But indeed your Lordship’s definition of _enthusiasm_, when examined, does not convey any ill idea at all. “Enthusiasm, is a strong persuasion on the mind, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, by immediate impulses and impressions of the Spirit of GOD.” Had your Lordship said, a strong but _groundless persuasion_, that they are guided in an extraordinary manner, it would have been to your Lordship’s purpose. But to affirm, without any restriction, that a strong persuasion that we are guided in an extraordinary manner by immediate impulses, is enthusiasm in the worst sense of the word, when your Lordship yourself says, (page 54.) “There is no doubt, but GOD, when he pleases, can work upon the minds of men by extraordinary influences,” to me seems a little inconsistent.
Your Lordship proceeds thus: “And this is owing chiefly to the want of distinguishing aright between the ordinary and extraordinary operations of the Holy Spirit. The extraordinary operations were those, by which the apostles and others, who were entrusted with the first propagation of the gospel, were enabled to work miracles, and speak with tongues, in testimony, that their mission and doctrine were from GOD.”
I suppose, by extraordinary operations, your Lordship means the same as being guided in an extraordinary manner, just above. And if so, according to your Lordship’s own definition, I am no enthusiast. For I never did pretend to these extraordinary operations of working miracles, or speaking with tongues, in testimony that my mission and doctrine were from GOD; I only lay claim to the ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit, which your Lordship (page 20.) says, “Still continue:” and what need was there then, my Lord, that the people of your Lordship’s diocese should be cautioned against enthusiasm upon my account?
But your Lordship farther adds, “The ordinary gifts, however real and certain in themselves, are no otherwise discernible, than by their fruits and effects.” Had your Lordship said, No otherwise discernible _to others_, than by their fruits and effects, it would have been right: but if your Lordship means, they are no otherwise discernible to ourselves, in my opinion, it is wrong; for it is possible, my Lord, for a person to feel and discern these ordinary gifts and influences of the Spirit _in himself_, when there is no opportunity of discovering them to others.
For instance, on supposition that your Lordship was assisted by the blessed Spirit, in writing your pastoral letter; might not your Lordship be sensible of an inward joy and complacency, wrought by that self-same Spirit, which was not then discernible to others? So is it possible for another to feel joy in the Holy Ghost, with the rest of his fruits, which at that time may not be discernible to others; and which they, who have never experienced the like, may not believe, though a man declare it unto them. I hope, my Lord, these reasonings carry with them their own evidence.
But to proceed: (pages 21, 22, 23, 24, 25.) your Lordship has taken pains to collect several passages out of the public liturgy, to prove the doctrine of regeneration, or our new birth, to be the doctrine of the Church of _England_. Your reason for so doing, appears (page 25.) “to arm your people against any suggestions, as if our church were so regardless of the doctrine of regeneration and new birth, as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.” If this, my Lord, was intended to arm your people against any such suggestions made by me; indeed your Lordship does not do me justice. As your Lordship, I find, has done me the honour to peruse my Third Journal, your Lordship may remember this observation, (page 39.) that, after I had baptized an adult, I proved the necessity of the new birth, from the office of our church.
In my sermon, upon the _indwelling of the Spirit of GOD_, which I have made bold to send to your Lordship with this letter, you will find, I have quoted the expressions of our own church offices, to prove the doctrine of the new birth, as your Lordship does in your pastoral letter. My constant way of preaching is, first, to prove my propositions by scripture, and then to illustrate them by the articles and collects of the church of _England_. Those that have heard me, can witness, how often I have exhorted them to be constant at the public service of the church. I attend on it myself, and would read the public liturgy every day, if your Lordship’s clergy would give me leave. What further satisfaction can your Lordship require, that I do not suggest to your Lordship’s people, “as if our church were regardless of the doctrine of regeneration, and new birth, and as if there were need for any member of it, to seek elsewhere for a more spiritual service.”