Wesley Corpus

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 to be miraculous cures which are not so: ‘Therefore you are a rank enthusiast. ‘What do you mean by miraculous If you term everything 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 complete without them. (3) That, with or without them, the proposition is false; unless so far as it coincides 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 presences.’ (Second Letter, p. 142.)