too great weight upon external things, upon formal acts of piety. But the state of matters is quite changed now with us. These things are neglected to a degree, which is, and cannot but be attended with, a decay of all that is good. It is highly seasonable now to instruct the people in the importance of external religion.[1]
And doubtless under this head must come into consideration, a proper regard to the structures which are consecrated to the service of God. In the present turn of the age, one may observe a wonderful frugality in everything which has respect to religion, and extravagance in everything else. But amidst the appearances of opulence and improvement in all common things, which are now seen in most places, it would be hard to find a reason why these monuments of ancient piety should not be preserved in their original beauty and magnificence. But in the least opulent places they must be preserved in becoming repair; and everything relating to the divine service be, however, decent and clean; otherwise we shall vilify the face of religion whilst we keep it up. All this is indeed principally
- ↑ To instruct the people in the importance of external religion.]—"The importance of external religion," the Inquirer remarks, "is the grand engine of the Papists, which they play with the greatest effect upon our common people, who are always soonest taken and ensnared by form and show: and, so far as we concur with them in the principle, we are doing their work; since, if externals, as such, are important, the plain natural consequence is, the more of them the better." He had the same reflections once before: "If true religion cannot be preserved among them without forms, the consequence must be, that the Romish religion, having—more frequent occurrences of forms, is better than other religions, which have fewer of these—occurrences." To this argument I reply, Nego consequentiam. There may be too much of form in religion, as well as too little; the one leads to enthusiasm, the other degenerates into superstition; one is puritanism, the other popery; whereas, the rational worship of God is equally removed from either extreme. Did the Inquirer never hear of the possibility of having too much of a good thing? Or does he suppose, with the late historian of Great Britain, that all religion is divided into two species, the superstitious and the fanatical; and that whatever is not one of these, must of necessity be the other?
