The general conclusion which your Lordship draws, is exprest in these words. “Consequently all pretensions to the Spirit, in the proper sense of the words of this promise (_i. e._ of these several texts of St. _John_) are vain and insignificant, as they are claimed by modern _Enthusiasts_.” And in the end of the same paragraph you add, “None but the _ordinary_ operations of the Spirit are to be now expected, since those that are of a _miraculous_ (or _extraordinary_) kind are NOT PRETENDED TO, even by modern _Enthusiasts_.” My Lord, this is surprizing. I read it over and over, before I could credit my own eyes. I verily believe this one clause, with unprejudiced persons, will be an answer to the whole book. You have been vehemently crying out all along against those _enthusiastical_ pretenders; nay, the very design of your book, as you openly declare, “was to stop the growth of their _Enthusiasm_; who have had the assurance (as you positively affirm, page 6,) to claim to themselves the _extraordinary_ operations of the Holy Spirit.” And here you as positively affirm, that those _extraordinary_ operations “are not pretended to by them at all!” 8. Yet your Lordship proceeds, “The next passage of scripture, I shall mention as peculiarly belonging to the primitive times, though misapplied to the present state of Christians by modern _Enthusiasts_, is what relates to the _testimony of the Spirit_, and _praying by the Spirit_, in the 8th chapter of the epistle to the _Romans_.” Page 16. I believe it incumbent upon me thoroughly to weigh the force of your Lordship’s reasoning on this head. You begin, “After St. _Paul_ had treated of that spiritual principle in Christians, which enables them _to mortify the deeds of the body_――he says, _if any man have not the Spirit of |Christ|, he is none of his_. This makes the distinction of a true Christian, particularly in opposition to the _Jews_.” I apprehend it is just here, that ♦your Lordship turns out of the way, when you say, “particularly in opposition to the _Jews_.” Such a _particular_ opposition I cannot allow, till some stronger proof is produced, than St. _Paul_’s occasionally mentioning six verses before, “the imperfection of the _Jewish_ law.” ♦ “you” replaced with “your”