Wesley Corpus

You say, ‘When I read this first, I was amazed, and impatient to look again into your Journal. But I had no sooner done this, but I was still more astonished. For you have very grievously misrepresented the case.’ If I have, then I will bear the blame; but if not, it will light on your head. ‘It is not this account which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before. Sunday, you mention her as being guilty of gross presumption, which you attribute to the power of the devil. But on Monday and Tuesday the opposite revelations happened, which you relate without the least mark of diffidence or blame.’ (Page 131.) I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the sixty-sixth and sixty-seventh pages of the last Journal, [Journal, ii. 415-16.] I gave account of Mrs. Jones, which I term ‘a surprising instance of the power of the devil.’ It includes the occurrences of three days. This you brought as a proof of my enthusiasm. I answer: ‘The very words that introduce this account’ prove it is no instance of enthusiasm; meaning by ‘this account’ (as I suppose is plain to every reader) the following account of Mrs. Jones. You reply: ‘It is not this account which you had thus introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened a day or two before.’ Sir, it is the whole account of Mrs. Jones which I thus introduce; and not another, not a very different one. And I attribute the agony which she (Mrs. Jones) was in, and most of the words which she spoke, both on Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday, not to the Spirit of God, but to the power of the devil.