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.”
In the following paragraph, your Lordship has the same insinuation, as though I wanted to introduce extempore prayer, and to lay aside the public liturgy of our church. For after your Lordship had been speaking against praying by the Spirit, and affirming that the scripture no where tells us, that prayer is the single work of the Spirit, your Lordship says to your people, “you have great reason to be thankful to God, for a public service prepared to your hands.” My Lord, I never said to the contrary. But does not your Lordship seem to insinuate at the same time, that we are not to depend on the Spirit of God, to enable us to pray extempore, either in public or private? That prayer is not the single work of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own, I readily confess. But that the Spirit of God does assist true christians to pray extempore, now, as well as formerly, is undeniable, if the scriptures be true. For what says the Apostle? “We know not what to pray for, as we ought; but the Spirit itself helpeth our infirmities, and maketh intercession for us with groanings that cannot be uttered.” And this is founded upon a general promise, made to all God’s people, Zachariah xii. 10. “I will pour upon the house of David, and upon the inhabitants of Jerusalem, the Spirit of grace, and of supplication.” And I believe, my Lord, we may appeal to the experience of all true christians, whether or no they did not find the Spirit of supplication, or a power of praying without a form, increase in proportion to the increase of God’s Grace or Holy Spirit in their hearts. This is all, my Lord, that I pretend to: and where is the impropriety of this, when your Lordship confesses in the same page, that “the Spirit of God does particularly assist us, in a due performance of religious offices?”
Further, as your Lordship seems to deny the immediate assistance of the Holy Spirit, in our particular addresses at the throne of Grace, so your Lordship seems to deny it also in our particular actions. “In like manner, (you say) we are firmly persuaded in general, that we live under the gracious influence of God’s Holy Spirit, and that he both excites and enables us to do good. But that this or that thought or action is an effect of the sole motion, or immediate impulse of the Spirit, without any co-operation of our own mind”—[My Lord, who ever [♦]affirmed, that there was no co-operation of our own minds, together with the impulse of the spirit of God?] Your Lordship adds, “or that the Holy Spirit, and our natural conceptions, do respectively contribute to this or that thought or action, in such a measure, or to such a degree; these are things we dare not say.” Indeed, my Lord, I do dare to say them. For if there be any such thing as a particular providence, why may we not expect particular direction from God’s Holy Spirit in particular cases? Does not our church, my Lord, teach us to pray, “that God’s Holy Spirit may in all things direct and rule our hearts?” But your Lordship says, we dare not say this, because our Saviour has told us, that we know no more of the working of the Spirit, than we know of the wind, from whence it cometh, and whither it goeth. Neither need we know any more of them: but you must allow, that we know as much. Cannot your Lordship feel the wind then? Does not your Lordship know when it makes any impression upon your body? So easy it is for a spiritual man to know when the Holy Spirit makes an impression upon his soul. Without acknowledging this, all the expressions of being led by the Spirit, walking by the Spirit, and such like, must be only so many words without any real meaning. Your Lordship acknowledges, that the Holy Spirit does act in general, and why not in the particular actions of our lives also? For, can the one be without the other? Does it not frequently happen, my Lord, that the comfort and happiness of our whole lives, depend on one particular action? And where then, my Lord, is the absurdity of saying, that the Holy Spirit may even, in the minutest circumstance, direct and rule our hearts? I have been the more particular, my Lord, on this part of your Lordship’s letter, because if this be proved, many of your Lordship’s objections against my Journals, will fall to the ground.
[♦] “arffimed” replaced with “affirmed”
Page 27. Your Lordship has the following paragraph. “God forbid, that in this profane and degenerate age, every thing that has an appearance of piety and devotion, should not be considered in the most favourable light that it is capable of. But at the same time, it is surely very proper, that men should be called upon for some reasonable evidences of a divine Commission.”
I take it for granted, that I am one of those men, whom your Lordship thinks should be called upon for some reasonable evidence of a divine Commission.