the other. The fpirit of God leads us to no new inftructor, but only points us to his. word, teaching us to difcern it more clearly and to receive it more affectionately. That would be, indeed, an illufion, not an illumination, which would direct us to derive our instruction from any other fountain than the oracles of truth.

These persons are striking inftances how dexterously we contrive to turn the scale in our own favour, by balancing fome leffer fault to which we are not inclined, against fome ftrongly besetting wrong propenfity. We seldom soften down any precept that is not pointed at our particular temptation. All the other laws we allow to be not only good and holy, but juft, for they only affect other people. The young man in the Gospel had no objection to those commandments which were fuggefted to him as the rule of duty; for he was chafte and honest, neither a disobedient fon, nor a murderer, neither addicted to idolatry nor profaneness; but the command to difpoffefs himself of his fortune

fortune for charitable purposes cut deep, for he was not only rich, but avaricious. It is thus we prevaricate with duty. We would warp the precept to our paffions, instead of bending our inclinations to the duty. We lament the harshness of the command, when we should be lamenting the perversity of the will.

A low ftandard of religion flatters our vanity, is easily acted up to, does not wound our self-love, is practicable without facrifices, and refpectable without felf-denial. It allows the implantation of virtues without eradicating vices, recommends right actions without expelling wrong principles, and grafts fair appearances upon unrefifted corruptions.

This low tone of religion is rendered still more acceptable, from being fprinkled with frequent vituperations of that fpecies of Christianity now derided by a term which was once confidered as its specific charaçter. This term, what with the too monopolizing adoption of it by one defcription

of perfons, and the contemptuous implication conveyed in the ufe of it by another, we almost fear to ufe, left we should be conjuring up the spirit of fanaticism in the minds of the latter clafs, or vindicating its exclufive adoption in the language of the former. The affumption of names on the one hand, and, if I may venture fo vulgar a phrase, calling names on the other, have been of infinite differvice to religion. Such is the new meaning now affigned to old terms, that we doubt if the application of the epithet in question would not excite a fneer, if not a fufpicion, against the character of Ifaiah 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 derifion of all ferious Chriftians, and its compass is stretched to fuch an extent, as to involve within it every fhade and shape of real or fictitious piety, from the elevated but found and fober Chriftian, to the wildest and most abfurd fanatic; its large inclosure

takes

takes in all, from the moft honourable heights of erudition to the most contemptible depths of ignorance. Every man who is ferious, and every man who is filly, every man who is holy, and every man who is mad, is included in this comprehenfive epithet. We fee perpetually that folidity, fublimity, and depth, are not found a protection against the magic mifchief of this portentous appellation.

It gratifies us to be affured that our own tone is fufficiently high, and that, whatever is higher, is erroneous, or fuperfluous, or hypocritical, or ridiculous. This it is which attaches many a reader to the opposite style of writing, and, in proportion as it attaches him, by reconciling him more to himself, animates him more fiercely against those who make higher requifitions of faith and holiness, those who ftrip off the mask from actions unfounded in principle, who exact felf-abasement, who infift on the neceffity of good works, not as a meritorious ground of falvation,

E 5

falvation, but as an evidence of obedience to God, and of conformity to Chrift.

Moft fincerely do we believe, that there is nothing which the better fort of this class dread more than hypocrify. But do they not fometimes dread the imputation almost as much as the thing? And is it not to be feared that, with the dread of this odious vice being imputed to them, is a little connected the fufpicion of its existence in all who go farther than themselves? Are they not too ready to accufe of want of fincerity or of fobernefs, every one who rises above their own level? Is not every degree of warmth in their pious affections, every expreffion of zeal in their conversation, every indication of ftrictnefs in their practice, conftrued into an implication, that so much as this zeal and ftrictness exceed their own, there is in them just so much error as that excess involves?

By the clafs of writers to which they are attached, the pious affections are branded as the ftigma of enthufiam. But a religion