♦ “Silvianus” replaced with “Salvianus”
But if such a way of writing displeases you now, and you are of the opinion, “That a believer may have a satisfaction, that he hath the assistance of the Spirit of GOD with him, in so continual and regular a manner, that he may be said to dwell in him, and yet have no feeling of it,” I cannot wonder, Gentlemen, that my writings are offensive; because, as you observe at the end of this paragraph page 8, my compositions are, and I hope always will be, full of these things.
You close your proofs of my being an _enthusiast_, with these words, “The whole tends to persuade the world (and it has done so with respect to many) that Mr. _W._ hath as familiar a converse and communion with GOD, as any of the Prophets and Apostles, and such, as we all acknowledge to have been under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost.” What tendency my writings may have to make people think so highly of me, I cannot determine: but this I affirm, that I would not have undertaken to preach the gospel for ten thousand worlds, had I not been fully persuaded that I had a degree of that Spirit, and was admitted to a degree of that holy and familiar converse and communion with GOD, which the Prophets and Apostles were favoured with, in common with all believers. And if this had not been the case, should I not, Gentlemen, have lied to GOD as well as unto man, when I declared at my ordination, that “I was inwardly moved by the Holy Ghost,” who, I believe, according to CHRIST’s promise, will be with every faithful minister (and so as to be _felt_ too) even to the end of the world.
“As a natural consequence of the heat of enthusiasm, by which (you are pleased to say) he was so evidently acted;” in a following paragraph, page 8. you say, “In the next place, we look upon Mr. _Whitefield_ as an _uncharitable_, _censorious_, and _slanderous man_;” _habitually such_, for that is the idea your words seem to convey. But, Gentlemen, does it follow that _Peter_ could properly be stiled a cursing, swearing man, because with oaths and curses he denied his LORD? Or could _David_, that man after GOD’s own heart, be properly stiled a murdering adulterous man, because he committed adultery with _Bathsheba_ and murdered her husband _Uriah_? Or, can a believer be stiled properly an hypocrite, because he has yet got a great deal of hypocrisy remaining in his heart? I suppose, by no means. No more, according to my apprehensions, can any man be justly called an uncharitable, censorious, and slanderous man, if he be not habitually so; supposing it should be proved either from his writings or conduct, that he may have been somewhat rash or uncharitable in his judgment passed upon some particular persons or things.
But how, Gentlemen, do you prove this charge, That I am an uncharitable, slanderous man? Why, page 9. “From his _monstrous reflections_ upon the great and good Archbishop _Tillotson_, (as Dr. _Increase Mather_ stiles him) comparing his sermons to the conjuring books which the Apostle persuaded the people to destroy.” But this, I humbly apprehend, does not prove that I cast reflections, which you call _monstrous_, upon Archbishop _Tillotson_ as to his personal character, but only his books, which Dr. _Increase Mather_ himself, as I have been informed by the Reverend Mr. _Gee_, who was brought up under his ministry, and directed by him in his studies, constantly warned the students against. And by the way, I cannot but observe, that this holy venerable man of GOD, Dr. _Increase Mather_, if we may credit the writer of his life, dealt as much in impressions and inward feelings, as the person against whom you are pleased to publish this testimony. And though he might call the Archbishop _a great and good man_ for his eminency in station, and great generosity and moderation towards the Dissenters, yet I believe he never called him _a great and good divine_; nor do I think he would blame me for what I have said concerning Mr. _G――――n_, and Mr. _H――――n_.