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.