it would have been better to evince their conversion by the holiness of their lives. To this I have no objection. Yet, if their practice did not contradict their profession, I cannot, in the particular cases referred to by Mr. W., see any rational ground of objection to their modestly declaring that they were "converted from the error of their ways," and "had passed from death unto life." But were it even admitted that such conduct was indecorous, irregular, and disorderly, it certainly did not merit such harsh epithets as those of "enthusiasm, quackery, and imposture.”

To the triumphant end of malefactors you strongly object. I fear with you, Sir, that not only some of these, but many others deceive themselves by false hopes. Death-bed penitents and gallows penitents, in my estimation, are equally doubtful characters; nor do I believe that God "continually gives to the most depraved individuals, those miraculous intimations, that foretaste of approaching bliss, which we know him to have given sometimes to saints and martyrs:" neither can I believe that "poor wretches, on the suggestions of Methodistical teachers, go to their death rejoicing, perhaps, even in the crimes which rendered them unfit for human society; as if those very offences had indirectly made them fit for the society of angels, and of the souls of just men made perfect." Sir, I have known many more "Methodistical teachers" than you ever knew, but I never knew one who thought that God continually gives, to the most depraved individuals, the foretaste of approaching bliss"—who suggested that criminals were to "rejoice in their crimes"--or

that their offences qualified them for "the society of angels;" nor do I believe that such a "Methodistical teacher" ever existed, notwithstanding the bold assertions of Dr. Valpy and the Rev. the Archdeacon of Stafford. No, Sir: the charge of saying, "Peace peace," where there ought to be no peace, belongs to another order of men, with whom you are much better acquainted-men who do not hesitate to absolve from their sins the vilest debauchees in their parishes, and to administer to them, a little before their exit, (what has frequently been called a passport to heaven) the sacred emblems of the body and blood of Christ.

But although I cannot admit without evidence that such "Methodistical teachers" ever existed, yet I will not deny that among the vast multitude of Methodists there have been some enthusiasts, who have formed a false estimate of their character, and have both spoken and acted extravagantly. But this will no more prove that the Methodistical doctrine of inward feelings is dangerous, than that the doctrine of justification by faith is dangerous, because some "turned the grace of God into lasciviousness," and said, "Let us sin, that grace may abound." Nor can it with any more candour be traced to the influence of Methodistical teachers, than the treachery of Judas to the influence of the Redeemer; or the innumerable public executions of the members of the church of England to the influence of the established clergy.

The Bible, and not inward feelings, is the pole star of the Methodists: to this they "take heed, as to a light shining in a dark place:" by this they try their

G

LETTER IV.

REVEREND SIR,

ON what you call the "doctrine of inward feelings," you write with peculiar energy, and plainly indicate that you are not destitute of feeling. But as your energy is not in favour of, but against religious feeling, you will, no doubt, escape the suspicion of enthusiasm, and be ranked among rational Christians.

By "inward feelings" you obviously intend what has generally been denominated religious feelings : such as religious fear, hope, sorrow, joy, desire, aversion, &c. These you call "dangerous," and "fatal,” tending either to produce "a foolish, enthusiastic, and ill-founded confidence and presumption," otherwise black "despair." You indeed admit that "God can assuredly influence our inward feelings if he think fit," but suppose this is seldom or rather never the case in our day, for such influences are "miraculous impressions," and who does not know that the age of miracles is past? These feelings must therefore be considered as under the influence of causes purely physical-governed particularly "by the state of the health and constitution; and by that inexplicable result of the action of the nervous system, called animal spirits."

Religious feelings you represent as the effervescence of enthusiasm. But ought they to be thus

represented? Are the passions, ever active on ordinary subjects, to be quiescent only on the great subject of religion? Are our fears to be alive to temporal, but not to spiritual danger? Are our hopes to be called into exercise by the prospect of the riches, or honours, or pleasures of this transitory state, and to remain uninfluenced by the promise of "eternal life?" Is our love to burn with ardour towards a fellow-creature, and shall we contemplate with a frigid apathy the uncreated excellence of Deity? Shall we feel grateful to an earthly benefactor, and remain destitute of this feeling towards our Divine Creator, Preserver, and Redeemer, who has crowned our lives with his goodness? When visited with affliction and loss, shall we mourn and lament: but when we have lost our innocence by transgression, and subjected ourselves to the bitter pains of eternal death, remain utterly unmoved? Or, finally, shall a criminal on receiving the royal pardon be overwhelmed with joy ; and shall not a sinner exult in the word of Divine reconciliation? If man be a creature capable of “inward feelings," their action should be in proportion to the exciting cause: and if so, they should be much more alive to the concerns of eternity, than to those of this life; for the disproportion between these is infinitely greater than that which exists between a drop and the ocean-an atom of dust and all the matter in the universe.

Besides, to separate religion from "inward feelings,” is absolutely to destroy it. For religion does not consist in mere "bodily exercise"-in the outward per

F

formance of certain moral, or even religious duties. A hypocrite might perform all these. Neither does it consist in the cold assent of the understanding to certain revealed truths; for some of the worst characters under heaven do this. Yes, drunkards and thieves, blasphemers and adulterers, assent to the doctrine of Christ. That religion is not apart from the understanding and practice, Mr. Wesley contended as strongly as any man; but he did not confine it to these he extended it to the heart. It comprises right principles, right feelings, and right actions. The sacred writers designate religion the fear and love of God. St. Paul calls it living and walking in the Spirit; and declares the "fruits of the Spirit (which fruits are enjoyed by those who are 'led by the Spirit,' in which he obviously places religion) to be love, joy, peace," &c.*

But can you, Sir, form any idea of fear, love, joy, or peace, or of any of the other passions or affections, apart from "inward feelings?" Unfelt fear, unfelt love, unfelt joy, unfelt peace, &c. are things of which my mind can form no more conception than of an oblong square, or a triangular circle. They imply an unconscious consciousness, which is a palpable contra, diction, and therefore impossible. Destroy feeling, and you annihilate them all. But if these are essential to religion, to annihilate them is totally to annihilate religion.

But "this fatal doctrine of feelings," it seems, pro