aware myself, that the Magogian descent of the Scythians, and through them of the Franks, rested upon any better authority than a mere random assertion of the comparatively modern historian Josephus.

This demand, however, which I bad deemed sufficiently reasonable, is censured by your correspondent M. J. A. in your number for the July of the present year, as being very much the contrary: and the ground of his entertaining such an opinion is this; no commentator since the time of Christ has demonstrated the completion of any one prophecy, and, in the nature of things, such completion is at present incapable of demonstration.

I must confess myself unable to perceive, how the remark of your correspondent at all bears upon the question now before you. He has manifestly confounded together two very distinct things: the proof of an historical fact, and the proof that a commentator has rightly interpreted a prophecy. Now I fully agree with him, that the latter is incapable of absolute demonstration: but what has that to do with the former? I was not so absurd as to call upon Mr. Penn to demonstrate the propriety of his interpretation: I simply called upon him to prove the truth of a circumstance alleged as an historical fact. This I might equally request him to prove, had he never written a syllable on prophecy. If he had, in any historical publication, for instance, asserted the Magogian descent of the Scythians, I might just as much have demanded a proof of the assertion as I do now. This demand has, in fact, nothing to do with his explanation of prophecy, quoad explanation of prophecy. Mr. Penn asserts, that the Scythians were the children of Magog: I ask him to prove his assertion. His being able, or unable, to do this, does indeed materially affect his exposition of the prophecy; but that is only an incidental circumstance. I never asked him to demonstrate, that his exposition was the right one; I only requested him

to prove the truth of an alleged historical fact. Now, what such a demand has to do with "exercising the reason and the faith of Christians," I cannot comprehend. I can discern neither "reason" nor "faith," in admitting the exposi tion of a prophecy to be the right one; when the whole of that exposition rests avowedly upon an alleged historical fact, which has never been authenticated, and which (I shrewdly suspect) never will and never can be authenticated. Yet the authentication of this alleged fact is absolutely necessary for Mr. Penn's system. If I were to attempt to shew the exact accomplishment of the prophecy relative to the enlargement of Japhet, by adducing some modern nation which had been very greatly enlarged; I plainly should do just nothing at all, unless I previously demonstrated, that the modern nation, adduced as an instance, was descended from Japhet; for, if, all the while, it were sprung from Shem or Ham, whatever might be its enlargement, it would afford no proof that the prophecy had been accomplished. Just so with Mr. Penn: however soundly the French may have been beaten by the Russians, we can have no evidence whatsoever that the prediction relative to Magog has thereby been fulfilled, unless it be first shewn, that the French are descended from Magog. Until that be done, we are completely fighting in the dark.

Your correspondent, by way of further helping Mr. Penn out of his difficulties, says, that, as the Seythians did prevail in the north of Europe, they might have been the ancestors of the Franks. Now, what has this remark to do with the question in hand? The litigated point is, not whether the Scythians were the ancetors of the Franks, but, whether Mas gog was the ancestor of the Scythians? The Scythic descent of the Franks is indeed an undoubted historical fact, so that your correspondent need not have used the hesitating word might: but this brings us not one jot nearer

to the nucleus of the question, unless we can further establish, as a second undoubted historical fact, that the Scythians themselves were descended from Magog.

Your correspondent cannot much have studied the merits of the case, when he asserts that the dispute, whether the Scythians were originally a nation of Europe or a nation of Asia, seems entirely beside the present question. In the first place, there is no dispute about the matter, unless he should be adventurous enough to advocate the idle dreams of Jornandes about the northern Scandinavian hive: and, in the second, so far from being beside the question, the origination of the Scy thians is a matter of prime importance to it. Moses assures us, that, in the primeval settlement of the world, Europe, or the isles of the Gentiles, was peopled by the descendants of Japhet. Hence, if the Scythians were an original European nation, they must have been the children of that Patriarch; the very point which Mr. Penn is requested to prove. But the Scythians were an original Asiatic nation: and their primitive seats, after the dispersion from Babel (I speak of the unmixed Scythians of Touran, not of the mingled race that remained in Iran), were the defiles of the three Caucasi, and the intervening mountainous country that stretches all the way from Upper India to the Euxine Sea. These valorous Asiatics were not the settlers, but the invaders, of Europe: nor did they enter that country, until the Celts, and other tribes of the stock of Japhet, had previously colonized it. Such being the case, though it be an undeniable historical fact that the Franks, and other Gothic nations, were descended from the Scythians; it yet remains to be proved by Mr. Penn, that the Asiatic Scythians themselves were descended from Magog.

Now this he will never be able to prove, for the very best possible reason in the world: it may be regularly shewn, step by step, that

the Scythians were not descended from Magog, but from an entirely different Patriarch. Hence the French, who are undoubtedly the children of the Scythians, are, of course, descended from that different Patriarch to whom I allude: and, consequently, not being the descendants of Magog, they cannot be meant by the Magog in Ezekiel's prophecy.

The pedigree of the Scythians may easily be traced on the direct authority of history: but it cannot be done, except at considerable length. Be not, however, alarmed, Mr. Editor, at this portentous declaration. I can as little spare time : at present for regularly drawing out this genealogy, as you can spare room for it: so that your pages need not fear an invasion from the chi valrous warriors of Caucasus. What has been said may serve to shew, what it was intended to shew, how dangerous it is to attempt the exposition of a prophecy which rests upon the genealogy of nations, with-out first carefully studying that genealogy.

AN INQUIRER.

FAMILY SERMONS. No. LXIX. Rom. viii. 7.-The carnal mind is enmity against God; for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

WHEN the old men among the Jews, who had seen the glory of the first temple, beheld the inferiority of the second, they lifted up their voices and wept. How much more cause have we for sorrow, if we compare man, in his original state, as he came out of the hand of God, created in righteousness and true holiness, with what he now is, a fallen and ruined being, with the marks of sin, corruption, misery, and death, every where stamped upon him!

Sin came into the world by Adam's transgression. He fell, and all his children are born into the same state of corruption and misery to which that fall reduced him.

1. We are not to suppose that irreligious men are enemies to God, according to the view which they form of his character. When they regard him as a great, wise, and good Being, exerting these attributes in their own behalf and that of their fellow-creatures, they may even feel a certain degree of complacency in thinking of him; they may admire his works, and praise him for his bounty. If a person with these views were told that his mind was naturally at enmity with God, he would be apt to repel the charge, and to appeal confidently to his own heart. In explaining the meaning of the Apostle, therefore, we must be careful not to confound the view we may have formed to ourselves of the character of God, with that which really belongs to him. In the character which irreligious or worldly men usually form of him, his supreme authority as Governor of the world, his infinite holiness as hating sin, and his justice in punishing it, are kept out of sight. Their imaginations frame a being like themselves, who will be very merciful and indulgent to sinners; who will allow them to live in a great measure as they please, pumishing only the sins which would be very injurious to society, yet easily forgiving even these, and ready to grant eternal happiness to all his creatures, especially to themselves, though strangers to a life of real purity and holiness. Besides, the enmity of the "carnal mind" against God is not to be considered as a personal dislike, but as a dislike of his government and laws, particularly those which restrain us from doing what we should have pleasure in doing, or require us to do what we feel no inclination to perform. Our dislike to these is in fact enmity against God, for it strikes directly at his authority and in this way is the enmity of the carnal mind explained in the text: "it is not subject to the law of God." Whoever, therefore, dislikes the purity of God's law, may be said to

dislike God; and he would shew even a personal dislike to Him, did he clearly see His hand restraining, correcting, and punishing him, when acting agreeably to his own evil passions.

2. Again: when it is said that the carnal mind is enmity against God, we are not to understand that it has no qualities which are in any degree to be commended, or that it is equally addicted to all kinds of evil, or that there is no difference in the degrees of corruption and guilt existing in different persons, What is meant is, that there is a strong bias in all men to sin; a natural and powerful tendency to approve and do those things which God has forbidden, and to dislike those duties which God has required. Let men be left to the genuine workings of their own minds; let them be restrained by no fear of punishment, or excited by no hope of reward; and they will certainly follow, not a course of holy obedience to God, but of sinful indulgence: they will be careless of God's favour, sensual, or proud, or vain, or self-willed; they will be immersed in foolish and sinful pleasures, doing some or other of the works of the flesh, and being far from bringing forth the fruits of the Spirit.

III. Having thus explained the meaning of the text, let us now consider the confirmation it derives from what we experience in ourselves, or witness in others.

Let us then consider, as in the sight of God, what dispositions are natural to ourselves; what views and desires are most congenial to our hearts, and take the deepest root there. On such a review, shall we find that the love of God has been our first and ruling principle; that our chief desire has been to glorify his name, and to fulfil his commands; that we have been strongly and uniformly concerned to know his will, and that, when we knew it, we set ourselves always with readiness and cheerfulness to perform it; that we found no reluctance in our hearts to

this course, no drawing of the inclination another way; but that it was easy and delightful to us, because we were following the strong and natural bias of our mind; and that it would have been painful for us to have acted otherwise? And is this the character of others as well as ourselves? Are the sins committed in the world committed through ignorance merely? Does the sinner repent of them, and forsake them, as soon as he hears they are contrary to the Divine will? Do the children around us discover a strong tendency, even from infancy, to what is right? Have we only to point out to them the path of duty, that they may walk in it? Do we see in them a natural dislike of evil; a love of what is good; a spirit of meekness, patience, and long-suffering; an indifference to the pomps and vanities of the world; a relish for holy subjects of conversation? Do we see them, as they grow up, agreeing to bring forth the fruits of righteousness, and striving to glorify God, and to promote the happiness of their fellowcreatures? In fine, is the world, in consequence of this virtuous disposition with which every one is born, this natural bias to what is good, a grand scene of purity, kindness, meekness, patience, humility, of Divine zeal, and holiness, and love? These questions require no answer. It is too plain how much the state of the world is the very reverse of all this, and how clearly it points out that corrupt disposition which is natural to man as its cause.

But let us bring the matter home to our consciences. Do we not find it difficult to do what is right? Do not the strongest motives fail here, seeing that even eternal blessings, joined with the clear view of worldly interest, are often insufficient to induce us to exert ourselves in doing the will of God? And when we do attempt this, how many difficulties present themselves, which are increased by an unwilling mind; how. soon do spiritual motives lose their CHRIST. OBSERY. No. 153.

force; how dull and lifeless do our spiritual affections become; how readily are we engaged in what ministers to the flesh; how cheerfully does the time pass which is spent in vanity and folly; how tedious the hours given to devotion! To what do the words entertainment, pleasure, happiness, point, in the common language of the world? Is it to things which have any relation to holiness? And do we not find that, with the world, we ourselves are perpetually making a false esti mate of things, and setting up false standards of right and wrong? Are not our affections and desires at war with our reason and conscience, and with the word of God? Is not a holy life necessarily a life of selfdenial, requiring constant and unintermitting pains and watchfulness? Do we not feel, that, in order to love and serve Christ, we must crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts, we must become new creatures in Christ Jesus? Do we not find constant occasion to reprove ourselves, to set before our minds the strongest motives and most alarming dangers, to fix a guard on all our passions and affections, and to pray earnestly for Divine help? And after all, are we not too often foiled; and do we not find (such is the strength of our corruption), our labour often fruitless, and ourselves compelled to cry out," wretched man that I am, who shall deliver me from this body of death?"

Behold, then, the carnal mind, which is enmity against God. They who are truly endeavouring to serve God, feel and lament it; while they, who are giving way to every sin, may perhaps deny its existence; for it is only by resisting it, that the strength of this corrupt principle is discovered.--But it is time to consider what improvement may be reaped from the view that has been taken of this subject.

1. Let us learn humiliation.-To be at enmity with God, the Foun-> tain of truth, justice, goodness, and purity-and that not incidentally,

4 E