This is the doctrine you have preached, and yet your own practice proves that you have no reliance on it; and that it was only one of those inconsiderate excursions, in which the orator, when not under the strict control of duty or reason, too often indulges; for when, in your cooler moments, you wished to instruct your mind on the subject of our Saviour's birth, you sought it, not only by reading the scriptures, but also by consulting the traditions of the christian church, as recorded by one of its historians.[[46]]

These are the inconsistencies to which extravagance always leads; for when the mind, tired of its aerial flight, revisits the earth, and is again employed in its proper duties, it finds that practical objects can only be attained by practicable means.

Exaggeration in public speaking is always blameable, and in the preacher particularly objectionable: it is generally resorted to for the purpose of increasing the impression, but seldom produces that effect; and it is upon religious subjects, above all others, that amplification should be avoided, and that pure and simple style adopted which admits of no adventitious ornaments.

You, however, pursue a different course, and by the extravagance of your epithets, not only defeat your own views, but sometimes occasion the subject itself to be considered, if not with ridicule, at least with but little seriousness. Thus in speaking of the propriety of plainness in apparel, instead of giving the simple and obvious reason why the Society of Friends adopted it, you consider it as a vital principle of religion; and you mistake, (to use your own favourite expression,) the effect for the cause, when you exclaim that there is religion in clothing, and exaggerate beyond all bounds, when you declare, that all the sin in the world is created by men's following foolish fashions: and when you seriously assure us that high-crowned hats were never devised in the wisdom of God, the obvious inference that low-crowned hats were, is so ludicrous, that we should be tempted to laugh, were not all merriment on a subject in which that sacred name is introduced, (however improperly,) incongruous, if not profane.[[47]]

Again, in speaking of the necessity of a living faith in God, you exclaim that, faith in creeds and the traditions of your fathers, is worse than nothing; that we had better have no faith at all, for it is no better than the faith of devils; and in confirmation of this rash assertion, you quote a passage of scripture which has not the most remote application to the subject.[[48]]

To this, no rational christian can ever assent: he believes in the necessity of spiritual worship, and that all ought to feel the power of religion in their own souls: but that the faith which is derived from the lessons of a pious parent, although it may not be accompanied with that degree of spiritual knowledge which it ought to be our endeavour to attain, is no better than the faith of devils, no man in his sober senses can believe.

You would no doubt think me very daring were I to say that your own faith is as bad as the faith of devils; and yet, admitting the truth of your own assertion, I can prove it by testimony, which, to you at least, ought to be conclusive. For in your letter to Thomas Willis, before alluded to, you declare your belief in the Scripture account of our Saviour's birth from your reliance on tradition, although it is contrary to your judgment. If then that faith which a child admits and believes to be true from a firm reliance on the wisdom and experience of a pious father, is as bad as the faith of devils; how are we to describe the faith of that man who gives to tradition such supreme control, as to make a reliance on it a point of duty, although a belief in it, is contrary to his deliberate judgment.

This is one of the instances of the wanderings of your imagination, and the strange inconsistencies into which your metaphysical divinity leads you: and I cite it as a proof of the pernicious consequences of substituting mystical reveries in the place of the simple religion taught by Jesus Christ; and not to censure your reliance on the faith of your predecessors: for I truly believe that did you, like many of them, endeavour to preserve your mind in that meek and lowly state recommended by His example and precepts, all propensity to curious speculation on hidden things would be suppressed, and when called to testify to your faith, you would be ready "always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear."

In alluding to the reasons which prevent many Friends from taking a part in the governments of the earth, instead of ascribing them to that peaceable principle which does not permit them to be agents in any measures connected with war, you denounce the governments of this world as standing eternally in opposition to the government of the God of heaven; and this because all laws made in the wisdom of man are foolishness with God: yet you acknowledge them to be necessary, although you say it is no reason why the law of the Almighty should not prevail, which would take away the necessity of all other laws.[[49]]

This reasoning is as confused, as the conclusion to which it leads is extraordinary. How laws in opposition to the will of the Almighty can be necessary, when there is no reason why his law should not prevail, you have not explained; and if human governments are in eternal opposition to the government of God, and yet are necessary, then is there not only a necessity for man's being in eternal opposition to God's will; but the necessity is a justification of it, and your argument, if sound, affords a complete vindication of the persons engaged in the administration of those governments.