at first repulsive, to many passages. Yet, in his more practical treatises, no man can be more plain or perspicuous. And in all his works, the thought will amply repay us for the attention which we may bestow.

The masculine vigour of style, the copiousness of argument without repetition, and the exalted piety which characterize these volumes, render them worthy of the perusal of every clergyman. Living as Howe did, at a time when great stress was laid upon the distinctive tenets of Calvinism, it is remarkable that his works contain very little discussion of these doctrines. He has been charged with defection from the truth upon these particular points; but as far as we are able to gather, there is no real divergence from the standards of the reformed Church. He was indeed accustomed to explain the truths of Scripture in a way which was all his own; to reject terms which he thought exceptionable, and to frame new ones; but his originality was far remote from that unholy spirit of speculation which would sacrifice truth, for the sake of striking out new paths, and would forsake every tried way, in order to assert a manly independence on prescribed forms.

These volumes contain a Christian library of rich instruction in practical and experimental religion. Feeling that important truth which is expressed in our formularies, "that truth is in order to goodness, and the great touchstone of truth its tendency to promote holiness,"-it would seem that Howe was never willing to take a merely speculative view of Christian doctrine. His most able and lucid expositions of contested truths are mingled with application to the heart; and leaving the debates of the schools, he often rises to tracts of heavenly contemplation; so that the influence upon the reader's affections bears a due proportion to his mental illumination. The treatises on Self-dedication, Delighting in God, and the Blessedness of the Righteous, are marked with a deep insight into the workings of the heart, and an elevation of true piety, which are characteristic of the age of Baxter, and Owen, and Flavel.

Again we say, it is a happy token for England and America, that the works of the Puritans are coming into favour. It is the height of folly to turn our backs upon all the Christian researches and improvements of those holy men. Our own age,

rich as it is in sermons on special occasions, controversial pamphlets, essays on speculative theology, and defences of the outworks of Christianity, is barren in extended treatises which VOL. III. No. II.-2 B

enter into the minute particulars, and traverse the whole field of vital piety. To convince any impartial man of this, let him be invited to compare volume with volume in any great public library, of the books of the 17th and 19th centuries, respectively. Where we have a tract our fathers had a treatise; where we have an essay in twelves, they had a folio, upon practical and constitutional theology. It is common to attribute this to the cacoethes scribendi then prevalent, and the passion for ponderous tomes. We are told that the extent of these works is occasioned by repetition, tedious diffuseness, and unmeaning verbiage. Far from this-it owes its origin to the able and profound discussion of a thousand points, which are at this day left absolutely untouched. The private Christian-to give an instance in one department-is now left to struggle with his own temptations, and resolve, as he may, his own cases of conscience. In that day, eminent theologians spent years in digesting and elucidating the various points of casuistry which occurred or might occur during their ministry -witness a whole folio of Baxter, upon this single subject. We have, it is true, many able essays upon practical subjects, in an easy and popular style; which may be perused in a day, and which, as far as they go, are highly useful, by such writers as James, and Douglas, and Hall; but who can point to such books as Howe on the Blessedness of the Righteous, Baxter's Saint's Rest, Owen on Spiritual Mindedness, Flavel's Fountain of Life, and Bates on Spiritual Perfection?

If any are so grossly ignorant as to charge the great nonconformist divines with a want of learning, we can only raise our hands, and remand them to the study of Church history. We have no fear of contradiction when we say, that for acquaintance with classical antiquity, with the theology of preceding ages, including that which may be called patristical, and (new as it may be to some who have been taught to believe that the principles of interpretation have been revealed only in Germany) with the original languages of the Scripture-their leading men may rank with any whom the world has ever

seen.

There is, at this day, a morbid dread of whatever is ancient in theology; as if each race of men was to receive some new inspiration with regard to divine truth. Because a path has been long trodden, it must for that very reason be forsaken; and if any man is so blinded by the dust of antiquity as to prefer the theology of the reformers, he is forthwith pitied as a slave of

authority, who has not sufficient ingenuity or daring to frame a creed for himself. Nay, the venerable persons of whom we have been speaking are set aside as men whose souls were fettered with prejudice, and who, destitute of all adventurous originality, tamely followed their predecessors. Such a conclusion as this betrays a strange misconception of the age of the Puritans. It was a period when the very watchword was The Bible is the Religion of Protestants; in which authority in matters of faith was indignantly cast off as a galling yoke, and trampled under foot, while independence of thought so far prevailed as in too many instances to result in the wildest excesses. It was an age in which every layman was bold in the investigation and discussion of Scriptural doctrine, and in which scarcely two eminent theologians were found to symbolize upon all points. True, they did, in a remarkable manner, concur in the great, distinguishing tenets of our Church; but what does this evince? Not, surely, that those who framed our formularies slavishly cast themselves into a given mould; but that there must be some wonderful power in the arguments for a system which could thus unite so many of the most independent, learned, and pious men. And what, we would ask, could we expect the result to be, supposing that system to be demonstrably true? Are the evidences of truth so rare or so abstruse, that the very coincidence and harmony of men upon the presentation of them, furnish suspicion of want of reflection, or even of collusion? In opposition to all this, we avow, that the fact of such unanimity is to us, ex facie, the ground of a strong presumption in their favour: just as the concurrence of the Westminster Assembly of Divines (men, who, with a few trifling exceptions, had all received episcopal ordination) in the platform of Church Government which we have received from them, is to every impartial mind a cogent argument for the soundness of these conclusions.

Perhaps it may not be out of place to add, that the interpretation of the Scriptures was pursued with a degree of zeal, learning, and pious caution, which have been surpassed in no other age or country. It cannot be denied, that the modern exegesis was not yet revealed; and in saying this, we do, in the estimation of many, pronounce sentence of condemnation upon the Puritans. We scarcely know whether to be more provoked or amused, when men who can, with difficulty, read a paragraph of the Hebrew Bible, with all the aid of the recent apparatus, gravely sit in judgment upon scholars like those whom

we have named. There are certain theologians who banish from their libraries, with great contempt, the labours of Poole and Owen, and Ainsworth, and Meade, and Henry; while they cannot too highly laud Rosenmüller, and Paulus, and Ammon, and Kuinoel, and Eichhorn, and De Wette. Should any one suggest a doubt as to the wisdom of communing with men who are Pelagian, Arian, Socinian, or Deistical, he is contemptuously smiled upon, as far behind the age, and uninitiated into the mysterious art of transmuting poison into nourishment, in a word, a slave to old and exploded systems. Until within a few years, interpreters of the Scriptures, like all other men, were judged by their fruits; but now, it has been discovered, that, although the results at which German critics arrive, are false and often impious, the principles which they teach are the only safe and true ones. Upon the same grounds an astronomer must prefer an instrument which, at every celestial observation, conducts him to false conclusions, but which is new and glittering, to the old, and perhaps, rusty sextant of his father, which never yet betrayed him into error. To speak plainly and soberly, we deprecate the indiscriminate introduction of the modern Socinianism of Germany. Let us gladly avail ourselves of the philology, especially the lexicography and the mere criticism of their scholars; their archaeological, geographical, and historical labour; but let us not blindly accustom our minds even to contemplate with calmness and complacency, enormous errors, dangerous to the souls of men, and abominable in the sight of God. Let us select and use such of their productions as contain the results of philological research, but let us not vainly expect in the commentaries or extended expositions of neologists, to find any substitute for the pious labours of our forefathers. Happy should we be to see our youth, and especially, candidates for the holy ministry, turning from these dangerous pursuits, to the wholesome instructions of the seventeenth century.

ART. III.-WHAT CONSTITUTES A CALL TO THE GOSPEL MINISTRY?

THIS question has often perplexed and distressed candid and pious minds. Many a man has anxiously examined the interrogatory in its direct application to himself, without being able

for a long time, and perhaps never with entire satisfaction, to answer it. The question recurs again and again, how shall I ascertain whether I have been called, or am called to devote myself to the work of the gospel ministry?

In itself the question is one of very grave importance, and to many persons of absorbing interest. The subject is worthy of careful discussion, as it respects the peace and duty of individuals, the interests of the church and the souls of men. The practical answer to this inquiry, whether right or wrong, has a controlling influence over the subsequent life and efforts of many men. There can be no doubt that many wrong decisions have been made on this subject, which have brought feeble, uneducated, imprudent, or ungodly men into the ministry, to provoke the anger of God against themselves, and to be a curse to others. Nor can it be doubted, that by wrong decisions of this question, many have been kept back from entering the ministry, to their own spiritual injury and great loss to the church. If the inquiry had been rightly pursued and decided in all cases, there would have been no ungodly or incompetent ministers in the church: nor would there have been any lack of faithful, well qualified ministers and missionaries in the field of labour. It is, therefore, a subject which should be better understood by the church, and especially by her sons, on whom are soon to devolve all the responsibilities and labours of her ministry. At this time, when there is really a very great deficiency of ministers, and candidates for the ministry, and when the cause of education is beginning to assume its appropriate place among the benevolent exertions of the church, there seems to be especial necessity for the discussion of this subject. It is a discussion seldom heard from the pulpit or the press, in the judicatory of the church, or in the parlours of Christian families. Hence, when the question presses upon the conscience of a pious youth, he is perplexed, knows not how to decide it, and in many instances postpones it until he is obliged by the delay to decide in the negative, perhaps much to his own discomfort, and the loss of the church. In other cases, the question is decided in the affirmative by the fond wishes of parents or friends, who have never weighed the subject, and much injury is done, both to the youth, and the church of the living God. These suggestions are sufficient to show the importance of the question and of an enlightened discussion, which shall bring the subject distinctly before the members of the church.