PORSTMOUTH, Nov. 19, 1810.
P. S. The within, enclosed, my friend, I can assure you was not written to you in this manner, as God is my judge, from an envious and bitter spirit, for I love and esteem your person, as a friend, who has, from my first acquaintance with you, treated me with great respect. I see, on the Lord's days, great numbers of precious souls going and returning from your meeting; and, as far as I know my own heart, I do not envy you for that; but have often prayed that the gifts and natural abilities you have might be sanctified and turned into right improvements, which is the glory of God and the saving benefit of your hearers. May it please God to make you an able and faithful minister of the New Testament, not of the letter, but of the spirit, for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life. From your friend and humble servant, JOSEPH WALTON, _Pastor,
Of the Independent Congregational Church in Portsmouth_.
TO MR. HOSEA BALLOU, PASTOR OF THE UNIVERSAL CHURCH AND SOCIETY IN PORTSMOUTH.
_Sir_,--You may observe by the date, the letter has been written some time; but by several avocations I have not had time to correct and copy it until the present date, December 7, 1810.
J.W.
LETTER II.
FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON.
PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 11, 1810.
_Rev. Sir_,--It is with pleasure that I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your "friendly admonition," bearing date December 7th, which came to my hand late last evening, which I assure you is accepted as a token of friendship, and a mark of particular attention; and merits, as I conceive, a grateful acknowledgement as well as an early answer.
Your admonition begins by taking notice of what you conceive an egregious error which you have heard me suggest at two several funerals. You say that I "spake as if death was originally designed, by the Almighty, for the good of mankind." This statement you consider of such a dangerous nature that it renders an admonition necessary.
But, dear sir, there are two important ideas contained in the above short sentence, and you have not distinguished between them, nor informed me whether it be both, or only one which is thus reprehensible.
That _God originally designed death_, is one idea; that he _designed_ it for the _good of mankind_ is another idea. In order to do you justice and to attach no other meaning to your communication than such as I conceive to be consistent with your real sentiments, I must suppose that you would not wish to fault the first of those ideas, as it is an item in your creed, that "God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;" of course, you believe that God _originally designed death_.
But, that God designed death for the _good of mankind_, I do not know it to be an article of your faith, and therefore, may, without doing you any injustice, suppose that you believed that God originally designed death, but _not_ for _the good of mankind_! Here, sir, I acknowledge that my sentiment differs from yours; and as you have given me no reason why God should not have designed death for the _good_ of mankind, I have only to consider the "friendly admonition,"
with which you oppose my idea. I would query why the idea that God should design death for the good of mankind renders me justly admonishable? Would the idea, should I avow it, that God designed death for the _damage_ of mankind, render me commendable? So, it seems; but at this expense I cannot avoid admonition! I would further query what interest God could have consulted which required him to design death for a _damage_ to those creatures whom he made subject to death? And I think it expedient to ask how God can be justified, in the sight of his rational creatures, if the idea be once established that he designed evil against them, even before they existed?
I feel it to be my duty, dear sir, to call on you to support this high allegation against the Father of our spirits. I would not pretend that you designed to bring an allegation against our Creator, but I am satisfied that every unprejudiced mind must see the nature of an allegation in what you are disposed to maintain. For if we say God, our Creator, designed death for the damage of those dependent beings whom he has made, it is giving him a character which, I believe, the wisest of men would find it difficult to justify.
Again, if the notion be true, that God designed death for the damage of mankind, is it not from hence evident that he was an enemy to mankind when he thus designed? Now, if God be considered an enemy to mankind even before he made them, I wish to know what reason can be given why mankind ought to love God since creation?
In relation to a number of scriptures which you have quoted, seemingly with a design to illustrate the foregoing subject, I can only say, that if any or all those passages relate at all to the subject, _that relation_ is out of my sight. And I can truly say, that I am glad that there is nothing, in any part of the scripture, so contrary to good sense and reason as to support the notion that God is an enemy to the works of his own hands. I believe, sir, if I prove from scripture that God designed death for the good of mankind, it must be considered a substantial support of what you wish to oppose; and will also be considered as placing the scripture doctrine on the most reasonable principle.
1st. I will show that death is not a token of God's enmity towards mankind. As a proof of this, see Rom. viii. 38, 39, "For I am persuaded, that neither _death_, nor _life_, nor _angels_, nor _principalities_, nor _powers_, nor _things present_, nor _things to come_, nor _height_, nor _depth_, nor _any other creature_ shall be able to separate us from the _love_ of God which is _in Christ Jesus our Lord_." This passage is a full and positive proof that neither _death_ nor any thing else, is a token of God's enmity to mankind.
2d. I will now show that _death_ was designed by God for the _good_ of men. Which to do, I must learn of Jesus. He is the truth. Was his _death_ designed, by the eternal Father, for the good of mankind, or not? Was his death a token of God's love to the world, or was it a token of his enmity? See Rom. v. 8, "But God _commendeth_ his _love_ towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." This same apostle, believing in Christ, who, he says, was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification, in a short, but comprehensive inventory of the things which are ours, has placed _death_ among them. See 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, "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 God's." Again, he says, to the Phil. i. 21, "For me to live is Christ, and to _die_ is _gain_." Nothing appears more evident than that the death of Christ was designed for the good of mankind; and as he is the head of every man, so his death is considered, in the scriptures, a gracious benefit to every man; as the apostle expresses it, "That he, by the grace of God, should taste _death_ for every man." And again, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive." Who can impartially consider those scriptures and suppose that God designed _death_ for a damage to mankind? I view _death_, sir, as an appointment of God, a friendly messenger, sent to dissolve a tabernacle of corruption and vanity, at the dissolution of which, "the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it."
Your admonition in the next place suggests, that "if" I "will read the whole chapter (meaning the 3d chapter of the 1st of John) and seriously consider it, and pray to God, through Jesus Christ, to open"
my "understanding, that" I "may understand the scriptures," I "would not _misapply_ and _pervert_ them, as" you "fear" I "do."
Rev. Sir, are you sufficiently acquainted with my preaching and writing on the scriptures to warrant the propriety of the suggestion, that I am in the habit of _misapplying_ and _perverting_ the holy writings? Are you sufficiently acquainted with my retired studies and religious exercises to warrant the suggestion that I get along without acknowledging the wisdom of God? I humbly request you to reconsider this part of your admonition, and see if it do not wear the appearance of _judging another_ who must stand or fall to his own master. In the mean time I wish to observe, that a friendly advice to be constant in fervent supplication and prayer would be received by me as a mark of _christian friendship_ and _fellowship_. But I will ask you the question, if you would be willing to have me go into your desk with you in presence of your church and congregation, and there read the whole of the above named chapter, then in humble and solemn prayer to Almighty God, through Christ Jesus, implore a just and true understanding of his word and truth contained in that portion of his written will, and close my performance with a candid dissertation on the chapter? Grant me liberty to do this in your hearing; after which I will not object to your pointing out any _misapplication_ or _perversion_ which you may think you discover. By what law is a man condemned without first hearing his defence?
Again, your admonition suggests, that I did not, at either of the funerals where you heard me perform, speak one word of the necessity or nature of repentance. In this particular I believe you made a mistake at both places, which mistake, I believe I can rectify to your recollection. 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. But, after all, you and I may entertain very different ideas respecting the _preaching_ of repentance. The opinion that repentance is preached when a public speaker tells his congregation that their eternal salvation depends on their repentance, that eternal misery must inevitably be their doom unless they repent is an opinion to which I have no reason to subscribe.
_Preaching repentance_, I conceive _is teaching_ men and giving them such divine instructions as bring their minds to discover more glorious things than the sins and carnal vanities of this world; which _teaching_ produces a returning of the mind to the things of God and his ever blessed kingdom. The word _repent_ may or may not be used in the giving of such instructions. I conceive a preacher of Jesus Christ, warmed with the spirit of eternal love, breathing forth the gracious words of truth, may successfully preach repentance as well without the use of the word _repent_ as with it. At both those places of sorrow, dear sir, I endeavoured to lead the mourners' minds to the consideration _of eternal things_; I endeavoured to represent God our Creator and Governor, as a friend to his creatures, and strove to the utmost of my power to fix the love, regard and confidence of our mourning friends on God our Creator. This you will recollect, and I cannot suppose that you believe that a person can truly believe in the divine goodness, and love his Creator as the greatest good, and put confidence in him, so as to draw consolation, in the day of adversity, from such confidence, and still be a stranger to true penitence.
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. I would wish to be understood that whenever repentance is spoken of as a creature act, originating in creature agency, it is represented directly contrary to the scripture sense as expressed in Acts v. 31, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a _Prince_ and a _Saviour_, for to _give repentance_ to Israel and forgiveness of sins."
From the above passage it is evident that repentance is no more dependent on creature agency than the forgiveness of sins; and the idea that repentance is a grant of divine favour is plainly expressed in Acts xi. 18, "Then hath God also, to the Gentiles, _granted repentance_ unto life." By the above testimonies the idea that _repentance_ is a _creature condition_, on which the divine favour is bestowed, is proved erroneous.
The next particular which your "friendly admonition" occupies, is the subject of _Universal Salvation_ in the following words: "I could not but observe with what _emphasis_ you, at the grave, mentioned those selected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirm your hearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ or the apostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, and in another contradict it? I believe they would not." In the above particular, sir, I agree with you in all which you express. I do not believe that Christ or any of his apostles ever contradicted the glorious doctrine, in which they all preached of Universal Salvation.
And until this contradiction can be shewn in their preaching, you and I have full liberty to believe in God as "the Saviour of all men."
Christ gave himself a ransom for all men; tasted death for every man; is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He says he will draw all men unto him, and he also says that "him that cometh after me I will in no wise cast out." St. Paul says that God will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. To which testimony we might add an immense number of scriptures from the Old and New Testaments; and as you agree that Christ and his apostles would not preach Universal Salvation in one place, and contradict it in another, so you must, of necessity subscribe to the _uniformity_ of the scripture doctrine in the Salvation of all men.
You inform me, that you are an "_old man_;" this I was sensible of before, in consequence of which, I have more particularly endeavoured to cultivate an acquaintance with you, since I have been in this town; for I conceive that the aged are not only entitled to the respects and attention of the younger, but the younger are also entitled to the advantages of their experience and wisdom.
You further tell me, that you have studied the scriptures twenty or thirty years. On this account, sir, I covet earnestly your assistance; for although I have studied the scriptures almost constantly twenty years out of less than forty, yet I find but a few who are notable to assist me in this agreeable employment. The happy method which you recommend, I have for many years endeavoured to observe, for I am sure that most of the vulgar errors, in respect to the scriptures, are for the want of a careful examination of all which is said on the same subjects.
Wherein you recommend the pious example of the prophet David, I fully accord in it, and would humbly hope and strive to be a partaker of the benefits arising from such an example.
What you say of men's explaining scripture in their own Strength and wisdom, and of their making _havoc_ of, and _mangling_ them by explaining them in a mystical or literal sense, I find myself rather embarrassed about. You begin your epistle under the character of a "friendly admonition," but what you mean by accusing me of the folly of mangling and making havoc of the scriptures when you do not attempt to show wherein I ever explained a passage wrong, I must leave for you to explain when it is convenient. Nor is it easy for me to understand you when you represent both the _mystical_ and _literal_ explanation of scripture equally erroneous. You immediately conclude those observations with the following quotation: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him." Did you mean that the natural man, supposing the things of the spirit of God to be foolishness, would say that the spirit _mangled_ and made _havoc_ of the scriptures? This could not be your meaning.
Your concluding query is the following; "My friend, is there the least room for us to believe from this scripture (meaning 2 Cor. v. 10, 11) and many others, that the wicked who have lived impenitent and in a disbelief of the gospel, or without the true knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ whom God hath sent, have eternal life in the fruition and enjoyment of God?" This query I will endeavour to answer as plainly as possible.
1st. Unless we grant that a man has eternal life in Jesus Christ, given him before the foundation of the world, we cannot justly call him an _unbeliever_ because he does not believe he has this eternal life in Christ. Nor can we say, with the least propriety, that he does not _know_ the _truth_, because he does not know that which is not.
2d. If we allow that a man has eternal life in Christ, we must allow him to be an unbeliever if he do not believe it; and that he does not know the truth as it is in Jesus, if he be ignorant of this gift of eternal life.
3d. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the _enjoyment_ of the truth.
I conceive, sir, these observations must appear reasonable to any reasonable man; and therefore I suppose they will appear reasonable to you.
The passage in Corinthians alluded to, fully refutes the notion of _endless_ rewards and punishments; for there it is stated, that "_every one_ may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Now as this same apostle tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, if he mean that all who have sinned must be endlessly punished, he cannot mean that any of the human race will be eternally blessed according to their own works, nor yet according to the grace of God.
And you, sir, cannot but see if one sinner can be rewarded according to his works and yet be saved by grace through faith, and that not of himself, but by the gift of God, all the sinners of Adam's race may be thus rewarded according to what they have done either _good_ or _bad_, and yet be saved by grace as above.
Your suggestions respecting the resurrection require no other answer than that I profess to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection as taught by the scriptures, though I cannot flatter myself that that opinion agrees with the opinion of what you call _sound authors_. For myself, I call the writers of the holy scriptures _sound authors_, and those who differ from them I am willing to call orthodox according to our common schools of divinity. I join with you in a humble desire that the holy breathings of the true children of God may be yours and mine; and I am sensible if they be we shall not judge one another, nor condemn one another; but strive for the unity of the spirit in the bonds of divine peace. Yes, sir, I am confident that the true temper and spirit of the gospel, if possessed and practiced by the public ministers in this town, would lead them to open their doors to each other, to meet together and pray, preach, sing and exhort, in love and fellowship; but Antichrist's spirit is directly the reverse.
The assurance you give me in your postscript, that what you wrote to me was not written in an envious spirit is duly appreciated; nor do I much wonder that you do not envy me the numbers who attend my public ministry, while you suppose that they with innumerable multitudes of others are reprobated to endless sin and misery. Envy, in such a case, would be truly unaccountable! I will not say that I fully comprehend your meaning in calling the "great numbers" who attend my meeting, "_precious souls_." Why are they precious? To whom are they precious?
If you view them the objects of divine love, of course you must suppose them to be precious in God's sight; but if not, why do you call them precious?
Your flattering acknowledgements of civilities received from me and the acceptableness of my person to you, is very gratefully considered, for it is an object with me to deserve the approbation of the pious who have treasured up much valuable knowledge by experience; and I wish to give you the fullest assurance possible that I consider my acquaintance with yourself highly worthy of further cultivation and improvement, which I shall always endeavour to promote, as opportunity may present, and it shall please you to favour.
Having noted the most important sections of your "friendly admonition"
in as concise a manner as was convenient, permit me, dear sir, to make a few observations on the doctrine of Universal Salvation, that being a subject to which you allude in your epistle, though you did not see fit to plant any particular arguments against it. This doctrine I openly profess, and preach as a doctrine which I conceive is plainly taught in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; a doctrine which all good men in the world desire the truth of; a doctrine the most worthy of God of any ever published; a doctrine the best calculated to fill the soul of the believer with love to God and to our fellow creatures; a doctrine which harmonizes the divine attributes, the scriptures and every principle of reason and good sense, in a surprising and an astonishing manner; a doctrine, more than any other, calculated to destroy the hurtful animosities existing in the religious world; and to produce general fellowship and brotherly love; and in a word, I believe it to be the only doctrine which can be supported by reason or scripture, to a mind not improperly biased by tradition. Though I am sensible of your greater experience, yet I am willing to say to a man of your piety and Christian candor, that any arguments which you should see cause to lay before me, on the above subject, shall, by the blessing of God, receive an early attention and a judicious discussion.
In the spirit of the New Testament and not in the letter; in the spirit of life, and not in the death of the letter, in the spirit of salvation, and not of condemnation, I pray God, I may ever live and act according to your friendly desire; and feeling the same fervent desire for my highly esteemed and venerable friend, I acknowledge myself your most obliged and very humble servant, for Christ's sake.
HOSEA BALLOU.
Rev. Joseph Walton.
P.S. I have reserved three particulars in your "friendly admonition"
for the subject of another communication.
LETTER. III.