Here we have a very striking fact. One of the worst of men is here exhibited by the Word of God, as not only equally favoured with the righteous, by the gifts of Providence, but as distinguished above all men of whom we read, for the perfect beauty of his person. Let us contrast with this another example of an opposite kind recorded also in the divine word. Let us take a glance at Lazarus lying at the gate of the rich man, covered with sores, not only the meanest of beggars, but personally loathsome even to the eye of charity. Which of these two is the favourite of heaven ? Undoubtedly were this question put to human wisdom uninformed by revelation, Absalom would be supposed to have been the favourite of God, and Lazarus be thought to have suffered under the aveng ing hand of the Ruler of the world. Yet Lazarus, in all his poverty and loathsomeness, was the servant of God; and Absalom, with all his beauty, was a fratricide, a virtual paracide, who usurped the throne of an indulgent fatherwho would have imbued his hands in that father's bloodand who was guilty of the most open and abominable incest. Now as these two facts are recorded by Scripture, and as all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, the peculiarity which we have noticed must be designed for our instruction. It is not merely to gratify our curiosity, that the Holy Spirit has recorded this singular instance of beauty in one of the most abandoned men. It is de signed to show us a characteristic in the divine govern ment, and guard us against judging of the ways of God by the ways of men. It teaches us that God's people are to walk by faith and not by sight.

This peculiarity in the government of Providence, as exhibited by various facts recorded in Scripture, is a most decisive and satisfactory argument in favour of the truth of revelation. Had the Bible been the composition of man, it would have borne the impression of his wisdom, and the friends and enemies of God, would have been treated in a different manner. The beauty of Absalom would have adorned some favourite of heaven, while the poverty and, disease of Lazarus, would have been the punishment of some of the most noted of his enemies! Homer's heroes are distinguished for personal accomplish ments; and on particular occasions they have additional lustre conferred on them by the gods. This fallacy is so deeply rooted in human wisdom, that it is not only mani

fested in the Heathens, but is also exemplified among professed Christians. Overlooking all the instances in which this peculiarity of the divine government meets us in Scripture, they speak on this subject with the ignorance of Heathens. Personal beauty is appealed to even by theologians, as a test of orthodoxy. If a man is as handsome as his neighbours, his religious creed cannot be very erroneous; but if he possess a more than ordinary share of personal accomplishments, it is not possible that his religious sentiments can be dangerous. His beauty is the seal of heaven on his orthodoxy. Had Absalom been judged by this standard, what a prodigy of truth and goodness would he have been! But God does not decide on the truth of religious doctrines in this manner. word is the only standard of truth: and though his providence may adorn his enemies with all personal perfections, and confer on them the most extensive temporal advantages, while he denies the same to many of his servants, he will finally decide on the lot of all according to his word. DEMETRIUS.

His

DIVINE LOVE.

"We love him, because he first loved us."-1 JOHN iv. 19.

WHY is it that men do not love God? Why is it that they do not love every thing that comes from God, and that conducts to God? This immense defect is to be attributed to their ignorance of his revealed character. They do not love him, because they do not know him. Did we know him "as he is," infinitely good,-infinitely worthy of our affections, infinitely concerned for our happiness, we could not but love him." He that loveth not, knoweth not God; for God is love?”.

What theme ought to be so pleasing as that of divine love? In love may be summed up all that God has to do with Christians, and all that Christians have to do with God. Is there any thing cheerless or repulsive in this? Instead of being cheerless or repulsive, this subject beams forth on the spiritual mind with a light of peculiar sweet. ness and attraction. It is most decided proof of a nature fallen and alienated from God, that the theme of his love is met with any thing, on our part, but corresponding relish and delight. What is the spirit and concentration of

that religion which brings and binds the soul to God? What is the source and perfection of that obedience which our Father in heaven requires of us as his children ? — Love,-love is the appropriate answer to these questions; for it is written, "Love is the fulfilling of the law," and "on these two commandments, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and thy neighbour as thyself, hang all the law and the prophets." What, indeed, is God? What is the most distinguishing and comprehensive character of his nature? "God is love;" and as all that he requires of man must accord with his own perfec, tions, and as the closest resemblance to him must be the highest excellence of the highest creatures, all duty is summed up in love, and perfection in love must be the perfection of our being. It is accordingly written, "God is love; and he that dwelleth in love, dwelleth in God, and God in him."

As all that Christians are and do in relation to God, originates in love, and is summed up in love, in like manner, all that God is and does in relation to Christians, originates in love, and is summed up in love. He regards us with creating love: "Let us make man," said he, "in our image, and after our likeness;" and be cannot but regard with complacency the creature's reflection of his own image. Have we sinned, and provoked his righteous displeasure and punishment? He has regarded us with redeeming love; for "in this was manifested the love of God toward us, because that God sent his only begotten Son into the world, that we might live through him. Herein is love, not that we loved God, but that he loved us, and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins." Alienated as our hearts are by nature, from the life of God, and at enmity against him, cherishing inclinations and desires in hostility to his will, and maintaining claims of our own in opposition to his rights and his claims; how is it that we are brought to desist from this hopeless conflict, and be reconciled to God? Certainly by being brought to love him. And how are we brought to love him? By being persuaded of his love to us. His love is the ori ginating cause of ours; and it is so both energetically and instrumentally. It is so energetically, because it is in love to us, that he begets love in our hearts to him; and it is so instrumentally, because it is by the exhibition of his love, especially in delivering his only begotten Son that

we should have redemption through his blood, that a return of corresponding love is produced in our souls. God commendeth his love to us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us; and he does this as the only effectual method for breaking down the rebelliousness of our nature, and inducing a return of the affections to himself. To the production of love within, the mere exbibition of the love of God is not indeed of itself sufficient; it must be attended with a divine energy, in order to awaken the soul to a perception of that love. It is the office of the Holy Spirit to open the eyes of our understandings, to discern the amazing demonstration which God has given us of his love in the work of redemption. In this way the admiration is kindled-the affections are captivated-and "the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us." Thus it is that "he loves us with an everlasting love, and with loving-kindness does he draw us." Thus we see "that love is of God, and he that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God." Thus we perceive the meaning and the force of the declaration, “We love him, because he first loved us."

"We love him, because he first loved us." In these few weighty words, we have an account of the whole intercourse between God and the soul. Here is love coming down from God, and fixing itself on the soul; and here is love rising from the soul, and fixing itself on God. Here is love, not beginning first in the soul and begetting love in God; but here is love beginning first with God, and begetting love in the soul. Here is love, not resting in the bosom of God, but descending and displaying its blessed effects in the souls of Christians: and here is love, not resting in the bosom of Christians, but rising and displaying itself toward God in gratitude, adoration, and ardent attachment to his interests and people. Thus God's love to his people, and his people's love to him, are mutual. They love him; he loves them: but their love to him does not procure or precede his love to them. His love to them is prior in order of time, and in order of influence. His love is the origin and cause of theirs. Why do we love him? The whole account of the matter resolves itself into this," because he first loved us." Love descends from God on the soul, and from the soul rises to God in return. As the water comes from the ocean and flows to

it again as the dews descend from heaven, and are exhaled to heaven-in like manner does divine love issue forth from the bosom of Jehovah to the hearts of his children but it does not lie there-it does not perish there-it circles in grateful return to our God and Father, and so performs its glorious course. Thus the soul that loves God, and abides in his love, has in itself a perpetual witness of this great truth," We love him, because he first loved us."

G

THE REFORMER.

No. I.

Introductory Observations.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE ORTHODOX PRESBYTERIAN.

SIR, I HAVE been particularly pleased with those parts of your publication, in which, upon some important subjects you have carried on a succession of essays. In your last number you have announced a series for the current year, including some of the most interesting topics in practical religion. I rejoice in the promise, and trust to profit by its fulfilment. But while profiting by the labours of others, I would willingly contribute to the publie treasury a mite of my own. I come, therefore, to request a place in your pages for another succession of brief essays, on a subject at which you have frequently glanced, but which I wish to examine and discuss more fully in detail. The subjects of my purposed essays will be readily anticipated from the general title I have adopted. My object is to lay before your readers some of those matters in which I conceive the Presbyterian Churches do yet require reformation. It may, doubtless, sound strange in some ears, when I speak of the necessity of reformation as still existing in the church. The nineteenth century is supposed, by not a few, to carry in its very name, a proof that no farther reformation is wanted. The acknowledged work of reformation that has, for years, been advancing in the Synod of Ulster, is supposed by others, to have rendered additional efforts of reformation perfectly unnecessary; while the admission, that a church needs re