"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 passage 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 passage 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 God. 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 God. 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 God. This is
the apostle's primary application of the love and mercy of God. 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 God and one mediator
between God 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 God
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 God 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 _God_, 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 God'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 God, which is in Christ Jesus, there is a
perfect analogy with the foregoing testimony. The love of God which is
in Christ Jesus, was commended to a sinful world in that Christ tasted
death, by the grace of God, 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 passage in 1st Cor. 3d, &c. This passage, 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 God'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 God 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 passage 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 God 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 passage 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 circumstances, 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 God 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 assume 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 God _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 God foreordained whatsoever comes to
pass, 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 God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass; and of course
that he foreordained _death_. And as you _admonish_ me for suggesting
that God originally designed death for the good of mankind you cannot
be consistent with yourself, as I can see, without believing that God
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 God. 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 superstition 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 _admonishing_, I should suppose,
in the _unaccountable_ manner in which _Popes_ admonish! 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 God? 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 damned. 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 passages 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 passage 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 passages which
you quoted. "He that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, and he
that believeth not shall be damned." I ask how long the unbeliever
will be damned? 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 passage 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 God, all men will not
be justified unto life.--Therefore no contradiction can be found. The
passage 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 God? See a passage which you quote, "You hath he
quickened who were _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_." If those who
are _dead_ in _trespasses_ and _sins_ can be _quickened_ according to
this passage, what is the reason that those Jews to whom Christ spake
can never be _quickened_? You must see, sir, that the passage 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 passages 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 friendship to you, or my readiness to join you in any
possible usefulness to our fellow creatures. And, as you
affectionately committed me to God 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.