never very remarkable for abounding in the good deeds which they so loudly praise, they will contend that the moral standard of these volumes is far too high; and they will farther maintain, that the principle of faith operating upon the heart by the influence of heavenly agency, is in the last degree enthusiastic and absurd.

Objections of this nature have been lately advanced, with others equally valid, by a writer in the Monthly Review *. Whether it be worth our labour to expose the childish sophistry of the article in question, we can scarcely determine; for on what Christian principle can we contend with those who deny the most important of Christian doctrines? We must frankly confess, that we do not expect, by any arguments drawn from the Scriptures, to produce much effect upon the reviewer: but the discussion may possibly be useful to others: and we shall therefore proceed to shew, that the Reviewer's objections to the morality of Mrs. More's work are frivolous; that his statement and refutation of her doctrines are unfair; and that the manner and spirit of his attack, for such it must be called, discover neither good breeding nor good taste. In noticing this critique, we are not moved by any alarm for the peace or fame of the excellent authoress, but rather by having observed that some of his objections, less distinctly stated, are too current among conversation critics, with whom the

•The class of reviewers to whom we have hitherto been accustomed, have in general been little remarkable for their regard to the truths of Christianity. A very honourable exception has recently appeared in the British Review, of which the third number has just been published. In their account both of Mrs. More's work and of other publica

tions on religious subjects, the writers of that review have defended the cause of sound principle in the spirit of Christian moderation, and with a degree of talent certainly inferior to few of their contempora

ries.

tone and temper both of text and comment sometimes weigh more than right aims and sound argu

ments.

We first have it, on the word of a wit, that Mrs. More's "Practical Piety contains more piety than can be practised." This gentleman is greatly obliged to our Reviewer for giving notoriety to his bon-mot: still more for the candour and modesty with which he confesses it a borrowed sparkle, since its singular brilliance might have misled us to ascribe it to the ingenious critic himself: but still more is he favoured by the argumentative support here given to this popular opinion, so happily expressed. We are gravely apprised that the majority will join in it: as though it were matter of new and doubtful observation, that numbers have a general distaste for works of this character; that they relish better a low and equivocal morality, served up în elegant maxims, or in the agreeable envelope of fiction. Surely it is detracting little from the merit and consistency of Christian moralists to say, that the purity and elevation of their principles are calculated to discourage and disappoint the irreligious. If this be just cause of censure, how strictly applicable is it to the writings of the New Testament; and most of all, to the precepts and doctrines of that great Instructor, of whom even his enemies said "never man spake like this man." We cannot forget the impressive declarations of Christ, in proof that the religion he came to teach is the religion of the heart. While we have his words recorded," God is a spirit, and must be worshipped in spirit and in truth;"-" I say unto you, that shall speak, they shall give account every idle word that men for by thy words thou shalt be justhereof in the day of judgment; tified, and by thy words shalt thou be condemned,"-can it be esteemed less than gross inadvertence to charge a teacher in the school of Christ with assuming too high a

tone, or fixing too raised a standard of morals? Will it be affirmed that Mrs. More's refinements are not to be found in the Gospel? It is obvious that she addresses the refined classes of a refined age. Her works, as coming from a polished and reflecting mind, and from a character accustomed to the higher walk of society, would naturally be best adapted to a select order of readers. We find in all of them feelings and situations which the less cultivated will hardly recognise; courses of thought in which they will not readily accompany her; and especially that nice inquest into motives, and close scrutiny of the heart, which it requires habits of reflection, and some proficiency in self-acquaintance, to appropriate. Above all, we find that undeviating adherence to the requisitions of Christianity, which demands a serious concern about religion to predispose the heart in their behalf, or to prevent their encountering a portion of prejudice, or even disgust. But, in order to shew that Mrs. More's Christian morality "is in certain points pushed to an unjustifiable extreme," it must be proved that she has pushed it beyond the principles of the doctrine

of Christ.

The point which is selected by this critic for its peculiar extravagance, is her alleged attempt to annibilate self-love, which he kindly informs us is as impossible as to annihilate the passions and affections. This objection is repeated more at large in his comment on the chapter entitled "Self-love." On the subject of self-love, misapprehension may possibly arise from the disputable import of the term. If we intend by it, the desire of sonal good or happiness, which is a first principle in our nature, the idea of extirpating or suppressing that principle is visionary, and the condemnation of it absurd. But if selflove be understood in its more common, and, we may add, scriptural, acceptation, it certainly describes a Corrupt principle. It seems to have

per

been employed in this sense chiefly for the sake of its comprehensiveness, since, besides being liable to be erroneously or perversely confounded with the former signification, it is in itself somewhat too indefinite, standing for various dis tinct dispositions of the mind,-as self-importance, self-idolatry, selfdeception, and self-will. It is probably used thus by St. Paul, when he predicts to Timothy the sins of future times: "For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters," &c. : Self-love appearing as a sort of title, generally descrip tive or inclusive of the evil catas logue which follows. It is, no doubt, a bold and compendious use of words, which comprises so many vices of the heart and life under this single name: yet is it not justified by the lamentable fact, that such are the customary channels in which this active principle moves and operates? How is self-love evinced by mankind? Is it in first uniformly seeking the supreme good, and all inferior good subor dinately or in reference to it? Is it in conforming to the maxim of the poet, " Virtue alone is happiness below?" Were self-love thus manifested, the moralist would rejoice in beholding a wise and excellent gift directed to its right and noble end. But do we not actually see its mis directed energy prompting depend ent creatures to pride and murmur. ings; creatures of one family, to mu tual injustice and violence; creatures under the eye of Omniscience, to attempt deceit; deluding those whom conscience and revelation should teach to consult the whole scope of their interests as immortal beings, into a base preference for the most limited and perishable pleasures? Do we not see, in fine, the universal and innocent desire of good perverted into a blind desire of obtaining present good at any price? Do we not see self-love hurrying unhappy man into the stream, and down the very gulf, of self-destruc tion?-It is this too just view of the

effects of self-love, which explains its adoption as a generic term for the bad dispositions of our nature. Those dispositions, and the works that spring from them, evidently originate in a false and depraved self-love. Neither do the contingent good effects arising from this principle, prove its purity or direct tendency to good; nor the circumstances of its being an original law of our nature, prove it to be incorrupt as it now exists in our nature. We cannot justly conclude that lightning is not a physical evil, and a destructive phenomenon, either because thunder-storms have a salutary effect in agitating and clearing the atmosphere, or because fire is a necessary element in the composition of our world.

We are not, however, contende ing for the strict propriety of the term self-love thus applied, nor do we know any which might be substituted for it, as selfishness has a more circumscribed sense. We should prefer treating separately of the moral dispositions it includes; for when they are condemned in the mass under this ambiguous name, even minds aware of the real meaning to be attached to it, are apt (from the impulse of the accused principle itself, arresting judgment, as it were, in its own defence) to hesitate at the unwelcome paradox. We do not wonder that the reader when he is told," Self-love is the centre of the unrenewed heart," has paused to ask himself, And not of the renewed also? Yet if he look at the detail, and find that it is an injurious and deceitful selflove, which is every where detected and disgraced, candour will forbid him to persist in a misconstruction. Else it admits of doubt whether he will be prevented by veneration for him who gave it, from secretly cavilling at the Saviour's injunction, "Whosoever will come after me, let him deny himself." As far as the theological opinions of Mrs. More are discovered in her writings, we certainly do not per

CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 117.

ceive any affinity to the doctrines of "pure love, self-abandonment,” &c. for which the admirable Fenelon was censured, and which were at least unsuitable to the end of general religious improvement. There is surely no cause to remind her or her readers" that the beatitudes are addressed to our selflove; that the promises and threatenings of the Gospel proceed on the principle of reward and punishment, and are therefore addressed to our self-love." None can accuse ber of passing over slightly those grand motives and weighty sanctions of the Christian scheme. But that true self-love which is exemplified by the real and elevated Christian only, will rarely be designated by such a name. We have been so habituated to see and feel the narrow and pernicious workings of selfishness, that when we contemplate the greatly good man looking upwards and onwards to the summit and the end, renouncing all false good, bearing all appointed evil, indifferent to what the world pur sues, devoting himself to " love of God and love of man," we scarcely know how to say of this, It is selflove. Even in observing a lower degree of Christian devotedness, where a lawful concern about present good and evil strongly actuates the mind; united with a sincere and prevalent regard to the will of God, both in doing and suffering; no one will be inclined to say, Selflove is the centre of that man's heart. Yet, doubtless, a rectified self-love, a desire of the greatest and highest good, regulates that man's course. It is exactly the course which such a self-love must prescribe, at least to a being possessed of revealed truth; and in proportion to the faithfulness and zeal with which he adheres to this course, are the sublimity and rectitude of his self-love. But it would not be a correct or well-chosen figure to describe this self-love as the centre of the Christian's heart. It may more expressively be called ultimate than

4 F