of the Invisible World, with his title being a riff on Cotton Mather's own introduction to his account of M.Rule "yet more Wonders ..." Calef objected to proceedings that lead to "a Biggotted Zeal, stirring up a Blind and most Bloody rage, not against Enemies, or Irreligious Proffligate Persons, But (in Judgment of Charity, and to view) against as Vertuous and Religious as any they have left behind them in this Country, which have suffered as Evil doers with the utmost extent of rigour." Aside from the preface and postscript, Calef begins and ends with Mather's accounts in his own words. He finished his compilation in 1697, but added a postscript before final publication. Contents Preface: Calef's argument that Christians should rely on scripture, not superstition or mythology. Part I: Cotton Mather's own account of his visit to Margaret Rule in the autumn of 1693, which CM circulated in manuscript. Part II: This is the most confusing and controversial portion of Calef's book. It begins with an alternate and skeptical view of CM's ministry to Margaret Rule, referred to as a "Narrative of a Visit". Confusingly, it is presented in the first person though Calef says he copied it from eyewitness/es (both CM and Calef seem to agree that Calef was not present) on September 13, 1693, as well as an "Appendix to the Narrative" from September 19, 1693. Calef's description of a lawsuit by CM and his father, against Calef, for libel, and a copy of a letter from Calef to CM November 24, 1693, (prior to their court date) requesting CM clarify his "doctrinal" beliefs on witchcraft. According to Calef, the case was dropped when neither Mather showed up in court. Calef states that the Mathers no-show led him to believe "all should have been forgotten" (p. 60) but Calef is soon given a copy of CM's account of M. Rule (i.e. Part I, above) which CM began circulating soon after their court date and containing lines Calef finds offensive. Calef now sends CM what he claims as "the first copy ever taken" of the above "Narrative" and "Appendix" from September 13 and 19. This exchange seems to take place about a month or more after their court date had passed. CM responds a few days later, on January 15, rejecting the portrayal of the September 13 "Narrative", and quibbling with particular details: who spoke first (he or