sentiments, and had considerable effect in refining the manners. The progress of science has great influence on the manners and character of men. It is true, that, in the middle ages, great ignorance prevailed; and that the first literary efforts were very ill directed; yet they had considerable effect in opening another path to fame and respect.

1832, 9mo. 12th.-I went with father to see the Surrey Zoological Gardens, and the Beulah grounds and Spa.

-10 mo. 21st.-Returned, on the 12th, from a visit to J. H. Wiffen, at Froxfield, near Woburn. We started on the 28th ult., after dinner, from Islington, and drove, the first stage, to Harrow here we walked round the school playgrounds, and in the churchyard: from the latter is a very extensive view-we could see the Thames. A poor woman, sitting at work on a tombstone, invited us to see the church, she having the key;we went in, and, whilst we were viewing the beautiful workmanship of this ancient edifice, my father was somewhat rudely accosted by two young men,

who happened to step in. One of them, a clergyman,—the curate of the parish, as we afterwards understood, took occasion to remonstrate, or rather reproach, my father, for keeping on his hat in a church-because it is consecrated ground"-calling it indecent, and making some other reflections.-He was asked to point out where such a practice, as that he was contending for, was recorded in Scripture, and he instanced the case of Moses being required to put off his shoes on holy ground! My father replied,—that

› Paul, in one of his Epistles, directs, that he who engages in public prayer, shall offer this service with his head uncovered -doubtless as a mark of adoration due only to that Divine Being whom he is then addressing. This especial injunction of the Apostle regarding the manner of prayer, evidently implies that, in other parts of divine worship, when we are not so engaged, this outward token of reverence is not required, much less at other times, when no worship is being performed in the place. This hat honour-now so rigidly claimed for persons and places—has neither precept nor example in Holy Scripture, or in the days of pure Christianity, but had its origin in the pride of man's heart, who would be worshipped as God. The practice may be readily traced to the dark ages of superstition, or of darker idolatry, and is one of those antichristian relics with which the Church of Christ is still burdened, and which escaped excision from the Reformers of the 16th century.--ED.

was a special command, made on a particular occasion, and not at all analogous. Here is no Divine command, and no burning bush; besides, the question is about uncovering the head, not the feet. If the church was consecrated, was not also the churchyard? and a man might, therefore, by this rule, as well uncover his head to the tombstones, as to those bare walls and empty seats. And who performed that "holy ceremony of consecration?"--probably, some popish bishop, three or four hundred years ago, and for a mode of worship which you call idolatrous. Some further controversy on this unscriptural custom took place at the time; but neither party`seemed inclined to recant: at length, after seeing us clean outside of this venerable sanctum, the young gentlemen made their bow and retired, leaving us no very favourable opinion of their Christian charity, shewn to us as strangers, or of the correctness of the arguments adduced in support of their views; which education, custom, and fashion, had so evidently warped.

From Harrow we had a pleasant country ride to Watford, where we lodged. Next morning we arrived at our friend's at Froxfield.

J. H. W, who is librarian at Woburn Abbey, has been engaged for some time on a work, to be entitled, "Historical Memoirs of the House of Russell." An eminent artist is

employed by the Duke of Bedford in painting fifty copies of his ancestors' portraits, in water colours, to embellish the duke's copy of the work. Some of these portraits I saw at the Abbey. This splendid book is intended as a heír-loom, and will probably cost the duke five hundred guineas. My father has subscribed for a copy of the

quarto size.

1832, 11 mo. 20th. DEISM AND CHRISTIANITY

CONTRASTED.

The Bible, and the Bible alone, sets forth the faith of all true Christians. If religion were the work of man, the Deist-the Theophilanthropist the Stoic-or even the Epicureanmight be justified in making a religion for himself; but this is not the case.

O Spirit of Truth! animate and guide my understanding, while I attempt—

"To vindicate eternal Providence,

And justify the ways of God to man."-MILTON.

I cannot attribute to the learned writer above quoted, the design of maintaining that it admits of a doubt, whether Deism or Christianity is best adapted to the wants of man, and yet there is an ambiguity in the sentence, which to some minds might give that conclusion. I purpose to commit a few thoughts to paper, tending to shew that the Christian religion is admirably adapted to the condition of man, which Deism is not.

Imagine a man, a professed Deist, trusting to its doctrines alone to guide him to Heaven. He believes in an Eternity—in a God — in a Judge; but he trusts to his general good conduct for a future state. Vain attempt to reconcile the polluted lives of the best of men with the holy laws of God! Some men may be so infatuated as to assert that their lives have been spent aright, but none, looking back upon their past life with the immediate prospect of death before their eyes, would assert, under the influence of any thing short of madness,-"Si je recommençais ma carrière, je ferais ce que j'ai fait." This is the great absurdity of Deism, considered merely in refer

2" If I began again my career, I would do what I have done."

P