christian father may be loved, and loved most ardently, by his unbelieving son. In this case, wherever there is a single spark of generosity, the filial affection is more intense, more intimate, and more confirmed. From the direct tendency of faith to irradiate every social affinity, religious parents deserve to be tenderly beloved. They are minutely attentive to the wants of their offspring. They carefully avoid whatever may impart unnecessary pain. They are anxious to soothe the sorrows, and allay the griefs of those committed to their care. In consequence of those acts of kindness, their image is deeply graven, and their memory cherished, when their bodies have long mingled with their kindred clay. Still this may be only an outflow of natural affection. The heart may fondly cling to the memory of so kind a father, without a knowledge of the bright hopes that animated his bosom. The place of his devotions may be eagerly sought, without a faint idea of the holy aspirations that ascended there. And the tears of grateful sorrow may be sprinkled over his dust, without one blest assurance of sharing his unclouded joy, upon the glorious morn of the resurrection.

In like manner, Christians may sustain the relations of husband or brother, servant or master, pastor or friend; and in all these situations, be greeted with that affection, which their upright deportment most frequently earns. But, in all these cases, the love to believers is purely accidental. It is nothing more than would have been extended, under similar circumstances, to any other member of society. It has no exclusive character. It relates to them in their social, and not in their religious aspect. And upon this ground it is essentially different from Christian affection. Let us not deceive ourselves by specious appearances. Let us carefully separate between natural and spiritual feeling; for upon this division eminently hinge our hopes and happiness throughout eternity.

SCRIPTURAL RESEARCHES.

No. XVI.

THE USE OF TRADITION AND PROFANE HISTORY.

BY THE REV. JAMES ESDAILe, D.D., Minister of the East Church, Perth. CAN the Scriptures of truth, and the dispensations of heaven, receive confirmation or elucidation from of men? Generally speaking they can not; the fancies profane history, or from the unauthenticated traditions and comments of men, tend greatly to pervert the light of truth, and to distort the lessons which it is intended to enforce thus, the Rabbins, among the

Jews, rendered the Word of God of none effect by their traditions; the Church of Rome did the same for Christianity at large, and converted into a tool for the clergy, what was intended for the benefit of all mankind. One would think that there is less room for license in regard to historical facts, than in regard to doctrines and opinions; but investigation will scarcely confirm this supposition; for, in reality, the facts of history are of very little moment, if detached from the motives and feelings of the actors, or from the purposes of the eternal ruler, neither of which can be known without the assistance of a revelation from heaven, the only kind of evidence which is entitled to pass entirely undisputed. But before a man can be called upon to acquiesce in any document, or any doctrine, as of divine authority, he may reasonably require to be satisfied as to the genuineness of the document, and as to the certainty that the doctrine which it contains is really from heaven: absolute demonstration, on such a subject, is perhaps impossible, unless the person who doubts were made the subject of a miracle, which is not to be expected, as that would entirely supersede the exercise of our faculties, and teach us to wait for extraordinary influence, instead of stirring up the gift of God that is in us, and seeking knowledge and comfort from the established means of grace and instruction which he has appointed.

Let us take a passing glance at some of those means which are within the reach of every inquirer after the truth. Here, then, we may observe that there are principles in every man which ought to impel him to the investigation of the great truths of religion. He feels the conviction of responsibility and immortality, and he has deep convictions of ignorance and sin: "Whence, or what am I, sure, I nothing know." He eagerly inquires at others; but he finds them miserable comforters, and guides not to be trusted. A book, at last, is thrown in his way, professing to treat of those things in which he is so deeply interested; he devours its contents with eagerness; and his joy is equal to his astonishment, when he finds the information which he sought, not laid down in dry didactic propositions, but coming warm from the heart, to the heart, and supplying the very remedy which he had so anxiously desired. This is one way, and a very satisfactory one, by which the power of divine truth is brought home to the mind; and it is intended to be, and will one day be, within the reach of all through the ordinary ministrations of the Gospel.

But there are many who have been trained in a different school, who are accustomed to doubt of every thing, who seek the conviction of their understanding, rather than of their conscience, and must have a demonstration of all facts, before they assent to the propounded doctrines. Many of these have never reached the salutary convictions which they professed to desire: yet, the world has been indebted to them; they have acted as pioneers to clear the way; and though they themselves may have gone astray, their very error has pointed out the right road to others. Even Voltaire, and Volney, and Tom Paine have, in spite of themselves, been serviceable; for, every point which they assailed has been demonstrated to be impregnable; and Gibbon, (though he disclaims the name of unbeliever, and died in communion with the Church of Rome,) after all his attempts to account for the progress of Christianity by what he calls secondary causes, has failed most egregiously, and has received due castigation from Watson, Paley, Lord Hailes, and many

others.

In ancient times, the misleading principle was credulity rather than scepticism; the latter is a plant of modern growth, and had no place among the ancients in religion and morals, except among the Epicureans, who were avowed free-thinkers, and adopted temporal

expediency as their ruling principle of action; and among the Pyrrhonists, who refused to trust the evidence of the senses even with regard to physical science. Tradition, however, had great influence among all: the things of greatest importance to mankind are not those which can be made the subject of demonstration, but those which are useful for the business and comfort of life, which have been handed down from one generation to another, without any certainty as to the original inventor or author; but which are too interesting in their consequences not to excite an anxious desire to know their origin, and the accident, or inventive genius which suggested their application to the business or comforts of life. Accordingly, there is not an art or process known in ancient times, which the heathen authors have not attempted to trace to their source, and have never failed to ascribe divine honours to the supposed discoverers or inventors. The same principle of curiosity which led them to investigate the origin of the arts and sciences, and of the ordinary processes adopted for the comfort of life, induced them to entertain speculations of a higher character, and to inquire how the heavens, earth, and sea were called into existence, and how they are regulated and preserved.

It is clear that there could be no existing witness of these facts among the children of men. "Where wast thou when I laid the foundations?" This question might have been sufficient to shut the mouths even of the heathen, and to have shown them the futility, if not the impiety, of attempting to explain what evidently lay beyond the ken of mortals; yet, on no subject were their speculations so multifarious; and, amidst all the incongruities of their systems, there was, nevertheless, a general harmony, which indicates a common origin; and that origin is, unquestionably, the Holy Scriptures.

Take, for instance, the account which Ovid gives of the creation in his Metamorphoses, and strike out his absurd attempt to account for the production of the heavens and earth out of chaos; and, by the natural operation of certain principles, where, according to the definition of the word chaos, as given by himself, no principles existed, the elements being all jumbled together in one inert mass; laying aside this absurdity, we have an account of creation, agreeing in all essential particulars with that given by the Sacred Historian. And here, I think, we may venture to affirm, that the idea of creation never could have entered into the human mind without revelation; we see nothing analogous to it in nature; we see plants and animals endowed with the power of reproduction, which they derived from the Creator when he first called them into existence; but of creation, properly so called, we see no instance; whether we consider it as implying a production of organized substances out of nothing, or the formation of animated beings out of pre-existing materials: a new animal, however minute, springing into existence, would be as great a miracle as a new world. I do not see, then, how men could ever, by the light of reason, have arrived at the idea of creation; it is matter of testimony; it is the result of faith, not of reasoning: and the apostle's statement seems quite conclusive on the subject: "Through faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the Word of God; so that things which are seen, were not made of things which do appear." Heb. xi. 3. This seems quite conclusive; the discoveries of reason have no connection with faith, which is the evidence of things not seen, depending upon the testimony of God.

There is a singularity worth noticing in the accounts which heathen authors give of the origin of the world, and of the origin of the laws and institutions of civil life; they uniformly attempt to account for the existence of the visible universe, on the principles of their defective science: whilst they as uniformly ascribe

their laws and civil institutions to the instruction of some individuals favoured by communications from heaven. On every principle of human reasoning, one would think that the case would be entirely the reverse, and that enlightened policy might naturally be expected to proceed from the practical wisdom of experienced and philanthropic men. I am inclined to think that even this singularity has proceeded from their drawing from a source which they do not choose to acknowledge. For, let it be observed, that Moses nowhere announces that he had received his account of creation by a revelation from heaven; nor was it necessary he should do so: we may be sure that it was not published to Israel, till his character, as a divinely inspired teacher, had been fully established;, and there is every probability, that all the other books of Moses containing the moral and ritual laws, were written and published, and in common use, before the Israelites were put in possession of the book of Genesis. The other books, containing all the laws and regulations which were to be observed in daily use, were necessary from the commencement of the exodus from Egypt; and we have a detailed account of the circumstances in which they were severally published. But the historical facts detailed in the book of Genesis, must have been familiar, by authentic tradition, to every Israelite who desired information respecting the origin of their race, and God's dealings with mankind. The probability, therefore, is, that Genesis, though comprehending the first eventful period of this world's history, was the last of the books written by Moses; and is to be regarded, not as peculiar to the chosen people, but as a bequest given to the world at large, to prove the truth of God's word, and the faithfulness of his promises.

This view may, perhaps, account for the heathen authors attempting to give a philosophical account of creation, under the idea that Moses had done the same, as he gives no hint that his information had proceeded from a higher source; whilst, in regard to every law connected with the moral, religious, and ceremonial observances of the Jews, he announced them as enjoined by the immediate command of heaven, in which he has been closely followed by all the heathen authors who record the origin of their laws and institutions. But with regard to the creation of animal life, the order, as given by the heathen authors, is the very same as that recorded by Moses, who lived many centuries before Homer and Hesiod, by much the oldest heathen authors whose writings have reached our times; there was no possibility, therefore, of his borrowing from any author whose works are in existence; and the question is, did they borrow from him?* In the later periods of classical literature they had ample opportunities of doing so, for the Hebrew Scriptures were made accessible to the Greeks and Romans by the translation of the Septuagint, which was in the hands of the Jews in every part of the Roman empire, for, at least, two hundred years before Christ. And such records as these were not likely to escape the notice of the learned, who travelled into the remotest regions, and ransacked the most obscure corners in search of knowledge; so that every It would appear that a very extraordinary forgery has been recently attempted. Sanchoniatho, a Phenician author, has always been brought forward by unbelievers, as rivalling Moses in point of antiquity, and authority too: as he also writes an account of creation. His work is only known by a translation into Greek by Philo Byblius, and of this translation nothing remains but some fragments preserved in the Prepar. Evang. of Eusebius. An extraordinary

work has recently appeared in Germany, professing to be the entire translation of Philo Byblius in Greek, of which the editor gives a translation in Latin. This has been denounced as an entire forgery, with the exception of the fragments in Eusebius, which the author has been careful to retain ; if so, it is a most wonderful exertion and waste of talent; for the author must have written the whole in Greek, in the first instance, and very good Greek it seems to be, and afterwards applied himself to give a faithful and elegant translation into Latin. This seems to rival the exploit of the famous George Psalmanezor, who invented what he called the Formosan language, of which he wrote a Grammar, and which he spoke fluently and consistently, and his own confession alone revealed the imposture,

kind of information that could be furnished by Egypt, Babylon, or Judea, was open to the investigation of the sages of Greece and Italy. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the translation of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek would be eagerly sought after as one of the greatest literary curiosities of these times.

But we may take higher, and perhaps more solid ground even than this, to prove that the sages of the ancient world, in more countries than we are perhaps aware of, had the means of acquiring accounts of the creation, corresponding, in all essential particulars, with the authentic records of Moses. It must be remembered that a great part of the knowledge of ancient times was confined to oral communication; instead of being patent to all, as in modern times, it fell to the share of a favoured few who had time, and patience, and money, to bestow on the pursuit. In this way much important knowledge was confined to the initiated; and in this way it exists, at the present time, in some countries of the world, and particular families are in possession of certain secret processes, which become a kind of family inheritance, never intrusted to strangers. There can be no doubt that there was much of this mystic lore in ancient times; and it is also certain that it became a settled point among the corrupters of primitive truth, to mystify facts and doctrines, and to conceal them from public view under the impenetrable mask of allegory and fable. But it was not so from the beginning. Adam knew, as well as Moses who recorded the event, the history of his own creation; for he did not acquire his information as we do by the slow process of investigation and memory; his faculties were perfect from the first, and he gave names to all the objects presented to his view characteristic of their qualities and properties. He knew that he had been called into existence by almighty power, and he knew that the partner of his life was part of his substance, for he said, "This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called woman, because she was taken out of man."

By the same intuitive knowledge, or by immediate instruction from heaven, he knew how the goodly frame of the universe had been called into existence; and all this knowledge he undoubtedly imparted to his children, who were, like us, born in ignorance and sin. By this means the most important knowledge was transmitted to posterity; and we cannot doubt that the whole antediluvian race was made acquainted with the history of creation, and with the fatal incident which had deformed the beauty of the new made world, and introduced sin and death with all their woe.

This knowledge continued to be familiar to one branch of the family of Adam at least, and the righteous Noah was well acquainted with the causes of that terrible degeneracy which determined the Almighty to sweep away the ungodly race, as an everlasting proof of his hatred of sin. These extraordinary and most momentous incidents never could be forgotten, however much they might be distorted in the current of tradition, and by the increasing wickedness of men.

Is it not evident, then, that we might account for the history of the creation, in all its steps, on the ground of primeval tradition, descending in an uninterrupted stream from Adam to Noah, and from Noah to the post diluvian race; whilst it is obvious that this stream of tradition would become more and more turbid and polluted in its course, so as to require the intervention of an authoritative revelation to vindicate the honour of God as the Creator, Governor, and Judge of the world. Indeed I consider it as extremely questionable whether man would ever have had any idea of creation at all without an immediate revelation from heaven; it is a process which no man has ever seen, and therefore it is an object of faith. The first man knew as little on this subject as those who came after him; he witnessed no act of creation, for he was the last of the creatures that