Wesley Corpus

But I am disappointed: For in your Second Letter I read thus: “The instances of enthusiasm and presumption which your last Journal had furnished me with remain now to be reviewed. The first was of a private revelation, which you appeared to pay great credit to. You had represented everything the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass.” (Page 130.) But I had not represented anythingshe spoke then, whether it came to pass or no, as coming from the Spirit of God, but from the devil. You say, “When I read this first, I was amazed, and impa tient 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.” (Ibid. p. 131.) I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the sixty-sixth and sixty-seventh pages of the last Journal,” 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, * Vol. L. pp. 295, 296, of the present Edition.--EDIT. “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 intro duced, but another, and a very different one, of what hap pened 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.