must be an object of cordial pity, and his state and his conduct must excite a lively concern in every one whose mind and will are become conformable to those of his Maker. To this case, then, the preceding argument, respecting ridiculing or satirizing vice, clearly applies; and God grant that no unholy levity, nor perverse temper, may ever make us forget its application! For man to laugh at what makes angels weep, would be thought one of the most monstrous sights that can be imagined, were the mortal film duly purged from our eyes.

But the absurdity which excites great mirth is natural. And is not the absurdity of laughing in such a case greater than the absurdity which raises the laughter? This is so apparent, that some of your readers may wonder that I take up their time for a moment in proving it. Let them rather wonder, that there should ever have been a time, (and such a time most of them may remember, whatever may be the case with them at present,) when they could stoop so low as to divert themselves and others by jokes on distortion, deformity, or decrepitude.

But ridiculing natural defects, whether corporal or mental, is as gross a violation of the law of love as it is of that of wisdom. Could we, if we really loved our neighbours, derive pleasure from the circumstance of others not enjoying any blessing, which has been bestowed on ourselves or on mankind in general?

The reasons which have been of fered against satire and ridicule appear to me irresistible; but, perhaps, they may receive some corroboration from the following considerations:

1. Let us fix our attention on him, who in his life displayed every excellence, and avoided every sin. Look at his methods of instruction; look at the whole spirit of his character, and the whole tenor of his conduct; do these, or any of them, give countenance to ridicule and satiré? His beautiful simplicity, modest dignity, and divine benevolence, rise infinitely above such arts; and let us never forget, that he was to us an example that we should follow his steps.

2. The incompatibility of ridicule and satire with genuine and warm affection, is further proved by our experience in the nearest and dearest

relations of life. An affectionate husband or father sees faults in his wife or son; but does he feel disposed to make them the butts of his ridicule, or the objects of his satire? Why does he not? Because he loves them too well to use them in this manner; and if we are to love our neighbour as ourselves, are we not bound to love all men too well to treat them thus?

3. It was sufficient for the condemnation of satire and ridicule to shew, that they neither sprung from Christian love nor were compatible with it. This has been done. But some minds may, perhaps, receive more complete satisfaction on these impor tant points, if the birth and parentage of satire and ridicule can be distinctly traced, and shewn to be such as reflect nothing but dishonour upon them. What then appear to be the dispositions which generally accompany the use of satire and ridicule? To display wit and ability; to excite mirth without much consideration of the end in view, or of the manner of doing it, or of the feelings of others; and even not unfrequently to make others feel their inferiority, and to give them pain; these, or some of them, are, I fear, almost always apparent among the motives of the humourist and the satirist. Though his professed object may be to exhibit vice to view, in its native deformity, and stripped of its disguises, and to reform the vicious; yet if he choose ridicule or satire as his instrument, let him pause before he ventures to pronounce his motives to be hallowed. Let him pause before he rests satisfied that his bosom is under the predominant influence of love to God and man. But though he should satisfy himself that his zeal to do good is derived from a hallowed and not a carnal source, still can he satisfy himself that in his choice of means his motives have been equally pure and hallowed? This is a point, which, if the foregoing remarks have any just foundation, it will behove him to consider most seriously with humble and earnest prayer, to Him who alone can strip the human heart of its manifold disguises, that he may be enabled to

discover the truth.

4. The attention of the reader has been called to the motives of the satirist, because, as has been well said by the best female writer of our day,

"

christianity is a religion of motives;" and if they be wrong, nothing can supply the defect.

But without losing sight of this truth, let us for a few moments consider how far ridicule and satire are really well calculated to reform mankind. Their advocates boast, that in many cases they are the only instruments which can be employed for that purpose, and in many others the best; that many follies are so humble, that grave admonition cannot stoop to notice them; and if it did would notice them in vain; and that many vices are so gigantic, and those who practise them so callous, as to be proof against every weapon but the polished and barbed dart of satire. Instead of entering on a long disquisition on these different pleas, and exposing their unchristian foundation, I shall content myself with giving a general answer to them.

First, then, if ridicule and satire really deserve the high character which is given them, how came it to pass that our blessed Saviour, whose object it was to lay the axe to the root of all sin of every kind and degree, and to touch the heart of every sinner, never employed them? Nay further, how came he to require his followers to act on principles which, as has been shewn, forbid their employment? Let not man trust to his own reasonings and views of things, when they are opposed by such authority.

But it may be remarked, in the second place, that satire and ridicule excite feelings, in those against whom they are directed, extremely unfa-. vourable to Christian reformation: for what is Christian reformation? Not a change of outward conduct while the heart remains unchanged; not a stop put to the open career of vice or folly by the fear of shame. No, Sir, these are poor triumphs; but they are all that satire or ridicule could ever boast. Christian reformation is a victory over sin in his strong holds, and in the center of his power; a change of the heart, a renewal of the image of God in the soul of man. Can the most able masters of ridicule or satire boast of any such conquests? Must they not confess, that their power reaches not beyond externals; and that instead of impressing the heart with the divine affection of love, they leave those, who have crouched beneath

their rod, smarting under a sense of unkind usage, and so far from being disposed to love their reformers, that they almost always seize any opportunities of private recrimination and revenge which present themselves. Is this any thing like reformation in a Christian sense? Instead of being turned from the power of Satan unto God, the victims of ridicule and satire are, it is much to be feared, placed more under the power of Satan, by becoming more like him in disposition and character. "Si vis ut ameris, ama." It is clearly love which wins the heart to love. If then in endeavouring to reform others, we proceed in a way opposite to that which love would dictate, what result are we to expect?

The personal experience of every man can scarcely fail to justify these observations. Let each of your readers, Mr. Editor, ask himself what have been his sensations when he has been ridiculed or satirized; whether, on such occasions, he has felt Christian love spring in his bosom, or whether his emotions have been of a very different nature. I feel pretty confident, that the fair answer of his own conscience will preclude the necessity of any further argument being urged by me on this subject.

B. T.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I HAVE often occasion to lament, that many ministers of the Gospel, instead of saying with the scriptures, that Christ died for sinners, that he maketh intercession for the transgressors, &c. adopt a Jewish phraseology, and say Christ died for his people, intercedes for his people, &c. by which they evidently mean those whom they understand to be meant by the scripture phrase of the elect, whether known or unknown of men. I do not mean now to inquire whether their view of the subject be truly the scripture doctrine; I only assert, that admitting it so to be, it is not the scripture language. The people of God in the Old Testament uniformly designs the Israelites as a nation, even in their worst state, and in the New Testament, when the term his people is used, it always means the Jews as such; and no instance can be found of the converted Gentiles being so de

nominated by the Apostles. It is true the servants of God may now be called his people, in allusion to the antient scripture phrase; but then it should only be applied to those who, from their spirit and conduct, appear in the sight of all men to be such, which is not the case with every Christian. To denominate Christians of a less perfect growth the people of God, is really to cast a stumbling block before the people of the world, not to speak of its effect in the Church. Your correspondent B. T. has said some good things on reproof; he observes that the whole truth should not always be spoken, since some degree of appropriate preparation is needful in order to the due reception of every part of it, and we have the highest authority and example for such discretion. Admitting then that the doctrine of particular redemption is a true one (by which I mean the limitation, not only of the final effects, but of every intention of our Lord's death) should it be preached to unawakened or newly awakened persons? With respect to the former does it prepare them for the word of exhortation? Does it not put a shield into their hands, which they will be fain to use to preserve their own dangerous security? With respect to the latter, is it a portion in due season? Will it not make void many a word of scripture, the full force of which they greatly need to receive? If I must have human authority to support me in what I have said, I will quote the very respectable one of our British deputies at the synod of Dort, who, though Calvinists themselves, made a noble stand at this very point, viz. that the death of Christ should be preached as available for the salvation of the whole word. It is true they restricted the operation of efficacious grace to the elect, but still what they contended for was of importance, to give strength to the ministry of the Gospel; otherwise let us drop the word of exhortation (as some good men have thought the only consistent conduct), and not make the two parts of our sermons contradict each other. That this way of preaching does not give more offence to the world than it now does, can only be resolved into two causes-First, That men give not the attention to a sermon which they do to a common newspaper; or secondly, that if they understand

enough to guess what is meant, they use it as an opiate to quiet themselves in sin, directly contrary to the inten tion of the preacher. It is a certain fact, that many reason thus-My present habits are such, that, though I know them to be wrong, I have no inclination to break them; the effort would be painful, and I have not now the power, (they mean they have not the motive, which an alarming sense of danger, and the apprehension of the ab solute necessity of the measure, would supply, but which this doctrine does not and cannot minister); still I hope a day of power may come which will renovate my will, and then what is now difficult will be easy, nay pleasant. I need not point out the illu sion and the danger of this reasoning.

Vere ministers, as well as hearers, ignorant of this doctrine, would their zeal and solicitude for souls be thereby diminished? Would a fear, lest some should perish through their unfaithfulness, make them less useful, though it would, I allow, make them less easy? A person once told me, it was necessary for him to believe the doctrine of universal salvation, because the idea that any should perish, especially of his friends, made him unhappy. I did not think this a valid argument; on the contrary, I thought such unhappiness might be good both for himself and his friends also, and I doubt not you are of my opi nion. My request, therefore, to you as a Christian Observer is this, if you judge my letter unfit for insertion, that you will not hastily decide the point. You know how to handle it discreetly and practicably, and certainly no serious clergyman of the Church of England can think it heterodox to concur with such men as Bishop Davenant, Bishop Hall, Bishop Carleton, and Dr. Ward; still more, when a synod so rigidly orthodox as that of Dort, submitted to their judgment in this matter.

I will only add one word more. When some ministers lay open what they call the whole Gospel plan to their auditory, have they not this idea la tent in their minds, though, probably, not considered by them, viz. that the efficient ministry to souls is to be performed by the same miraculous faith, which the Apostles exercised when they performed bodily cures? I wish this to be examined, for it is certainly