reasonable person could support. Permit me to add, that a careful attention to the state of religion in this kingdom, during the course of half a century, has convinced me, that the adoption of this plan would have proved highly favourable to the interests of true religion, as well as to those of our ecclesiastical establishment. I am, SIR, Yours, &c. W. H. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. I HAD frequently heard of a vindication of Luther by Bishop Atterbury, as possessing considerable merit, and fully accomplishing its object. As I was not well acquainted with this prelate's writings I long acquiesced in the idea, that the above mentioned piece was only to be found in a separate pamphlet, and was likewise difficult of access. Recollecting, however, that a collection had been printed some years ago of the Miscellaneous Works of Atterbury, I resolved to examine them, and my search proved successful. I found the piece in the fourth volume, pp. 15-98. It is entitled "An Answer to some considerations on the Spirit of Martin Luther, and the Original of the Reformation at Oxford, 1687.” I mention the discovery of this little work, because I am apt to think that the information will be gratifying to others, who have expressed some curiosity about it, and seemed to be ignorant that a reference to it was so easy. From the Memoirs of the Life of Atterbury in vol. v. it appears, that the author of the considerations, the work which the Bishop undertakes to answer, and which contained a violent attack upon the character and conduct of Luther, was Obadiah Walker, Master of University College, who as sumed the name of the papist, Woodhead. It will detract somewhat from the reader's expectations respecting the work of Atterbury, to be told, as this account of his life tells him, that it was composed at the age of twenty-five, If, however, it does not contain all that might be wished for, it certainly justifies its title of an answer to the calumnies which it was intended to repel. The attacks upon the character of Luther and the Reformers which have been revived of late years, have had the beneficial effect of exciting a curiosity upon the subject; and the gratification of that curiosity has never failed, with ingenuous and competent enquirers, to issue in the vindication of the persons assaulted. It is but lately that you have exposed some of the illiberal and superficial observations of Mr. Roscoe upon this subject. The epithet straminea which Luther applied to the epistle of St. James in comparison of those of St. Paul, and which Mr. Roscoe has displayed with such ostentation and triumph, was, we are informed by Atterbury, omitted in every edition of his Bible after the year 1526. It is hardly necessary to say, how the Bishop defends the Reformer against the charge of being under the dominion of a contentious spirit; as the history of that great man, his real conduct, and his provocations, are too well known at present to require any defence of his character against so unjust and injurious an imputation. There is one passage, however, in the work, which, on account of the importance and other circumstances of the subject to which it refers, deserves to be transcribed. Your zeal, Sir, as a member and defender of the Church of England, in favour of the scriptural and Anglican doctrine of justification by faith alone, is, in these times particularly, entitled to much commendation. The extracts from Latimer in a paper of one of your correspondents for the month of February, are decisive in favour of this doctrine. And in a part of your work for the same month, for which you are yourself responsible, you have, in my opinion, combatted successfully the erroneous notions upon this subject, which Mr. Daubeny has derived from the papists through Bishop Bull and others. This gentleman I cannot suppose to entertain any strong prejudices against Bishop Atterbury, nor any strong predilection for Luther. The doctrine of Luther on the subject of justification is well known: it is well known likewise what was the importance he conferred upon it. I wish it to be as well known, what Bishop Atterbury has expressed as his opinion respecting the doctrine of Luther, in his answer to the popish considerer, who had represented, with no injustice, Luther's doctrine of justification by faith alone as the main root of the Reformation. "Good works are inseparable attendants upon this (Luther's) justifying faith, but they contribute nothing to the act of justification: they make not just, but are always with them that are made so. This is Luther's, was the Church of Rome's, and is now the Church of England's doctrine: if he will be pleased to attack it as such, it shall not want a defender." p. 27. It is remarkable, that at p. 87, this writer affirms the doctrine of Luther respecting free will to be the same as that of the Church of England. The whole of the defence is solid, spirited, and eloquent. The concluding paragraph is peculiarly animated. Your's, &c. MEM. To the Editor of the Christian Observer. ALLOW me to propose the following subject for discussion in some of your future Numbers: Is it proper that a woman should mark her Christian principles by any, and by what particularity in her dress? Is all ornament, or is only a profusion of it, forbidden by the Gospel? In what measure is it right to endeavour to be fashionable in the article of apparel? And ought any degree of economy which is To the Editor of the Christian Observer. AN answer to the following questions, in your publication, is requested by one much interested in the subject: Ought religious persons to avoid, or not to seek, the society of worldly people, (I do not mean the idle and dissipated, but the more sober and rational) when they are not particularly required by duty to seek it? Or ought they to be solicitous to keep up their acquaintance with such persons, with a view to future usefulness, should a fit opportunity of being useful to them occur? May not such worldly society be more ensnaring to the mind, than even the society of the dissipated, which would probably disgust? Although it may be the duty of those who have much influence from their talents, their sex or their age, to mix in general society; ought not those who possess no such influence, to be cautious of following in this instance, the example of more eminent and established Christians? A retirement even from religious society is generally allowed to be necessary for maintaining communion with God, and real spirituality of mind; may not the worldly so ciety already spoken of be peculiarly injurious, by occupying too much time and thought, and by gradually producing too great an assimilation of manners and habits with the worldly-minded. How far is associating with such persons consistent with obeying the injunction: "Be not conformed to this world?" I am, SIR, your well-wisher, UNA MISCELLANEOUS. For the Christian Observer. ON FLATTERY. prove it completely superfluous. Nothing, it must be allowed, is more common than to hear of "flattering attentions," or, "flattering assiduities," or, 66 a behaviour markedly flattering," but notwithstanding the frequent occurrence of such language, I doubt whether it is sufliciently considered that we may as effectually commit the act, or let us rather call it the sin, of flattery, by the general course of our behaviour towards a person, as by feasting his ear with adulatory language. Nay, however common the expressions that have been just quoted, it is certain that discourses, professedly written on the subject of flattery, generally confine almost their whole attention to such flattery as is particular or complimentary. Before we proceed to consider how far they are right in so doing, it is highly necessary to explain in a more detailed manner what we understand by constructive flattery; and this will be best accomplished by instances. Ir may fairly be enquired of any one, who writes on a subject so hackneyed as that of fluttery, whether he has any thing new to say? Perhaps it may be sufficient in the present case to reply that, without aspiring to say any thing new, it may not be useless to repeat some things, which though they may have been said before, have not, as far as I know, been placed in the prominent light in which they ought to be placed. Even respecting subjects which have been repeatedly discussed, and which every body more or less understands, it is well known that misconceptions often prevail. Of this kind, as it seems to me, are the two following with regard to flattery. First; in speaking of the evils of flattery, men too often confine their attention to what may be called particular flattery, or the pay ing of a particular compliment, either direct or indirect. Secondly; they are apt to speak, as if flattery must cease to do mischief, as soon as it was known to be flattery; that is, as if complimentary speeches were hurtful, only while they were believed to convey the real sentiments of the speaker. With a reference to these two points, it is the purpose of the present essay to sub-bassador from Mary of Scotland; mit, First; that the most dangerous sort of flattery is that which consists, not in particular compliments, whether express or implied, but in general attention, or, as it may be called, constructive flattery. Secondly; that men are often much pleased, and therefore may be much injured, by flattery, even when they know it to be such. The first proposition may, on a superficial view, appear very obvious indeed, and any attempt to CHRIST. OFSERV. No. 52. By this expression, I do not mean such flattery as is acted, or paid through the medium of actions, in opposition to oral flattery. The grossest flattery may be acted. Such for instance was that of Melville, mentioned by the ingenious authoress of Hints for the Education of a young Princess.. Melville was am and hearing Elizabeth, whose jealousy of that princess was well known, playing in an adjoining apartment, on Mary's favourite instrument, he broke into the apartment in violation of all etiquette, as if overcome by the exquisite skill of her performance. Here not a word was said, and yet the most falsome compliment could not be more disgustingly adulatory than this action. This was, in fact, paying a dumb compliment of the most servile kind. But constructive flat tery is that which produces its effects, only by a series of actions, or speeches, or both, not one of which perhaps, separately taken, could be censured as deserving the name of adulation, As direct and gross flattery answers to direct and gross deception, that is, to falsehood; and as indirect flattery answers to indirect deception or equivocation; so constructive flattery may be compared to political dissimulation of the more decent kind. A statesman of character does not, perhaps, say any thing untrue; but still, by manoeuvring, by covering his real motives, by taking circuitous measures, and in short, by a series of actions, not one of which is, strictly speaking, in itself or singly deceptive, he may very effectually deceive the whole world. This is analogous with that studied complaisance which we have termed constructive flattery. The very height of it is that species of insincere and manoeuvring conduct which Lord Baron recommends to the Earl of Essex, in a letter of counsel to that nobleman, dated 1596; and which he very properly couples with oral flattery of the most deceptive kind. "Thirdly, when at any time your Lordship upon occasion happen in speeches to do her Majesty right, for there is no such matter as flattery amongst you all, I fear you handle it magis in speciem adornatis verbis, quàm ut sentire videaris. So that a man may read formality in your countenance; whereas your Lordship should do it familiarly, et oratione fida. "Fourthly, your Lordship should never be without some particulars afoot, which you should seem to pursue with earnestness and affection; and then let them fall, upon taking knowledge of her Majesty's opposition and dislike. Of which the weightiest sort may be, if your Lordship offer to labour, in the behalf of some that you favour, for some of the places now void; choosing such a subject as you think her Majesty is like to oppose unto: and if you will say that this is conjunctum cum alienâ injuriâ (attended with injury to a third person), I will not answer, Hac non aliter constabunt (it cannot be helped); but I say, commendation from so good a mouth doth not hurt a man, though you prevail not. A less weighty sort of particulars may be the pretence of some journeys, which at her Majesty's request your Lordship might relinquish; as if you would pretend a journey to see your living and estate towards Wales, or the like: for as for great foreign journeys of employment and service, it standeth not with your gravity to play or stratagem with them. And the lightest sort of particulars, which yet are not to be neglected, are in your habits, apparel, wearing, gestures, and the like." But It scarcely needs to be mentioned, that "the lightest sort of particulars" here noted, fully amount to the kind of flattery of which we have been speaking; as the others border upon direct deception. how melancholy to read such morality from the pen of so great a moralist! Essex indeed was too high spirited to play this dirty game with skill; he had a settled opinion, (as Lord Bacon elsewhere informs us) that the Queen could be brought to nothing but by a kind of necessity and authority*;" and this opinion cost him his life. It is so important to classify both virtues and vices properly, that I may be excused for attempting to prove the identity of studied obsequiousness and direct flattery, not with respect to the motives of the agent (that will be instantly allowed), but with respect to the manner in which they operate on the person to whom they are directed. The mischief of flattery, as far as its object is concerned, is, that it ministers to his vanity. A vain man is one, who either gives himself credit for some good quality or accomplishment which he possesses *See Bacon's Apology for his own conduct towards Essex. not, or over-rates the value of those which he really possesses. Whatever therefore induces him to do either the one or the other, feeds and inflames his vanity. Particular flattery is generally directed definitely to one of these two objects. A compliment either praises a man falsely for what he has not, or inordinately for what he has. Constructive flattery may be said to be directed indefinitely to one of the same two objects. He, to whom it is paid, finding that he attracts more notice than others, naturally imagines himself to be more attractive than he is; but, as the homage is general, it is left to his own imagination, either to fancy himself possessed of imaginary excellencies, or to miscompute the worth of those which he may actually claim. In fact, however, he always does either one or the other, or perhaps both. The moral mischief, therefore, produced by both sorts of flattery, is Both tempt a man to think more highly of himself than he ought to think; that is, they tempt him to sin. the same. Both sorts of flattery also redound by exactly the same process, to the advantage of the flatterer. The feeling of gratified vanity (such is the evil state of our nature) is uniformly attended with a feeling of complacence and happiness. The principle of association naturally attaches men to those whose presence excites in them this feeling of complacence; that is, to the flatterers; and the attachment, when once created, issues in substantial acts of bounty. This parallel seems to prove that studied complaisance not only may be called flattery, but is flattery. It may be thought, however, that this is a mere dispute about words. "What more common (it may be asked) than to consider nearly in the same light the obsequious man, and the flatterer? These characters, if not generally identified, yet are generally regarded as allied, and both are always reprobated; what is gained, then, by confounding them?" Before any attempt is made to answer this question, it may be observed, that by constructive flattery is not meant merely obsequiousness, but studied obsequiousness. Servility may sometimes proceed, not from any design, but from mere weakness and extraordinary pliancy of mind, and proceed from this cause so evidently, that the personage who is the object of it, however pleased, shall no more feel himself flattered by it, than he feels himself flattered by the softness of his pillow, or the comfortable pliancy of his shoe. But to proceed, surely, it is not true that studied obsequiousness or complaisance is generally regarded in the same light with particular or complimentary adulation. It may be considered as the same kind of evil; but it is considered as a much less evil. Too many there are, perhaps even among the more religious, who would on no account pay a totally undeserved compliment, this they would regard as telling a direct untruth,-but who do not scruple, when they have some interest in view, to diffuse the same portion of untruth over a greater surface, by practising all the manoeuvres of designing complaisance. Obsequiousness, when it leads to something in other views culpable, is indeed severely censured; but otherwise, it is, I believe, chiefly looked upon as arguing a sort of meanness of character in the agent, without any reference to its pernicious effects on the mind of the object. We are constantly admonished to "beware of flattery," as something ensnaring and baneful; but who is admonished to beware of obsequiousness? And yet, if the parallel which was drawn between them, be just, obsequiousness, such as we have described it, is the more ensnaring and baneful of the two, because it produces the same mischief with more subtlety. Therapon is a man who professes to guide his conduct by the principles of religion, and accordingly makes a point of strictly " telling truth." Going out on some important business one morning, he en |