Chapter IV: Part 4

7. You complain also, of my mentioning, all at once, sentences which you placed at a distance from each other. I do so; and I think it quite _fair_ and _ingenuous_, to lay together what was before scattered abroad. For instance: you now speak of the conditions of justification, in the 18th and following pages: again, from the 89th to the 102d: and yet again, in the 127th page. Now I have not leisure to follow you to and fro. Therefore what I say on one head, I set in one place.

* * * * *

I. 1. This premised, I come to the letter itself. I begin, as before, with the case of the _Moravians_: of whom you say, ¹_I collected together the character which you had given of these men; the errors and vices which you had charged upon them, and the mischiefs――――they had done among your followers. And I proved, that, in several respects, you had been the occasion of this mischief; and are therefore, in some measure, accountable for it. Let us see what answer you give to all this._ 2d letter, page 79.

¹ Mr. _Church_’s words are printed in _italick_.

“_With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, that the_ Moravian _church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the_ Moravians? _Do you not say, that “you could not agree with Mr._ Spangenberg, _that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?” Do not you represent Mr._ Molther, _and other_ Moravians _in_ England, _as teaching the same? In short, I have not charged the_ Moravian _church with any thing; but only repeat after you. And if you have accused them, when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame._

_“They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear.”――――You have charged Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther _with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. And the same you say in general of the_ Moravian _brethren, in your letter to them.――――“But Mr._ Molther _was quickly after recalled into_ Germany.” _This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings. Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “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._”

_You “never knew but one of the_ Moravian _church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.” But who was this? No less a person than Count_ Zinzendorf, _their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay_ too much _regard._”

2. This is the whole of your reply to this part of my answer. I will now consider it, part by part.

First, _With regard to the denying degrees in faith, you mentioned, “that the_ Moravian _church was cleared from this mistake.” But did you not mention this as one of the tenets of the_ Moravians?――――No; not of the _Moravians_ in general?――――_Do you not say, that you “could not agree with Mr._ Spangenberg, _that none has any faith, so long as he is liable to any doubt or fear?_”――――I do say so still. But _Spangenberg_ is not the _Moravian church_.――――_Do you not represent Mr._ Molther, _and other_ Moravians _in_ England, _as teaching the same?_――――I do? three or four in all. But neither are these, the _Moravian church_. ――――_In short, I have not charged the_ Moravian church _with any thing; but only repeat after you._――――Indeed you have, in the very case before us. You charge them, _with denying degrees in faith_. I do not charge them herewith. I openly cleared them from any such charge near six years ago.――――_If therefore you have accused them when you knew them to be guiltless, you must bear the blame._――――In this case, I must intreat _you_ to bear it in my stead. For I have not _accused them_ (the _Moravian church_.) It is _you_ that have accused them. I have again and again declared, they are _not guilty_.

Secondly, “_They do use the ordinances of God with reverence and godly fear_.”――――_You have charged Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther _with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them. _――――That _we_? No. That _unbelievers_ ought. The assertion relates to them only.――――_And the same you say in general of the_ Moravian _brethren, in your letter._ ――――I say, they hold, that “_unbelievers_ ought to abstain from them.” But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that with reverence and godly fear?”――――“_Mr._ Molther _was quickly after recalled to_ Germany.”――――_This might be on other accounts. You do not say, it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings._――――I do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to _some_ of his proceedings, if not, of his doctrines too. ――――_Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: “The great fault of the_ Moravian church _seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said”_ (relating to this head.)――――They did _privately disclaim_ what he had said, of degrees in faith. But I think, that was not enough. And I still believe, they would have done more, “had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances.

Thirdly, _You “never knew but one of the_ Moravian church _affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness.”――――But who was this? No less a person than Count_ Zinzendorf, _their great bishop and patron, whose authority is very high, all in all with them, and to whom you think they pay_ “too much _regard_.”――――Do you apprehend, where the stress of the argument lies? I never heard one _Moravian_ affirm this, but the Count alone; and him only once; and that once was in the heat of dispute. And hence I inferred, it is not a doctrine of the _Moravian_ church: nay, I doubt, whether it be the Count’s own settled judgment.

3. But I may not dismiss this passage yet. It is now my turn to complain of unfair usage; of the exceeding lame, broken, imperfect manner, wherein you cite my words. For instance; your citation runs thus: You “_never knew but one of the_ Moravian _church affirm, that a believer does not grow in holiness_.”――――Whereas my words are these, “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.”――――Now why was the former part of the sentence changed, and the latter quite left out?――――Had the whole stood in your tract, just as it does in mine, it must have appeared, I do not here charge the _Moravian church_.

I complain also, of your manner of replying to the first article of this very paragraph. For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer, to which you profess to reply. My words are, “You ought not to charge the _Moravian_ church with the first of these (errors) since in the very page from which you quote those words, _There is no justifying faith, where there ever is any doubt_, that note occurs, (viz. 4 _journal_, page 105.) ‘In the preface to the second journal, the _Moravian_ church is cleared from this mistake.’”――――If you had cited these words, could you possibly have subjoined, _I have not charged the_ Moravian _church with any thing; but only repeat after you_!

♦4. I have now considered one page of your reply, in the manner you seem to require. But sure you cannot expect I should follow you thus, step by step, through an hundred and forty pages! If you should then think it worth while, to make a second reply, and to follow me in the same manner, we might write indeed; but who would read?――――I return therefore to what I proposed at first, _viz._ To touch only on what seems of the most importance, and leave the rest just as it lies.

♦ The duplicated number 4. here is probably shown in error.

4. You say, (_page 80._) _With regard to subtlety, evasion, and disguise, you_ now _would have it thought, that you only found this “in many of them; not in all, nor in most.”――――You_ now _would have it thought!_ Yes, and _always_, as well as _now_. For my original charge was, (_4 journal_, page 104.) “I have found this, in many of you, _i. e._ much subtlety, much evasion, and disguise.”――――But you add, _let the reader judge from the following passages, whether you did not charge the_ Moravians _in general with these crimes. “I had a long conference with those, whom I esteem very highly in love: but I could not yet understand them in one point, Christian openness and plainness of speech. They pleaded for such a reservedness and closeness of conversation. Yet I scarce know what to think considering they had the practice of the whole_ Moravian _church on their side_.――――True; in pleading for such a _reservedness_ of conversation, as I could not in any ♦wise approve of; but not in using much _subtlety_, _much evasion_ and _disguise_; this I dare not charge on the whole _Moravian church_.” Those words also, “There is darkness and closeness in all their behaviour, and guile in almost all their words,” I spoke not of all the _Moravians_, nor of most: but of those who were then in _England_.” I could not speak it of them all; for I never found any guile in _Christian David_, _Michael Linner_, and many others.

♦ “ways” replaced with “wise” per Errata

5. _We are next to see, how you get over the objection I made good in three several particulars, that you have prepared the way for spreading of these tenets. The first you say nothing to here;――――the second you quote very partially thus――――“by countenancing and commending them.” And why would you not add, “And being the occasion of so many of them coming over among us.”_――――Because I was not the occasion. I was indeed the first _Englishman_ that ever was at _Hernhuth_. But before I was at _Hernhuth_, (I find on later enquiry) the Count himself had been in _England_.

_You “still think_, (page 81) _That next to some thousands in our own church, the body of the_ Moravian _church, however mistaken some of them are, are, in the main, the best Christians in the world.”_ I do; “of all whom I have seen;” (you should not omit these words.)――――_Those dreadful errors and crimes are here softened into mistakes._ (I term them “Errors of judgment and practice.”) _I have proved, that you have charged the body with such._――――At present, the proof does not amount to demonstration. There needs a little farther proof, that I charge any _dreadful crimes on the body of the_ Moravians.

I see no manner of inconsistency still, in those accounts of my intercourse with the _Moravians_, which you suppose irreconcileable with each other. Let any one read them in the journal, and judge.

6. _You had said, “Your objections then were nearly the same as now.” You now add, “only with this difference: I was not then assured, that the facts were as I supposed; I did not dare to determine any thing.”――――No! Not when by conversing among them you saw these things! As indeed the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them, if they were true. Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth: but are so many appeals to their consciences, and equivalent to strong assertions. And if you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing concerning what you saw, your writing bare suspicions to a body of men in such a manner was inexcusable. This excuse therefore will not serve you_, (83.)

I apprehend it will. “I was not then (in _September 1738_) assured that the facts were as I supposed. [Therefore] I did not [then] dare to determine any thing.” Be pleased to add the immediately following words: “But from _November 1._ [1739] I saw more and more things, which I could not reconcile with the gospel.”

If you had not omitted these words, you could have had no colour to remark, on my saying, “I did not dare to determine any thing.”――――_No! Not when by conversing among them you_ saw _these things._――――No, I did not _dare to determine, in September 1738_, from what I saw in _November 1739.――――But the facts are of such a nature, that you could not but be assured of them if they were true._――――I cannot think so. “Is not the Count all in all among you? Do not you magnify your own church too much? Do you not use guile and dissimulation in many cases?” These facts are by no means of such a nature, as that whoever converses (even intimately) among the _Moravians_, cannot but be assured of them.――――_Nor do the questions in your letter really imply any doubt of their truth._――――No! Are not my very words prefixed to those questions, “Of some other things I stand in doubt”.――――And I wish that, _in order to remove those doubts_, you would――――plainly answer, whether the fact be as I suppose.――――_But_ [these questions] _are so many appeals to their consciences._――――True.――――_And equivalent to strong assertions._ ――――Utterly false.――――_If you had not been assured, if you did not dare to determine any thing, concerning what you saw_ [fifteen months after] _your writing bare suspicions to a body of men, in such a manner, was inexcusable._――――They were _strong presumptions_ then; which yet I did not _write to a body of men_, whom I so highly esteemed; no, not even in the _tenderest_ manner, till I was _assured_, they were not groundless.

7. _In a note at the bottom of_ page 8, _you observe, “the Band- society in_ London _began_ May 1, _some time before I set out for_ Germany.” _Would you insinuate here, that you did not set it up, in imitation of the_ Moravians?――――Sir, I will tell you the naked truth. You had remarked (page 17.) thus――――“You took the trouble of a journey to _Germany_ to them; and were so much in love with their methods, that, at _your return_ hither, you set up their bands among your disciples.” This was an entire mistake: for that society was set up, not only before I returned, but before I set out. And I designed that note to insinuate this to you, without telling your mistake to all the world.

_I imagined, that supposing your account of the_ Moravians _true, it would be impossible for any serious Christian to doubt of their being very wicked people_.――――I know many serious Christians who suppose it true, and yet believe they are, in the main, good men.――――_A much worse character, take the whole body together, cannot be given of a body of men._――――Let us try. “Here is a body of men who have not one spark either of justice, mercy, or truth, among them; who are lost to all sense of right and wrong; who have neither sobriety, temperance, nor charity: who are, in general, liars, drunkards, gluttons, thieves, adulterers, murderers.” I cannot but think, that this is a much worse character than that of the _Moravians_, take it how you will.――――_Let the reader judge how far you are now able to defend them_――――Just as far as I did at first. Still I dare not condemn what is good among them; and I will not excuse what is evil.

8. “_The_ Moravians _excel in sweetness of behaviour_.” _What though they use guile and dissimulation?_――――Yes.――――“_Where is their multitude of errors?_” _In your own journal.――――I have taken the pains to place them in one view in my remarks; the justness of which with all your art you cannot disprove._――――You have taken the pains to transcribe many words; all which together amount to this, that they (generally) hold _universal salvation_, and are partly _Antinomians_ (in opinion) partly _Quietists_. The justness of some of your remarks, if I mistake not, ♦has been pretty fully disproved. As to what you speak of my art, subtlety, and so on, in this and many other places, I look upon it as neither better nor worse than a civil way of calling names.

♦ “have” replaced with “has” per Errata

“_To this multitude of crimes ¹I am also an utter stranger.” Then you have charged them wrongfully.――――What do you account guile_, &c.――――I account guile, despising self-denial, even in the smallest points, and teaching that those who have not the assurance of faith, may not use the ordinances of God, the Lord’s supper in particular, (this is the real, unaggravated charge) to be faults which cannot be excused. But I do not account them all together _a multitude of crimes_. I conceive this is a vehement hyperbole.

¹ Second letter, page 84.

_The honour of religion_, said you, _and virtue trampled upon_? I answered, “_By whom? Not by the_ Moravians.”――――You reply, _And yet you have accused some of these as decrying all the means of grace_.――――No. What I accused them of was, teaching that an unbeliever (in their sense) ought to abstain from them――――“_Neither did I know, or think, or say, they were desperately wicked people._”――――_Your journal is before the world; to whom I appeal whether this has not so represented them._――――But how do you here represent your remark, and my answer? My paragraph runs thus, page 10.

“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 with them intimately 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――――just the reverse, _viz._ That tho’ 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_.”――――After this, are _you_ the person, who complains of _me_, for imperfect and partial quotations?

I added, “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.” _page 11_.

You reply, _Mr._ Spangenberg _and Mr._ Molther, _are accused by name. If falsely, I am sorry both for them and you._ Accused? True. But of what? Of the contempt of every Christian ordinance, of almost the whole of our duty? By no means. The plain case is, I accuse them of one thing, _viz._ “Teaching that an unbeliever should abstain from the ordinances.” You accuse them of another, “contemning every Christian ordinance, and almost the whole of our duty.” And this you would father upon me. I desire to be excused.

9. As to what I said in my letter to the _Moravian_ church, “You can hinder this if you will.――――Therefore if you do not prevent their speaking thus, you do in effect speak thus yourselves.”――――It may be observed, 1. That this letter is dated, _August 8, 1741_. 2. That from that time the _Moravian_ church did in great measure prevent any of their members speaking thus.

You proceed. _You distinguish between the_ English _♦brethren and the_ Moravians. _These_ English _♠brethren, I presume, were your followers. Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the_ Moravians. _Before they had spoke these wicked things, you say, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction. If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them? Not sure from yourself, or any other Methodists. You cannot therefore bring off the_ Moravians, _without condemning your own people. Here therefore you have certainly overshot yourself_, page 85.――――Perhaps not.――――_These_ English _brethren were, I presume, your followers_.――――No; this is your first mistake. I was but a single, private member of that society. ――――_Afterwards you represent them as perverted by the_ Moravians. ――――I do; but not yet connected with them.――――_Before they spoke these wicked things, they had joined these men, and acted under their direction._――――This is another mistake. They did not join these men, nor act by their direction, till long after.――――_If they did not learn them from these new teachers, from whom did they learn them?――――You cannot bring off the_ Moravians, _without condemning your own people_. ――――They learned them from Mr. _Molther_ chiefly; whom I am not at all concerned to bring off.――――Now let all men judge, which of us two has overshot himself!

♦ “brethern” replaced with “brethren”

♠ “brethen” replaced with “brethren”

10. _In answer to my objections against the inconsistent accounts you have given of the_ Moravians――――_you say, “They are, I believe, the most self-inconsistent people under the sun.” Would not one imagine, that you here speak of the same persons, or of the whole body of them in general?_――――I do, thus far: I ascribe the good to the body, of them in general; the evil to part only of that body, to _some_ of those _same persons_.

_Your method of getting over the contradictions I had charged upon you, is much the same_, (page 86.) _To distinguish either between the_ Moravians _and the_ English _brethren (tho’ these had been their disciples_.――――This has been abundantly answered)――――_or between some of the_ Moravians _and others_.――――I think a very good method; for propositions are not contradictory, unless they both speak of the same persons.

However, since you persist to affirm, that I am _guilty of the contradictions you charged upon me_, (page 87.) I think there cannot be a sufficient reply, without reciting the several instances.

11. First, _You commend them (the_ Moravians) _for loving one another; and yet charge them with biting and devouring one another_.――――I answered, “Them! Whom? Not the _Moravians_, but the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_, before their union with the _Moravians_. Herein then is no shadow of contradiction. For the two sentences do not relate to the same persons.”

You reply, _Would you then have us to think, that so much anger and contradiction reigned among your_ Methodists――――I would have you think, this is nothing to the purpose. Prove the contradiction, and you speak to the point.――――_It is plain they had before this been perverted by the_ Moravians, _and that――――they were unwilling to be taught by any others.――――They_――――that is, nearly half of the society. But here is no proof of the contradiction still.

2. _You say, “They had well nigh destroyed brotherly-love from among us, partly by cautions against natural love”_ [Partly by occasioning almost continual disputes]――――So they had. But we had then no connexion with them. Neither therefore does this contradict their loving one another. ――――You reply, _As if they can truly love each other, who teach you not to do it, and stir up divisions and disturbances among you._――――You should say, if you would repeat after me, “Who caution you against natural love, and occasion many disputes among you.” Well; allowing they do this, (which is utterly wrong) yet where is the contradiction? Yet they may love one another.

3. _You “praise them for using no diversions, but such as become saints: and yet say_ (I recite the whole sentence) _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.” To this you make no reply. Silence then consents, that there is no contradiction here.

4. _You “praise them for not regarding outward adorning.”_――――So I do, the bulk of the congregation.――――_And yet you say_ (I again recite the whole sentence) “_I have heard some of you affirm, that Christian salvation implies liberty to conform to the world, by putting on gold and costly apparel_.”――――I have so. And I blame them the more, because they are condemned by the general practice of their own church.――――To this also you reply not. So I must count this the fourth contradiction which you have charged upon me, but have not proved.

5. “_You call their discipline_, in most respects, _truly excellent. I could wish you had more fully explained yourself_.――――I have in the 2d 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; ’tis 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 deference to the Count. And yet, in most respects, their discipline is truly excellent.”

You reply, _Such excellent discipline, for all that I know, they may have_, [i. e. as the Jesuits;] _but I cannot agree――――that this is scarce inferior to that of the apostolical age_.――――It may be, for any thing you advance to the contrary.――――_Here I cited some words of yours, condemning their subordination_, (page 88.) _which you prudently take no notice of_.――――Yes; I had just before taken notice of their too great deference to the Count. But, the contradiction! Where is the contradiction?

6. “_You mention it as a good effect of their discipline, that every 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._”――――I answered, “Pardon me, Sir, I have no design either to confute or contradict myself in these words. The former sentence is spoken of the _Moravian_ brethren. The latter of the _English_ brethren of _Fetter-lane_ (not then united with the _Moravians_, neither acting by their direction.)” To this likewise you do not reply. Here is then a sixth contradiction, alledged against me, but not proved.

12. However you add, _Had you――――shewn me mistaken in any point you have attempted to reply to, still――――you confess errors and wickedness enough among the_ Moravians, _to render your account of them very inconsistent. But you have not succeeded in any one answer. You have not shewn, that I have in any one instance misquoted you, or misunderstood the character you had given of them, or argued falsely from what you had said of them. And truly, Sir, all you have done, has been cavilling at a few particulars. But the argument I was urging all this while you quite forgot._

Sir, if it be so, you do me too much honour, in setting pen to paper again. But is it so? _Have I all this while quite forgot the argument you was urging?_ I hope not. I seem to remember, you _was urging_ some argument (_Remarks_, page 21.) to prove, that I _fall not only into inconsistencies, but direct contradictions_; and that I _shewed you mistaken_ not only in _one_, but in _every_ point which you advanced as such: that I did not confess any such _errors_ or _wickedness_ of the _Moravians_, as rendered my account of them _self-inconsistent_: that I _succeeded_ in more than _one answer_, to the objections you had urged against it; and that I _shewed_, you had _misquoted or misunderstood the character I had given of them_, or _argued falsely from it_, not properly _in one instance_, but from the beginning to the end.

Yet this I think it ♦incumbent upon me to say, that whereinsoever I have contributed, directly or indirectly, to the spreading of any thing evil, which is, or has been, among the _Moravians_, I am sorry for it, and hereby ask pardon, both of God and all the world.

♦ “uncumbent” replaced with “incumbent”

* * * * *

II. 1. I think it appears, by what you yourself observed, that on the second head, justification by faith, I allow, in the beginning of the _Farther Appeal_, almost as much as you contend for.

I desire leave to cite part of that passage again, that we may come as near each other as possible. I would just subjoin a few words on each head, which I hope may remove more difficulties out of the way.

“That justification whereof our articles and homilies speak, means present pardon, and acceptance with God: who therein _declares his righteousness_ or mercy, _by_ or _for the remission of sins that are past_.”

I say, _past_. For I cannot find any thing in the bible, of the remission of sins, past, present, and to come.

* “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.”

* You take the word _condition_ in the former sense only, as that without which we cannot be justified. In this sense of the word, I think we may allow, that there are several conditions of justification.

* “Good works follow this faith, but cannot go before it. Much less can sanctification; which implies a continued course of good works, springing from holiness of heart.”

* Yet such a course is without doubt absolutely necessary to our continuance in a _state_ of _justification_.

“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.” Although the same works are then good, when they are performed by _those who have believed_.

“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.”

I say, a _penitent_ sinner; because justifying faith cannot exist without previous _repentance_.

――――“Yet although both repentance, and the fruits thereof, are in _some sense_ necessary before justification, neither the one nor the other is necessary in the _same sense_, or in the _same degree_ with faith. Not in the _same degree_. For in whatever moment a man believes, (in the Christian sense of the word) he is justified.――――But it is not so, at whatever moment he repents, or brings forth any, or all the fruits of repentance.――――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 faith (so the error of the press is to be corrected.) And the fruits of repentance still _more remotely_, as they are necessary to the increase, or continuance of repentance. And even in this sense, they 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.”

2. Thus far I believe we are nearly agreed. But on those words, “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:” you remark, _Here, I apprehend, are two great mistakes, 1. You make too little necessary before pardon. 2. Too much afterward. You confine repentance within too narrow limits, and extend holiness beyond its just bounds._ (page 92.)

_First, By repentance you mean only conviction of sin. But this is a very partial account of it. Every child that has learned his catechism can tell, that forsaking of sin is also included in it.――――Living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity; and even when there is not, a sincere desire and purpose to do so――――and a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus._

I had said, “In order to God’s giving us faith and pardon, nothing is indispensably required but repentance,” _i. e._ “Conviction of sin producing real desires and sincere resolutions of amendment.” But you _apprehend, that I am here in a great mistake_: that I give a _very partial account of repentance_; that I ought to _include therein a sincere desire_ and _purpose_ to obey God.――――I do: I have said so expressly――――And _living in obedience to God’s will, when there is opportunity_.――――Very well; but I here speak of what is _indispensably required_, _i. e._ whether there is opportunity of actual obedience or no.――――_And a faith in God’s mercies through Christ Jesus._――――A very great mistake indeed! My not including faith in that _repentance_, which I say is _indispensably_ required――――_in order_ to faith!

_Secondly, You make sinless perfection necessary after justification, in order to make us meet for glory._――――And who does not? Indeed men do not agree in the time. Some believe it is attained before death: some, in the article of death: some, in an after-state; in the _mystic_, or the _popish_ purgatory. But all writers, whom I have ever seen till now (the _Romish_ themselves not excepted) agree, that we must be “fully cleansed from all sin,” before we can enter into glory.

3. After what has already been allowed, I cannot think it needful, to dispute farther, on the head of justification.――――Rather suffer me to close this part of our debate, by transcribing what I assent to, from that clear recapitulation of your sentiments, which you have given in your 45th and 46th pages.

“First, Justification is the act of God, pardoning our sins, and receiving us again to his favour. This was free in him, because undeserved by us; undeserved, because we had transgressed his law, and could not, nor even can now, perfectly fulfill it.”

2. “We cannot therefore be justified by our works, because this would be, to be justified by some merit of our own. Much less can we be justified by an external shew of religion, or by any superstitious observances.”

3. “The life and death of our Lord is the sole meritorious cause of this mercy, which must be firmly believed and trusted in by us. Our faith therefore in him, though not more meritorious than any other of our actions, yet has a nearer relation to the promises of pardon through him, and is the mean and instrument whereby we embrace and receive them.”

4. “True faith must be lively and productive of good works, which are its proper fruits, the marks whereby it is known.”

* 5. “Works really good, are such as are commanded by God (springing from faith) done by the aid of his holy Spirit, with good designs, and to good ends. These may be considered as internal or external.”

* 6. “The inward ones, such as hope, trust, fear, and love of God and our neighbour, (which may be more properly termed _good dispositions_ and [are branches of] sanctification) must always be joined with faith, and consequently be _conditions present_ in justification――――though they are not the means or instruments of receiving it.”

* 7. “The outward”――――(which are more properly termed good works) “though there be no immediate opportunity of practising them, and therefore a sincere desire and resolution to perform them, be sufficient for the present; yet must follow after as soon as occasion offers, and will then be necessary conditions of preserving our justification.”

* 8. “There is a justification conveyed to us in our baptism, or properly, this state is then begun. But――――should we fall into sins――――we cannot regain it without true faith and repentance, which implies (as its fruits) a forsaking of our sins, and amendment of (our whole) life.”

* I have only one circumstance farther to add, namely, That I am not _newly_ convinced of these things. For this is the doctrine which I have continually taught for eight or nine years last past: only, I abstained from the word _condition_, perhaps more scrupulously than was needful.

4. With regard to the _consequences_ of my teaching this doctrine, I desire any who will not account it lost labour, to consult with his own eyes, seriously and in the fear of God, the 3d and 4th _journals_. And if he pleases, he may farther read over and compare, from the 25th to the 29th page of my answer, with your reply, from the 101st (inclusive) to the 104th page.

Among the consequences you reckoned (in your _Remarks_) besides _introducing predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair, many very shocking instances of all which_ (your words are) _you give us among your followers_――――pages 52, 55――――I answered, “You should have specified a few of those instances; at least the pages where they occur.” (Suppose, only three of each sort, out of any, or all the four _journals_) “Till this is done, I can look upon this assertion as no other than a flourish of your pen.”

Upon this you exclaim, (_page 111._) _I must beg the reader to observe your method of citing my words. Many instances of omissions he has had already. But here is such a one, as I believe few controversies can parallel.――――Would not any one imagine from the view of these words [Predestination, confusion, presumption, and despair] that they occurred all together in page 52, of my_ remarks, _and that I observed nothing farther concerning this point? Could it be thought, that any thing intervened between the page referred to, and the last sentence? And yet so it is, that near three pages intervene!_――――Ha! do _near three pages intervene_! Prodigious indeed!――――_And this is called an answer!_――――So it is, for want of a better.

_Your business was to shew, that the_ calvinistical _notions have not prevailed among the Methodists, or that they were no consequences of unconditioned justification_.――――No, Sir, It was not my business to shew this. It was not my business to prove the negative; but yours, to prove the affirmative. Mr. _Whitefield_ is himself a _Calvinist_. Such therefore doubtless are many of his followers. But Calvinism has not prevailed at all, among any other of the Methodists (so called,) nor is it to this day any consequence of unconditional justification, in the manner wherein I preach it.

5. You next _take the pains to lay before the reader, an instance or two of confusion_, &c. The first I read thus: page 11.

“_While we were at the room, Mrs. J. sitting at home, took the bible to read. But on a sudden, threw it away, saying I am good enough. I will never read or pray more. She was in the same mind when I came; often repeating, I used to think, I was full of sin, and that I sinned in every thing I did. But now I know better. I am a good Christian. I never did any harm in my life. I do not desire to be any better than I am; she spake many things to the same effect, plainly shewing, that the spirit of pride and of lies had the full dominion over her.――――I asked, do you desire to be healed? She said, I am whole. But do you desire to be saved? She replied, I am saved, I ail nothing, I am happy.”――――This is one of the fruits of the present salvation and sinless perfection, taught by you among the weak and ignorant._

I should wonder if the scarecrow of _sinless perfection_ was not brought in some way or other. But to the point. You here repeat a relation as from me, and that _in confirmation_, you say, _of your own veracity_, and yet leave out both the beginning of that relation, part of the middle, and the end of it.

I begin thus (4th Journal, page 66.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the power of the devil.” These words, of all others, should not have been left out, being a key to all that follows. In the middle of the relation, immediately after the words, I am happy, I add, “Yet it was easy to discern, she was in the most violent agony both of body and mind: sweating exceedingly, notwithstanding the severest frost, and not continuing in the same posture a moment.” A plain proof, that this was no instance of _presumption_, nor a _natural_ fruit of any teaching whatever.

It ends thus. “About a quarter before six the next morning, after lying quiet a while, she broke out, ‘Peace be unto thee, (her husband) peace be unto this house, the peace of God is come to my soul, I know that my Redeemer liveth.’ And for several days her mouth was filled with his praise, and her talk was wholly of his wondrous works.”――――Had not these words been left out, neither could this have past for an instance of _despair_.――――Though still I do not know but it might have stood for an _instance of confusion_, &c.

I must not forget, that this was cited at first, as a proof of my _enthusiasm_: as an instance of _a private revelation, which_ (you say) _I seem to pay great credit to――――representing the conjectures of a woman――――whose brain appears to have been too much heated, as if they had been owing to a particular and miraculous spirit of prophesy._ (Remarks page 64.) I answered, “Descant, Sir, as you please on this _enthusiasm_; on the _credit_ paid to this _private revelation_; and my representing the _conjectures_ of this brain-sick woman, as owing to a miraculous power of the _spirit of prophecy_”. And when you have done, I will desire you to read the passage once more; where you will find my express words are (introducing this account.) “Sunday 11. I met with a surprizing instance of the _power of the devil_.” Such was the credit I paid to this revelation! All which I ascribe to the Spirit of God is, the enabling her to strive against the _power of the devil_, and at length restoring peace to her soul. (Answer, page 41.)

I was in hopes, you had done with this instance. But I am disappointed. For in your 2d letter I read thus (page 130.)

_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 every thing the woman had spoke in her agony as coming to pass._――――But I had not represented any thing she 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――――impatient 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._ (page 131)

I am grieved that you constrain me to say any more. In the 66th and 67th page of the last journal, I gave an account of Mrs. _Jones_, which I term, “a surprizing 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, “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 introduced, but another, and a very different one, of what happened 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. _Jones_) was in; and most of the words which she spoke, both on _Sunday_, _Monday_ and _Tuesday_, not to the Spirit of God, but to the _power of the devil_.

6. The next instance, which you relate as an instance of despair, is that of a young woman of _Kingswood_; which you break off with, “_Take me away_,” &c. (page 112.) But why did you not decypher that, _&c._ Why did you not add the rest of the paragraph? Because it would have spoiled your whole argument. It would have shewn what the end of the Lord was, in permitting that severe visitation. The words are, (Journal 3, page 93.) “We interrupted her by calling again upon God, on which she sunk down as before (as one asleep) and another young woman began to roar as loud as she had done. My brother now came in, it being about nine o’clock. We continued in prayer till past eleven: when God in a moment spoke peace into the soul, first, of the first tormented, and then of the other. And they both joined in singing praises to him, who had stilled the enemy and the avenger.”

7. I am sorry to find you still affirm, that with regard to the Lord’s supper also, I _advance many injudicious, false and dangerous things. Such as, 1. That “a man ought to communicate, without a sure trust in God’s mercy through Christ_, (page 117.)” You make these as my words; but I know them not.――――2. “_That there is no previous preparation_ indispensably _necessary, but a desire to receive whatsoever God pleases to give_.”――――But I include abundantly more in that desire, than you seem to apprehend; even a willingness to know and do the will of God.――――3. “_That no fitness is required at the time of communicating_, (I recite the whole sentence) _but a sense of our state, of our utter sinfulness and helplessness! Every one who knows he is fit for hell, being just fit to come to Christ, in this, as well as in all other ways of his appointment._”――――But neither can this sense of our utter sinfulness and helplessness subsist, without earnest desires of universal holiness.――――_There was another passage_ (you say) _which you chose to omit_. (page 118.) Which this was, I do not understand. Nor do I perceive any one of these dreadful positions (as you stile them) to be contrary to the word of God.

8. You will likewise at all hazards stand your ground, as to the charge of _stoical insensibility_. I answered before, (page 36.) How do you support the charge? _Why thus,――――You say, the servants of God suffer nothing._――――And can you possibly misunderstand these words, if you read those that immediately follow? “His body was well nigh torn asunder with pain. But God made all his bed in his sickness. So that he was continually giving thanks to God, and making his boast of his praise.”

You reply, (118) _If you meant no more than that a man under the sharpest pains, may be thankful to God, why did you call this a strange truth_?――――Because I think it is so. I think it exceeding strange, that one in such a degree of pain, should be continually giving thanks to God. Not that I suppose him _insensible of his torments_. “His body, I say, was well nigh torn asunder with pain.” But the love of God so abundantly overbalanced all pain, that it was nothing to him.

_The next instance is as follows. One told you, Sir, I thought last week there could be no such rest as you describe; none in this world wherein we should be so free, as not to desire ease in pain. But God has taught me better. For on Friday and Saturday, when I was in the strongest pain, I never once had one moment’s desire of ease_ (add, “but only that the will of God might be done.”)

Neither has this any resemblance of _stoical insensibility_. I never _supposed_, that this person did not _feel_ pain: (nor indeed that there is any state on earth, wherein we shall not feel it.) But that her soul was filled with the love of God, and thankfully resigned to his will.

_Another instance is taken from one of your hymns where are these lines_: (page 119.)

_“Doom if thou canst, to endless pains,_
_And drive me from thy face:”_ (add,
But if thy stronger love constrains,
Let me be sav’d by grace.)

_This I thought the height of insensibility, extravagance and presumption.――――You see nothing of these in it. And yet you explain yourself thus, “If thou canst deny thyself, if thou canst forget to be gracious, if thou canst cease to be truth and love.” All which in my opinion, is fixing the charge most strongly upon you. For the supposition that Christ_ can _do these things_――――Are you in earnest, Sir? Are you really ignorant, that expressions of this kind, do not suppose he _can_, but quite the reverse? That they are one of the strongest forms of obtestation, of adjuring God to shew mercy, by all his grace, and truth, and love? So far is this also from proving the charge of stoical insensibility.

* * * * *

III. 1. I come now to consider the point of church-communion, of which you have spoke in the beginning of your treatise. In the entrance you say, _We teach no other doctrine than has always been taught in our church.――――Our sentiments concerning justification are reconcileable to our articles, homilies and service.――――This I apprehend several of the Methodists have been convinced of, and have_ therefore _left our communion entirely.――――You give us more instances than one of this in your last journal._――――(page 2.) No, not one. Nor did I ever yet know one man, who _therefore left the communion of the church_, because he was convinced that either her articles, homilies or liturgy opposed his sentiments concerning justification. Poor Mr. _St._ and Mr. _Simpson_ were induced to leave it, by reasons of quite another kind.

You add, _We cannot wonder, that some Methodists, have withdrawn from her,――――while they have been used to hear doctrines, which they must have been sensible, have no place in her articles and service._――――So far from it, that all I know of them are deeply _sensible_, the _doctrines they have been used to hear_ daily, are no other than the genuine doctrines of the church, as exprest both in her articles and service.

2. But our present question turns not on doctrine but discipline. ――――_My first business_ (you say) _is to consider, some very lax notions of church-communion, which I find in your last journal._ Page 26, _you say, “Our 20th article defines a true church, a congregation of faithful people, wherein the true word of God is preached, and the sacraments duly administered_――――(page 3.) The use I would willingly make of this definition, (which, observe, is not mine, be it good or bad) is to stop the boasting of ungodly men, by cutting off their pretence to call themselves, _of the church_. But you think, they may call themselves so still. Then let them. I will not contend about it.

But you cannot infer from hence, that my notions of church communion are either lax or otherwise. The definition which I occasionally cite, shews nothing of my sentiments on that head. And for any thing which occurs in this page, they may be strict or loose, right or wrong.

You add, _It will be requisite_, (page 5.) _in order to approve yourself a minister of our church, that you follow her rules and orders.――――That you constantly conform to the method of worship she has prescribed, and study to promote her peace._ All this is good and fit to be done. But it properly belongs to the following question.