Wesley Corpus

Secondly. “‘They do use the ordinances of God with rever ence and godly fear.’ You have charged Mr. Spangenberg and Mr. Molther with teaching, that we ought to abstain from them.” That we? No. That unbelievers ought. The assertion relates to them only. “And the same you say in general of the Moravian brethren, in your Letter.” I say, they hold that un believers ought to abstain from them. But yet I know and bear witness, they use them themselves, and that “with reverence and godly fear.” “‘Mr. Molther was quickly after recalled to Germany.’ This might be on other accounts. You do not say it was out of any dislike of his doctrines or proceedings.” I do not say so; because I am not sure; but I believe it was out of a dislike to some of his proceedings, if not of his doctrines too. “Nor indeed can you, consistently with your next words: ‘The great fault of the Moravian Church seems to lie, in not openly disclaiming all he had said.’” relating to this head. They did privately disclaim what he had said of degrees in faith. But I think that was not enough. And I still believe they would have done more, “had they not leaned themselves to the same opinion,” touching the ordinances. 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. Aud 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.