has culled a few flowers, I smell to them as I go along, being desirous of bringing her boneless pages, for the benefit of my reader, into the most compressed state; and to find wheat where there is so much chaff, is not easy.

I have frequently heard it observed, that it is ill-bred to discuss theological doctrines in company, and as often, that the introduction of politics ought to be avoided. Our author says

"As in the momentous times in which we live it is next "to impossible to pass an evening in company but the talk "will so inevitably revert to politics, that, without any pre"meditated design, every one present shall infallibly be able "to find out to which side the other inclines; why, in the "far higher concern of eternal things, should we so care

fully shun every offered opportunity of bearing even a "casual testimony to the part we espouse in religion? Why, while we make it a sort of point of conscience to "leave no doubt on the mind of a stranger, whether we adopt the party of Pitt or Fox, shall we chuse to leave it very problematical whether we belong to God or Baal? Why, in religion, as well as in politics, should we not act "like people who, having their all at stake, cannot forbear "now and then adverting for a moment to the object of "their grand concern, and dropping, at least, an incidental " intimation of the side to which they belong?"

r

My reader is no doubt well aware, and perhaps from experience, how hopeless an attempt it is to endeavour by argument, in company, to convert a person we casually meet with to our own opinions. Men's minds are rather heated than open to conviction in such short disputes. We may get enemies, but seldom gain friends by such conduct. Matter by this proposal, however,

is furnished for two or three paragraphs, and that was something for a book maker. If it be true, for example, that she had proof of the Curate of Blagdon's preaching, or arguing against the trinitarian doctrine, or the creed, by misnomer called Athanasian, for it is yet uncertain who the author is, the Saint of that name having had nothing to' do in it, how comes it that she, if he were wrong, did not bring him over to her way of thinking; for she had three arguments in her favour, the politeness of men to the women, the right to the last word, and a pair of swift rolling black eyes, which is certainly something in a debate? Or, on the other hand, how happens it that he did not convert the lady to the church? Just because few conversions of that hasty, sudden nature take place, and that men, on these occasions, argue rather for victory, than conviction and mutual edification. With such tempers, and particularly such a spirit as hers, for what purpose dispute about religion?

At her own house, I am informed, one of her sisters, when there are strangers, takes care to introduce a conversation on religion, and when the sentiments of the visitants are collected, one of the five generally withdraws, and notes them in a book kept for the purpose; and if they happen to differ from their views, particular care is taken to propagate that such a person is a Unitarian, such a person a Socinian, one an Arian, another not orthodox, and this frequently with a deliberate purpose to injure their characters. Whether the

Curate of Blagdon had ever dropped any expression that may be tortured into heterodoxy, I have not learned; but as she brought the charge, and being called on to substantiate it, there can be no doubt of its being a false and deliberately malicious charge. It is an indelible stain on her veracity.

As I am at liberty, if I think it proper, to give the name of my informant, vouching for this fact in his own person, whose veracity is unquestionable, let me from p. 56, vol. 8, transcribe a few lines, that the public may know this woman, who has passed herself so long as a candidate for canonization.

People avoid conversation on religion as exposing them"selves to the danger of playing with edged tools. They "conceive of religion as something which involves contro"versy, and dispute; something either melancholy or mis"chievous; something of an inflammatory nature, which "is to stir up ill humours and hatred; they consider it as "a question which has two sides; as of a sort of party"business which sets friends at variance. So much is this "notion adopted, that I have seen announced two works of "considerable merit, in which it was stipulated as an at"traction, that the subject of religion, as being likely to "excite anger and party-distinctions, should be carefully "excluded. Such is the worldly idea of the spirit of that religion, whose direct object it was to bring peace and "good will to men !”

66

This is H. More.-If Mrs. More could not listen to the quotation of a text of scripture, without unjustly, illogically, as well as uncharitably, deducing the false conclusion of heterodoxy, and

considering the individual as a proper object of persecution and destruction, she who imagines herself, and wishes the world to regard her, as a person of extraordinary attainments, how could she recommend it to ladies in general, to make religion a principal subject of conversation, since many who do not think themselves the "best thing of its kind," might stir up in the heat of debate ill-humours, mischief, strife, and hatred, of very serious consequence. It is by this artful conduct, however, that she has blazed abroad her reputation for piety and excellence so long, and it was by over-acting her character of cunning and mischief, she has ascended like a sky-rocket and exploded, and now sunk down to rise no more.

In one of the conversations just alluded to at her own house, where is that elegance of manners, that good breeding, which a writer on female education ought not only to know and recommend, but studiously in her own practice to observe? The gentleman expected to meet with a love of information, a desire to communicate knowledge; that affability which excites a collision of ideas, to promote mutual benefit or pleasure; that liberality and charity, which cheerfully allows for the varieties of sentiment and difference in opinion, when they occur, which must inevitably exist in individual minds; but he was disappointed, for H. More seemed rather to watch for some occasion of censure, of misrepresentation, to gratify the malicious pride of her mystical system, the existence of which he did not then know,

than "with meekness instruct, or receive a reason of the hope" entertained by the person who bore his part in discourse.

On the subject of conversation, my author continues to direct ladies to talk to strangers on that subject they may be thought to be best acquainted with; to manage with discreet modesty the dangerous talent of wit; not to indulge humour, mimicry, imitation or buffoonery; to avoid the affectation of exclaiming that " they are thankful they

are not geniuses;" not to think themselves humble because they are not ingenious; and not to accuse themselves, from vanity, of faults from which they are known to be exempt. They are taught to speak little of themselves, or not at all, and not to publish their faults, rather than not be the subject of public talk; not to accuse themselves of all sins in the gross, that their friends may contradict them; and of all things, not to be foolishly angry if their friends should be so uncivil as to grant their charge against themselves, of being guilty of the infraction of the whole decalogue and more, with many other ramifications of the offspring of vanity. With great "seriousness" they are guarded against telling stories, even if they themselves had been eye witnesses, or even where their friend knew the man, who remembered the woman, who conversed with the person, who actually beheld the wonder, and never to divulge a secret. The writer on female education, can it be possible from the company she has kept, finds it necessary to warn the British ladies against

I

N