instructed in Christian principles, an idea not very consentaneous to the above-mentioned truth.

When, for instance, it is said (and such things often have been said) that God's grace will be given to us; but that we must co-operate with God, or his grace will be of no use to us; is it impossible-nay, let me ask, is it improbable that the idea collected from such language would, in many instances, be that of our doing something, by the exercise of some independent power in ourselves, which should eke out the deficiencies of divine grace, and give efficacy to the operations of God.

I cannot, Sir, be of opinion, that in applying ourselves to remove a probable, or even possible source of error in a point of such importance, we undertake a superfluous task, or indulge a censurable refinement, or betray a fastidious spirit. It is not for the purpose of simply refining our theological phraseology, nor for that of displaying a morbid delicacy in verbal criticism, that I plead for the disuse of the term Co-operation in certain cases: but it is because that I feel it to be of the highest importance that God should be fully recognized, and unreservedly acknowledged, as the alone author, source, and cause of man's salvation, from the beginning to the end; and that I therefore dislike a term which appears to me to convey the idea of AUXILIARY Concurrence, and thereby to favour a disposition in the human mind (already too prevalent) to aggrandize human ability, at the expence of God's honour; and thereby also to impair in the mind of man that sense of his universal and unceasing dependance upon divine grace, which should by all means and at all times be cherished, in order to animate him to greater fervency and frequency in prayer, to quicken his gratitude for past sustentation, and to advance his growth in humility.

Although it may not seem to be a distinction of much importance, I nevertheless wish it to be observed, that my objection refers to the representing man as co-operating with God, not to the representing God as co-operating with man.

K. R. refers to two passages in the New Testament, in which, he says, the term (now referred to) "is employed in the very sense which is obnoxi

ous." I must take the liberty to express a contrary opinion. In one of the passages (Mark xvi. 20.) the word refers to the co-operation of our Lord with his Apostles in the propagation of the Gospel. In the other passage (2 Cor. vi. 1.) if this word be understood to express the co-agency of the Apostles with God, (some however, attending simply to the original, consider it as only expressing the coagency of the Apostles among themselves) still it refers to the work of the ministry; and to the use of the word, in such a connection, the objections do not apply with which I conceived it to be chargeable, when used" in the case and connexion" in which it was considered in my former paper*.

I am persuaded that K. R. would not have said, that the kind of reasoning which I had employed "would apply to every theological expression," if he had noticed that I did not ground this reasoning upon the possibility that the term Co-operation might mislead the ignorant through the occasional misapplication of it, but upon its tendency to mislead them. Surely it will not be said, that " every theological expression" tends to mislead the ignorant.

In controverting my opinion, that the use of the term Co-operation "tends to offend the discerning," your correspondent seems to suppose, that it is the warrantable use of the term which I conceive to be thus offensive. If I have not mistaken him, he has certainly mistaken me; for ĺ did not intend to risk so adventurous an assertion. My presumption that this word would offend the discerning, rested upon the supposition that such an use of it, as I referred to, was unwarrantable.

The instance, adduced by K. R. of the application of the term Co-operation to the concurrence of our governors at home, and our fleets and armies abroad, in the preservation of the country, does not reconcile me to the application of the term to the case which has now been debated. On the contrary, it confirms my repugnance to it. It awakens the apprehension, that many might be led to

verse of the third chapter of the first Epis*The noun avveya occurs in the ninth tle to the Corinthians. Like its kindred verb in the other passages, it there relates to the work of the ministry.

consider this alledged co-operation of man with God, in a light not altoge ther dissimilar to that in which we consider the co-operation of our rulers and warriors; namely, that of a reciprocation of aid, and a confederacy of abilities and exertions between powers, in some degree, and in some particulars, independent of each ocher.

That what I have now advanced may not be misunderstood, and that no interences may be drawn from it which would militate against the principles laid down in my former paper, I request that it may be remembered, that I not only allowed that" in order to man's salvation, God works, and man works;" but that I also maintained (and I still do most earnestly and explicitly maintain) that "man has a work to do, which is great, difficult, and indispenable to his salvation:" and moreover, that this work, which is to be done by man, consists in “ the active exercise and display of the graces of

66

the Holy Spirit, in a series of those holy practices which result from holy principles, and comprehend all the duties which belong to godliness, righteousness, and sobriety.

In conclusion, let me state my undissembled anxiety, that if in any thing which I have said, I should ap pear to have undervalued the force of K. R's. arguments, it may be considered as the result of an inability to discern their validity, and not of a perverse desire to depreciate it. Whatever becomes of the term Cooperation, the subject with which it is connected will, I trust, become better understood, from having been introduced to the attention of your readers; since, if K. R. or any other of your correspondents, should find leisure to assist the further discussion of it, the subject, which is unquestionably an important one, will, I am persuaded, receive very valuable elucidation.

ONATRAMA.

MODERN CHARACTERS.

NO. II.

CHARACTER OF THEODOSIA.

Is a former paper I described the character of Amanda. I purpose now to trouble your readers with the account of Theodosia, a lady of a very opposite description, whose piety, bowever, is also questionable, though she maintains some degree of credit for religion within her own immediate circle. If merely to differ widely trom Amanda were sufficient evidence of being a Christian, Theodosia might unquestionably lay claim to that appellation, for she has renounced the pomps and vanities of the world; is much addicted to religious conversation; and is also zealous on the side of what she calls "the truth," a term by which she means to denote those important doctrinal parts of Christianity which Amanda mistakes or overlooks.

Theodosia, however, in her very views of doctrine, runs into some extremes, which shall be specified CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 14.

hereafter; and in her manner of promoting the cause of religion, she is violent and dogmatical, as well as hasty and imprudent. The hostility thus excited against herself, is assumed by her to be altogether against the Gospel, is dignified with the name of persecution, and is accounted one of her special marks of grace.

Theodosia is rather of a melancholy turn. She appears to be ever in quest of religious comfort, but not to find it.

She also disappoints you in the great article of Christian humility; for, notwithstanding very profuse acknowledgments of her general vileness, she is apt to justify herself when you come to particulars; and, in spite of much seeming renunciation of her own righteousness and strength, she gives to common observers the idea of her being conceited and self-sufficient.

One source of the dislike which many people feel towards Theodosia, a dislike rising even to disgust in some fastidious and rather worldly individuals, is a certain species of

L

phraseology in which she abounds. By the use, however, of this phraseology, she gains credit in another quarter. She thereby deceives some pious, but not very discriminating persons, and their favourable sentiments confirm her good opinion of herself. Of her stock of phrases, some offend people of the world, merely because they imply unpopular truths; some, however, though proper and scriptural, are worn threadbare by incessant use; others indicate good doctrine, but are bad English; a few are symptomatic of errors to which she leans; and many are objectionable, because they degrade the subject of religion by their coarseness and familiarity. Theodosia is not in the least aware that any part of her phraseology is reprehensible. That these peculiar phrases may excite pious emotions in some breasts, is not to be doubted; but I grievously suspect her of using them merely by

rote.

Theodosia, however, deserves to be partly vindicated against certain charges which are brought against her. She is supposed by many persons to be a friend to faith without works. It is true that she gives some ground for this imputation; but she by no means denies the obligation to perform good works, though she is not very zealous on the subject. She is reproached with being an Antinomian, a term which implies that she is altogether an enemy to the moral law of God. The charge is exaggerated. She rightly affirms that if we are true believers, we are freed, through Christ, from the condemnati on of the law; but she does not venture quite so far as to say that we are released from the obligation of obeying it. Again, by some she is vehemently condemned, and is even shunned as a heretic, because she is understood to entertain Predestinarian principles. These, however, are not held by her in such a sense as, in her own apprehension, to take totally away either the responsibility of man, the guilt of sin, the use of means, or the duty of exertion. I do not think that her theory of religion is quite so liable to reprehension as it is by many supposed to be.

But I advance to some other points, which it is important carefully to spe

cify.

Theodosia talks much of "experi

ence" in religion, and loves to hear what she calls" experimental preaching." Now these terms are susceptible of an enthusiastic, and also of a very sound and sober signification. If Theodosia simply means that we ought to experience a powerful effect on our minds from the preaching of the doctrines of the Gospel, and that she likes to hear this effect described, I perfectly approve of her sentiment. Indeed this is so obvious that I do not understand how any Christian can deny it. Is it possible to maintain that the emotions of pious gratitude, of love, of hope, of joy, of reverential fear, as well as of penitential sorrow for sin, ought not to be experienced in the soul of the believer, when he hears of the mercies of his Saviour?

If, therefore, Theodosia would thus explain herself, she would completely vindicate the use of the term which is so offensive to fastidious ears. But she runs into some extravagancies on the subject in question. She does not speak of her religious experience as implying merely the exercise of the common affections of the mind on religious objects; she mentions it in such a manner as a little to imply some new and special revelation, some miracle wrought upon her, some communication of a new faculty, some view of even the bodily presence of her Saviour, some communion which it is needless to describe, because it is intelligible only to those to whom it is given to possess it. She leans in this respect to mysticism, as well as to enthusiasm, and I conceive this error to be one cause of that complaint of the want of comfort which was formerly mentioned. She is in quest of transports and supernatural impressions, which it does not please God to give her. She is not content with that share of quiet consolation which he sends to those who are diligent in the use of the ordinary means of grace, and are conscientiously serving God in that state of life into which it has pleased him to call them. The exercise of faith is too low an attainment for her. She is impatient for the full assurance of faith. Not content to love him whom she has NOT seen, and to believe in him who is invisible, she talks of seeing, of tasting, of feeling spiritual things, in such a manner as almost to imply the bodily possession of them. In these descriptions, she sometimes uses, it is

true, scriptural terms, but neither in that simply metaphorical, nor in that practical sense which they bear in the word of God. She also too much inclines to an opinion that, having no power over the religious feelings of her own mind, she has only to wait til it shall please God to pour into it the comforts of his holy spirit. Her emmies, therefore, say, that she believes in miraculous illapses of the spirit. They, however, on their part, are apt to be unguarded in their accuIn opposing, for example, the extravagance which has been just spoken of, some of them have seemed altogether to deny the doctrine of divine influence.

Another peculiarity often charged on Theodosia, is a belief that all real conversions are miraculous. Now what is the true meaning of the term miraculous? God may properly be said to act in a miraculous manner, when he departs from his own ordinary mode of proceeding in the operations either of nature or of grace. When, for example, he caused the Red Sea to open a passage for the Israelites, and when he made the sun and moon to stand still in the valley of Ajalon, he produced an operation of nature which was miraculous. I was miraculous, not because God was the author of it, for he is the author equally of the most common natural events, but because the operation was out of the ordinary course of his agency. Again, when St. Paul was converted by a special voice from heaven, he experienced an operation of grace which was out of the common course. When, on the other hand, multitudes were converted to the same faith, by the preaching of the Apostles and their successors, although the power was equally from God, they could not be said to experience a conversion which was miraculous.

Theodosia, therefore, is inaccurate; she uses inflated language, if she commonly applies the term miraculous to the conversion of men in modern days, unless indeed she can prove that events, similar to that which befel St. Paul, now frequently take place. Thus far, therefore, I take part against Theodosia. The controversy, however, on this subject, does not in fact confine itself to the epithet in question, for some at least of her enemies, while they affect to declaim

"

merely against miraculous conversions, are aiming to discredit the doctrine of conversion altogether. A few of them have gone so far as plainly to affirm, that all those terms" being born again," renewed," created anew,' "converted," which abound so much in Scripture, refer either to the case of the heathen, or to the mere ceremony of baptism. They speak as if we had nothing to do but to convince ourselves by our reason of the general truth of Christianity, in order to intitle ourselves to the denomination of Christians, and to all the privileges of believers. Thus they lead us to leave out of our consideration the idea both of the divine agency, and of that great and all-important moral change (the effect of this divine agency) which the Scriptures describe as indispensable.

Theodosia, however, is under another very important misconception on this subject; she too much inclines to consider conversion or regeneration, as consisting either in a mere change of doctrinal opinions; or in the experience of certain violent impressions, once felt, and of which the remembrance is afterwards carefully cherished, on account of its being esteemed the earnest of salvation. If, therefore, you would give proof to Theodosia of your being a Christian, you must be able to recount to her, with due particularity of time and place, the history of your conversion. It is not enough that you now possess the scriptural marks of your being a Christian. The present predominance of pure over corrupt affections; the present manifestation of humility, patience, meekness, and self-denial; the present exercise of faith, hope, and charity, are not allowed to determine this question. You are rather called upon to describe, and in some degree after her manner, and in her phraseology, how you entered upon your Christian state. Now it often pleases God to cause the seed sown in the heart to grow up (as one of the Evangelists expresses it)" one knoweth not how.' God waters it, perhaps from infancy, with the imperceptible and gentle dew of his blessing, and the fruit brought forth by those who have experienced this more gradual kind of regeneration, is quite as rich, and genuine, and abundant, as that which is the result

of the most astonishing conversion. I have been often greatly disappointed in the moral character of those whom Theodosia has assumed to be religious. On the other hand, I am persuaded that there is more true goodness than she supposes in some persons who are out of her circle. Her false judgment of characters arises from her having imbibed unscriptural opinions as to the essential qualities of a true Christian.

Your readers will by this time have discovered that the fault of Theodosia consists much in pushing things too far; she is not quite so heterodox as she is often said to be, but she discredits the cause of orthodoxy, by presenting to the world a picture, of which some features are exaggerated to extravagance, while others, not be longing to the original, are superad ded. Her whole character is marked by culpable vehemence. Nothing is more clear than that there was a calmness in the piety of our Saviour, which is by no means her characteris. tic. She justifies her general warmth, by dignifying it with the name of zeal, and her eagerness in smaller and more disputable points, by observing, that she wishes to suppress no part of the truths of God. She has a few truly pious and discreet friends, who endeavour to restrain her warmth, but of these she has a low opinion: some of them she regards as concealing timidity under the plausible titles of prudence and moderation: and others are deemed by her to be a secondary sort of Christians, hopeful and well disposed, but possessing imperfect light.

There is one mode by which it might be thought, that the inferiority of her Christianity to that of some of these more sober friends might be proved to her own conviction. I have been present when she has not commanded her temper quite so well as they, even though the subject which has roused her has seemed to have no connection with religion. I have said to myself, Can she plead her warmth in the cause of Christianity, in justification also of her vehemence in the ordinary affairs of life? I have found, however, that she has a way of bringing in her zeal for the Gospel, as an apology for her vehemence, in almost all cases. Does any one, for example, attack her character? She remarks,

that she feels extremely patient under the injury, so far as concerns herself; and is agitated merely because the reputation of one of her religious profession involves the honour of the Gospel. Is her influence counteracted, her recommendation slighted, her judgment questioned, her temporal interest prejudiced? The severity of her mortification results, as she persuades herself, merely from the consideration of the limitation of her means of usefulness. Is a little portion of her time taken up by an unwelcome intruder? She is out of humour, as she thinks, not in consequence of an ill regulated temper; but because some most important occupation is impeded.

She is apt, indeed, to discover some pious excuse for all her sins and infirmities. Is her mind too much bent on some favourite object? She discerns, as she thinks, an opening of Providence, which points out the propriety of the pursuit in question. Is she slack in respect to some spiri tual duty; and do you urge her to more exertion? She uses the orthodox saying, "that we can do nothing of ourselves," in a manner which, though it may not amount to a direct apology for her religious negligence, serves a little to undermine the necessity, and weaken the force of your exhortation. Has she happened to become the dupe of some convert to her doctrinal opinions, in whom she had too credulously trusted; and does she use unwarrantable contrivance in concealing the discredit thus brought upon her judgment? She employs this art, because the tale, if it should get abroad, would afford a triumph to the enemies of the truth. Has she been inattentive to some other article of morality? Her end, she trusts, has been good; it has been nothing less than the promotion of the Gospel. Zeal for so great an end may justify some little irregularity in the means: or if the Gospel cannot be distinctly pleaded, God, as she has the privilege of knowing, looks to the heart, and her heart, she is sure, has been bent on doing, in a general way, the thing that is right, though she may not have attended to the particular in question. The particular too always happens to have been only a small matter. It was one of those points of "mint, cummin, and anise," about which it would be pharisaical