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)