good Christian? You must prove that you have been free from great sins even from your youth. In your professions of repentance she will have little faith. Habits, as she thinks, are invincible. Certain great crimes indicate a state that is incurable. When reputation is lost she fears that all is lost.

Amanda, have you ever reflected how small has been your own temptation to those sins, into which some others have fallen? What if the case should change, and the providence of God should expose you to some trial? May not the present innocence of your life, as you are too much disposed to term it, result rather from your circumstances than from any strength of good principles which you possess. "Be not high minded, but fear. Let him that thinketh he standeth, take heed lest he fall."

Amanda therefore, in some degree, resembles those Pharisees, who are described in Scripture as possessing a superficial righteousness, in which they trusted, and as having too little respect for the repenting publican and sinner. But let me not be misunderstood; I should be most unjust, if I were to liken her in all respects to the ancient Pharisee. The comparison would fail in a number of most important particulars. She does not "devour widow's houses, and for a pretence make long pray ers." She does not "chuse the chief place in the synagogues, and love to be called Rabbi." She does not "persecute the prophets from city to eity, and scourge them, and put them to death." Unquestionably she is not, as the Pharisee was, an example of the highest degree of sanctimonious pride, and prejudice, and hypocrisy, and the arch enemy of Jesus Christ. I should esteem it a sin to brand her, in any unqualified manner, with a name which she so little merits; nevertheless I must insist, that she would have gained a great step in Christianity, if her character were farther removed from that of him, who said, "God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men are:" and if she more resembled the man, who smote upon his breast, exclaiming, "God, be merciful to me, a sinner."

But a few remarks must be added on one part of Amanda's conduct, which was before very favourably noticed. I praised this benevolent

creature when in the country. There, indeed, she chiefly shines. But what is she when in London? Even here it has been acknowledged that she is polite, agreeable, and actuated by a desire to please. But then, Amanda has the honour of visiting, when she is in town, about eight hundred persons and her habitual endeavour seems to be to please and satisfy them all. The general character of this immense host of people is far inferior to that of Amanda, in point both of benevolence and of religion. Among them are some atheists and deists; a great multitude who practically disbelieve; not a few very light and dissipated women; and a large proportion of notoriously licentious men. Amanda is popular in every part of the circle which I have described. Whence then is that good fame which she has acquired in so many vicious quarters? Does it not result from a too great toleration of certain things which she sees and hears: Can she then possess a sufficiently tender conscience? Would she be thus agreeable, if either by her conduct, by her words, or even by her looks, she gave to every species of sin and irreligion the due discouragement and reprehension? Amanda professes to believe in Jesus Christ, and I feel very unwilling to suggest doubts respecting the sincerity of her faith; but was he popular with all the world? Did he not often testify of it that its works were evil? and was it not by the severity of his reproofs, that he provoked the anger of his persecutors?

But it may be said, that Amanda is a woman; that she is also a young person, and that it would be presumptuous in her to pretend to imitate the Saviour of mankind. I grant that to do in all respects as he did, would be to mistake the line of our own duty; but are the followers of Christ to maintain no warfare with the world? What is baptism but a profession of this very warfare? And what is Christianity but the fulfilment of the baptismal engagement?

"But Amanda," it will also be replied, "is so extremely affectionate and kind! she is benevolence itself: and it is the mere excess of her charity which causes her, perhaps, to lean a little too much to the accommodat ing side." The excess of her charity! Was he then, whose religion she professes to follow, less exuberant in his

kindness, or less tender in his nature than Amanda? His conflict with sin was one effect of his benevolence. He would have been less benevolent, if he had been less strenuous in opposing the corruptions of the world. Here, therefore, I am reminded of the observation which has been already more than once introduced. Amanda sees but imperfectly the evil of . Hence proceed her erroneous ideas of Christian doctrine: hence her low standard of practice: hence her inadequate conceptions of the iniquity prevailing in the world. The sins which she faintly discerns, she feebly opposes. When she beholds pain, sorrow, sickness, her instinctive benevolence makes her endeavour to remove them: but moral evil does not equally engage her attention. She imitates her Saviour in endeavouring to mitigate the common troubles of life; but she is not earnest, like him, to promote the spirit of true and universal holiness in the world. She discourses agreeably with her company: when she opens her lips she conveys pleasure to all around: but hers is a narrow, and in many cases a mistaken benevolence. She endeayours to make men happier, but not by rendering them better. She delights you for the moment, but she discovers little aim to communicate that permanent enjoyment which results from the knowledge and love of real Christianity.

Amanda, I appeal now to your benevolence. Whence come those pains and griefs, which, when in the country at least, you are so much occupied in assuaging? Come they not chiefly from the sinful passions of men? The grand source of human miseries is the moral evil of the world. The man or the woman who subdues one sin, prevents a thousand of the common troubles of life from ever having an existence.

To sum up the character of Amanda. She affords an example of the highest excellency, which is to be attained when morality is substituted for religion, when the gifts of nature occupy the place of Christian graces, and when the discipline of the world is preferred to that of the school of Christ. Amanda, indeed, it has been admitted, may be under some influence from rebigion; but it can only be a partial and a very languid influence. She seems 10 have imbibed merely just as much

Christianity as is consistent with general conformity to the manners of the age.

"But the age itself," it may be said, "is Christian." Let it be granted that it is not heathen; but does it reach, does it even approach the standard required by the Gospel ? Are the eight hundred persons, whom Amanda visits, of the same stamp with those who, in our Saviour's time, were designated by the title of "his people;' "the sheep of his fold who heard his voice;" Are these the "members of his body;" "branches of the living vine, which by abiding in him, bring forth much fruit:" the men who "follow him in the regeneration;"" who love not the world, nor the things of the world:" "who crucify the flesh, with its affections and lusts:" "who watch and pray that they enter not into temptation:" "who work out their salvation with fear and trembling:" and "who pray always, that they may be counted worthy to escape all those things which are coming on the earth, and to stand before the Son of Man?" Is Amanda herself of this description?

She is, indeed, one of the very best of her own worldly circle; and she unquestionably does great honour to their cause. The votaries of fashion point to her, and say, "See how excellent a thing is our religion; a religion not disgraced by bigotry, not rendered extravagant by fanaticism, and in no respect pushed too far; a religion that is quiet and unobtrusive, cheerful and happy, candid and liberal; honouring God by a cheerful acceptance of his gifts; offending none by an implied censure of their proceedings, but judging charitably of all; accommodating itself to the times in which we live, and allowing a full participation in all the common pursuits and pleasures of the world." "Amanda," they add," does great good by her example. She goes every where, and all who see her are in love with virtue." The truth rather is, that she contributes to sanction a system which is far more defective even than her own, and that she is approved by many of her acquaintance, not merely nor chiefly for her virtues themselves, but rather on account of her lending the credit of those virtues to the support of the worldly cause. They love her most for that

when, being less favoured by outward circumstances, she may disappoint the expectations which by many persons are now formed concerning her, and when even her present religious strictnesses will much abate. She is, nevertheless, so amiable, that I could almost deem myself censorious in complaining of her; and so correct and exemplary, that it appears difficult to bring home to her conduct a manifest and specific fault. Her exterior, however, is her better part. Let her beware, lest by the very correctness of her external behaviour, she should deceive herself as well as others. Let her remember, that while "man looketh on the outward appearance, the Lord trieth the heart.'

(To be continued).

The Character of THEODOSIA in our

next.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I OBSERVE, in your last number p. 784, a letter from a Country Squire, who desires to have his perplexity removed respecting the character of the new Rector of his parish. Now I write to say, that judging from the account given by the Country Squire, I am by no means satisfied with the clergyman in question. I, Sir, am so experienced an observer in these matters, that I can detect the unsoundness of a minister by means of circumstances apparently trivial; by the omission or substitution, for example, of some single word, either in his conversation, writing, or preaching; and he who is unsound, you know, Sir, is the only and the true schismatic, and, in short, is "in the gall of bitterness, and in the bond of iniquity."

I now proceed to lay before you my grounds for thinking that the Rector, described by the Country Squire, (a kind of clergyman, by the way, whom I suspect the Christian Observer very much admires) is far from coming up to my idea of a true Gospel minister.

I begin by observing, that a great stress seems intended to be laid on the good life which this clergyman is leading. Now, Sir, the introduction of this topic of a good life, as I always conceive, serves only to puzzle the question-Does he, or does he not, preach the Gospel? that is the

point. I judge that he does not from the following evidence.

The first thing I shall mention may appear to you, and to many of your readers, to be no more than a captious objection; but connected with other particulars in the account of this preacher, I cannot help regarding it as a suspicious circumstance. He is represented as preaching about grace, but then it is not said to be free grace. A minister who is really anxious to guard his doctrine from legal abuse, will not fail always to use those terms which are the most unexceptionable. On this omission, however, I do not insist, as the Squire does not appear sufficiently conversant in such subjects, to be aware of those nicer distinctions which give to a sermon its real character.

In the next place, the manner in which good works are represented to have been enforced in the discourses of the Rector, inspires me with appreI do not like the stress which seems hension. I have already hinted, that intended to be laid on the excellent practice of this clergyman; and I now tell you plainly, that whenever I hear of good works done by any one, I am filled with alarm for him, because it is greatly to be feared lest he who performs them so diligently should put his trust in them. I am struck with a similar panic, when I hear them recommended from the pulpit; and if the preacher of good works is moreover himself a doer of them, as seems here to be the case, I am of course seized with additional dread; for the danger of confiding in them is then doubled.

But do not, Sir, on this account suppose, that I am an enemy either to the mention or the practice of good works; far from it. But I will tell you in what manner this delicate subject ought to be handled. Works should be just so far mentioned in a sermon, as to take away the objection brought against us, that we are enemies to them; I mean, they should be noticed briefly, generally, incidentally, and also somewhat faintly. The Gospel preacher should treat them as some of the opposite party treat faith: he should not fail just to notice them as he passes, in order that no one may be able to say, they have no place in his system. They are, doubtless, of use, inasmuch as they "adorn the doctrine." But

the clergyman in question is plainly very zealous on the side of works; for something is said of a "trimming lecture" on this subject. I strongly suspect, therefore, that he is a legal preacher.

I further suspect this Rector to be unfaithful, on the ground of its not appearing that he is particularly persecuted. He should preach in such a way as to raise a great stir, and much opposition in his parish; and to have, at least, the more orderly and decent people against him. A real preacher of the truth should not be so discreet and measured in his terms as this clergyman seems to have been, for even the Squire expresses no disgust; but should use bold and strong language. Why, Sir, the Rector you seem to praise, does not even preach extempore. That he has no preaching gifts is, therefore, evident. We are, at the same time, told, that he most carefully, and laboriously, studies his sermons; a plain proof that he trusts to human learning. He seems also to confine his ministry to his own parish; a sign that he wants zcal: and he is acquainted with I know not how many merely "grave clergymen," as they are called, who live in his own neighbourhood.

In short, Mr. Editor, I am afraid that both you and all your correspondents are little better than "blind leaders of the blind;" and though you may talk of a few drunkards being made sober, yet what is this but a mere moral change-for any thing that appears to the contrary, the form of religion without the power.

In short, Sir, I, and all who see things clearly, can perceive that you and your whole party are men of mere morality; for were you as enlightened in the great truths of the Gospel as I am, you would long ago have shared in the reproach, which the blind and ignorant bestow on me, in giving me the appellation of

FANATICUS.

To the Editor of the Christian Observer.

I AM an English gentleman of the old school, and much attached to the British Constitution both in Church and State. I freely acknowledge to you, Mr. Editor, that I have not

much examined into the evidences in favour of the Christian Religion; nor can I profess to have looked narrowly into the 39 articles. Still less do I pretend to be acquainted with the tenets of our various sectaries. A fashion has crept into the world of late years, of arguing and debating about these religious matters. In my younger days, no man, except downright free-thinkers, had ever any doubts about them. I hope, however, that, without boasting, I may affirm, that I am a staunch and good member of the Church of England. Surely, Sir, no reasonable man can dispute my title to that appellation. My father, and his father before him, were always steady supporters of the Church; and my good mother bred me up to believe implicitly in all her doctrines. We were all of us enemies to Presby terians, believing them to be a sly, intriguing set, and not over well affected to our excellent constitution. For my part, I would never suffer a meeting-house to be opened in my parish, and tried to put them down throughout all my neighbourhood. I may add, Mr. Editor, though I do not set up for a saint, yet in the country, where alone my example is of any consequence, I go to Church pretty regularly in the morning, and take care that my family should attend also. Indeed, Sir, as a good subject, I feel myself bound to support our ecclesiastical establishment. I would never change a particle either of its doctrine, discipline, or worship, deem ing all religious innovations to be in conceivably dangerous.

Sir, though I do not pretend to be a philosopher, yet I have looked occasionally into books, and I have found a very ingenious, and, in my opinion, just remark, in Dr. Adam Smith's works, that an established Church (provided it is in safe hands) is the best of all possible contrivances for obviating the evils of fanaticism.

I come now to the more immediate Occasion of my writing to you. Be ing much alive even to the remotest dangers which may threaten our excellent constitution, and hearing of a new periodical publication called the Christian Observer, which with all its fair pretences has something suspicious about it in my mind, I have thought it right to read it as it came out, in order to watch its progress. In the last number (p. 784) I observe