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.