Графични страници
PDF файл
ePub

"publish common things; which they, perhaps, glean from frivolous writers!" This may serve well enough to recommend such fine writers as the poets; Wm. Shenstone, for instance, author of the "Essay on Men and Manners." But I may question the "man of genius." You will excuse me, Friends, while I observe, this "man of genius," according to the definition of the celebrated Samuel Johnson, is one, who, "when a boy, learned to read of an old dame,""received such delight from books, that he was always calling for new entertainments:" and as "he grows older, is sent to the grammar school," from thence "to Cambridge," or, "Pembroke College, in Oxford; a society (it is said) eminent for English poetry, and elegant literature." Here was his " Here was his "delight," here he assiduously "employed himself; he puts on the civilian's gown," but it seems, "without any intention to engage in the profession." He chose rather, "from his indolence of temper, to amuse himself in culling flowers at the foot of the mount, than to take the trouble of climbing the more arduous steeps of Parnassus." Thus much for "a man of genius;" and he certainly deserves honour for refusing the heathen mythology, whether of "the ancient” Greeks, or "the modern English muse!"

From hence, verily, "the single observation," though by so common a man as myself, being "ever so trivial," should be "esteemed of importance," because I write from my "own impressions;" deeply impressed, not from "common place" immediately, neither gleanings " from frivolous authors;" no; but impressions received, being engaged in one of the grandest, and most awful duties that human nature

is capable of, viz. urging the importance of religious worship. I have no doubt but the above vindication of "the impressions of a man of genius," may appertain to terrestrial objects; but are the impressions which relate to the celestial and eternal felicity of mankind less worthy of attention?

However, I have a few remarks to make on "trifles," as it respects your Society. If there is not much likelihood that "the Society of Friends will not bring the Divine Being by degrees out of his spiritual province, and introduce him into all the trivial and worthless concerns of their lives;" is there not danger of contempt, at least, a slight and disregard of God's all-ruling power in "the moral government of the world, if we may admit the evidence of your worthy and esteemed advocate, Thomas Clarkson, viz. "I do not see where it is asserted by any of the Quaker writers, that he (the Spirit) is to be a guide to man in all the temporal concerns of life."*

This is the more to be lamented, as, at p. 244—5, he seems to recommend "human reason" instead of "to consult the Almighty on all occasions, as the sole Arbiter of every thing that is good:" for if "through God we live, and have our being"-our reason; if "whether we eat, or drink, or whatsoever we do," we must do all to the glory of God," verily it would be right to have an eye to the Divine Spirit, to "guide us in our temporal concerns;" if not to "introduce him into all the trivial and worthless

* Vide "Portraiture of Quakerism," &c. c. 11, p. 239. 9. vol. iii.

concerns of our lives." Though, by the way, I did not think Quakers, Christians, would have any thing to do with the "trivial and worthless concerns of life!" unless the major part of the common avocations of life may be so called; such as the superfluous ornaments of the mercer, tailor, draper, milliner, hatter, and such like. Surely this judicious advocate of your principles and doctrines does not rank these useful and necessary occupations of life with those of the silversmith, jeweller, carver and gilder, perfumer, toy-seller, and such like worthless, unnecessary concerns of life! The late worthy reformers, Whitfield, Wesley, and the pious and learned James Hervey, and others, saw clearly the necessity of a distinction ; but your worthy predecessors more wisely made the distinction, and adhered to it.

This, however, not only encourages me in my practices, but confirms my belief that many in your Society whose occupations are not only vain and frivolous, but may justly be termed the vain and worthless concerns of life. It would, I believe, better become some of you, to do yourselves what you so warmly recommend to another; if not to pick up trash, to "work at the jigger," "tug at the capstan," (in some over-grown brother's warehouse) "till you drop!" At least, it would not be amiss to take a retrospective and serious view of the writings of your worthy predecessors, and "convinced members" of your Society, on this matter, and square your lives accordingly.

If the Almighty knows the inmost secret thoughts of the heart, and "takes cognizance of every word

[ocr errors]

and action;" of which "human reason is often "the arbiter;" yea, if for every word and action, we must give an account at the great and awful day of judgment, verily some consultation, more than human reason, is indispensably necessary. Particularly so, as this advocate of your principles admits the same, in the following passage. "I am far from denying his (God's) omniscience; for I believe that he sees every sparrow that falls to the ground, and even more, that he knows the inmost thoughts of men. I deny not his omnipresence; for I believe that he may be seen in all his works. I deny neither his general nor his particular providence; nor his hearing of prayers, nor his right direction in our spiritual concerns, nor his making all things work together for good to those who love him. Neither do I refuse to admit him either into our journeys, or into our walks, or into our chambers; for he can make all things we see subservient to our moral instruction, and his own glory."

Now, if God is omniscient, omnipresent, and omnipotent, why should not his Divine Spirit be "consulted" and acknowledged, that he may "guide us in the temporal concerns of our lives?" That this author should be "sorry to have the Divine Being considered as a clock," a mere machine, is very commendable; but if God, or his Divine Spirit, is not to "inform us about the times of our own ordinary movements," ought we not to admit or "make him a prompter" in the disposing of his property-the wealth accumulated by "the corn, the wine, and the oil?" Verily these things may and ought to be done, without considering the Almighty as a clock, or to

"oblige him to take his seat in animal magnetism; or to reside in the midst of marvelous delusion !"

I believe few real Christians " expect a revelation in the most trivial concerns of their lives, where our reason will inform us ;" much less will they, like the waggoner, apply to a heathen deity, Jupiter, or any other heathen hero, or false god, when they may remove the difficulty by putting their shoulders to the wheel. And I believe further, every real Christian, as well as every reasonable creature, can generally tell whether he ought to go forwards or backwards, or to begin or to postpone; for I believe his actions are more likely to be innocent and less hurtful than the other; but I cannot infer from hence, that "in fact there can be no necessity for the constant appeal to the Spirit, in all our worldly concerns ;" though we may at the same time "possess our reason as men. Let us hear the Divine Spirit himself in this no trivial, but important conduct of life. "Trust in the Lord, with all thine heart, and lean not to thine own understanding:" "In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths."

[ocr errors]

The above savours too much of the latitudinarian spirit of the age: not only the moral philosopher and metaphysician, but, if my memory fails me not, it was the language of his episcopal father, the venerable and highly esteemed Beilby Porteus, late bishop of London, who, in one of his pastoral discourses (on the parables) intimated that it was impossible to " do all to the glory of God," to consult the Divine Spirit in all our worldly concerns.

* ibid. p. 246.

« ПредишнаНапред »