utterly unconcerned about them.-Suppose that, instead of preaching the word in season and out of season, and watching over his people as one who must give an account, he were to spend his time at balls and assemblies at theatres and masquerades-in the chase-on the race ground-or at the tavern; then the whole parish, for him at least, must remain in their sins, and in constant danger of perishing for lack of knowledge. Now what I have supposed has in very many instances been the case. And shall the man of God, who is burning with zeal for the salvation of his fellow sinners, refuse to administer counsel to these neglected and perishing souls, because, forsooth, he is not the person appointed to receive the parish tythes? Such a sentiment is the legitimate offspring of prejudice, and completely at variance with the benevolent spirit and design of the gospel of Christ.

They, like you, Sir, believed themselves called of God to preach the gospel. Their commission was to preach the gospel to every creature. This commission they had from him to whom all creatures belong, and for whose salvation he had shed his blood-and who had said "One is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren."* In matters of religion they owned no other. Where they could, consistently with their duty to Christ and his church, they conformed to the will of those whom you call "their lawful and spiritual governors;" but where both could not be accomplished, they never hesitated whether to obey God or

*Matt. xxiii. 8.

man. They acted like protestants. Luther, and all the reformers, acted on the same principle. But your argument is popery unmasked. To convince you of which, let us suppose that Dr. Milner, for instance, were attempting a defence of the church of Rome, in her conduct towards Luther and Melancthon, and the rest of the reformed ministers: Could he do better than adopt your language?" We deny then with reason the necessity which could urge LUTHER and MELANCTHON to preach such doctrines as these; and if they were excluded from the churches for preaching them, we cannot in justice pass any censure on those (the pope, &c.) who issued the prohibitions. When they had been so excluded, nothing could justify them, as men regularly ordained, for preaching without authority. Still less can any thing excuse them for collecting congregations of their own from the bosom of other men's cures, for forming new ordinances, (or what is much the same, modifying some old ones, and totally rejecting others) and a peculiar species of discipline, out of the church; and in direct defiance of the authority of all those (the pope, &c.) who were their lawful and spiritual governors. Either the church of God (or which is evidently the same thing, the church of Rome) is something holy, or it is not. If, as we (popes, cardinals, archbishops, and vicars apostolic) have been taught to believe, the ecclesiastical authority of (popes and) bishops, be in truth derived from the appointment of Christ and his apostles, they who resist it, (and clergymen more particularly) offend against the ordinance of God."*

* Luke xii. 47, 48.

feelings whether they are of God: here they behold as in a glass the glory of the Lord, and are changed into the same image; and here contemplating the astonishing privileges of the dispensation of the Spirit— peace with God-joy in the Holy Ghost-the Spirit of adoption-the earnest of the inheritance-communion with the Father and the Son-and a lively hope of a blessed immortality, they are by a gracious influence elevated to their enjoyment. Agreeably to the doctrine of our Lord, having done his will, they know by blessed experience that the doctrine is of God.

That the blessings of the dispensation of the Spirit may be increasingly enjoyed by Christians of every denomination, is the earnest prayer of,

Reverend Sir,

Your's in the cause of truth,

J. STANLEY.

LETTER V.

REVEREND SIR,

It appears that the "fatal doctrine of feelings". ❝ arose out of another erroneous opinion, in which the rival apostles of Methodism (Wesley and Whitfield) agreed; namely, their exaggerated opinion of the depravity of human nature. With them, a robber or a murderer was not at all worse than any other human being not converted to their mode of saintship. They spoke of human creatures in general, as if their Maker and Creator had been the Evil Spirit, rather than God. They interpreted the words of our ninth Article in their strongest and most harsh sense, as if every person born was worthy of the worst species of eternal punishment in hell."* Where or when they taught such opinions you have not condescended to inform us; but why you have not done so it is not for me to say: only I would just remark, that you either did or did not know that they had taught such opinions. If you knew that they had, why not quote, or at least refer to the passages in which they are taught? This would have been perfectly satisfactory. But as you have not done this, the presumption is, that you were conscious of your utter inability to produce any such passage. It is but the too common practice of some writers to sub. stitute declamation for argument, and confident assertion for proof.

* Page 20.

That they believed in the depravity of human nature their works abundantly prove, especially Mr. Wesley's celebrated Answer to Dr. Taylor's "Doctrine of Original Sin." A work in which he demonstrates, both from scripture and matter of fact, that man is a fallen creature-fallen from knowledge and virtue; that we are born in sin and shapen in iniquity;-that by nature we are children of wrath, and that the thoughts and imaginations of the hearts of the unregenerate are evil, only evil, and that continually. With the ninth Article he places human depravity, not in the " following of Adam," but in the radical corruption of human nature; for out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies.* To assert that this is an exaggerated" statement "of the depravity of human nature" is easy, but to prove it is quite another thing. That all have sinned the scriptures positively assert; but if all have sinned, all are depraved. To deny this would be to admit the production of an effect without a cause; which is a contradiction, and absolutely impossible. But if all are depraved, whence is this depravity? We are sometimes told that we derive this moral contagion from without-from the example of the ungodly. But this will never satisfactorily account for universal depravity. For if men become sinners through the influence of example only, is it not remarkable that some (say five in an age) do not escape the general contagion? Whereas none escape;

*Matt. xv. 19.