Wesley Corpus

5. You next remarked several instances of my enthusiasm. The first was that of Mrs. Jones. The next ran thus: ‘Again, you say, “I expounded out of the fullness that was given me”’ (Remarks, p. 64). I answered, ‘I mean, I had then a fuller, deeper sense of what I spoke than I ordinarily have.’ [See letter of Feb. 2, 1745, sect. III. 8.] But if you still think ‘it would have been more decent to have said, “According to the best of my power and ability, with God’s assistance, I expounded,”’ I will say so another time. With regard to the third instance of enthusiasm you remarked, ‘If you would not have us look on this as miraculous, there is nothing in it worthy of being related’ (Remarks, pp. 65-6). I answered: ‘It may be so; let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating: but still it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous, but as a signal instance of God's particular providence.’ [Ibid.] How friendly and generous is your reply! -- ‘You seem ashamed of it. I am glad you give this fooling up, and hope for the future you will treat your readers better.’ (Second Letter, p. 131.) Sir, I am not ashamed of it; nor shall I ever give this fooling up till I give up the Bible. I still look upon this ‘as a signal instance of God's particular providence.’ But ‘how is this consistent with yielding it to be a trifle’ (page 132). My words do not imply that I yield it so to be. Being urged with the dilemma, ‘Either this is related as miraculous’ (and then it is enthusiasm), ‘or it is not worth relating,’ I answered (to avoid drawing the saw of controversy), ‘Let it pass, then, as a trifle not worth relating; but still’ (if it be a trifle, which I suppose, not grant), ‘it is no proof of enthusiasm. For I would not have you look upon it as miraculous.’