Chapter II: Part 2

¹ “Mr. _Charles Wesley_, (the note says) was not persuaded of
the truth of the _Moravian faith_, till some time after his
brother’s return from _Germany_.” There is a great mistake
in this. I returned not from _Germany_ till _Saturday,
September 16_. Whereas my brother was fully persuaded of
the truth of the _Moravian faith_ (so called) on _Wednesday,
May 3_, preceding. The note adds, “This (_i. e._ justifying
faith) he received but very lately.” This also is a mistake.
What we believe to be justifying faith, he received _May 21,
1738_.

See second _Journal_, pages 20, 26.

3. Sanctification; the last and highest state of _perfection_ in this life. For then are the faithful born again in the full and perfect sense. Then is there given unto them a new and clear heart; and the struggle between the _old_ and _new_ man is over.¹

¹ The next note runs thus, “Mr. _Wesley_ has such a _peculiar
turn_ and _tendency_ towards the inconsistencies in his
principles, that in his preface to _Haliburton_’s life
(wrote _February 9, 1738‒9, just after_ his return from
_Germany_) he contradicts all that he has said elsewhere
for this _sinless perfection_, viz. ‘But it may be said _the
gospel covenant does not promise entire freedom from sin_.’
What do you mean by the word sin? The infection of nature?
Or those numberless weaknesses and follies, sometimes
(improperly) termed _sins of infirmity_? If you mean only
this, you say most true. We shall not put off these, but
with our bodies. But if you mean, it does not promise entire
freedom from sin, in its proper sense, or from committing
sin: this is by no means true, unless the scriptures be
false. _For thus it is written, Whosoever is born of God,
doth not commit sin._ (Unless he lose the spirit of adoption,
if not finally, yet for a while, as did this child of God)
_For his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because
he is born of God._ He cannot sin, _so long as he keepeth
himself_, for then _the wicked one toucheth him not_.”

The question is not, whether this be right or wrong: but
whether it contradict anything I have said elsewhere. Thrice
I have spoken expresly on this subject; in a sermon, and in
two prefaces. If in any of these I have contradicted what I
said before, I will own the former assertion as a mistake.

30. (14.) That I may say many things which have been said before, and perhaps by _Calvin_ or _Arminius_, by _Montague_ or _Barclay_, or the archbishop of _Cambray_, is highly probable. But it cannot thence be inferred, that I hold “a _medley_ of all their principles; _Calvinism_, _Arminianism_, _Montanism_, _Quakerism_, _Quietism_, all thrown together.” There might as well have been added _Judaism_, _Mahometanism_, _Paganism_. It would have made the period rounder, and been full as easily _proved_, I mean _asserted_. For no other proof is not yet produced.

31. I pass over the smaller mistakes which occur in the 15th and 16th paragraphs, together with the prophecy or prognostication, concerning the approaching divisions and downfal of the _Methodists_. What follows to the end, concerning the ground of our hope, is indeed of greater importance. But we have not as yet the strength of the cause. The dissertation promised, is still behind. Therefore as my work is great, and my time short, I wave that dispute for the present. And perhaps, when I shall have received farther light, I may be convinced, that “gospel-holiness (as Mr. _Tucker_ believes) is a necessary qualification, antecedent to justification.” This appears to me now to be directly opposite to the gospel of Christ. But I will endeavour, impartially, to consider, what shall be advanced in defence of it. And may he who knoweth my simpleness, teach me his way, and give me a right judgment in all things!

AN
ANSWER

TO THE
Rev. Mr. _Church_’s REMARKS on the
Rev. Mr. _John Wesley_’s last JOURNAL.

In a LETTER to that GENTLEMAN.

_Let not him that putteth on his harness, boast himself
as he that putteth it off._ 1 Kings xx. 11.

Reverend Sir,

1. MY first desire (and prayer to God) is, That I may live peaceably with all men. My next, That if I must dispute at all, it may be with a man of understanding. Thus far therefore I rejoice on the present occasion. I rejoice also in that I have confidence of your sincerity, of your real desire, to promote the glory of God, by peace and good-will among men. I am likewise thankful to God, for your calm manner of writing; (a few paragraphs excepted:) and yet more for this, That _such_ an opponent, should by writing in _such_ a manner, give me an opportunity of explaining myself on those very heads, whereon I wanted an occasion so to do.

2. I do not want indeed (though perhaps you think I do) to widen the breach between us, or to represent the difference of the doctrines we severally teach, as greater than it really is. So far from it, that I earnestly wish, there were none at all: or if there must be some, that it may be as small as possible: being fully persuaded, that could we once agree in doctrines, other differences would soon fall to the ground.

3. In order to contribute, as I am able, to this, it will be my endeavour, to acknowledge what I think you have spoken right, and to answer what I cannot think right as yet, with what brevity and clearness I can. I desire to do this, in as inoffensive a manner, as the nature of the thing will bear; and consistently with that brotherly love, which I cannot deny you, without wronging my own soul.

4. You sum up your charge thus: _You have now, Sir, my sentiments――――It is impossible for you to put an entire stop, to the enormities of the_ Moravians, _while you still_, I. _Too much commend these men_, II. _Hold principles in common with them, from which these enormities naturally follow, and_ III. _Maintain other errors more than theirs, and are guilty of enthusiasm to the highest degree_.¹

¹ Remarks, pages 73, 74.

I. 1. You, first, charge me with _too much commending the_ Moravians. That the case may be fully understood, I will transcribe the passages which you cite from the journal concerning them, and then give a general answer.

“She told me, Mr. _Molther_ had advised her, till she received faith, to be _still, ceasing from outward works_――――In the evening, Mr. _Bray_ also was highly commending the being _still_――――He likewise spoke largely, of the _great danger_ that attended the doing of _outward works_, and of the _folly_ of people that keep _running about to church and sacrament_.”¹

¹ 4th Journal, page 7.

“_Sunday November 4._ Our society met, and continued _silent_ till eight.”¹

¹ Ib. page 42.

“_Sunday June 22._ I spoke thus: Eight or nine months ago, certain men arose, who affirmed, that there is no such thing as any _means of grace_――――and that we ought to leave off these _works of the law_.”¹

¹ Page 42.

_N. B._ The sentences quoted from the _Remarks_, are all
printed in _italicks_.

“You (Mr. _Molther_) believe, that the way to attain faith, is, not to go to church, not to communicate, not to fast, not to use _so much_ private prayer, not to read the scripture; not to do temporal good, or attempt to do spiritual good.”¹

¹ Page 20.

“You undervalue _good works_, especially works of _outward mercy_, never publicly insisting on the necessity of them.”¹

¹ Page 108.

“Some of our brethren asserted, 1. That till they had true faith, they ought to be _still_, that is (as they explained themselves) to abstain from the _means of grace_, as they are called, the Lord’s supper in particular. 2. That the ordinances are not _means of grace_, there being no other means than Christ.”¹

¹ Page 8.

“I could not agree, either that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear, or that till we have it, we ought to abstain from the ordinances of God.”¹

¹ Ib.

“Mr. _Br――――d_ speaks so slightly of the _means of grace_, that many are much grieved to hear him. But others are greatly delighted with him. Ten or fourteen of them meet at our brother _Clark_’s, with Mr. _Molther_, and make a ♦mere jest of going to church or to the sacrament.”¹

♦ “meer” replaced with “mere”

¹ Page 17.

“You (Mr. _Molther_) believe, it is impossible for a man to _use these means_, without _trusting in them_.”¹

¹ Page 20.

“Believers (said Mr. _Simpson_) are _not subject_ to ordinances, and unbelievers have nothing to do with them.”¹

¹ Page 34.

“Believers _need not_, and unbelievers _may not_ use them. These _do not_ sin when they _abstain_ from them; but those _do sin_, when they do not abstain.”¹

¹ Page 43.

“For one who is not born of God, to read the scriptures, or to pray, or to communicate, or to do any outward work is _deadly poison_.――――If he does any of these things, he _destroys_ himself.”¹

¹ Page 48.

“Mr. _Bell_ earnestly defended this.”

“At eight the society (at _Nottingham_) met; I could not but observe――――that not one who came in, used any prayer at all.――――I looked for one of our hymn books, but both that and the bible were vanished away, and in the room thereof lay, the _Moravian_ hymns and the _Count’s sermons_.”¹

¹ Page 88.

“One of our _English_ brethren, joined with you, said in his public expounding, ‘As many go to hell by _praying_, as by _thieving_.’ Another, ‘I knew one, who leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down, to give God thanks. So he lost it immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again.’ And yet another, ‘You have lost your first joy. Therefore you pray. That is the devil. You read the bible. That is the devil. You communicate. That is the devil.’”¹

¹ Page 106.

“They affirmed, that there is _no commandment_ in the New Testament, but to _believe_; that no other _duty_ lies upon us; and, that when a man does believe, he is not _bound_ or _obliged_, to do any thing which is commanded there.”¹

¹ Page 41.

“Mr. _St――――_ told me, No one has _any degree_ of faith, till he is perfect as God is perfect.”¹

¹ Page 35.

“You believe there are _no degrees_ in faith.”¹

¹ Ib.

“I have heard Mr. _Molther_ affirm, that there is no justifying faith, where there is ever any doubt.”¹

¹ Page 105.

“The moment a man is justified, he is sanctified wholly. Thenceforth, till death, he is neither more nor less holy.”¹

¹ Page 100.

“We are to grow in grace, but not in holiness.”¹

¹ Page 101.

♦2. I have frequently observed, that I wholly disapprove, of all these positions, “That there are _no degrees_ in faith”; “That in order to attain faith, we must _abstain_ from all the _ordinances_ of God”; “That a believer does not _grow in holiness_”, and “That he is not _obliged_ to keep the commandments of God.” But I must also observe, 1. That you ought not to charge the _Moravian_ church with the first of these; since in the very page from which you quote those words, “There is no justifying faith where there is ever any doubt” that note occurs, “In the preface to the second journal, the _Moravian_ church is cleared from this mistake.” 2. That with respect to the ordinances of God, their practice is better than their principle. They do use them themselves, I am a witness; and that with reverence and godly fear. Those expressions however, of our own countrymen, are utterly indefensible: as, I think are Mr. _Molther_’s also; who was quickly after recalled into _Germany_. The great fault of the _Moravian_ church seems to lie in not openly disclaiming all he had said: which in all probability they would have done, had they not leaned to the same opinion. I must 3. observe, that I never knew one of the _Moravian_ church, but that single person affirm, “That a believer does not grow in holiness.” And perhaps he would not affirm it, on reflection. But I am still afraid their whole church is tainted with _Quietism_, _Universal Salvation_, and _Antinomianism_: “I speak (as I said elsewhere) of _Antinomian opinions_, abstracted from practice, good or bad.”

♦ Number 1. not shown in text.

3. But I should rejoice if there lay no other objection against them, than that of erroneous opinions. I know in some measure, how to have compassion on the ignorant: I know the incredible force of pre-possession. And God only knows, what ignorance or error (all things considered) is invincible; and what allowance his mercy will make in such cases, to those who desire to be lead into all truth. But how far what follows may be imputed to invincible ignorance or pre-possession, I cannot tell.

Many of “¹you greatly, yea above measure, exalt yourselves (as a church) and despise others:

¹ 4th journal, pages 107, 108.

“I have scarce heard one _Moravian_ brother own _his church_ to be wrong in any thing:

“Many of you I have heard speak of it, as if it were infallible;” “Some of you have set it up, as the judge of all the earth, of all persons as well as doctrines:

“Some of you have said, that there is no _true church_ but yours; yea, that there are no _true Christians_ out of it:

“And your own members you require to have _implicit faith_ in her decisions, and to pay _implicit_ obedience to her directions.”

I can in no degree justify these things. And yet neither can I look upon them in the same light that you do, as ¹_some of the very worst things which are objected to the church of_ Rome. They are exceeding great mistakes: yet in as great mistakes, have holy men both lived and died: _Thomas a Kempis_, for instance, and _Francis Sales_. And yet I doubt not, they are now in _Abraham_’s bosom.

¹ Remarks, page 7.

4. I am more concerned for their “¹Despising and decrying self-denial:” for their “²extending Christian liberty beyond all warrant of holy writ;” for their “³Want of zeal for good works;” and above all for their supposing, that “³we may, on some accounts use guile:” in consequence of which they do “⁴use guile or dissimulation in many cases.” “⁵Nay, in many of them I have found” (not in all, nor in most) “much subtlety, much evasion and disguise; so _becoming all things to all men_, as to take the colour and shape of any that were near them.”

¹ Journal, page 80.

² Page 80.

³ Page 21.

⁴ Page 111.

⁵ Page 104.

I can neither defend nor excuse those among the _Moravians_, whom I have found guilty of this. But neither can I condemn _all_ for the sake of _some_. _Every man shall give an account of himself to God._

But you say, ¹_Your protesting against some of their opinions, is not sufficient to discharge you――――Have you not prepared the way for these_ Moravians, _by――――countenancing and commending them: and by still speaking of them as if they were in the main the best Christians in the world, and only deluded or mistaken in a few points?_

¹ Remarks, pages 11, 12.

I cannot speak of them otherwise than I think. And I still think 1. That God has some thousands in our own church, who have the faith and love which is among them, without those errors either of judgment or practice; 2. That next to these, _the body_ of the _Moravian_ church, however _mistaken some of them_ are, are _in the main_, of all whom I have seen, the _best Christians_ in the world.

5. Because I am continually charged with inconsistency herein, even by the _Moravians_ themselves, it may be “needful to give a short account of what has occurred between us from the beginning.”

“¹My first acquaintance with the _Moravian_ brethren began in my voyage to _Georgia_. Being then with many of them in the same ship, I narrowly observed their whole behaviour. And I greatly approved of all I saw.” (The particulars are related in the first journal.)

¹ These are the words of the 4th journal, page 109, &c.

“From _February 14, 1735_, to _December 2, 1737_, being with them (except when I went to _Frederica_ or _Carolina_) twice or thrice every day, I loved and esteemed them more and more. _Yet a few things I could not approve of._ These I mentioned to them from time to time, and then commended the cause to God.”

“In _February_ following I met with _Peter Bohler_. My heart clave to him as soon as he spoke. And the more we conversed, so much the more did I esteem, both him and the _Moravian_ church. So that I had no rest in my spirit, till I executed the design, which I had formed long before; till after a short stay in _Holland_, I hastened forward, first to _Marienbourn_, and then to _Hernhuth_.”

It may be observed, that I had before seen _a few things_ in the _Moravians which I could not approve of_. In this journey I saw _a few more_, in the midst of many excellent things: in consequence whereof,

“In _September 1738_, soon after my return to _England_, I began the following letter to the _Moravian_ church. But being fearful of trusting my own judgment, I determined, to wait yet a little longer, and so laid it by unfinished,”

“My Dear Brethren,

“I Cannot but rejoice in your stedfast faith, in your love to our blessed Redeemer, your deadness to the world, your meekness, temperance, chastity, and love of one another. I greatly approve of your conferences and ¹bands, of your methods of instructing children; and in general, of your great care of the souls committed to your charge.

¹ The band society in London, began May 1, some time before I
set out for Germany.

“But of some other things I stand in doubt, which I will mention in love and meekness. And I wish that, in order to remove those doubts, you would, on each of those heads, first, plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose; and if so, secondly, consider, whether it be right?

“Is not the Count all in all among you?

“Do you not magnify your own church too much?

“Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?

“Are you not of a close, dark, reserved temper and behaviour?”――――

“It may easily be seen, that my objections then were nearly the same as now.” (Only with this difference; I was not then assured, that the facts were as I supposed.) “Yet I cannot say my affection was lessened at all, (for I did not dare to determine any thing.) But from _November 1_, I could not but see more and more things which I could not reconcile with the gospel.”

“These I have set down with all simplicity.――――Yet do I this, because I love them not? God knoweth: yea, and _in part_, I esteem them still: because I verily believe, they have a sincere desire to serve God; because many of them have tasted of his love, and some retain it in simplicity; because they love one another; because they have _so much_ of the truth of the gospel, and _so far_ abstain from outward sin. And lastly, because their discipline is, _in most respects_, so truly excellent: (notwithstanding that visible blemish, the paying _too much_ regard, to their great patron and benefactor, Count _Zinzendorf_.)

“6. I believe if you coolly consider this account, you will not find, either that it is inconsistent with itself; or that ♦it lays you under any necessity of speaking in the following manner: ¹_What charms there may be in a demure look, and a sour behaviour, I know not. But sure they must be in your eye very extraordinary, as they can be sufficient to cover such a multitude of errors and crimes, and keep up the same regard and affection for the authors and abettors of them. I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with what you thought your province.――――You was influenced, not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so injuriously and scandalously trampled upon, but by a fear of losing your own authority._”

♦ “is” replaced with “it”

¹ Remarks, pages 18, 19.

I doubt, there is scarce one line of all these, which is consistent either with truth or love. But I will transcribe a few more, before I answer. _How could you so long and so intimately converse with, so much commend, and give such countenance to, such desperately wicked people, as the_ Moravians, _according to your own account, were known by you to be?――――And you still speak of them, as if they were, in the main, the best Christians in the world.――――In one place you say, “A few things I could not approve of.” But in God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so gently touched? Can detestation in such a case, be too strongly exprest? Either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world. Christian charity has scarce an allowance to make for them as you have described them. If you have done this truly, they ought to be discouraged, by all means that can be imagined._

7. Let us now weigh these assertions. _They_ (i. e. _the charms of their_ sour _behaviour_) _must be in your eye very extraordinary._ ――――Do not you stumble at the threshold? The _Moravians_ excel in _sweetness_ of behaviour――――_as they can be sufficient to cover such a_ multitude _of_ errors _and_ crimes――――Such a _multitude_ of _errors_ and _crimes_! I believe, as to errors, they hold _universal salvation_, and are partly _Antinomians_ (in opinion), and partly _Quietists_. And for this cause I cannot join with them. But where is the _multitude_ of errors? Whosoever knows 2 or 300 more, let him please to mention them.

Such a _multitude_ of _crimes_ too! That some of them have used guile, and are of a close, reserved behaviour, I know. And I excuse them not. But to this multitude of crimes I am an utter stranger. Let _him_ prove this charge upon them who _can_. For _me_, I declare, I _cannot_.

_To keep up_ the same _regard and affection_.――――Not so. I say, my affection was _not lessened, till_ after September 1739, till I had proof of what I had _feared_ before. But I had not the same degree of regard for them, when I saw the dark as well as the bright side of their character. _I doubt your regard for them was not lessened, till they began to interfere with what you thought your province._ If this were only a _doubt_, it were not much amiss; but it presently shoots up into an _assertion_: equally groundless; for my _regard_ for them _lessened_, even while I was in _Georgia_. But it increased again, after my return from thence, especially while I was at _Hernhuth_. And it gradually _lessened_ again for some years, as I saw more and more which I approved not. How then does it _appear_, that _I was influenced herein, by a fear of losing my own authority? Not by a just resentment to see the honour of religion and virtue so scandalously trampled upon. ――――Trampled upon!_ By whom? Not by the _Moravians_: I never saw any such thing among them.

* But what do you mean by a just resentment? I hope you do not mean, what is _commonly_ called _Zeal_: a flame which often _sets on fire the whole course of nature, and is in itself set on fire of hell!――――Rivers of water run from my eyes, because men keep not thy law._ This resentment on such an occasion I understand. From all other may God deliver me!

8. You go on. _How could you so long and so intimately converse with――――such desperately wicked people, as the_ Moravians, _according to_ your own account, _were known by you to be_? O Sir, what another assertion is this? _The_ Moravians, _according to your_ own account, _were_ known _by you to be desperately wicked people, while you intimately conversed with them_! Utterly false and injurious. I never gave any such account. I conversed intimately with them, both at _Savannah_ and _Hernhuth_. But neither then, nor at any other time, did I _know_, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people. I think and say, nay, you blame me for saying, just the reverse, viz. That though I soon “found among them a few things which I could not approve,” yet I believe they are _in the main some of the best Christians in the world_.

You surprize me yet more in going on thus: _In God’s name, Sir, is the contempt of almost the whole of our duty, of every Christian ordinance, to be so very gently touched?_ Sir, this is not the case. This charge no more belongs to the _Moravians_, than that of murder. Some of our countrymen spoke very wicked things. The _Moravians_ did not sufficiently disavow them. These are the ♦premises. By what art can you extort so dreadful a conclusion from them?

♦ “premisses” replaced with “premises”

_Can detestation, in such a case, be too strongly exprest?_――――Indeed it can; even were the case as you suppose――――_either they are some of the vilest wretches in the world, or you are the falsest accuser in the world_――――neither one, nor the other; though I prove what I alledge, yet they may be, in the main, good men――――_charity has scarce an allowance to make for them, as you have described them_.――――I have described them, as of a mixt character, with much evil among them, but more good. Is it not a strange kind of charity, which cannot find an allowance, to make in such a case?――――_If you have described them truly, they ought to be discouraged by all means that can be imagined_――――By all means! I hope not by fire and faggot: though the _house of mercy_ imagines these to be of all means most effectual.

9. You proceed. ¹_How can you justify the many good things you say of the_ Moravians, _notwithstanding this character?――――You say they love God.――――But how can this be, when they even plead against keeping most of his commandments?――――You say, you believe, they have a sincere desire to serve_ God.――――_How then can they despise his service in so many instances?――――You declare some of them much holier than any people you had yet known. Strange! if they fail in so many prime points of Christian duty, and this not only habitually and presumptuously, but even to the denying their use and necessity. You praise them, for trampling under foot the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life.――――And yet you make them a close, reserved, insincere, deceitful people._

¹ Remarks, pages 20, 21.

_How you will explain those things, I know not._――――By nakedly declaring each thing as it is. They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people, now under the sun: and I describe them just as I find them, neither better nor worse, but leaving the good and bad together. Upon this ground I can very easily justify, the saying _many good things_ of them, as well as bad. For instance, I am still persuaded, that _they_ (many of them) _love_ God: although many others of them ignorantly _plead against the keeping_, not _most_, but _some of his commandments_. I believe, _they have a sincere desire to serve_ God. And yet, in several instances, some of them (I think) _despise_ that manner _of serving him_, which I know God hath ordained. I believe _some of them are much holier than any people I had known_ in _August 1740_. Yet sure I am, that others among them _fail_, not indeed in the _prime points of Christian duty_ (for these are faith and the love of God and man) but in several points of no small importance. Not that they herein sin _presumptuously_ neither; for they are _fully_ (though erroneously) _persuaded in their own minds_. From the same persuasion they act, when they (in some sense) _deny the use or necessity of those_ ordinances. How far that persuasion will justify or excuse them, I leave to him who knoweth their hearts. Lastly, I believe _they trample under foot_, in a good degree, the _lust of the flesh, the lust of the eye, and the pride of life_. And yet many of them _use reserve_, yea _guile_. Therefore my soul mourns for them in secret places.

10. But I _must observe_, you say, that ¹_you fall not only into inconsistencies, but into direct contradictions.――――You commend them for “loving one another, in a manner the world knoweth not of.” And yet you charge them with being “in the utmost confusion, biting and devouring one another.” You say, “They caution us against natural love of one another――――And had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us.”_

¹ Remarks, pages 21, 22.

_You praise them, for “using no diversions but such as become saints,” and for “not regarding outward adorning.” Yet you say, they “conform to the world in wearing gold and costly apparel: and by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good._”

_You call their discipline, “in most respects, truly excellent.” I wish you had more fully explained yourself――――I am sure, it is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations. And you tell them yourself, “I can shew you such a subordination, as answers all Christian purposes, and yet is as distant from that among you, as the heavens are from the earth.”_

_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as if it were ♦with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”_

♦ “a” replaced with “with a” per Errata

_And now, Sir――――how can you reconcile these opposite descriptions?_ ――――Just as easily as those before, by simply declaring the thing as it is. _You “¹commend them_ (the _Moravians_) _for loving one another. And yet charge them with biting ²and devouring one another.”_ Them! whom? Not the _Moravians_; but the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_, before their union with the _Moravians_. Here then is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.

¹ Journal, page 4.

² Page 18.

_You say, ¹“They had well-nigh destroyed brotherly love from among us;”_ partly by “_cautions ¹against natural love_.” It is a melancholy truth; so they had. But _we_ had then no connexion with _them_. Neither therefore does this contradict “their _loving one another_, in a manner the world knoweth not of.”

¹ Page 108.

_You praise them for ¹using no diversions but such as become saints: and yet say_, (I recite the whole sentence) “²_I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by joining in worldly diversions, in order to do good._”――――And both these are true. The _Moravians_, in general, “use no diversions but such as become saints:” and yet I have heard some of them affirm (in contradiction to their own practice) that “One then mentioned did well, when he joined in _playing at tennis_, in order to do good.”

¹ Page 5.

² Page 103.

11. _You praise them for not “¹regarding outward adorning.”_――――So I do, the bulk of the congregation――――_And yet you say_ (I again recite the whole sentence) “_I ²have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on of gold and costly apparel._” I have so. And I blame them the more, became they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.

¹ Page 5.

² Page 103.

_You call their discipline “in most respects truly excellent.”¹ I could wish you had more fully explained yourself_――――I have, in the second journal, from the 44th to the 82d page. _It is no sign of good discipline, to permit such abominations_, (i. e. error, in opinion, and guile, in practice:) true, it is not; nor is it any demonstration against it. For there may be _good discipline_ even in a college of _Jesuits_.――――Another fault is, too great a deference to the Count. And yet, “in _most respects_, their discipline is truly excellent.”

¹ Page 5.

_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that “¹every one knows and keeps his proper rank.” Soon after, as it were with a design to confute yourself, you say, “Our brethren have neither wisdom enough to guide, nor prudence enough to let it alone.”_² Pardon me, Sir. I have no design either to confute or to contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the _Moravian_ brethren: the latter, of the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_.

¹ Page 5.

² Page 17.

* 12. You need not therefore ¹_imagine, that either the strong pretences or warm professions of the_ Moravians, or their _agreeing with me in some favourite topicks_ (for my love to them was antecedent to any such _agreement_) _induce me to overlook their iniquity, and to forgive their other crimes_. No. I love them upon quite different grounds: even, because I believe (notwithstanding all their faults) they _love the_ Lord Jesus _in sincerity_, and have a measure of _the mind that was in_ him. And I am _in_ great _earnest when I declare_ once more, That I have a deep, abiding conviction, by how many degrees the good which is among them, overbalances the evil: That I cannot speak of them but with _tender affection_, were it only for the benefits I have received from them: and that at this hour, _I desire union with them_ (were those stumbling-blocks once put away, which have hitherto made that desire ineffectual) _above all things under heaven_.

¹ Remarks, page 23.

II. 1. Your second charge is, _That I hold, in common with them, principles from which their errors naturally follow_. You mean, justification by faith alone. To set things in the clearest light I can, I will, first, observe, what I hold, and what you object, and then enquire, what the consequences have been?

First, As to what I hold, my latest thoughts upon justification, are exprest in the following words:¹

¹ Farther Appeal to Men of Reason and Religion, pages 1, 2, 3.

“Justification sometimes means our acquittal at the last day. But this is out of the present question: that justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, meaning present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein _declares his righteousness and mercy_, by or _for the remission of the sins_ that are past.――――

“I believe, the condition of this is faith: I mean not only, that without faith we cannot be justified; but also, that as soon as any one has true faith, in that moment he is justified.

“_Good works_ follows this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification, which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart. But――――entire sanctification goes before our justification at the last day.

“It is allowed, that repentance and _fruits meet for repentance_, go before faith. Repentance _absolutely_ must go before faith: _fruits meet for it_, if there be opportunity. By _repentance_ I mean, conviction of sin, producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment: and by _fruits meet for repentance_, forgiving our brother, ceasing from evil, doing good, using the ordinances of God, and in general, obeying him according to the measure of grace which we have received. But these I cannot, as yet term _good works_; because they do not spring from faith and the love of God.”

2. “Faith in general is, a divine, supernatural ἔλεγχος (evidence or conviction) of things not seen, not discoverable by our bodily senses, as being either past, future, or spiritual. Justifying faith implies, not only a divine ἔλεγχος, that God _was in_ Christ, _reconciling the world unto himself_, but a sure trust and confidence, that Christ died for _my_ sins, that he loved _me_, and gave himself for _me_. And the moment a _penitent_ sinner _thus_ believes, God _pardons_ and absolves him.”

¹Now, it being allowed, that both inward and outward holiness are the stated conditions of final justification: what more can you desire, who have hitherto opposed _justification by faith alone_, merely upon a principle of conscience; because you was zealous for holiness and good works? Do I not effectually secure these from contempt, at the same time that I defend the doctrines of the church? I not only allow, but vehemently contend, that none shall ever enter into glory, who is not holy on earth, as well in heart, as _in all manner of conversation_. I cry aloud, _Let all that have believed, be careful to maintain good works_: and, _Let every one that nameth the name of_ Christ, _depart from all iniquity_. I exhort even those who are conscious they do not believe, _Cease to do evil, learn to do well. The kingdom of heaven is at hand_; therefore, _repent, and bring forth fruits meet for repentance_. Are not these directions the very same, in substance, which you yourself would give to persons so circumstanced?――――

¹ Ibid. pages 13, 14, 15.

3. “Many of those who are perhaps as zealous of good works as you, think I have allowed you too much――――Nay, my brethren, but how can we help allowing it, if we allow the scriptures to be from God? For is it not written, and do not you yourselves believe, _Without holiness no man shall see the_ Lord? And how then, without fighting about words, can we deny, that holiness is a condition of final acceptance? And as to the first acceptance or pardon, does not all experience as well as scripture prove, that no man ever yet truly _believed the gospel_, who did not first _repent_.――――Repentance therefore we cannot deny, to be necessarily previous to faith. Is it not equally undeniable, that the running back into wilful, known sin (suppose it were drunkenness or uncleanness) stifles that repentance or conviction? And can that repentance come to any good issue in his soul, who resolves, not to forgive his brother? Or who obstinately refrains from what God convinces him is right, whether it be prayer or hearing his word? Would you scruple yourself to tell one of these――――_Unto him that hath shall be given: but from him that hath not_, i. e. uses it not, _shall be taken even that which he hath_. Would you scruple to say this?――――But in saying this, you allow all which I have said, viz. That previous to justifying faith, there _must_ be repentance, and if opportunity permit, _fruits meet for repentance_.”

“And yet I allow you this, That although both repentance and the fruits thereof are in _some sense_ necessary before justification, yet neither the one nor the other is necessary in the _same sense_, or in the _same degree_ with faith; for in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified, his sins are blotted out, _his faith is counted to him for righteousness_. But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any or all the fruits of repentance. Faith alone therefore justifies; which repentance alone does not; much less any outward work. And consequently, none of these are necessary to justification, in the _same degree_ with faith.

“Nor in the _same sense_. For none of these has so direct, immediate a relation to justification as faith. This is _proximately_ necessary thereto; repentance, _remotely_, as it is necessary to the increase or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, these are only necessary on supposition――――if there be time and opportunity for them: for in many instances there is not; but God cuts short his work, and faith prevents the fruits of repentance. So that the general proposition is not overthrown, but clearly established by these concessions; and we conclude still――――That faith alone is the proximate condition of justification.”

* 4. This is what I hold concerning justification. I am next, briefly to observe what you object. ¹_If faith, say you, is the sole condition of justification, then it is our sole duty._ I deny the consequence. Faith may be (in the sense above described) the sole condition of justification, and yet not only repentance be our duty _before_, but all obedience _after_ we believe.

¹ Remarks, page 25.

* You go on. _If ¹good works are not conditions of our justification, they are not conditions of our (final) salvation._ I deny the consequence again. _Good works_ (properly so called) cannot be the conditions of justification: because it is impossible to do any good work, _before_ we are justified. And yet notwithstanding, good works may be (and are) conditions of final salvation. For who will say it is impossible to do any good work, _before_ we are finally saved?

¹ Ibid.

You proceed. ¹_Can we be saved, in the contemptuous neglect of repentance, prayer, &c.?_ No: nor justified neither; but while they are previous to faith, these are not allowed to be _good works_.

¹ Page 26.

You afterwards argue from my own concessions, thus.――――¹_Your notion of true stillness is, “A patient waiting upon_ God, _by lowliness, meekness, resignation, in all the ways of his holy law, and the works of his commandments.――――But how is it possible to reconcile to this the position, that these duties are not conditions of our justification? If we are justified without them, we may be saved without them.――――This consequence cannot be too often repeated._”

¹ Page 26.

Let it be repeated ever so often, it is good for nothing. For, far other qualifications are required, in order to our standing before God in glory, than were required in order to his giving us faith and pardon. In order to this, nothing is _indispensably_ required, but repentance, or conviction of sin. But in order to the other it is indispensably required, that we be fully _cleansed from all sin_: that the very God _of peace_ sanctify us wholly, even to τὸ ὁλέκληρον ἡμῶν, our entire body, soul, and spirit. It is not necessary therefore (nor indeed possible) that we should _before_ justification, _patiently wait upon_ God, _by lowliness, meekness, and resignation, in all the ways of his holy law_. And yet it is necessary in the highest degree, that we should thus wait upon him _after_ justification. Otherwise, how shall we be _meet to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in light_?

5. ¹Soon after you add, _In the passages last cited, you plead for the necessity of a good life. But in others, the force of your principles shews itself.――――An answer approved by you is, “My heart is desperately wicked. But I have no doubt or fear. I know my Saviour loves me and I love him.”――――Both these particulars are impossible, if the scripture be true._

¹ Remarks, page 29.

You amaze me! Is it possible you should be ignorant, that your own heart is desperately wicked? Yet I dare not say, either that God does not love you; or that you do not love him.

¹_Again, You say “you described the state of those who have forgiveness of sins, but not a clean heart”_; (not in the full, proper sense) Very true: but even then, they had power over both inward and outward corruptions: far from being, as you suppose, _still wedded to their vices, and resolved to continue in them_.

¹ Page 30.

¹_In another place, after having observed, that “Sin does_ remain _in one that is justified, though it has not_ dominion _over him,” you go on, “But fear not, though you have an evil heart; yet a little while and you shall be endued with power from on high, whereby ye may purify yourselves, even as he is pure.”――――Sinners, if they believe this, may be quite secure, and imagine they have nothing to fear, though they continue in their iniquities.――――For God’s sake, Sir, speak out.――――If they that have an evil heart have not, who has reason to fear_?――――All who have not _dominion_ over sin: all who _continue in their iniquities_. You, for one, if any sin has dominion over you. If so, I testify against you this day, (and you will not be _quite secure, if you believe me_.) _The wrath of God abideth on you!_

¹ Page 31.

¹_What do you mean by “Sin remains in one that is justified?” That he is guilty of any known, wilful, habitual sin?_――――Judge by what has gone before――――I mean the same as our church means, by “Sin remains in the regenerate.”

¹ Page 32.

6. You proceed to another passage, which in the journal stands thus:¹

¹ Page 41.

“After we had wandered many years, in the _new path_ of _salvation by faith and works_, about two years ago it pleased God, to shew us the _old way_ of _salvation by faith only_. And many soon tasted of this _salvation_, being justified freely, having _peace_ with God, _rejoicing_ in hope of the glory of God, and having his love shed abroad in their hearts.” Thus I define what I mean by _this salvation_, viz. righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

But you object, ¹_Here you deny the necessity of good works, in order to salvation_――――I deny the necessity, nay possibility, of _good works_ as previous to _this_ salvation; as previous to faith or those fruits of faith, righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost. This is my _real sentiment_, not _a slip of my pen_, neither _any proof of my_ want of accuracy.

¹ Page 33.

7. ¹_I shall now, you say, consider the account you give in this journal, of the doctrine of justification._

¹ Remarks, page 30.

I will recite the whole, just as it stands, together with the occasion of it.

“In ¹the afternoon I was informed, how many who cannot, in terms, deny it――――_explain_ justification by faith. They say 1. Justification is _two-fold_; the _first_, in this life, the _second_, at the last day. 2. Both these are by _faith alone_, that is, by _objective faith_, or by the merits of Christ which are the object of our faith. And this, they say, is all that St. _Paul_ and the church mean by, _We are justified by faith only_. But they add, 3. We are not justified by _subjective faith_ alone, that is, by the faith which is in us. But good works also must be added to this faith, as a _joint_ condition both of the _first_ and _second_ justification.

¹ Journal, pages 16, 17.

“In flat opposition to this, I cannot but maintain (at least till I have clearer light) 1. That the justification which is spoken of by St. _Paul_ to the _Romans_, and in our articles, is not two-fold. It is one and no more. It is the present remission of our sins, or our first acceptance with God. 2. It is true, that the merits of Christ are the sole cause of this our justification. But it is not true, that this is all which St. _Paul_ and our church mean, by our being justified by faith only: neither is it true, that either St. _Paul_ or the church mean by faith, the merits of Christ. But 3. By our being justified by faith only, both St. _Paul_ and the church mean, that the condition of our justification, is faith alone, and not good works: inasmuch as all works done before justification, have in them the nature of sin. Lastly, That faith which is the sole condition of justification, is the faith which is wrought in us, by the grace of God. It is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ hath loved _him_ and died for _him_.”

8. To the first of these propositions you object, “That ¹justification is not only two-fold, but manifold. For a man may possibly sin many times, and as many times be justified or forgiven.”

¹ Remarks, pages 37, 38, 39.

I grant it. I grant also, that justification some times means, a _state_ of acceptance with God. But all this, does not in the least affect my assertion, that “_that justification_ which is spoken of by St. _Paul_ to the _Romans_, and by our church in the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles, is not _our acquittal_ at the last day, but the _present remission_ of our sins.”

You add, ¹_You write in other places so variously about this matter, that I despair to find any consistency. Once you held “a degree of justifying faith, short of_ the full assurance _of faith, the_ abiding witness _of the Spirit, or the clear perception that Christ abideth in him.”――――And yet you afterwards “warned all, not to think they were justified before they had a_ clear assurance, _That God had forgiven their sins.”――――What difference there is between_ this clear assurance, _and the former_ full assurance _and_ clear perception, _I know not_.

¹ Page 40.

Let us go on step by step, and you will know. _Once you held a_ “Degree _of justifying faith, short of the_ full assurance _of faith_, the abiding _witness of the Spirit, or the_ clear perception that Christ abideth _in him_.” And so I hold still, and have done for some years. _And yet you afterwards warned all, not to think they were justified, before they had a clear assurance that God had forgiven their sins_――――I did so――――_What difference there is between this_ clear assurance, _and that_ full assurance and clear perception, _I know not_――――Sir, I will tell you. The one is, an _assurance_ that _my_ sins are forgiven, _clear_ at first, but soon clouded with doubt or fear. The other is, such a plerophory, or full assurance, that I am forgiven, and so clear a perception, that Christ abideth in me, as utterly excludes all doubt and fear, and leaves them no place, no not for an hour. So that the difference between them is as great as the difference between the light of the morning and that of the mid-day sun.

9. On the second proposition you remark, 1. That ¹_I ought to have said, the merits of_ Christ, _are (not the_ sole _cause, but) the_ sole meritorious _cause of this our justification_. 2. _That_ St. _Paul and the church, by justifying_ faith _mean, faith in the gospel and merits of_ Christ. The very thing; so I contend, in flat opposition to those, who say they mean, only the object of this faith.

¹ Remarks, page 41.

Upon the third proposition, “By our being justified by faith only, both St. _Paul_ and the church mean, that the condition of our justification, is _faith alone_ and not good works:” You say, ¹_Neither of them mean any such thing. You greatly wrong them, in ascribing so mischievous a sentiment to them._ Let me beg you, Sir, to have patience, and calmly to consider, 1. What I mean by this proposition. Why should you any longer run as uncertainly, and fight as one that beateth the air? 2. What is advanced touching the sentiments of the church, in the tract referred to above. Till you have done this, it would be mere loss of time to dispute with you on this head.

¹ Ibid.

I wave therefore, for the present, the consideration of some of your following pages. Only I cannot quite pass over that (I believe, new) assertion, ¹_That the 13th article, intitled_,

“_Of Works done before justification_”

_does not speak of works done_ before justification, _but of works_ before grace, _which is a very different thing_! I beseech you, Sir, to consider the 11th, 12th, and 13th articles, just as they lie, in one view. And you cannot but see, that it is as absolutely impossible to maintain that proposition, as it is to prove, that the 11th and 12th articles _speak not of justification_, but of some _very different thing_.

¹ Page 45.

10. Against that part of the 4th proposition, “faith is a sure trust which a man hath, that Christ loved _him_ and died for _him_:” you object, ¹_This definition is absurd; as it supposes that such a sure trust can be in one who does not repent of his sins._――――I suppose quite the contrary, as I have declared over and over: nor therefore is there any such _danger_ as you apprehend.

¹ Page 48.

But you say, ¹_There is nothing distinguishing enough in this, to point out the true justifying faith._ I grant it: supposing a man were to write a book, and say this of it, and no more. But did you ever see any treatise of mine, wherein I said this of faith, and no more? Nothing whereby to distinguish _true_ faith from _false_? Touching this journal, your own quotations prove the contrary. Yea, and I every where insist, that we are to distinguish them by _their_ fruits, by inward and outward _righteousness_, by the _peace_ of God filling and ruling the heart, and by patient, active _joy_ in the Holy Ghost.

¹ Ibid.