W. Sed, nonne sanctè vivit?

Z. Imò, sanctè in omnibus vivit.

W. Nonne, et cor sanctum habet?

Z. Certissimè.

W. Nonne, ex consequenti, sanctus est in se?

Z. Non, non. In Christo tantùm. Non sanctus in se. Nullam omninò habet sanctitatem in se.

W. Nonne habet in corde suo amorem Dei et proximi, quin et totam imaginem Dei?

Z. Habet. Sed hæc sunt sanctitas legalis, non Evangelica. Sanctitas Evangelica est fides.

W. Omninò lis est de verbis. Concedis, credentis cor totum esse sanctum et vitam totam: Eum amare Deum toto corde, eique servire totis viribus. Nihil ultrà peto. Nil aliud volo per Perfectio vel Sanctitas Christiana.

Z. Sed hæc non est sanctitas ejus. Non magis sanctus est, si magis amat, neque minùs sanctus, si minùs amat.

W. Quid? Nonne credens, dum crescit in amcre, crescit pariter in sanctitate?

Z. Nequaquam. Eo momento quo justificatur, sanctificatur penitùs. Exin, neque magis sanctus est, neque minùs sanctus, ad mortem usque. W. Nonne igitur Pater in Christo sanctior est Infante recèns nato? Z. Non. Sanctificatio totalis ac Justificatio in eodem sunt instanti; et neutra recipit magis aut minùs.

W. Nonne verò credens crescit indies amore Dei? Num perfectus est amore simulac justificatur?

Z. Est. Non unquam crescit in amore Dei. Totaliter amat eo momento, sicut totaliter sanctificatur.

W. Quid itaque vult Apostolus Paulus, per, "Renovamur ee die in diem?” Z. Dicam. Plumbum si in aurum mutetur, est aurum primo die, et secundo, et tertio. Et sic renovatur de die in diem. Sed nunquam est magis aurum, quàm primo die.

W. Putavi, crescendum esse in gratiâ!

Z. Certe. Sed non in sanctitate. Simulac justificatur quis, Pater, Filius et Spiritus Sanctus habitant in ipsius corde. Et cor ejus eo momento æquè purum est ac unquam erit. Infans in Christo tàm purus corde est quam Pater in Christo. Nulla est discrepantia.

W. Nonne justificati erant Apostoli ante Christi mortem?

Z. Erant.

W. Nonne verò sanctiores erant post diem Pentecostes, quàm ante Christi mortem?

Z. Neutiquàm.

W. Nonne eo die impleti sunt Spiritu Sancto?

Z. Erant. Sed istud donum Spiritûs, sanctitatem ipsorum non respexit. Fuit donum miraculorum tantùm.

W. Fortasse te non capio. Nonne nos ipsos abnegantes, magìs magisque mundo morimur, ac Deo vivimus?

Z. Abnegationem omnem respuimus, conculcamus. Facimus credentes omne quod volumus et nihil ultra. Mortificationem omnem ridemus.

Nulla purificatio præcedit perfectum amorem.
W. Quæ dixisti, Deo adjuvante, perpendam.*

[TRANSLATION.]

[Z. Why have you changed your religion?

W. I am not aware that I have changed my religion. Why do you think so? Who has told you this?

Z. Plainly, yourself. I see it from your letter to us. In that, having abandoned the religion which you professed among us, you profess a new one.

The letter referred to by the Count was written August 8, preceding. It was as follows, excepting two or three paragraphs, which I have omitted as less material ::

John Wesley, a Presbyter of the Church of God in England, to the
Church of God at Hernhuth in Upper Lusatia.

1. It may seem strange, that such a one as I am should take upon me to write to you. You I believe to be dear children of God, through faith which is in Jesus. Me you believe (as some of you have declared) to be "a child of the devil, a servant of corruption." Yet, whatsoever I am, or

W. How so? I do not understand you.

Z. Yea, you say there that true Christians are not miserable sinners. This is most false. The best of men are most miserable sinners, even unto death. If any say otherwise, they are either wholly impostors, or diabolically led astray. Our brethren, teachers of better things, you have opposed: and have refused peace to them desiring it.

W. I do not yet understand what you mean.

Z. When you wrote to me from Georgia, I loved you very much. I perceived that you were then simple in heart. You wrote again: I saw that you were still simple in heart, but disordered in your ideas. You came among us: your ideas were then still more disordered and confused. You returned to England. Some time after, I heard that our brethren were contending with you. I sent Spangenberg to effect a reconciliation between you. He wrote to me, that the Brethren had injured you. I wrote back, that they should not only not presist, but even ask your pardon. Spangenberg wrote again, that they had asked it: but that you, boasting of these things, were unwilling to be at peace. Now, being come, I hear the same.

W. The matter by no means turns on that point. Your Brethren (it is so far true) did treat me ill. Afterward, they asked my pardon. I answered, that that was superfluous; that I had never been angry with them: but was afraid, 1. That there was error in their doctrine. 2. That there was sin (allowed) in their practice. This was then, and is at this day, the only question between them and me.

Z. Speak more plainly.

W. I feared that there was error in their doctrine,-1. Concerning the end of our faith in this life, to wit, Christian perfection. 2. Concerning the means of grace, so called by our Church.

Z. I acknowledge no inherent perfection in this life. This is the error of errors. I pursue it through the world with fire and sword;-I trample it under foot ;-I exterminate it. Christ is our only perfection. Whoever follows after inherent perfection, denies Christ.

W. But I believe, that the Spirit of Christ works perfection in true Christians. Z. Not at all. All our perfection is in Christ. All Christian perfection is, faith in the blood of Christ. The whole of Christian perfection is imputed, not inherent. We are perfect in Christ;-in ourselves, never.

W. We contend, I think, about words. Is not every true believer holy?

Z. Certainly. But he is holy in Christ, not in himself.

W. But does he not live holily?

Z. Yes, he lives holily in all things.

W. Has he not also a holy heart?
Z. Most certainly.

W. Is he not, consequently, holy in himself?

Z. No, no.

In Christ only. He is not holy in himself. In himself he has no holiness at all. W. Has he not the love of God and his neighbour in his heart? Yea, ever .he whole image of God?

Z. He has. But these constitute legal, not evangelical holiness. Evangelical holiness is,-faith.

W. The dispute is altogether about words. You grant that the whole heart and the whole life of a believer, are holy: that he loves God with all his heart, and serves him with all his strength. I ask nothing more. I mean nothing else by Christian perfection or holiness.

Z. But this is not his holiness. He is not more holy, if he loves more; nor less holy, if he loves less.

whatsoever you are, I beseech you to weigh the following words; if haply God," who sendeth by whom he will send," may give you light thereby although "the mist of darkness," (as one of you affirms) should be reserved for me for ever.

2. My design is, freely and plainly to speak whatsoever I have seen or heard among you, in any part of your Church, which seems not agreeable to the Gospel of Christ. And my hope is, that the God whom you serve will give you throughly to weigh what is spoken; and if in any thing 'ye have been otherwise minded" than the truth is, "will reveal even this unto you."

66

3. And First, with regard to Christian salvation, even the present salvation which is through faith, I have heard some of you affirm, 1. That it does not imply the proper taking away our sins, the cleansing our souls from all sin, but only the tearing the system of sin in pieces. 2. That it does not imply liberty from sinful thoughts.

4. I have heard some of you affirm, on the other hand, 1. That it does imply liberty from the commandments of God, so that one who is saved through faith, is not obliged or bound to obey them, does not do any thing as a commandment, or as a duty. To support which they have affirmed, that there is* no command in the New Testament but to believe; that there is no duty required therein, but that of believing; and that to

W. What? Does not a believer, while he increases in love, increase equally in holiness?

Z. By no means. The moment he is justified, he is sanctified wholly. From that time, even unto death, he is neither more nor less holy.

W. Is not then a father in Christ more holy than a new-born-babe [in Christ]? Z. No. Entire sanctification and justification are in the same instant; and neither is incrcased or diminished.

W. But does not a believer grow daily in the love of God? Is he perfect in love as soon as he is justified?

Z. He is. He never increases in the love of God. He loves entirely in that moment, as he is entirely sanctified.

W. What then does the apostle Paul mean by, "We are renewed day by day?" Z. I will tell you. Lead, if it be changed into gold, is gold the first day, and the second, and the third. And so it is renewed day by day. But it is never more gold than on the first day.

W. I thought we ought to grow in grace!

Z. Certainly. But not in holiness. As soon as any one is justified, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, dwell in his heart: and in that moment his heart is as pure as it ever will be. A babe in Christ is as pure in heart as a father in Christ. There is no difference.

W. Were not the Apostles justified before the death of Christ?

Z. They were.

W. But were they not more holy after the day of Pentecost, than before the death of Christ?

Z. Not in the least.

W. Were they not on that day filled with the Holy Ghost?

Z. They were. But that gift of the Spirit had no reference to their holiness. It was the gift of miracles only.

W. Perhaps I do not understand you. Do we not, while we deny ourselves, more and more die to the world and live to God?

Z. We spurn all [self] denial: we trample it under foot. Being believers, we do whatever we will, and nothing more. We ridicule all mortification. No purification precedes perfect love.

W. What you have said, God assisting me, I will thoroughly consider.-AM. ED.] *In the answer to this letter, which I received some weeks after, this is explained as follows:-"All things which are a commandment to the natural man, are a promise to all that have been justified.-The thing itself is not lost, but the notion which people are wont to have of commandments, duties," &c. I reply, 1. If this be all you mean, why do you not say so explicitly to all men? 2. Whether this be all, let anv reasonable man judge, when he has read what is here subjoined.

a believer there is no commandment at all. 2. That it does imply liberty to conform to the world, by talking on useless, if not trifling subjects; by joining in worldly diversions in order to do good; by putting on of gold and costly apparel,† or by continuing in those professions, the gain of which depends on ministering hereto. 3. That it does imply liberty to avoid persecution, by ‡ not reproving even those who sin in your sight; by not letting your light shine before those men who love darkness rather than light; by not using plainness of speech, and a frank, open carriage to all men. Nay, by a close, dark, reserved conversation, and behaviour, especially toward strangers. And in many of you I have more than once found (what you called, "being wise as serpents") much subtlety, much evasion and disguise, much guile and dissimulation. You appeared to be what you were not, or not to be what you were. You so studied "to become all things to all men," as to take the colour and shape of any that were near you. So that your practice was indeed no proof of your judgment; but only an indication of your design, nulli laedere os; [to hurt a bone of none;] and of your conformity to that (not scriptural) maxim, Sinere mundum vadere ut vult: Nam vult vadere, (To let the world go as it will; for it will go.)

5. Secondly, With regard to that faith through which we are saved, I have heard many of you say, "A man may have justifying faith and not know it." Others of you, who are now in England, (particularly Mr. Molther,) I have heard affirm,§ that there is no such thing as weak faith; that there are no degrees in faith; that there is no justifying faith, where there is ever any doubt; that there is no justifying faith without the plerophory of faith, the clear, abiding witness of the Spirit; that there is no justifying faith, where there is not, in the full, proper sense, a new or clean heart; and that those who have not these two gifts, are only awakened, not justified.

6. Thirdly, As to the way to faith, here are many among us, whom some of your brethren have advised (what it is not to be supposed they would as yet speak to me, or in their public preaching)||t to use those

The brethren answer to this, "We believe it much better to discourse out of the newspapers, than to chatter about holy things to no purpose." Perhaps so. But what is this to the point? I believe both the one and the other to be useless, and therefore an abomination to the Lord. This objection then stands in full force, the fact alleged being rather defended than denied. The joining in worldly diversions in order to do good, (another charge which cannot be denied,) I think would admit of the same defence, viz. "That there are other things as bad."

You forget. I have How! Then you "And because those

"We wear," say the brethren, "neither gold nor silver." seen it with my eyes. "But we judge no body that does." must judge both St. Peter and Paul false witnesses before God. professions that minister thereto [to sin, to what God has flatly forbidden] relate to trade, and trade is a thing relating to the magistrate, we, therefore let all these things alone, entirely suspending our judgment concerning them." What miserable work is here! Because trade relates to the magistrate, am I not to consider whether my trade be innocent or sinful? Then, the keeper of a Venetian brothel is clear. The magistrate shall answer for him to God!

This fact also you grant, and defend thus:-"The power of reproving relates either to outward things, or to the heart. Nobody has any right to the former, but the magistrate." (Alas! alas! what casuistry is his ?) "And if one will speak to the heart, he must be first sure that the Saviour has already got hold of it." What then must become of all other men? O how pleasing is all this to flesh and blood!

In the preface to the second Journal, the Moravian Church is cleared from this mistake.

The substance of the answer to this and the following paragraphs is, 1. That none ought to communicate till he has faith, that is, a sure trust in the mercy of God through Christ. This is granting the charge. 2. That "if the Methodists hold, this sacrament is a means of getting faith, they must act acording to their persuasion." We do nold it, and know it to be so, to many of those who are previously convinced of sin.

ordinances which our Church terms "means of grace," till they have such a faith as implies a clean heart, and excludes all possibility of doubting. They have advised them, till then, not to search the Scriptures, not to pray, not to communicate; and have often affirmed, that to do these things, is seeking salvation by works; and that till these works are laid aside, no man can receive faith; for, "No man," say they, “can do these things without trusting in them: if he does not trust in them, why does he do them?"

7. To those who answered, "It is our duty to use the ordinances of God," they replied, "There are no ordinances of Christ, the use of which is now bound upon Christians as a duty, or which we are commanded to use. As to those you mention in particular, (viz. prayer, communicating, and searching the Scripture,) if a man have faith he need not; if he have not, he must not use them. A believer may use them, though not as enjoined; but an unbeliever (as before defined) may not.”

8. To those who answered, "I hope God will through these means convey his grace to my soul," they replied, "There is no such thing as means of grace; Christ has not ordained any such in his Church. But if there were, they are nothing to you; for you are dead; you have no faith; and you cannot work while you are dead. Therefore, let these things alone till you have faith."

9. And some of our English brethren, who are joined with yours, have said openly, “You will never have faith till you leave running about to church and sacrament, and societies." Another of them has said, (in his public expounding,) "As many go to hell by praying as by thieving." Another, "I knew one, who, leaning over the back of a chair, received a great gift. But he must kneel down to give God thanks: so he lost it immediately. And I know not whether he will ever have it again." And yet another, "You have lost your first joy: therefore you pray: that is the devil. You read the Bible: that is the devil. You communicate: that is the devil."

10. Let not any of you, my brethren, say, "We are not chargeable with what they speak.' Indeed you are: for you can hinder it if you will. Therefore, if you do not, it must be charged upon you. If you do not use the power which is in your hands, and thereby prevent their speaking thus, you do, in effect, speak thus yourselves. You make their words your own; and are, accordingly, chargeable with every ill consequence which may flow therefrom.

11. Fourthly, With regard to your Church,* you greatly, yea, above measure, exalt yourselves and despise others. I have scarce heard one Moravian brother, in my life, own his Church to be wrong in any thing. I have scarce heard any of you (I think not one in England) own himself to be wrong in any thing. Many of you I have heard speak of your Church, as if it were infallible; or, so led by the Spirit, that it was not possible for it to err in any thing. Some of you have set it up (as indeed you ought to do, if it be infallible) as the judge of allthe earth, of all persons (as well as doctrines) therein: and you have accordingly passed sentence

* “A religion,” you say, "and a Church, are not all one: a religion is an assembly whereir. the Holy Scriptures are .aught after a prescribed rule." This is too narrow a definition. For there are many Pagan (as well as Mohammedan) religions. Rather, a religion is, a method of worshipping God, whether in a right or a wrong manner. "The Lord has such a peculiar hand in the several constitutions of religion, that one ought to respect every one of them." I cannot possibly: I cannot respect, either the Jewish (as it is now) or the Romish religion. You add, "A Church (I will not examine whether there are any in this present age, or whether there is no other beside ours) is a congregation of sinners who have obtained forgiveness of sins. That such a congregation should be in an error, cannot easily happen." I find no reason, therefore, to retract any thing which is advanced on this or any of the following heads.