You subjoin, "This you may desire for aught I know, to pass as a trifle too," (p. 134.) No; it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of God, (though at length mercy rejoiced over judgment) as ought never to be forgotten by those who fear God, so long as the sun or moon endureth.

7. The account of people falling down in fits you cite as a fifth instance of my enthusiasm: it being "plain," you say, that I “look upon both the disorders, and the removals of them to be supernatural," (p. 67.) I answered, 'It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixed: both the disorders and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.' You reply, "It would have been kind, to have let us know your rule, by which you distinguish these." I will. I distinguish them by the circumstances, that precede, accompany, and follow. "However, some of these you here allow, to be in part supernatural. Miracles therefore are not wholly ceased." Can you prove they are? By Scripture or reason? You then refer to two or three cases related in the third Journal.* I believe there was a supernatural power, on the minds of the persons there mentioned, which occasioned their bodies to be so affected by the natural laws of the vital union. This point therefore you have to prove, or here is no enthusiasm; that there was no supernatural power in the case.

Hereon you remarked, "You leave no room to doubt that you would have these cases considered, as those of the demoniacs in the New Testament, in order, I suppose, to parallel your supposed cures of them, with those highest miracles of Christ and his disciples, the casting out devils," (Rem. p. 68.) I answered, I should once have wondered at your making such a supposition. But I now wonder at nothing of the kind.' You reply, "Why so? What have I done lately to take off your surprise? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing with you?" (2d Let. p. 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will answer it, (I hope, in love, and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarcely know, of all who have written against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or one who has shown a more steady, invariable disposition, to put an ill construction on whatever I say.

"But why would you not particularly explain these cases?" I will explain myself upon them once for all. For more than three hundred years after Christ, you know demoniacs were common in the church and I suppose, that you are not unapprised that, during this period, (if not much longer,) they were continually relieved by the prayers of the faithful. Nor can I doubt, but demoniacs will remain, so long as Satan is the god of this world. I doubt not, but there are such at this day. And I believe John Haydon was one. But of whatever sort his disorder was, that it was removed by prayer is undeniable. Now, Sir, you have only two points to prove, and then your argument will be conclusive. 1. That to think or say, There are demoniacs now, and they are now relieved by prayer,' is enthusiasm: 2. That to say, Demoniacs were or are relieved on *Vol. I p. 254, 255.

prayer made by Cyprian, or their parish-minister,' is to parallel the actions of Cyprian, or that minister, "with the highest miracles of Christ and his disciples."

8. You remarked, "It will be difficult to persuade any sober person, that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders," (Rem. p. 69.) The remainder of that paragraph I abridged thus. You attempt to account for those fits, by "obstructions or irregularities of the blood and spirits; hysterical disorders; watchings, fastings; closeness of rooms, great crowds, violent heat." And, lastly, by "terrors, perplexities, and doubts, in weak and well-meaning men; which," you think, "in many of the cases before us, have quite overset their understandings," Rem. p. 43.

I answered, As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. [Let it be supposed to have some influence in some cases; perhaps Fully to account for one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.' Why, "the instances," you say, "of religious madness, have much increased, since you began to disturb the world." I doubt the fact.' You reply, "This no way disproves it," (p. 137.) Yes, it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, If these instances had increased daily, it is easy to account for them another way,') as is done in the first part of the Farther Appeal.) You say, "Most have heard of or known, several of the Methodists, thus driven to distraction." I answered, You may have heard of five hundred. But how many have you known? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child,' (p. 44.) You reply, "This, (the naming them) would be very improper and unnecessary," (p. 138.) However, Sir, it is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private; I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do.

The person I mentioned whom you threw into much doubt and perplexity, then lived in the parish of St. Ann, Westminster, I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.

9. You go on, "It is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your Journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind," i. e. instances of madness, (2d L. p. 138.) O tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair's breadth farther than this?--No: for "otherwise [i. e. if those persons were not mad,] the presumption and despair are terrible indeed." But what if you were to suppose John Haydon (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was fully as charitable as the other.

I said, I cannot find one such instance to this day.' You reply, Yet once you could not but be under some concern with regard VOL. 8.-00

to one or two persons, who seemed to be indeed lunatic, as well as sore vexed.'" So it seemed but it soon appeared, they were not." The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours, was filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.' Vol. I. p. 286.

But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add, "Toward the end of your Farther Appeal," (the first part) You say, "You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to Bristol, who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement invection both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad." Add, And so he continued till his friends put him into Bedlam: and probably laid his madness to my charge.' And if they did not, it is now done to their hands.

10. "As to the cure of these fits, I observed (so you, p. 139, proceed) that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers." My former answer to this was, I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.'

I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that these cures were frequently (indeed almost always) the instantaneous consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm, that they were purely natural. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the supernatural power of God. That of John Haydon in particular: (1 fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please,) and yet this is not barefaced enthusiasm. Nor can you prove it any enthusiasm at all, unless you can prove, that this is falsely ascribed to a supernatural power.

"The next case," you say, "relates to the spotted fever, which you represent as being extremely mortal; but--you believe there was not one with whom you were, but recovered. I allowed, that here is no intimation of any thing miraculous, (Rem. p. 72.) You ask, (Ans. p. 45,) Why then is this cited as an instance of my enthusiasm ?-You sure cannot think, that false pretences to miracles are the whole of enthusiasm." No; but I think they are that part of enthusiasm, which you here undertook to prove upon me. You are here to prove, that I "boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means," (Rem. p. 71.) But if "there is no intimation" in my account "of any thing miraculous, or that proper remedies had not been applied," how is this a proof, that I "boast of curing bodily distempers, without applying any remedies at all?”,

"But you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers. Whereas if the circumstances could be particularly inquired into, most probably it would appear,

that either the fury of the distemper was abated, or the persons you visited were seized with it in a more favourable degree, or were by reason of a good constitution, more capable of going through it. Neither do I believe, that they would have failed of an equal blessing and success, had they had the assistance and prayers of their own parish ministers."

There, Sir; now I have done as you require: I have quoted your whole remark. But does all this prove, that I "boast of curing bodily distempers by prayer, without the use of any other means?" If you say, although it does not prove this, it proves that "you seem to desire to have it believed, that an extraordinary blessing attended your prayers:" and this is another sort of enthusiasm :-it is very well: so it does not prove the conclusion you designed; but it proves another, which is as good!

11. The two last instances of my enthusiasm which you bring, (Rem. 72, 73,) I had summed up in two lines thus: At two several times, being ill and in violent pain, I prayed to God, and found immediate ease,' (Ans. p. 45.) But since you say, "I must not hope to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me particularly," (p. 140,) I must yield to necessity, and set them down from the beginning to the end.

'Sat. March 21. I explained in the evening the 33d chapter of Ezekiel in applying which, I was seized with such a pain in my side, I could not speak. I knew my remedy, and immediately kneeled down. In a moment the pain was gone.' Journ. 4, Vol. 1. p. 342.

Friday, May 8. I found myself much out of order, however I made shift to preach in the evening. But on Saturday my bodily strength failed, so that for several hours I could scarcely lift up my head. Sunday 10, I was obliged to lie down most part of the day, being easy only in that posture.-In the evening-beside the pain in my back and head, and the fever which still continued upon me, just as I began to pray, I was seized with such a cough, that I could hardly speak. At the same time came strongly into my mind, These signs shall follow them that believe.-I called on Jesus aloud, to increase my faith, and to confirm the word of his grace. While I was speaking, my pain vanished away, the fever left me, my bodily strength returned, and for many weeks I felt neither weakness nor pain.-Unto thee, O Lord, do I give thanks.' Journ 4, Vol. I. p. 346.

When you first cited these as proofs of enthusiasm, I answered, I will put your argument into form.

'He that believes those are miraculous cures which are not so, is a rank enthusiast: but

You believe those are miraculous cures which are not so, therefore, you are a rank enthusiast.'

What do you mean by miraculous? If you term every thing so, which is "not strictly to be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes," then I deny the latter part of the minor proposition. And unless you can make this good, unless you can prove,

the effects in question are "strictly to be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes," your argument is nothing worth.'

You reply, "Your answer to the objection is very evasive, though you pretend to put my argument in form. You mistake the major proposition, which should have been:

"He that represents those cures as the immediate effects of his own prayers, and as miraculous, which are not so, is a rank enthusiast, if sincere :

"But this you have done: Ergo," &c.

To this clumsy syllogism I rejoin, 1. That the words "if sincere," are utterly impertinent; for if insincerity be supposed, enthusiasm will be out of the question. 2. That those words, "as the effects of his own prayers," may likewise be pared off; for they are unneces sary and cumbersome, the argument being complete without them. 3. That with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it coincides with that which you reject. For it is the believing those to be miracles which are not, that constitutes an enthusiast : not the representing them one way or the other; unless so far as it implies such a belief.

12. Upon my answer to the syllogism first proposed, you observe, "Thus" (by denying the latter part of the minor) "you clear yourself from the charge of enthusiasm, by acknowledging the cures to be supernatural and miraculous. Why then would you not speak out, and directly say, that you can work real and undoubted miracles? This would put the controversy between you and your opposers on a short foot, and be an effectual proof of the truth of your pretences," (p. 142.)

V. 1. I have in some measure explained myself on the head of miracles in the third part of the Farther Appeal. But since you repeat the demand, (though without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced,) I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full, and determinate answer.

And, first, I acknowledge, that I have seen with my eyes, and heard with my ears, several things, which, to the best of my judgment, cannot be accounted for by the ordinary course of natural causes, and which, I therefore believe ought to be ascribed to the extraordinary interposition of God. If any man choose to style these miracles, I reclaim not. I have diligently inquired into the facts. I have weighed the preceding and following circumstances. I have strove to account for them in a natural way. I could not, without doing violence to my reason. Not to go far back, I am clearly persuaded, that the sudden deliverance of John Haydon, was one instance of this kind, and my own recovery, on May the 10th, another. I cannot account for either of these in a natural way. Therefore I believe they were both supernatural.

I must, secondly, observe, That the truth of these facts is supported by the same kind of proof, as that of all other facts is wont to be, namely, the testimony of competent witnesses: and that the testimony here is in as high a degree as any reasonable man can desire,