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 For you do not cite so much as one line of that answer, to which you profess to reply.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_.