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.”