I answered, “As to each of the rest, let it go as far as it can go. [Let it be supposed to have _some_ influence in _some_ cases; perhaps, _fully to account for_ one in a thousand.] But I require proof of the last way, whereby you would account for these disorders.”――――Why, _the instances_, you say, of _religious madness have much increased, since you began to disturb the world_.――――“I doubt the fact.”――――You reply, _This no way disproves it_, page 137.――――Yes it does, till you produce some proof. For a bare negation is the proper and sufficient answer to a bare affirmation. I add, “If these instances had increased daily, ’tis easy to account for them another way,” (as is done in the first part of the _Farther Appeal_, at the 101st and following pages.) You say, _Most have heard of or known, several of the_ Methodists, _thus driven to distraction_: I answered, “_You_ may have _heard_ of five hundred. But how many have you _known_? Be pleased to name eight or ten of them. I cannot find them, no, not one of them to this day, either man, woman, or child,” page 44. You reply, “_This_ (the naming them) _would be very improper and unnecessary_, page 138.” However, Sir, it is extremely necessary, that you should name them to me in private, I will then, if required, excuse you to the public; which till then I cannot do.
The person I mentioned whom you _threw_ into much _doubt_ and _perplexity_, then lived in the parish of St. _Ann, Westminster_. I related the case just as she related it to me. But she is able and ready to answer for herself.
9. You go on. It _is the most charitable supposition we can make, that many of the cases you have mentioned in your journals, and some of which have been represented above, are of this kind_, i. e. instances of madness,――――2d Letter, page 138. O tender charity! But cannot your charity reach one hair’s breadth farther than this?――――No: for _otherwise_ [_i. e._ if those persons were not mad] _the presumption and despair are terrible indeed_.――――But what if you were to suppose _John Haydon_ (to instance in one) was not mad, but under a temporary possession? And that others were deeply convinced of sin, and of the wrath of God abiding on them? I should think this supposition (be it true or false) was full as _charitable_ as the other.
I said, “I cannot find one such instance to this day.” You reply, _Yet once you could not but be under some “Concern, with regard to one or two persons, who_ seemed _to be indeed_ lunatic, _as well as sore vexed_”.――――“So they _seemed_: but it soon appeared, they _were not_.” The very next paragraph mentions, that one of these within a few hours, was “filled with the spirit of love, and of a sound mind.” _Journal 3._ page 88.
But you are resolved, come what will, to carry this point: and so add, _Toward the end of your Farther Appeal_, [the first part, page 101.] You say, “_You have seen one instance of real, lasting madness. This was one whom you took with you to_ Bristol, _who was afterwards prejudiced against you, and began a vehement ♦invective both against your person and doctrines. In the midst of this he was struck raving mad._” Add, “And so he continued till his friends put him into _Bedlam_: and probably laid _his_ madness to _my_ charge.”――――If they did not, it is now done to their hands.
♦ “invection” replaced with “invective” per Errata
10. _As to the cure of these fits, I observed_ (so you, page 139. proceed) _that you had frequently represented them as miraculous, as the instantaneous consequences of your prayers_.――――My former answer to this was, “I have set down the facts just as they were, passing no judgment upon them myself, and leaving every man else to judge as he pleases.”
I am glad you give me an occasion of reviewing this answer; for upon reflection, I do not like it at all. It grants you more than I can in conscience do. As it can be proved by abundance of witnesses, that these cures were frequently, (indeed almost always) the _instantaneous_ consequences of prayer; your inference is just. I cannot, dare not affirm, that they were purely _natural_. I believe they were not. I believe many of them were wrought by the _supernatural_ power of God. That of _John Haydon_ in particular: (I fix on this, and will join issue with you upon it when you please) and yet this is not _bare-faced enthusiasm_. Nor can you prove it any _enthusiasm_ at all, unless you can prove, that this is _falsely_ ascribed to a _supernatural_ power.