are expressly given with the design of counteracting the doctrine of human corruption, and destroying the necessity of Christ's sacrifice of satisfaction. The atonement is an established doctrine, which I will by no means gainsay or impugn. But I will not neglect, in this place to point out what I am sure all who have perused her book must have observed, the studious anxiety with which she, on every occasion, brings this subject before her reader's eye. She seems to consider all as unbelievers who do not receive this doctrine. Let us be just. Let reason and the scriptures decide. She ought to know that many who deny it, nevertheless, believe the divine mission, life and immortality being brought to light by Christ, the resurrection from the dead unto eternal life, and the immortality of the soul and future judgment, and consider themselves no less christians than if they believed this doctrine. Nay, even those who deny the Trinitarian doctrine altogether, insist that they are christians; and they argue, that the word Trinity is not to be found in the scriptures, nor will they allow the corruption of human nature, nor the atonement, to be proved by scripture. Charity! charity! charity! The love the first christians had for one another extracted from the heathens the apostrophe; How these christians love one another! Do modern christians love one another? Let H. More and Sir A. Elton's conduct in the Blagdon controversy bear witness.

Some pages are occupied by common place observations on the ways and doctrine of Providence, which explain and account for various events in the history of nations and individuals, and are all shown to promote the great ends and objects of the divine administration, proving, from the frequent success of vice, and the depressions of virtue, the certainty of a future state. This is a specimen of the mode in which she recommends history to be read to pupils by governesses.

But above all knowledge, self knowledge is again expatiated upon; and individual self denial recommended, by historical interrogatories. The fair are asked, whether they never " carry about "with them a convenient religion, which accom❝modates itself to places and seasons; which is "decent with the pious, sober with the orderly, "and loose with the licentious?" Whether, while with patriotic indignation she inveighs against thirty theatres in Paris, well attended every night, she may not miss an evening at one of the three in London, during our public calamities by war? Will Mrs. More say her own religion is not a very convenient one, and that her conscience is not perfectly elastic, which permit her to write plays, and to write against plays; to write against the theatre, and yet re-publish her plays? Surely this is a most glaring inconsistency, this is hypocrisy with a vengeance! Need the world wonder she should" privately accuse" honest men, or be guilty of almost any other vice?

A chapter is devoted to " Definitions," and it teaches as much of that as it does of roasting eggs.

I am decidedly of the same opinion with Mrs. More, against those who recommend that christianity should not be taught to children. Many argue that the scriptures ought not to be a school book. I think otherwise. The objection, that familiarity with so sacred a book produceth future neglect and contempt, is not well founded. I know the contrary to be true. When children become men and go into the world, they are not likely to make that book a study. By reading it early, the historical part, and the miracles, make an impression never to be obliterated. It is there we have the most ancient theory of the earth, and the most authentic history of the primæval state of the world; there is contained the most perfect system of ethics, the purest legislation, the most rational induction of natural religion, an exemplification of the ways of God with man, and the words of eternal life revealed. But I certainly would not, like her, teach a child any part of what is called the "system." The distinguishing characteristics of establishments and sects, will be learned in manhood; a catholic way of worshipping God, and "serving him only," inculcating charity to all men, constantly dwelling on the "great and first, the new commandment," is most rational, intelligible, scriptural, and superlatively useful. Of system, it will be enough to teach the catechism of the church of England, than which I know no compend more rational and excellent, and so free from system. I totally disagree with her, however, that the "youth or

young lady should be taught to hug prejudices, "rather than acquire that versatile, accommodating citizenship of the world, by which he

may be an infidel at Paris, a papist at Rome, "and a mussulman at Cairo." To overcome prejudices is an hard and difficult study; and of whatever application and diligence Mrs. More may have been capable, or have employed to enable her to produce the work, with or without the aid of others, which goes by her name, it will not be uncharitable to say, that she has not yet studied at the feet of Jesus, that there is more system and "nasty heresy," than of the " new command"ment" in her religion, that she is rather influenced by the "pride of human wisdom," than led by affection to be "early at the tomb." Of the versatility she describes, there have been but few instances of individuals in the world; and he who cannot worship God at Paris, Rome, or Cairo, will but coldly worship him in London. The writer of this blesseth God that if he has learned but little, he has, however, learned this, and he dares avow it, that he has long since overcome all prejudice, nay even against non-descript bigotry, that he could and would worship God in Notre Dame, St. Peters, or while the grand Mufti of Cairo was officiating in the house of Rimnon, or even in H. More's non-descript meeting, with the same fervency as in St. Pauls. Is he " the "God of the Jews and not of the Gentiles also." But for all this, I respect order, decency, liberality, true piety, establishment, and good government,

which with might and main I will ever defend. Invective is no argument. At Paris there are many as good christians as at London; and I must repeat it again, that Mrs. More's religion is bigotry, likely to do more mischief than good to the world; and did I absolutely believe her to be the author of the work I am now considering, I should be provoked to say, that she is less pious than knavish. She seems to possess that spirit of bigotry, which in all ages detracted from the amiableness and liberality of the priestly character, which taught man to hate man, and produced so much evil in Europe, & lately so much misery in France. I allow no doctrine that circumscribes the mercies of God; there is no method of gaining eternal life but by "doing justice, loving mercy, and walk"ing humbly with him," and the belief and practice of this rule supersedeth the excellence of every form or scheme sanctioned by ukases, decrees of Popes, councils even oecumenical, or by parliaments themselves, however omnipotent, because it is the word of God himself. "Miss Moon !" I vow, though you have had a pair of good black rolling eyes, and I love black eyes, I would rather, cæteris paribus, supposing Lady Mac Sarcasm buried, marry a brunette, a Mussulwoman from Cairo than you; because we could together adore the same God, the God that made the " heavens " and the earth," "in various style and strains " unmeditated;" who made the people of all nations, the revolutionary Parisians, and the Nondescripts; and we should love one another too, shewing no wish to prevent others from being