Mede, he expressed his thoughts in a striking manner on this subject. "I am," said he, "for union and communion of all visible christians; and for making nothing necessary, but what Christ has made necessary, or what is indeed necessary to one's being a christian. Such a union must be effected, not by mere human endeavours, but by an almighty spirit poured forth; which, after we have suffered a while, shall put us into joint, and make every joint know its place in the body; shall conquer private interests and inclinations, and overawe men's hearts by the authority of the divine law, which now, how express soever it is, little availeth against such prepossessions. Till then christianity will be among us a languishing, withering thing! When the season comes of such an effusion of the spirit from on high, there will be no parties. And amidst the wilderness desolation that cannot but be till that season comes, it matters little, and signifies to me scarce one straw, what party is uppermost. The most righteous, as they may be vogued, will be but as briers and scratching thorns; and it is better to suffer by such, than to be of them."

Having quoted this passage, Dr. Calamy remarks, "I cannot help saying, that it never could be for the credit of any church to exclude one of such a make and spirit out of its enclosure."

Other events in the life of Mr.

demand

notice:

Howe These will be reserved for a future number of this work. But, that our readers may not fail of being favorably impressed in regard to his character, we shall here quote some passages from the preface to his discourse on the blessedness of the righteous.

"The design of it is wholly practical. It hath little or nothing to do with disputation. If there be any, whose business it is to promote a divided interest, or who place the sum of their religion in an inconsiderable or doubtful opinion, it doth not unhallow their altars, nor offer any affront to their idol. It is indeed equally matter of wonder and complaint, that men can find so much leisure to avert from things in which there is so much pleasure and delight, unto what one would think hath little temptation or allurement in it-contentious jangling. What tragedies hath it wrought in the christian church! Into how weak and languishing a condition hath it brought the religion of professed christians! We have had a greater mind to dispute, than to live, and to contend about what we know not, than to practise the far greater things we know, and which more directly tend to nourish and maintain the divine life. We know that generally, by how much any thing is more disputable, the less it is conducive to the christian life. God hath graciously provided, that what we are to live by should not cost us dear."

LET us farther consider what would be prudent in an ambassador, who is sent from a wise and good king to revolted sub jects, to persuade them to become reconciled to their sovereign. In the designs and acts of such a king, there might be some things which an ambassador could not explain to the understandings of common people, in a manner which would clear the sovereign from suspicions of partiality or injustice. Those parts of the king's conduct, which could not be clearly unfolded to the understanding of the subjects, might be just and highly important; they might be the fruit of extraordinary foresight and real benevolence, and appear so to the ambassador, yet he might be sensible of the impracticability of explaining them in a manner which would do honor to the king in view of the subjects; that after all the light he could communicate, they would not be able to discern the necessity, the importance, or the propriety of those arrangements. What then would prudence dietate, as the best course for the ambassador to pursue? What would duty to his sovereign demand? If the subjects had some idea of these mysterious parts of the king's conduct, and should urge these things, as objections to the righteousness of the sovereign, or as evidences of partiality in him, or as grounds on which their rebellion might be justified;

it would surely behove the ambassador to vindicate the character of his sovereign according to his ability, and to show the transgressors that they were without excuse. From the gen

eral character of the king, the equity of his laws, the innumerable instances of his kindness and love; from what he had done to bring about a reconciliation, that the lives of his subjects might be spared, and from his long suffering towards the guilty, the messenger might lead the disobedient to infer the certainty, or at least the probability, that in other parts of his conduct the sovereign had conducted with the same benevolent regard to the welfare of the kingdom. He might lead those who were parents, to consider how common a thing it is in governing a family and providing for its welfare, for a kind father to adopt measures, the reasonableness and necessity of which cannot be fully explained to the satisfaction of his children. But children may have ground of confidence in a wise and good parent, and may believe that his designs and measures are right, while the reasons of his conduct may be concealed from them. Moreover, so far as it may be in the pow er of the ambassador to offer light, and to correct any misapprehensions respecting those parts of the king's conduct which were the ground of objection, he might prudently proceed. But

in him, to be continually urging those things, which he himself can neither explain nor clearly understand? Does the excellency of a king's character, in the view of his subjects, appear from those branches of his administration, which are to them inexplicable? Do they discover the excellency of the king in those things, the reason of which they cannot understand? Surely they do not. Yet from what they Do understand, they may be led to submit to what they do NOT understand, believing that the sovereign has good reasons for his conduct, whether they perceive them, or not.

God is a great King over all the earth. He deals with men as with rational beings. The ambassadors of his Son should treat with men as with rational creatures, and exhibit to their view such things as are calculated to excite in men exalted ideas of the majesty and amiableness of the Supreme Being, his boundless dominion, and the perfeet equity of his government; that men may see the unreasonableness and danger of rebellion, the propriety and safety of obeying and trusting the Lord.

Such representations of the sovereignty of Jehovah, as would be abhorrent if applied to the government of an earthly prince, are certainly inadmissible and of injurious tendency. Tyranny is tyranny, by whatever sovereign it be exercised. may

God

claims no right to do wrong. Such is the equity of his government, and so manifest is this equity, that he ventures to ap

But is there nothing in the preaching of some ministers, which adds to the impropriety already illustrated? After having represented the sovereignty of God in a manner unconnected with benevolence; and that too with a temper apparently unfeeling and overbearing; do they not impute it to the wickedness of their hearers, if they do not love such doctrine?

If people do not love the character of God when it is properly displayed to their view, we may, indeed, justly infer the wickedness of their hearts. But surely it is no evidence that a man's heart is very wicked, that he is not pleased with a partial, distorted representation of the divine character, or of the government of God. Represent the conduct of any earthly sovereign in the manner in which the divine conduct is sometimes represented, and would it not be impossible for a good man to feel pleased with his character, or wish to be under his government? And can that character be lovely in God, which would be hateful in man?

We may inquire farther: Do not some preachers infer not only the wickedness of their hearers' hearts from the circumstance

of their being offended with such representations, but also infer their own faithfulness in declaring the counsels of God? Is it an unheard of thing, that a minister should infer his own fidelity, and rejoice in the inference, on being informed that such preaching had given offence? But what can be more unsafe, or delusive, than such an inference in his own favor? Why does he not likewise infer the goodness of his hearers, and his own unfaithfulness, when such of his discourses happen to be applauded? If their wickedness and his faithfulness may be safely inferred in the one case, their goodness and his unfaithfulness may be as safely inferred in the other.

It is not doubted, that many pious ministers have been in a degree chargeable with the faults illustrated in this dissertation. Misled by the imagined importance of some favorite tenet, they feel as though it must be introduced, in some form or other, on almost every occasion; they become forgetful or neglectful of the importance of exhibiting the benevolence of Deity, as the <source of his operations; and as unmindful of the importance of communicating divine truth with "the meekness and gentleness of Christ." It is suspected, that the views which ministers habitually entertain of the nature of God's sovereignty must have influence on their own feelings in discoursing on the subject. If they habitually conceive of God, as so benevolent that he can have "no pleasure in the death of the wicked," and that all his sovereign acts proceed from a

wise and tender regard to the welfare of his kingdom; they will naturally discourse on the subject with such compassionate feelings, as are implied in the words of Paul to the Elders of Ephesus-"Therefore watch and remember, that by the space of three years I ceased not to warn every one, night and day, with tears." But, on the contrary, if ministers habitually view the sovereignty of God as of a despotic, arbitrary, unfeeling nature, the same kind of sovereignty, which they attribute to Jehovah, they will insensibly exercise over the feelings of their hearers in their manner of preaching on the subject. And is it not this unfeeling sovereignty, assumed by the preacher, which, above every thing else, gives offence to his hearers?

By controversy and preposses sion, the importance of any tenet, or idea, may be magnified, and a belief of it made to appear like the "one thing needful." And when the importance of an unimportant hypothesis is thus magnified in the view of a preacher, he is in continual danger of sacrificing the honor of Jehovah, and the best interests of his hearers, to the support of a favorite opinion.

If ministers wish the salvation of their hearers, it behoves them to learn how to preach from the example of HIM, who spake as his Father taught him. What are, and what are not, essential doctrines should be learned from Jesus. Is it not, to say the least, highly improper for the professed ministers of Christ, to represent a belief in any doctrine, as