which fixes the language of every nation. It is this which makes me say you in England, vous in France, and ihr in Germany, rather than thou, tu, or du, rather than Σʊ, Σɛ, or л, (which if we speak strictly, is the only scriptural language; not thou or thee any more than you.) But the placing religion in such things as these, is such egregious trifling, as naturally tends to make all religion stink in the nostrils of Infidels and Heathens. And yet this, by a far greater abuse of words than that you would reform, you call "the plain language." O my friend! He uses the plain language, who speaks the truth from his heart. Not he who says thee or thou, and at the mean time will dissemble or flatter, like the rest of the world. If this is not Can you shew Can "It is not lawful for Christians to kneel or bow the body, or uncover the head to any man." lawful, then some law of God forbids it. me that law? If you cannot, then the scrupling this is another plain instance of superstition, not Christianity. "It is not lawful for a Christian to use superfluities in apparel: as neither, to use such games, sports, and plays, under the notion of recreations, as are not consistent with gravity and godly fear." As to both these propositions, there is no difference between Quakerism and Christianity. Only observe, touching the former, that the sin of "superflous apparel," lies chiefly in the superfluous expense. To make it therefore a point of conscience, to differ from others, as to the shape or colour of your apparel, is mere superstition: let the difference lie in the price, that you may have the more wherewith to clothe them that have none. "It is not lawful for Christians to swear before a magistrate, nor to fight in any cause." Whatever becomes of the latter proposition, the former is no part of Christianity: for Christ himself answered upon oath before a migistrate. Yea, he would not answer till he was put to his oath; till the high priest said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God." 1 Friend, you have a honest heart, but a weak head: you have a zeal, but not according to knowledge. You were zealous once for the love of God and man; for holiness of heart and holiness of life. You are now zealous for particular forms of speaking, for a set of phrases and opinions. Once your zeal was against ungodliness and unrighteousness, against evil tempers and evil works. Now it is against forms of prayer, against singing psalms or hymns, against appointing times of praying or preaching; against saying you to a single person, uncovering your head, or having too many buttons on your coat. O what a fall is here! What poor trifles are these, that now well nigh engross your thoughts! Come back, come back, to the weightier matters of the law, spiritual, rational, scriptural religion. No longer waste your time and strength in beating the air, in vain controversies and strife of words: but bend your whole soul to the growing in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord Jesus Christ, to the continually advancing in that holiness, without which you cannot see the Lord. AN EXTRACT OF A LETTER TO THE REV. MR. LAW; OCCASIONED BY SOME OF HIS LATE WRITINGS. REV. ŠIR, IN matters of Religion I regard no writings but the inspired. Tauler, Behmen, and a whole army of mystic authors are with me nothing to St. Paul. In every point I appeal to the Law and the Testimony,' and value no authority but this. At a time when I was in great danger of not valuing this authority enough, you made that important observation, “I see where your mistake lies. You would have a philosophical religion; but there can be no such thing. Religion is the most plain, simple thing in the world. It is only, We love him, because he first loved us.' So far as you add philosophy to religion, just so far you spoil it." This remark I have never forgotten since. And I trust in God I never shall. But have not you? Permit me, Sir, to speak plainly. Have you ever thought of it since? Is there a writer in England who so continually blends philosophy with religion? Even in tracts on The Spirit of Prayer, and The Spirit of Love, wherein, from the titles of them, one would expect to find no more of philosophy, than in the epistles of St. John? Concerning which, give me leave to observe in general, 1. That the whole of it is utterly superfluous : a man may be full both of Prayer and Love, and not know a word of this hypothesis: 2. The whole of this hypothesis is unproved; it is all precarious, all uncertain: 3. The whole hypothesis has a dangerous tendency. It naturally leads men off from plain practical religion, and fills them with the knowledge that puffeth up, instead of the love that edifieth; and, 4. It is often flatly contradictory to Scripture, to reason, and to itself. But over and above this superfluous, uncertain, dangerous, irrational, and unscriptural philosophy, have not you lately grieved many who are not strangers to the spirit of prayer or love, by advancing tenets in religion, some of which they think are unsupported by Scripture, some even repugnant to it? Allow me, Sir, first to touch upon your philosophy, and then to speak freely concerning these. I. As to your philosophy, the main of your theory respects, 1. Things antecedent to the creation; 2. The creation itself; 3. Adam in Paradise; 4. The fall of man. I do not undertake formally to refute what you have asserted on any of these heads. I dare not: I cannot answer either to God or man such an employment of my time. I shall only give a sketch of this strange system, and ask a few obvious questions. And, 1. Of the things antecedent to the creation. "All that can be conceived is God, or nature, or creature." + Is nature created, or not created? It must be one or the other; for there is no medium. If not created, is it not God? If created, is it not a creature? How then can there be three, God, nature, and creature? Since nature must coincide either with God or creature. "Nature is in itself a hungry, wrathful fire of life." "Nature is and can be only a desire. Desire is the very Mr. Law's words are inclosed all along in inverted commas. દ્વંદ being of nature."* "Nature is only a desire, because it is for the sake of something else. Nature is only a torment; because it cannot help itself to that which it wants."+ "Nature is the outward manifestation of the invisible dogy glories of God." + Is not the last of these definitions contradictory to all that precede ?-If desire is the very being of nature if it is a torment, an hungry wrathful fire: how is it "the outward manifestation of the invisible glories of God?" as well as God is antecedent to all creatures." "Nature There is an eternal nature, as universal and as unlimited as God." Is then nature God? Or are there two eternal, universal, infinite beings? , "Nothing is before eternal nature but God."¶"Nothing but?" Is any thing before that which is eternal ?— But how is this grand account of nature consistent with what you say elsewhere? "Nature, and darkness, and self, are but three different expressions for one and the same thing."**" Nature has all evil and no evil in it." Yea, ++" Nature, self, or darkness, has not only no evil in it, but is the only ground of all good." O rare darkness!9. og "Nature has seven chief properties, and can have neither more nor less, because it is a birth from the deity in nature." (Is nature a birth from the deity in nature? Is this sense? If it be, what kind of proof is it? Is it not ignotum per æque ignotum ?)For God is tri-une and nature is tri-une." ("Nature is tri-une." Is not this flat begging the question ?) "And hence arise properties, And three and three." (Nay, why not nine and nine?) that which brings these three and three into union is another property." Why so? Why may it not be two, or five, or nine? Is it not rather the will and power of God?a baburra P. 64. Ibid, ** P. 181. †† P. 192. ‡‡ Sp. of Love, P. II, p. 64, |