Page images

you for an accumulation of spleen not to be found in the work it. self. Your names and his will descend to posterity together as redoubted enemies to enthusiasm, fanaticism, and all the follies of experimental religion ! — while the poor Evangelical Magazine will be swallowed up in the gulph of time, and Methodisin itself be extinct! Then shall rational religion fill the earth, and phia losophy preclude revelation !

To be serions, Gentlemen. The Evangelical Magazine has met with hard measure from you. If you had deigned to review it as a periodical work, calculated to promote, as you apprehend, fanaticism, it would have been fair' to have quoted advertisements, letters, &c. from it; but, when reviewing another work, was it candid in you to deal so largely in making extracts, in order to hold it up to ridiculo? By the bye, is it nat critical injustice to pick out the faults of a work, and to pass over its excellencies? The Evangelical Magazine has supported its eharacter for 15 years. Its general objects are, -- The Circulation of Religious Intelligence in a cheap form through the United Kingdom ; Biographical Sketches of Eminent Men who adorned the gospel while they lived, and proclaimed its excellency in their death; and as a record of remarkable Providences and striking Anecdotes of good and bad men. Where is the harm of all this? Have we not Magazines, the tendency of which is to enervate and pollute society? Have we not the Liyes of Admirals, Statesmen, and Poets ?" Have we not Naval An 'cdotes, and Anecdotes of the Stage, and some of these not very honoarable to human nature and why, in the name of common sense, should not the religious world be entertained with religious intelligence and religious anecdotes ? Hardy as you are, you do not attempt to question the authenticity of these stories, for they are perhaps better anthenticated than many things you believe more than the gospel; but you recite them in your pilges to expose them to contempt, and their authors to Fiicuie! This is cutting the Gordian Knot with a vengeance ! Your artipathy to religious advertisements scems to be pecuļiarly strong, as if religion ought never to blend itscf with the asfà r. of this world, nor ineinuate its influence into its enjoyments! You annonce religious publications in your quarterly list, you ccrasionally review them, and why may not a person put a religious advertisement on the cover or a Mgazine appropriatel to religion? One should think there is not much fanaticism in this! It might have escaped the notice of the mighty Censors of Books at Edinburgh; but the cagle will occasionally pounce a wren, when she cannot find larger prey !-A religious hoy! and for Mag te too! a new thing under the sun, as the R viewers apprehend! Well, te it so.. You know, Gentlemen, in tiines of old, that a certain passou would not sail with a man who denied or reviled the gods : he was afraid every mo: ment of siuking, because an Allicist was in lue vessel ; - and is

it nothing for a good man now to hear blasphemy and profane ribaldry when he sails to Margate? Nothing at all (exclaim the Reviewers) compared to fanaticism! Beware of a Mthodist! Habet fænum in cornu. Every thing is pleasant but the whinings and groanings of a --Mahodist !

Let me sce every thing but the Tabernacle! and yet, though I never saw it, I will give you a complete section of it! I would rather,' says the merry Reviewer, see Panchinello, or the dancing dogs, than an assembly of Methodists !?_ As Homer did a liar, be hates them as the gates of Hell! The testimony of a profane officer to the worth of pious sailors, seems to gravel you considerably, or else why do you transcribe it into your pages ? It is not for the purpose of commendation, but for profane lanter and mockery You cannot disprove the fact, nor account for it but upon false principles. Lord Nelson favoured them ; but you shew them no mercy. From the very face of your argument, it should seem that sailors should continue to swear, and never sing hymns; or else that all attempts to reform our brave tars are impertinent and ridiculous. The Religious Tract Society comes in next for a share in your abuse. Is not every man bound, by a law paramount to all human authority, to do all the good he can in his station? If he, or others in concert with him, do good by circulating cheap Tracts on subjects of infinite im portance, where is the harm of this? Are not cheap political tracts circulated, in critical junctures, in our country? aad why may not Religious Societies disseminate knowledge in a cheap form to the poor? It is passing strange, indeed, that all religious warmth, all active zeal for the glory of God and the good of men,

is decried as enthusiasm! and you screen your own coldness to the best interests of men, by declaiming against fanatics! Every degree of exertion for the salvation of men which surpasses your own standard (which, forsooth, is scanty enough) you behold with suspicion, and pronounce it the symptom of a heated brain; and you censure, without mercy or jusțice, the active Christian, in whose diligence you read a reproach of your own apathy and indifference.

In things that fall within your own sphere, you do excellently. You discover talents of no common kind : bappy will you be if they are directed to the honour of that God wlio confers them upon you! But when you meddie with religion, you are not at home. You seem to forget the quid valeant humeri of your friend Horace. For instance, in your review oi Hoyle's Exodus, you' say, That the stagnant and bloody waters were the first plague in Egypt; and immediately after came the plague of lice. Now, if you had read the Bible wiih attention, you would have found that there is no foundation for the epithet stagnant in the bistory; and that the plague of the frogs came after the plague of turning the waters into blood. This is but a trifling oversight; but it should teach Reviewers not to be tuo minute nor too

severe in their animadversions. Humanum est errare. With relation to your few comments upou Metho:lists and Methodism, it may appear to you that I am u equal to the task of commenting upon them, that it is a pigmy grappling with Hercules,

Impar congressus Achilli; – but I shall beg leave to attempt it.

I begin with assuring you, Gentlemen, that I am not a Methodist, nor the son of a Methodist. I am an obscure indi. vidual, 'far in a wild, unknown to public view,' not much af. fected with the praises nor censures of men ; but screened front both by a happy obscurity. Nevertheless, I occasionally peep through the loop-holes at the busy scenes, and am not indifferent to the movements of Providence in the church and the world. Your second remark is directed against the doctrines of inward emotions and impulses, as leading to every species of folly and enormity. Here your reasoning is not fair nor conclusive, because you do not produce suficient data from the writings of the Methodists on which to build your conclusions : Methodists, as far as I know, never put inward emotions on a level with the Scriptures, as a foundation of faith, or standard of manners. This you have not proved, an!, therefore, your inferences are illegitimate and unfounded. To the law and to the testimony they constantly appeal. But, Gentlemen, does religion produce no emotions in the mind? Is it a cold system of doctrines that never seizes upon the heart, but leaves it dark and insensible ? Then all the descriptions in Scripture of the feelings, the joys, the raptures of good men, are enthusiasm and fanaticism! Then David was a fanatic when he said, My soul thirsteth for the living God, as the hart panteth for the water-brooks! My heart and my fish cry out for the living God!' Paul, whose saber judgment you cannot question, was all on fire when he was constrained by the love of Christ. He was like a burning seraph when he felt it himself and preached it to others. Is that subject now stale and insipid, and not calculated to produce emotions in the mind ? - and, though you never experienced these erno. tions in your own hearts, can you hence argue against the fact? Garrick once overwhelmed bis audience with his powers. The emotions he produced were strong indeed. Every eye was suf. fused with tears ; but a cold-hearted artllimetician was present, who wondered at their pusilarimity. While their hearts were penetrated with the subject, he coldly counted Garrick's words, and felt nothing! Internal feelings are not the rule of daty, but surely they are the privilege of all good men; but a stranger intermedieth not with their jogs.

But the Methodists hate pleasure. Yes, they do; - pleasures of the kind specified by you ! None of these are rational, nor enjoined by Scripture. Theatres have always been the re-ort of the wicked, and of the refuse of society. Wise men, in every age, have shunned them, as nurs:ries of vice and infcentives to


theatre ;

you can

impurity. The wiser Heathens reprobated them, as injurious to the state, and pernicious to public morals. In the bust

ages Christianity, theatres were equally avoided as Heathen temples; and no person who regarded his character could associate with actors. In the whole history of society, there occurs not an instance of a man who was made wise, brave, or virtuous by the

- but the examples of persons ruined in their character, in their religious principles and fortune, by attending plays; defy all calculation. Be so good as read Jeremiah Collyer against the Stage, and pronounce whether his arguments can be answered. Drycién himself confessed that the most of them were unanswerable. Why find fault with conscientious men for not attending the theatre ? Would you compel them to attend? Are they the worse for not attending? Cards were not known to the autients; and were invenied to please, a royal idiot. If describe the pleasure they communicate, or the good they produce, you shall be my great Apollo. You chastize the licentious More, — and in this you deserve great credit from your countrymen ; but why, as censors of public morals, do you vindicate the passions excited by gambling? The great Locke condemned cards in the most express manner; and why call it Methodism to avoid them as share, and condemn them as an evil ? Surely, Gentlemen, you forgot your dignity when you mentioned Punchinelo, dancing dogs, and blind fiddlers ! pretty spectacle, indeeil, to see wise men witnessing such scenes ! Are you acquainted with any Methodists? Have you ever been distressed with their ennui, their groans and sighs which they offer, you say, to the Deity? I have witnessed their devotions, but saw no ennui, no wretchedness, no infelicity, marked in their faces, or pourtrayed in their worship. Some of their preachers are very eloquent, and speak goco sense in a captivating style. They sing rost delightfully in their chapels and churches, and appear in every thing the reverse of being wretched. If the face be an index of the mind, if devotion be a test of character, they seem to be a very happy peop'e indied. In the Tabernacie there is no vaulting nor tumbling ; and no low arts used to prosure popularity! All who have attended the Tabernacle can contradict your assertion, as destitute of truth and replete with malignity. That some preachers have occasionally uncouth attitudes, may be granted to you; but that that place resembles Saudler's Wells, is a shocking insult upon the devotions of a pious audience. The most virulent enery to our common Christianity could not have said any thing more indecent or wide of the truth.

Where you learn that M hodists lay very little stress upon practical rightcousness, you do not in orm us. Sachan as:ertion required strong documer is to support it, either from the preaclia ing or books of the Methodists; -- but no such thing appears: alí is unfounded rumour. "They do not say to their people's

[ocr errors]

Do not be deceitful, - do not be idle, - get rid of your bad passions! or, at least" (here your consciences remonstrate against you)“ if they do say these things, they say them very seldom.” Did you ever hear them say so? or did you ever read such shocking sentiments in any of their works? Why not then, in the name of common honesty, mention the place, the person, or the book? Here is defamation of the blackest kind | Here is ' filching a good name, the immediate jewel of the soul,' with a witness ! 'Tis pity but Shakespeare were alive, to look our Reviewers broad in the face, and say to them, Who steals my purse, steals trash, &c. His presence would create a blush in their cheeks. They would revere him, though they are not ashamed to calumniate the Methodists; - bat, as abler pens are employed in reluting your unfou-ded assertions, I sball, for the present, bid you achieu. I remain, Gentlemen, Perthshire.


S. G.



The Eye is in form nearly globular; it consists of three coats and three humours, Fig. 1. represents the section of an

Fig. I,

[blocks in formation]
[ocr errors][ocr errors]

eye cut horizontally across the middle. The external coat, which is represented by the outer circle, ABCD, is called the Sclerotica; the front part, B E C, which rather projects, is called the Cornea. The next coat, which is represented by the second circle, is called the Choroides. In the front of this coat is an aperiure, a b, through which the rays of light pass into the eye : it is called the Pupil. That part of the Churoides which surrounds the pupil, and which in some persons is blue, in others brown or almost black, is called the Iris (see a c b'e, fiy: 2, which represents a front view of the eye.) The Iris may be enlarged or dininished: this is effected by means of two sets of muscular fibres; the one like a number of circles of different sizes placed within each other, so as to have one common centre in the middle of the pupil: th other sct of fibres appear like

« PreviousContinue »