A Series of Letters, in Defence of Divine Revelation Part 19

JOSEPH WALTON.

Mr. Hosea Ballou, _Pastor of a Church_.

LETTER V.

FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON.

PORTSMOUTH, JAN. 15, 1811.

_Rev. Sir_,--Yours of the 11th inst. is before me, and according to my _promise_ I hasten to pay _an early attention_ to its contents, notwithstanding you express a _hope_ that I should write to you no more on this subject. In your desire, sir, that I should write no more I believe you to be _really sincere_, for I believe you to be a man disposed to give your friends as little trouble as possible; but I have several reasons for answering your last, which, when I have stated, I presume, will fully satisfy you that my answer is required in justice to myself.

1st. I find myself accused of _baseness_, of which, were I guilty, the forfeiture would be that of _confidence_.

2d. I find my preaching misrepresented, and that in direct violation of my own declaration in the present correspondence.

3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders it reasonable that you should have an answer, as I was in hopes of obtaining to the questions which I stated to you.

4th. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonitions, not attempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me from charges.

5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted with a manifest design to limit his grace and salvation.

I might go on and state a number more reasons why I conceive it to be my duty to reply, but the five already given will undoubtedly satisfy your mind; and they furnish subjects sufficiently ample for an epistle. To them I shall conform myself, and endeavour to be as concise as is consistent with the importance of the subject.

1st. Your accusation is in the following words:--

"Here you designedly, I think, mistake." "Those texts of scripture which you have quoted from Rom. 8th chapt. are not to be applied as you apply them, neither doth the apostle apply them so. And methinks you know they are not, if you consider the connexion from the 28th verse of the chapter to the end. And that pa.s.sage of scripture quoted from 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, is only to be applied to real christians; and this, sir, I presume you know; but it would not suit your and your scheme of Universal Salvation to apply them so."

Here I am accused, 1st of _designedly mistaking_ you! And, 2d of a _wilful misapplication_ of the _sacred word_! To these high charges, sir, I beg the privilege of pleading _not guilty_; and, after making my defence, of submitting my cause to impartial judges.

With regard to the _designed mistake_, my defence is that no mistake was made by me either _designed_ or _not designed_.--I have examined and find that I quoted you verbatim. I also find that I fully agreed with you in the sentence quoted as to what was necessarily signified by it. I applied the sentence according to my own mind; but did not pretend nor say that you applied it as I did. Where then is the _designed mistake_? Could an action lie against a man for murder if no _body_ were found, on which murder had been committed?--Could an indictment for theft be supported against a man if no property were missing from the owner? Is it proper to bring an allegation thus, without pointing out some sort of _mistake_? I will not be so uncharitable, sir, as to suppose that you _designed_ to bring _a false accusation_ in this instance. No, sir, you are not capable of such wickedness; I have ever believed you to be an _honest, sincere christian_; and that opinion is so congenial to my feelings that I shall never give it up while I can find a reasonable excuse for retaining it.

My opinion is, that you, finding that I had made such ready use of your sentence apparently to my own advantage, thought I designed to mistake you, and feeling a little disagreeably on the occasion, did not _look minutely_ to see if you had rightly apprehended me, or not.

With regard to the _wilful misapplication of the sacred word_ my defence is to be made from the sacred text itself. In this defence, sir, it is sufficient if I give you reasons which induce me to apply the scripture as I do. It is not necessary that I convince you or any body else that my application is right, for we are all liable to err.

What I shall aim at is to show that if my applications are _not correct_ yet I am not guilty of _wilfully misapplying_ the _sacred text_. 1st. Of the pa.s.sage in the 8th of Rom. the following are my reasons for a general application of that scripture to mankind.

1st. The whole human family, at least, is made the primary subject of the apostle's application as may be seen by looking at the 19th verse and onward. "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of G.o.d. For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who subjected the same in hope; because the creature itself also shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of G.o.d. For we know that the _whole creation groaneth_ and _travaileth_ in _pain together_ until now; and not only they, but ourselves also, which have the first fruits of the spirit, even we ourselves _groan_ within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body."

I understand by the above quotation that St. Paul meant the same by the "_whole creation_" as he did by the "_creature_" who was "made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope." And this creature which he calls the "whole creation" he says shall be delivered from the bondage of corruption into the glorious liberty of the children of G.o.d. This is the apostle's primary application of the love and mercy of G.o.d. In a _minor_ sense he is _particular_ as may be seen in the above quotation, "and not only they," that is the whole creation at large, but ourselves also, which have the _first fruits_ of the _spirit_, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting for the adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body." I know of no way to understand the apostle here to mean otherwise than that the whole human race _groan_ and _travail_ for the same deliverance and redemption that those do who are blessed with the first fruits of the spirit. Nor do I find any expression, in relation to this subject, more significant of the deliverance of those who have the first fruits of the spirit, than of the deliverance of the whole creation, or creature made subject to vanity. By turning back only to the 5th chap, we find the apostle laboring the subject of grace and salvation in just as extensive a manner. See verse 18th, "Therefore as by the offence of one, judgment came upon _all men_ unto _condemnation_, even so, by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon _all men_ unto _justification of life_." Consistently with this positive and particular declaration of the apostle's belief in the _justification_ of _all men_ through the _righteousness_ of _Jesus Christ_, we find his following testimony.

See 1 Tim. ii. 4, &c. "Who will have all men to be saved and come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one G.o.d and one mediator between G.o.d and men, the man Christ Jesus; who gave himself a ransom for _all_ to be testified in due time." Heb. ii. 9. "But we see Jesus who was made a little lower than the angels for the suffering of death, crowned with glory and honor; that he by the grace of G.o.d should taste death for every man." Rom. iv. 25.--"who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification." v. 8.

"But G.o.d commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us."

In the above testimony the apostle says, that Christ gave himself a ransom for _all men_, that he, by the _grace_ of _G.o.d_, tasted death for _every man_, that he was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification, that his death for sinners is a commendation of G.o.d's love to them. Now I am willing to acknowledge to you, sir, and to all the world, that I can make no sense of the above testimony without applying it to all mankind. In the apostle's observations in the close of the 8th of Rom. of nothing being able to separate us from the love of G.o.d, which is in Christ Jesus, there is a perfect a.n.a.logy with the foregoing testimony. The love of G.o.d which is in Christ Jesus, was commended to a sinful world in that Christ tasted death, by the grace of G.o.d, for every man. If one of all those for whom Christ died can be separated from that love by which Christ died for him, I know not why the whole may not be, by the same argument.

2d. Of the pa.s.sage in 1st Cor. 3d, &c. This pa.s.sage, you say, you _presume_ I _know_ ought not to be applied to any _but real christians_! See the text. "Therefore let _no man_, glory in men; for all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or death, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is G.o.d's." Are you willing, sir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the apostle Paul did not mean to dissuade any but _real christians_ from trusting in men? This you must _presume_ in order to _presume_ that I _know_ the text ought to be applied to none but real Christians. Is not the sense of "_no man_" as universal in the negative, as the sense of "_all men_" is in the positive? Why did you not attempt to give some reason for such a _presumption_? I hope dear sir, you will not allow yourself to think, even for one moment, that I am so uncharitable as to suppose you _presumed_ thus, contrary to impressions of your own mind, though you cannot think any worse of me than is implied in the presumption. I tell you, sir, that I seriously believe that the above text ought to be applied to all men; I believe it is wrong for any man to put his trust in man, according to that scripture; and I believe it to be perfectly right to exhort _all men_ to put their trust in G.o.d who has given his son to die for us all, and who will with him freely give us all things richly to enjoy.

I do not doubt your sincerity in the above _presumption_, but I doubt your having paid a suitable attention to the subject before you thus presumed. Hasty judgments and sudden conclusions frequently make work for repentance; but the true christian will, on cool reflection, be willing to acknowledge his faults and to remove unjust accusations.-- "By their fruits ye shall know them." On considering the usage with which I meet in this unsolicited and unexpected correspondence, I cannot but call to mind the very different treatment which the _devil_ received from an heavenly dignitary, who dared not to bring against his opponent a _railing accusation_! As a further evidence that the text in Corinthians ought to be applied to all men, or to men in general, see the words of the same apostle to the Ephesians, chapter iv. 8, 11, &c. "Wherefore he saith, when he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. And he gave some apostles; and some prophets; and some evangelists; and some pastors and teachers."--Now look again to the pa.s.sage in Corinthians, "For all things are yours, whether _Paul_, or Apollos, or Cephas," &c. These were the gifts given unto men. The question now is, were those gifts which were given unto men, given to any but real christians? See Psalm lxviii. 18, to which the apostle alludes in his words quoted from Eph. iv. "Thou hast ascended on high; thou hast led captivity captive; thou hast received gifts for men; yea, for the rebellious also, that the Lord G.o.d might dwell among them."

Are you willing, sir, to _presume_ that I _know_ that the prophet David and St. Paul meant to apply those scriptures to none but _real christians_? I must acknowledge my suprise at such _presumption_.

I will now take my leave of those accusations, just remarking that I feel no fear in submitting my case to any impartial tribunal.

The 2d general particular is that of my preaching being misrepresented, and that in direct violation of my own declarations in the present correspondence. This misrepresentation I find in your letter in the following words: "I think, sir, your giving your hearers encouragement in your preaching that Christ will save them all whether they repent and believe the gospel or no, is of a dangerous nature."

In the first place I call my whole congregation to witness against this misrepresentation. In the second place I call my own testimony in this correspondence which you had before you, to witness against this misrepresentation. The following are my own words verbatim:--"In the first place I wish to observe that I as much believe in those scriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance, as I do in any part of the sacred writings. The many scriptures which you have _judiciously_ quoted to prove the propriety of the doctrine of repentance are justly applied as I conceive, and I accord with you in their use and meaning as far as you have explained them. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the enjoyment of the truth."

These quotations, sir, are all in direct opposition to your representation of the subject of repentance.

Here again I ought to observe, that I am far from accusing you of an _intentional fault_, or a wilful misrepresentation; though in order to suppose you clear from such a fault, I must charitably suppose that the _perturbations_ of your mind were such that you did not give my letter a careful examination. I proved by plain and positive scripture that _repentance_ is as much a gift of Christ as the forgiveness of sins, which is, with the pa.s.sage quoted from my letter, sufficient to convince any man, who is not "improperly biased by tradition," that I do not exclude the necessity of repentance.

3d. I find questions proposed for my discussion, which renders it necessary that you should receive an answer, as I was in hope of obtaining to the questions which I stated to you.

These questions are in the following words: "I would ask you, if, when I am writing a letter or an epistle to Mr. Hosea Ballou, it would be proper for me to apply what I wrote in particular to you concerning your affairs, or circ.u.mstances, to the whole world? Who does our Lord mean when he says, 'If the world hate you it hated me before it hated you,' &c." To the first of these questions I answer, should you state in a letter to me that _no man_ ought to preach the doctrine which I preach, I should suppose that your observation would apply to the whole world of mankind as well as to me; or if I should say in a letter to the Rev. Joseph Walton, _no man_ ought to _presume_ his _friend_ to be guilty of _wilful mistakes_, and _misapplications_ of scripture without the _best possible evidence_ I believe you would see the propriety of applying my observation to all men, even if you should feel yourself particularly admonished by it.

The second question I conceive may be justly answered thus: The _world_ which hated Christ was that religious order among the Jews who accused him of being a friend to publicans and sinners; who thought themselves so much better than their neighbours, as to say, "Stand by thyself; come not nigh me, for I am holier than thou."

_Enmity_ to _Christ_ grows out of a Pharisaical notion of our own righteousness, and it is an invariable mark of a Pharisee to oppose the humiliating doctrine of _equal guilt_ and _equal grace_. No man ever hated Christ who felt the weight of his own sins and the need of a Saviour. No set of men ever fomented persecutions but such as thought themselves the more particular favourites of G.o.d than others.

When I hear certain characters raising such queries, I am almost induced to use the freedom with them which the prophet Nathan used with his terrible majesty the king, and say. "Thou art the man!" But I dare not a.s.sume the place of judgment; and I know my own fallibility so well that I have no need to accuse others.

4thly. I find you quite off from the subjects of your admonition, not attempting to support them, nor yet willing to exonerate me from charges. Quite off, I say, from the subjects of admonition; for you have not attempted to distinguish between the two ideas contained in what you stated as the first subject of admonition, nor have you told me whether it be one, or both which you consider thus reprehensible.--You labour some time on another subject which concerns the mode by which death was introduced, but you have said nothing about whether G.o.d _originally designed death_, or not. Not knowing your real mind from what you expressed on this subject, I queried in my mind how I ought to understand you, and supposing you consistent with yourself, and having sufficient reason to believe that your _creed_ contains the belief that G.o.d foreordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s, I explained the sentence accordingly; but you neither acknowledge me right in this particular, nor object; but you say that you do not think you ever told me so! Here again, sir, I can easily suppose you speak the truth, though I am under the necessity of charitably supposing that your memory fails, for at the first visit which I had the happiness of making you, I heard you recommend the Catechism to be taught in schools which contains this very article of faith. And now, sir, I must either believe that you would recommend that which you do not believe, or I must still suppose that you believe that G.o.d foreordained whatsoever comes to pa.s.s; and of course that he foreordained _death_. And as you _admonish_ me for suggesting that G.o.d originally designed death for the good of mankind you cannot be consistent with yourself, as I can see, without believing that G.o.d originally designed death for a _damage_ to _mankind_. And as you do not deny believing thus, I cannot but marvel that you should wholly neglect to answer my queries on this subject: a subject which evidently involves the moral character of G.o.d. Do you feel, sir, as if you had honourably acquitted yourself in this particular, by only exulting in your forgetfulness concerning having given me to understand your creed? Does this look altogether like renouncing the hidden things of dishonesty? Did you believe your creed in respect to the subject of admonition was hid from me? Why then did you not openly decide either one way or the other? May I not without doing you the least injustice suppose you were straightened by the glaring inconsistency of your _admonition_? If you avowed the suggested _item_ all the abominable absurdity which I posted full in sight must have been charged to your account. If you disavowed the suggested _item_ then away went the _darling Catechism_, in a moment, and with it, more of the preposterous inventions of priestcraft than could be easily replaced to the advantage of the cause of superst.i.tion and ignorance!

I would by no means suggest that you did any thing or neglected to do any thing from a motive which your own conscience disallowed; but I am impelled, even by charity itself, to attribute your conduct in the above case to an improper prejudice against a doctrine of which you know but very little.

Another subject of your admonition is that of my having apostatised from the true faith. On this subject, on which I was particular, you make no defence, nor yet exhonerate me from the charge. You observe you hope for an opportunity to confer with me about this matter. Why were you unwilling to write your defence of this allegation, or be so kind as to withdraw it. I must use the plainness, sir, to say, if you accuse of _designed mistakes_ in _writing_ where no mistakes exist, if I have a verbal conference with you on these matters, I should wish to have it before a ready scribe who could produce the conservation afterwards. You are not to suppose by this precaution I mean to intimate that you would report the conversation contrary to truth, designedly; I mean if when my letters are before your eyes, you misunderstand, you might be as likely to misunderstand conversation.

You admonished me for preaching a doctrine which pleases the world, meaning the populace; and I endeavoured to defend myself in that particular: but you neither attempt to show my reasoning faulty, nor yet, acknowledge me correct. This is _admonis.h.i.+ng_, I should suppose, in the _unaccountable_ manner in which _Popes_ admonis.h.!.+ You say that many followed Christ for the sake of the loaves. Dear sir, I did not say but they all did; and if they did, the question is, does that prove his doctrine not of G.o.d? Here, sir, you will see, if you look one moment, that you were off, far off from the subject.

5th. I find the scriptures of our blessed Lord and Saviour quoted with a manifest design to _limit_ his _grace_ and _salvation_.

You introduce those quotations as follows: "You still will continue to maintain the doctrine of Universal Salvation by those texts which I said you spoke at the grave with such an _emphasis_. If they are to be understood only in a literal sense as they are expressed, I can quote as many, or more spoken by Christ and his apostles, which will contradict them in their literal sense. Christ says, 'He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned. Then shall he say unto them on his left hand depart from me ye cursed into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal.'--'Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way and ye shall seek me and shall die in your sins; whither I go ye cannot come. John viii. 21, 24. I said therefore unto you that ye shall die in your sins, for if ye believe not I am he ye shall die in your sins.'"

These pa.s.sages you say contradict those which I make use of to prove Universal Salvation, if we understand those which I thus use in a literal sense, as they are expressed. I will state one pa.s.sage only as an example, which I have before quoted. Rom. v. 18, "Therefore, as by the offence of one, judgment came upon all men unto condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life." Nothing can be said on the above text which can tend to make its meaning more plain than it is, if its most natural sense be the true sense. This, sir, I presume, you will allow: Now let us look for a contradiction of this text in the pa.s.sages which you quoted. "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he that believeth not shall be d.a.m.ned." I ask how long the unbeliever will be d.a.m.ned? Answer--As long as he is an unbeliever, and no longer, according to the text. Is there any expression in the text, or context that even intimates that any will remain eternally in unbelief? No.

Where is the contradiction then? There is none. The pa.s.sage which you quote from the 25th of Mat. says, "And these shall _go_ away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal." As the word everlasting is very frequently used in the scriptures to signify ages and dispensations, is there any certainty that it has not such a meaning in this place? Answer: No. Where is the contradiction then?

There is none. The very expression "_punishment_" shows plainly that what is inflicted is designed as an emendation of the punished. I have shown in a late publication,[11] that it is in direct violation of the words of Christ, to explain the above text to signify a punishment in another state of existence; and yet, if we were under the necessity of understanding it so, it would fall after all infinitely short of proving that, at some period known to a merciful G.o.d, all men will not be justified unto life.--Therefore no contradiction can be found. The pa.s.sage which speaks of those who should die in their sins will fall equally short of contradicting the testimony of Universal Justification. I will ask in the first place, whether a man's being _dead_ in _sin_ render it impossible for him to be quickened unto life by the spirit of G.o.d? See a pa.s.sage which you quote, "You hath he quickened who were _dead_ in _trespa.s.ses_ and _sins_." If those who are _dead_ in _trespa.s.ses_ and _sins_ can be _quickened_ according to this pa.s.sage, what is the reason that those Jews to whom Christ spake can never be _quickened_? You must see, sir, that the pa.s.sage which you quote refutes your notion about this contradiction. You will say that Christ told the Jews "whither I go ye cannot come," but you cannot but remember that he said the same thing to his own disciples.

"As I said unto the Jews so I say unto you, whither I go ye cannot come;" and afterwards explains himself to mean that they could not come immediately.--Let us now turn this subject round and ask how the text quoted from Romans can be true if your notion of endless misery be granted to be the true meaning of the pa.s.sages you quote? Will you undertake to say that men who are justified unto life by the righteousness of Christ will remain endlessly in a state of death and condemnation? If you do not feel competent to the task of maintaining such palpable contradiction, why would it not be doing yourself a kindness just to examine that _soul chilling_ and _heaven dishonouring doctrine_ of _endless, unmerciful punishment_! One moment's examination of such an idea when brought in sight of the fountain which is opened for the house of David and the inhabitants of Jerusalem to wash in from sin and uncleanness would abolish it forever. I acknowledge, sir, that my five particulars do not comprehend every particular of your letter; nor have I attended to all which they do comprehend so extensively as I would if I could suppose it necessary; but as you were in hopes of receiving nothing, it is not to be expected that you will find fault because there is no more.

[Footnote 11: "Candid Review," or Answer to Robinson.]

I cannot be willing to close this epistle without giving you credit of following the apostle's direction in your observation concerning my argument in respect to St. Peter. You say "I conceive you think you have got a _mighty_ argument," &c. The apostle exhorts us to be _children_ in _malice_, and I am sure St. Paul, nor any body else ever heard a more _childish expression_ which communicated the least possible disaffection.

What you quote from St. Peter with a design to prove endless misery, without attempting to show that such was his meaning, I forbear commenting upon. If you had shown that Peter could consistently believe that no man was common or unclean considered in the sheet which he saw in vision, and at the same time believe that the greatest part of mankind would remain in sin and uncleanness eternally you would have done more than you have. I hope, sir, if you are determined to take your leave of this correspondence without supporting the subjects of your admonition, and without supporting the heavy charges you have stated against me, and, likewise, without acknowledging the impropriety of your admonition, and the incorrectness of your charges, that you will never attack another of your fellow creatures in the same way. I do not express this because I feel the least unfriendliness to you in consequence of the method you have pursued, but because I think it is contrary to the spirit of Christianity; it is not doing as we wish to be done by. I do not believe that your soul feels satisfied with it; but you have some remains of pride yet which keeps you from giving up ground which you are sensible you cannot maintain. I hope, sir, you will entertain no apprehensions respecting my cordial friends.h.i.+p to you, or my readiness to join you in any possible usefulness to our fellow creatures. And, as you affectionately committed me to G.o.d and to the word of his grace, please to accept the sincere desires for your present and everlasting welfare, of sir, your humble servant, for Christ's sake.

HOSEA BALLOU.

LETTER VI.

FROM THE SAME TO THE SAME.

PORTSMOUTH, FEB. 1, 1811.