and I hope that a great proportion of them regularly practise the duty in so spiritual a way as to reap the benefit of it. My experience, however, has not made me acquainted with many instances, in which religious persons have required their children, in very early youth, to adopt a similar procedure. Whether they think them too young to make religion so serious a concern; or whether they consider them as too thoughtless and volatile for such meditations; or on what other grounds they may omit to press on their rising families a duty, which they think so important in their own case, I know not: but I am convinced that an opposite course would be found both practicable and peculiarly beneficial. That it would be practicable to lead children to adopt the very salutary habit under consideration, I know from experience: for I am acquainted with a family, in which five children in succession have adopted it, through the divine blessing, on the instructions and exhortations of their parents; and the highly beneficial consequences resulting from it are very apparent in that family.

Indeed I conceive, that almost all real Christians would agree in thinking, that, if children could be induced to practise religious reflection and self-examination for a short time every day, such a custom must, under God, be admirably adapted to counteract the peculiar faults of their age. Is childhood thoughtless? Surely then parents are called upon in a peculiar manner to try to form in their offspring early habits of thought. Is it volatile and little disposed either to take warning from past events, or to be provident with regard to the future? What remedy for this evil is so natural and appropriate, as to lead them to reflect every day on the past, and to extend their view to the leading duties and temptations, which are likely to occur in the next twenty-four hours? Is the season of early youth exposed in a particular manner to gusts of passion, and to a warmth of feeling which ill brooks restraint? Are the charms of novelty then particularly seductive? and does pleasure hold out such allurements on every side as to threaten an entire conquest of the soul? These evils and dangers cannot be better encountered than by teaching the child to call itself often to account; to watch over its besetCHRIST. OBSERV. No. 16.

ting sins; and, from the pain which it has suffered on reflecting at the stated seasons on its former faults, to be led to guard and pray against their repetition.

But it is by no means sufficient for a child to be barely told, that he must at such an hour every day examine himself, and meditate on the faults he has committed, and on the blessings he has experienced, in the day that is past; and also on the duties he is on the point of being called upon to practise, and on the probable temptations and blessings of the day to come. That he may be disposed to perform the work required of him, and be able to perform it with advantage, his mind must be stored, and his heart impressed, with religious truths: he must have acquired some degree of zeal to do his duty: and the way in which he ought to proceed in his seasons of reflection, must be pointed out to him again and again on fit occasions, in a plain and familiar manner, by his parents. Supposing this foundation to be laid, and the child to have adopted the practice in question, the parent must not suppose his labours to be finished. He must bear in mind, how ready the enemy is to steal away the good seed from the heart, or by sowing tares among it to ruin the expected crop. He must, therefore, be unremitting in his endeavours to contribute, as an instrument in the hands of God, to the perfecting, establishing, strengthening, and settling those Christian principles and dispositions which alone can give permanence, life, and efficacy to selfexamination and reflection. He will watch over the conduct of the child at the times appropriated for religious thought, without interfering with the privacy of the duty, or subjecting him to the temptations to which he would be exposed, were he frequently, or at stated times, required to give an account of the course his thoughts had taken: and he will endeavour, from time to time, to remedy what is amiss, and to improve what is good, in the child's proceedings on those occasions, not so much by an exercise of his authority, as by suggestions and persuasion, and by exemplifying, in a feeling and attractive way, the holy dispositions, and reflections, and aspirations, which befit the seasons of communion with his God and Saviour.

Dd

Is any parent disheartened by finding, that it is necessary to employ such exertions, and such persevering watchfulness, if he would succeed in leading his child to the daily exercise of self-examination and religious reflection; and is he therefore disposed not to make the attempt? Let him reflect, that every branch of education requires attention and pains on the part of the teacher, and that "the nurture and admonition of the Lord," opposed as they are to all the natural propensities of the human heart, call for peculiar diligence and care. Does he omit endeavouring to form in his child other habits which he thinks important to his welfare, on account of the difficulties he must encounter? On what ground then will he vindicate a refusal to meet difficulties on this point; (the most important, perhaps, of any to his offspring, because it is more immediately connected with religion of the heart); when he has certainly no insuperable obstacles in his way?

Men who are willing to labour in the Christian vineyard, (and this duty is incumbent not only on the ministers of religion, but on all followers of their Saviour), are, on several accounts, tempted to employ too little of that labour in their own families. Their attention is strongly called by their Christian friends to events in the world around them, and methods of usefulness are suggested, and are almost forced upon them by these friends: but few or none remind them of what ought to be done at home, or stimulate them to daily attention to their children. Abroad, if ministers, they address numbers, and may hope for speedy and striking effects; and, tho' good men, yet their zeal may be somewhat quickened by the vanity and love of importance, which cling to the human heart, even after it is regenerated. They are employed too in a way congenial to their habits, and to the tone of their minds, by being in a sphere, which allows them to make an ample use of their acquired knowledge, and to pour it forth in a copious and manly strain. At home all these things are reversed. There the teacher's audience will consist of, at most, a few children, whose progress in divine things will generally be slow, and often very dubious; and his labours will confer on him no reputation. He will also be obliged

to put a restraint on himself, and lower both his thoughts and his language to bring them to a level with the capacities and knowledge of his children: a mental exercise, which he may, perhaps, find neither pleasant nor easy. Similar causes, though acting in general less powerfully, will lead the religious layman to appropriate too small a share of his christian labours to his own children. But let all parents remember, how much is required at their hands. If the honour due by children to parents is made the subject of a distinct commandment, undoubtedly that commandment tacitly enjoins, with equal solemnity, the duties of parents towards their children; and, among these, care, and zeal, and exertion, and patience in the different branches of instruction, hold a very high place. But the duties of parents are not to be collected from the fifth commandment alone: they are strongly enforced in every part of Scripture. A neglect of these duties might probably be among the causes, which brought the families of Eli and Samuel into so deplorable a state; and I have no doubt, but that a faithful discharge of them contributed much, under God's blessing, to shed beams of heavenly glory on the death-beds of the children of your very interesting correspondent Senex.

Jan. 11th, 1803.

B. T.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I CONCUR in the candid wish of Onatrama, that your readers should appreciate for themselves our respective remarks on the term Co-operation. My arguments have been primarily directed, not to the defence of a word, but of a principle (Vol. I. p. 779); yet I still conceive, that Onatrama's conclusion would have been more sound, if, conformably to the fundamental proposition with which he opened the subject (p. 644), it had inculcated accurate discrimination instead of proscription.

It seems expedient to notice some few parts of Onatrama's last observations: but on all accounts I mean to be very brief.

In my allusion to Onatrama's assertion, that the use of the term Co-operation "tends to offend the discerning," my purpose was to intimate

that, in my apprehension, he had assumed rather than proved the term to be unwarrantable; and thus had failed to shew reasonable cause for the offence.

To say that every theological expression tends to mislead, would be erroneous. But every theological expression may, to some minds, seem to have a tendency to mislead. Do not the followers of Dr. Priestley reproach us with this supposed tendency in the term Trinity, and in other parts of our established theological language? Is the imputation a sufficient reason for discarding the expressions?

By the two texts formerly quoted by me, to which Onatrama has added a third, this fact is ascertained, that in the Holy Scriptures God and man are repeatedly said to co-operate. Whether those passages represent man as co-operating with God, or God as cooperating with man, is, in truth, a distinction concerning which I think, to adopt Onatrama's words, that it does "not seem to be of much importance.' Whether they represent God as co-operating in the salvation of man by his grace, or by his ministers, is also a distinction, which does not seem of much importance to the present question. Under either supposition Co-operation is equally admitted: under either supposition the term Cooperation might, with equal semblance of justice, be reprobated, as appear ing "to convey the idea of auxiliary concurrence; of a reciprocation of aid and a confederacy of abilities and exertions between powers, in some degree, and in some particulars, independent of each other;" and "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." (Vol. II. p. 81. 80).

Let me assure your correspondent, whose piety and moderation I sincerely respect, of my solicitude, that constant watchfulness should be exerted to prevent the deduction of false doctrines from our theological terms. The proper method of guarding against that evil is not to proscribe scriptural language, but to explain it. I would repeat, that the particular term in debate is one, to which I have no attachment, and one which I do not know that I have employed.

K. R.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

THE Querist C. C. in the ninth number of your first volume (p. 573), has started questions which lead rather to dry discussions, and to the exercise of theological subtilty, than to edification. I hope, Sir, that you will not suffer such discussions to occupy much room in your miscellany; remembering that theological logicians and metaphysi cians are neither the most numerous, nor, perhaps, the most useful part of the Christian world; and, whether numerous or not, the best way of being useful to them is to use all means to induce them to pay less attention to their favourite disquisitions, and more to practical and devotional exercises. I by no means, Sir, mean to apply these observations personally to C. C.; but to speak of the danger of indulging, to any considerable degree, a disposition to nice distinctions, and refined discussions, on doctrinal points.

In the eleventh number, (the last I have seen), C. C.'s queries are noticed by your correspondent T. S., who expresses a hope, that they will receive a full and satisfactory answer from some of your correspondents. No small knowledge, and ability, and discretion, and Christian piety, however, are requisite in discussing the points to which the queries relate. Without a large store of all these, there will be great danger of the answers to C. C. opening other questions, instead of laying those at rest, which have been already proposed and of their administering doubt and debate, if not also strife, rather than godly edifying.

After what I have said, you will not suppose, Sir, that I shall offer you many remarks either on the queries of C. C. or on the thoughts of T. S.: but it may promote my object, which is to inculcate the necessity of great caution and distrust in discussing such subjects, to observe, that several of the positions and reasonings of T. S. (and you are not, I think, likely to have a more able correspondent), appear to me unsatisfactory. This is particularly the case with respect to what he advances on the subject of C. C.'s first query. The query is as follows: "Are not justification, absolution from guilt, forgiveness of sins, and being accounted righteous, synonimous

66

terms for the same blessing?" T. S. remarks (p. 695) on this query, that justification and absolution from guilt are two distinct benefits, precisely answerable to the pardon granted a criminal, and an estate bestowed on him at the same time.". "Pardon of sin exempts a man from all punishment for past transgressions, but it gives him no title to the reward of righteousness." "When the believer is not only absolved from guilt, but made the righteousness of God in Christ,' the Lord our righteousness,' there is no condemnation for him; but he is by grace intitled to the reward of righteousness." T. S. thus states his view of the scripture doctrines of pardon and justification; but he offers no proof whatever that this view is the just one, and such as entertain doubts similar to those expressed in the queries, will find themselves as far as ever from settled opinions on the points in question.

T. S. endeavours to shew, that the query he is considering cannot be answered in the affirmative, as such an answer would necessarily introduce the doctrine of justification by works, yea, by the merit of works." His way of shewing this does not appear to me very clear, but I conceive his argument to be in substance as follows. The pardon of sin exempts a man from punishment for past transgressions, but gives him no title to reward. That title, therefore, must be derived from something else, and men will necessarily seek for it in the merit of their good works.

But if gospel blessings are the free gift of God for the sake of his Son, why may they not be bestowed upon every one who is pardoned, and reconciled to God, through the death of that Son, and thus the pardon of sin be itself an admission to those blessings? Does this appear to our apprehensions to be contrary to the justice of God, or to any of his attributes? If it can be shewn, that Scripture gives a different account of this matter, let the proof be adduced, and every humble Christian will bow to it; but I see no prima facie absurdity in this view of things, which would oblige those, who adopt the opinion that pardon and justification are the same blessing, to have recourse to the merit of works in order to account for the gift of eternal life to the followers of Christ.

"

But it appears from the reasoning of T. S. (See the last paragraph p. 695), that he sees the connexion between justification, and the blessings which accompany it, in the following light. He supposes that the believing penitent, whose sins are forgiven, and who is therefore accounted innocent, would be justified were he able thenceforth to keep" his maker's law perfectly in all its extensive requirements.' Now, Sir, this view of things appears to me to give a merit to good works, which does not belong to them, and therefore to give an imputed merit to justified Christians to which grace has given them no claim. T. S. looks upon the person, who, having received pardon and complete purification from sin, and a complete restoration of the divine image in his soul, should afterwards keep "his maker's law perfectly in all its extensive requirements," as deserving reward on account of this his perfect obedience. Now this is evidently ascribing a merit to his works, which would call for recompence at the hands of his Maker. And whence can this merit proceed? Has he done more than was his absolute and indispensable duty?-Certainly not. He seems to me, therefore, as void of merit after such perfect obedience, as he was the moment he received pardon, purification, and a new creation in the divine image. But though this view of things appears to me clearly to result from the relation of the creature to the creator, I should not have entertained it with such confidence as to have opposed it to the opinions of T. S., (for I greatly distrust human reasonings on such points), had I not thought it fully authorized by our Saviour's discourse in Luke xvii. 7-10, and especially in the last verse, in which he applied the preceding parable to the case of his disciples; "so likewise ye, when ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, we are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do."

This is a point which must be settled on scriptural grounds, and not with a view to consequences. But supposing Scripture to oppose the opinions of T. S., those opinions should, I think, be avoided with the greater care, as they attribute a merit to works, which may render it more difficult for the preachers of the Gos