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.