satiric smartness in the word, though there be none in the man. In default of keen faculty in the mind, it is delightful thus to find something that will do as well, ready bottled up in odd terms. It is equally convenient to a profligate, or a coxcomb, whose propriety of character is to be supported by laughing indiscriminately at all the symptoms of religion; the one to evince that his courage is not sapped by conscience, the other to make the best advantage of his instinct of catching at impiety as a substitute for sense. Each feels that he has manfully set them down, when he has called them methodism. Such terms have a pleasant facility of throwing away the matter in question to scorn, without any trouble of making a definite, intelligible charge of extravagance or delusion, and attempting to prove it 19 ” Others, to give vent to their contempt, may characterise you as evangelical. And "such is the new meaning now assigned to old terms, that we doubt if the application of the epithet in question would not excite a sneer, if not a suspicion, in some minds against the character of Isaiah himself, were we to name him by his ancient denomination, The Evangelical Prophet. This laconic term includes a diatribe in a word. It is established into a sweeping term of derision of all serious Christians, and its compass is stretched to such an extent as to involve within it every shade and shape of real or fictitious piety from the elevated, but sound and sober Christian, to the wildest and most absurd fanatic; its large enclosure takes in all, from the most honourable heights of erudition to the most contemptible depths of ignorance. Every man who is serious, and every man who is silly; every man who is holy, and every man who is mad, is included in this comprehensive epithet. We see perpetually that solidity, sublimity, and depth, are not found a protection against the magic mischief of this portentous appellation 20." 19 Foster's Essays, vol. ii. Lett. 1. 20 Mrs. More's Christian Morals, vol. ii. p. 81. The men, who are so fond of employing terms of reproach to designate those who think that religion is something more than a mere matter of speculation, seem to have forgotten that the first and most indispensable requisite in religion is seriousness; and that levity in religion upon religious topics, or sneering at men who are in earnest whenever such topics are introduced, has a very prejudicial effect upon those who indulge in such practices. Of such you may call the attention to the sentiments of a late venerable moralist and divine, as exhibited in the passage below. "The turn which this levity usually takes is in jests and raillery upon the opinions, or the peculiarities, or the persons, of men of particular sects, or who bear particular names: especially if they happen to be more serious than ourselves. And of late this loose, and I can hardly help calling it profane, humour has been directed chiefly against the followers of methodism. But against whomsoever it happens to be pointed, it has all the bad effects, both upon the speaker and the hearer, which we have noticed; and as in other instances, so in this, give me leave to say that it is very much misplaced. In the first place, were the doctrines and sentiments of those who bear this name ever so foolish and extravagant (I do not say that they are either), this proposition I shall always maintain to be true, viz. that the wildest opinion that ever was entertained, in matters of religion, is more rational than unconcern about these matters. Upon this subject nothing is so absurd as indifference: no folly so contemptible as thoughtlessness and levity. In the next place, do methodists deserve this treatment? Be their particular doctrines what they may, the professors of these doctrines appear to be in earnest about them: and a man who is in earnest about religion cannot be a bad man, still less a fit subject for derision. I am no methodist myself. In their leading doctrines I differ from them. But I contend that sincere men are not for these, or indeed any, doctrines, to be made laughing-stocks to others. I do not bring in the case of the methodists for the purpose of vindicating their tenets, but for the purpose of observing (and I wish that observation may weigh with all my readers) that the custom of treating their characters and persons, their preaching or their preachers, their meetings or worship, with scorn, has the pernicious consequence of destroying our own seriousness, together with the seriousness of those who hear, or join in, such conversation; especially if they be young persons; and I am persuaded that much mischief is actually done in this very way21” Leaving these admirable sentiments to make their full impression on your mind, or to steel you against the puny attacks of those who imagine burlesque and buffoonery are the proper instruments to correct what they deem fanatical eccentricities, while others may class them among religious excellencies: I remain, dear Sir, your sincere Friend. May 30, 1811. LETTER XIII. On the Fall of Man, and the Depravity of Human Nature. PLATO, as you will doubtless recollect, defined man, in his time, a biped without feathers: and Diogenes, in order to show what he deemed the absurdity of this definition, plucked all the feathers from a cock, and placing it in the midst of the academy, exclaimed, "There is one of Plato's men!" Diogenes, it seems, was not aware that Plato's definition was suggested by a tradition which had reached him, that man was once in a far superior state with regard to morals, but had been degraded by vice, and was now so lowered as to become, with respect to his former condition, what a bird would be when stripped of his feathers, so as to 21 Dr. Paley's Posthumous Sermons, Ser. 1: On "Seriousness in Religion indispensable above all other Dispositions." be no longer able to fly. In conformity with this, the Platonists in general believed a pre-existent state, in which all souls had sinned, and thus lost their wings, whereby they were once capable of ascending; and so they sunk into these bodies partly as a punishment for former follies. This was called in their form of speech, #TEроppνnois, or a moulting of their wings. Their daily experience in themselves, and their wise observance of others, convincing them that all mankind come into the world with a propensity to vice rather than to virtue; and that man is not such a creature now as he came from his Maker's hand, but is some way or other plucked of his feathers, or degenerated from his primitive rectitude and glory. So again, MARCUS ANTONIUS confessed that men were born mere slaves to their appetites and passions; and very many of the Heathen philosophers, guided only by the light of nature, affirmed that men are of themselves destitute of true knowledge, purity, and reason, while in the Hebrew scriptures, the word used for man as the son of Adam, is Enosh, indicating that he is "sorry, wretched, and incurably sick." Several modern philosophers, however, and some modern Divines, represent this doctrine as absurd and contemptible in the highest degree: on which account it will be proper to employ a little time in ascertaining its correctness, and evincing its conformity, as well with what may be observed in the world, as with the declarations of Scripture. According to every conception we can form of the wisdom and goodness of the Deity, as well as according to the most express and unequivocal language of the Bible, "God formed man upright:" he was furnished with a clear and sagacious mind, with reason bright and strong, and possessed transcendent qualifications for the most elevated happiness. But, that he might be accountable, he was necessarily created free; and, that he might never forget that he was under the cognizance and dominion of a moral governor, a test of obedience was set before him. "God made thee perfect, not immutable; By destiny, and can no other choose?"-MILTON. In this respect, God did not deal worse with man than with his other creatures; but man acted worse towards his Maker than any of them. He did not conform to the laws of his nature, but broke his allegiance to God by choosing evil instead of good. Thus he sunk from his original happy state, and, according to the constitution of things, Brought death into the world, and all our woe;" his whole nature and race becoming tainted, so that he was viler than the brutes that perish, forfeited his native blessings, and, with his progeny, became rebels, and obnoxious to their Maker's displeasure. Thus, it was the sin of man that filled the creature with vanity; and it is the vanity of the creature that fills the soul of man with vexation: such is the circle of unrenewed nature. Without having regard to this original degeneracy, it is hard, nay, I believe impossible, to account satisfactorily for the poor, dark, stupid, and wretched circumstances, in which so great a part of mankind are brought into this world, in which they grow up age after age in gross ignorance and vice, thoughtless of their duty to the God that created them, and negligent of the true happiness which flows from the enjoyment of his favour. For, on looking upon man before he is turned unto God by the spirit of holiness, what do you find? The mind, full of vanity, ignorance, darkness, contradiction: the conscience, full of insensibility or of false excuses: the heart, full of deceit, impenitence, and hardness; no sins, no judgments, no mercies, no allurements, no hopes, no fears, able to awake and |