“Returning to _J. H._ we found his voice was lost, and his body weak
as that of an infant. But his soul was in peace, full of love, and
rejoicing in hope of the glory of God.”
You subjoin, _this you may desire for ought I know, to pass as a trifle
too_. (page 134.) No: it is so terrible an instance of the judgment of
God, (tho’ 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_. (page
67.) I answered, “It is not quite plain. I look upon some of these
cases, as wholly natural: on the rest, as mixt: both the disorders
and the removals, being partly natural and partly not.” (page 43.)
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 42d and
43d pages of 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 demoniacks 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_――――(Remarks, page 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
surprize? Have I forfeited my character for ingenuous and fair dealing
with you?_ (2d Letter, page 135.) Since you ask me the question, I will
answer it (I hope, in love and in the spirit of meekness.) I scarce
know, of all who have wrote against me, a less ingenuous dealer: or
one who has shewn 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 demoniacks were common in the church:
and I suppose, ♦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 demoniacks 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 _demoniacks_ now, and they are now
relieved by prayer,” is enthusiasm: 2. That to say “_Demoniacks_ were
or are relieved, on 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_.”
♦ remove the word “that” per Errata
♠ “if)” replaced with “(if”
8. You remarked, _It will be difficult to persuade any sober person,
that there is any thing supernatural in these disorders_, Remarks,
page 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 crouds, 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_, Remarks, page 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_, page 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,
’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first
part of the _Farther Appeal_, at the 101st and following pages.) 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,” page 44. You reply, “_This_ (the naming them)
_would be very improper and unnecessary_, page 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 Letter, page 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 full 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 to one
or two persons, who_ seemed _to be indeed_ lunatic, _as well as sore
vexed_”.――――“So they _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.” _Journal 3._
page 88.
But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add,
_Toward the end of your Farther Appeal_, [the first part, page 101.]
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 ♦invective 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.”――――If they did not,
it is now done to their hands.
♦ “invection” replaced with “invective” per Errata
10. _As to the cure of these fits, I observed_ (so you, page 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: (I fix on this, and will join
issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not _bare-faced
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_ (_Remarks_ page 72.) _You ask_,
(Answer, page 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_. (Remarks, page 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:――――’tis 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 (_Remarks_,
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.” (_Answer_, page 45.) But since you say, I _must not hope
to escape so; these instances must once more be laid before me
particularly_, page 140. I must yield to necessity, and set them down
from the beginning to the end.
“_Saturday, 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.” _Journal 4._ page 77.
“_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 scarce 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.” _Journal 4._ page 83.
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 accountable 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 accountable 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 unnecessary
and cumbersome, the argument being compleat without them. 3. That
with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it
co-incides with that 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_, page 142.
♦ duplicate word “the” removed
* * * * *
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 (tho’ without taking any notice of the arguments there advanced)
I will endeavour once more to give you a distinct, full and determinate
answer.
♦ “hence” replaced with “since” per Errata
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 chuse to stile 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 hidden
deliverance of _John Haydon_, was one instance of this kind, and
my own recovery, on _May_ the tenth, 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. Those
witnesses were many in number: they could not be deceived themselves;
for the facts in question they saw with their own eyes, and heard with
their own ears. Nor is it credible, that so many of them would combine
together, with a view of deceiving others; the greater part being men
that feared God; as appeared by the general tenor of their lives. Thus,
in the case of _John Haydon_, this thing was not contrived and executed
in a corner, and in the presence of his own family only, or three or
four persons prepared for the purpose. No; it was in an open street of
the city of _Bristol_, at one or two in the afternoon. And the doors
being all open from the beginning, not only many of the neighbours
from every side, but several others, (indeed whosoever desired it)
went in, till the house could contain no more. Nor yet does the account
of my own illness and recovery _depend_, as you suppose, _on my bare
word_. There were many witnesses both of my disorder on _Friday_
and _Saturday_, and of my lying down most part of _Sunday_ (a thing
which they were well satisfied could not be the effect of a slight
indisposition.) And all who saw me that evening, plainly discerned
(what I could not wholly conceal) that I was in pain: about two hundred
of whom were present when I was seized with that cough, which cut me
short, so that I could speak no more; till I cried out aloud, “Lord,
increase my faith: Lord, confirm the word of thy grace.” The same
persons saw and heard, that at that instant I changed my posture, and
broke out into thanksgiving: that quickly after I stood upright (which
I could not before) and shewed no more sign either of sickness or pain.
* Yet I must desire you well to observe, thirdly, That my will, or
choice, or desire, had no place either in this, or any case of this
kind, that has ever fallen under my notice. Five minutes before I had
no thought of this. I expected nothing less. I was willing to wait
for a gradual recovery, in the ordinary use of outward means. I did
not look for any other cure, till the moment before I found it. And
it is my belief, that the case was always the same, with regard to
the most _real and undoubted miracles_. I believe God never interposed
his miraculous power, but according to his own sovereign will: not
according to the will of man; neither of him by whom he wrought, nor
of any other man whatsoever. The wisdom as well as the power are his:
nor can I find, that ever, from the beginning of the world, he lodged
this power in any mere man, to be used whenever that man saw good.
Suppose therefore, there was a man now on earth, who did work _real and
undoubted miracles_; I would ask, by whose power doth he work these?
And at whose pleasure? His own, or God’s? Not his own; but God’s. But
if so, then your demand is not made on man, but on God. I cannot say
it is modest, thus to challenge God; or well suiting the relation of a
creature to his Creator.
2. However, I cannot but think, there have been already so many plain
interpositions of divine power, as will shortly leave you without
excuse, if you either deny or despise them. We desire no favour, but
the justice that diligent enquiry may be made concerning them. We are
ready to name the persons on whom that power was shewn, which belongeth
to none but God; (not one or two, or ten or twelve only) to point out
their places of abode: and we engage they shall answer every pertinent
question, fairly and directly; and, if required, shall give all
those answers upon oath, before any who are impowered so to receive
them. It is our particular request, that the circumstances which went
before, which accompanied, and which followed after, the facts under
consideration, may be thoroughly examined, and punctually noted down.
Let but this be done (and is it not highly needful it should? at least,
by those who would form an exact judgment) and we have no fear, that
any reasonable man should scruple to say, _This hath God wrought_!
As there have been already so many instances of this kind, far beyond
what we had dared to ask or think, I cannot take upon me to say,
whether or no it will please God to add to their number. I have not
herein _known the mind of the Lord_, neither am I _his counsellor_.
He may, or he may not; I cannot affirm or deny. I have no light, and
I have no desire either way. _It is the Lord, let him do what seemeth
him good._ I desire only to be as clay in his hand.
* 3. But what if there were now to be wrought ever so many _real and
undoubted miracles_? (I suppose you mean by _undoubted_, such as being
sufficiently attested, ought not to be doubted of.) Why, this, you
say, _would put the controversy on a short foot, and be an effectual
proof of the truth of your pretences_. By no means. As common as this
assertion is, there is none upon earth more false. Suppose a teacher
were now, on this very day, to work _real_ and _undoubted miracles_:
this would extremely little _shorten the controversy_ between him and
the greater part of his opposers. For all this would not force them to
believe; but many would still stand just where they did before: seeing
men may _harden their hearts_ against miracles, as well as against
arguments.
So men have done, from the beginning of the world: even against such
signal, glorious miracles, against such interpositions of the power of
God, as may not be again till the consummation of all things. Permit
me to remind you only of a few instances; and to observe, that the
argument holds _a fortiori_: for who will ever be impowered of God
again, to work _such_ miracles as these were? Did _Pharaoh_ look on all
that _Moses_ and _Aaron_ wrought, as an _effectual proof of the truth
of their pretences_? Even when _the Lord made the sea to be dry-land,
and the waters were divided_: when _the children of Israel went into
the midst of the sea, and the waters were a wall, on the right and on
the left_? Exodus xiv. 21, 22. Nay;
The wounded dragon rag’d in vain;
And fierce the utmost plague to brave,
Madly he dar’d the parted main,
And sunk beneath th’ o’erwhelming wave.
Was all this _an effectual proof of the truth of their pretences_, to
the _Israelites_ themselves? It was not. _They were_ still _disobedient,
at the sea; even at the red sea_! Was the giving them day by day
_bread from heaven, an effectual proof_ to those _two hundred and fifty
princes of the assembly, famous in the congregation, men of renown_,
who said, with _Dathan_ and _Abiram, Wilt thou put out the eyes of
these men? We will not come up._ Numbers xvi. 14. Nay, _when the ground
clave asunder that was under them, and the earth opened her mouth and
swallowed them up_: (verse 32.) Neither was this an _effectual proof_
to those who saw it with their eyes, and heard the cry of those that
went down into the pit: but the very next day they _murmured against_
Moses _and against_ Aaron, _saying, Ye have killed the people of the
Lord_! (verse 41.)
Was not the case generally the same with regard to the prophets that
followed? Several of whom _stopped the mouths of lions, quenched
the violence of fire_, did many mighty works; yet their own people
received them not. Yet _they were stoned, they were sawn asunder,
they_ were _slain with the sword_; they were _destitute_, _afflicted_,
_tormented_! Utterly contrary to the commonly-received supposition,
that the working _real undoubted miracles_, must bring all controversy
to an end, and convince every gainsayer.
Let us come nearer yet. How stood the case between our Lord himself
and his opposers? Did he not work _real and undoubted miracles_? And
what was the effect? Still when _he came to his own, his own received
him not_. Still _he was despised and rejected of men_. Still it was
a challenge not to be answered, _Have any of the rulers, or of the
pharisees believed on him_?――――After this, how can you imagine, that
whoever works miracles, must convince _all men of the truth of his
pretences_?