A Letter to a Friend in the Country
A Letter to a Friend in the Country, Containing the Substance of
a Sermon Preach’d at Philadelphia, in the Congregation of
The Rev. Mr. Hemphill, Concerning the Terms of Christian and
Ministerial Communion. Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by B.
Franklin at the New Printing-Office near the Market. 1735. (Yale
University Library)
The Publisher to his Lay-Readers.
It is sufficiently known to all the thinking
Part of Mandkind, how difficult it is to alter Opinions long and
universally receiv’d. The Prejudices of Education, Custom and
Example, are generally very strong; it may therefore seem, in a
manner, needless to publish any Thing contrary to such long imbib’d
and generally receiv’d Opinions. It were, however, much to be
wish’d, that Men would consider how glorious a Conquest they make,
when they shake off all manner of Prejudice, and bring themselves
to think freely, fairly, and honestly.
This is to think and act like Men; ’tis a
Privilege common to Mankind; ’tis the only way to promote the
Interests of Truth and Liberty in the World; and surely, none but
Slaves and Lovers of Dominion and Darkness can be out of humour at
it; nor would any Man, or any Set of Men, pretend to hinder others
from a free impartial Enquiry into Matters of Religion especially,
if they had not some sinister Designs in so doing.
My Brethren of the Laity, as it is to you that
this Letter is address’d, and chiefly for your Sakes that I take
the Liberty of Publishing it, it is hop’d you’ll seriously consider
the Contents of it. The Generality of the Clergy were always too
fond of Power to quit their Pretensions to it, by any thing that
was ever yet said by particular Persons; but my Brethren, how soon
should we humble their Pride, did we all
heartily and unanimously join in asserting our own natural Rights
and Liberties in Opposition to their unrighteous Claims. Besides,
we could make use of more prevailing
Arguments than any that have been yet advanc’d, I mean such as
oppose their temporal Interests. It is impossible they could long
stand against the united Force of so powerful Antagonists. Truth
manag’d by the Laity in Opposition to them and their temporal
Interests, would do much. Their pretending to be the Directors of
Men’s Consciences, and Embassadors of the meek and lowly Jesus,
('twere greatly to be wish’d they study’d more to imitate so
perfect a Model of Meekness and Humility, and pretended less to a
Power that belongs not to ’em) and their assuming such like fine
Titles, ought not to frighten us out of a good Cause, The
glorious Cause of Christian Liberty. It is very
probable, indeed, that according to their laudable Custom, they
will make very free with the Characters of those that oppose their
Schemes, and like sound, orthodox Divines, call them Hereticks,
unsound in the Faith, and so on; but there is no Argument in such
kind of Language, nor will it ever persuade. And we ought to value
such ridiculous Epithets just as little as St. Paul did, Acts
24:14, since instead of a Reproach, they may be our greatest Glory
and Honour. Such kind of Treatment was always look’d upon to be a
strong Argument either of a bad Cause or a weak side. That it is
our Duty to make a vigorous Opposition to them, is plain from these
two Considerations: First, that when and wherever Men
blindly submitted themselves to the Impositions of Priests, whether
Popish, Presbyterian or Episcopal, &c. Ignorance and Error,
Bigotry, Enthusiasm and Superstition, more or less, and in
Proportion to such Submission, most certainly ensu’d, And
Secondly, That all the Persecutions, Cruelties, Mischiefs
and Disturbances, that ever yet happen’d in the Church, took their
rise from the usurp’d Power and Authority of her lawless Sons. Let
us then to the utmost of our Power endeavour to preserve and
maintain Truth, Common Sense, universal Charity, and brotherly
Love, Peace and Tranquility, as recommended in the Gospel of Jesus,
in this our infant and growing Nation, by steadily opposing those,
whose Measures tend to nothing less than utterly to subvert and
destroy all. Nothing, in all Probability, can prevent our being a
very flourishing and happy People, but our suffering the Clergy to
get upon our Backs, and ride us, as they do their Horses, where
they please.
I shall make no other Apology to the Author, or
any one else, who may think it unfair to publish what was only a
private Letter to my self, than this, viz. that I believ’d it might
be useful.
Your affectionate Brother, and hearty
Well-wisher,
A Letter, &c.
Sir,
It is somewhat surprizing, that a Sermon, which
you tell me in yours is said to be preach’d here by a Stranger,
(whom you believe to be your humble Servant) should make so great a
Noise already, as you speak of, especially at the Distance you live
from Philadelphia. As I have no Reason to induce me to conceal it,
I own I did give a Discourse, in the sermonizing way, upon the
Subject you mention.
You say, the Representation made of it in your
Part of the Country, has given Occasion to much Speculation, not
only among some of the Clergy of the Presbyterian Denomination, but
many of the Priest-ridden Laity, who, it seems are put into a
Pannick, and much alarm’d at the suppos’d Tendency of it. I would
not willingly offend any; but some People’s being offended at
important Truths, ought not to hinder their being urg’d and
inculcated. All I have to say about the Load of hard Names which
you tell me they begin already to heap upon me, is, that their
Reproaches, however inveterate, cannot at all hurt me; nor can they
affect me any farther than to excite Pity and Compassion towards
the Authors of them. I am not much surpriz’d at the Conduct of a
certain Set of Clergy, especially since Calumny and Reproach, where
they could not command the civil Sword, were (for want of Argument)
always the Weapons with which they fought, whenever their
exorbitant Claims to Power and Authority were oppos’d. I most
heartily wish them a better temper. Christianity teaches us to
bless them that curse us, to pray for them that despitefully
use and persecute us. And I think indeed, the Names of the
aforesaid Persons ought to be given in, to all well-dispos’d
Christian Congregations in the Province, to be publickly pray’d for
every Sabbath.
As I was always a Lover of Truth and Christian
Liberty, my only Design in the Discourse was to promote the
Interests of both.
I had almost forgot to tell you, that (if we
may believe Report) a Gentleman of this City, in a Sermon which he
preached here not long ago, out of his great and abundant Zeal for
Orthodoxy and the Safety of the Church, suggested to his Audience,
that there were some Preachers lately come into this Country, who
might be Jesuits, (a most surprizing Discovery!) and whose
Credentials, for that Reason, ought to be enquir’d into. Some of
those that heard him, say it was very easy, by the Tenor and Strain
of his Discourse, to apprehend who were pointed at in the
Insinuation; and think the Probability of their Conjecture greatly
strengthen’d, by the vast Care, godly Pains, and pious Industry
made use of by this wonderfully charitable Son of the Church, to
hinder Mr. H—p—ll, whose Story you know, from getting a Place to
preach in.
How well founded the Charge of Jesuitism
is, where this Reverend and worthy Gentleman (if Report be true)
would fix it, is not difficult to apprehend: Some are ill-natur’d
enough to suggest, the Charge may much more justly, be laid
elsewhere, and that the Occasion of his Clamours is his Fear of
losing some of his Parishioners. How strangely censorious the World
is grown!
Your Advice to print the Sermon in my own
Defence, as you call it, is what I do not at all relish, nor can I
comply with for very obvious Reasons. Yet upon the Supposition
which you make of my refusing this; since you insist upon it as the
only Evidence I can give of that Esteem and Regard which I always
profess’d for you, I so far comply with your Desire, as to send you
some loose Hints of what was advanc’d in that Sermon. And as I only
write this Letter for the Perusal of a Friend, so I hope you will
excuse Want of Method and Exactness in it, which I really resolve
to be no way sollicitous about, nor shall I strictly confine myself
to the Method, or Manner of Expression made use of in the Sermon,
lest we turn too grave upon it. Without any farther Preamble, then,
let us come to the Point. After the Formalities of an Introduction
and Textual Explication, which I shan’t trouble you with, the
Question Propos’d to be consider’d was,
Whether it be lawful to impose any other
Term of Communion, Christian or Ministerial, than the Belief
of the Holy Scriptures? Or, Whether a Man that professes to
believe the Holy Scriptures, and the Christian Scheme of
Religion as contain’d in them, ought not to be admitted to
Christian and Ministerial Communion, if no Reason can be
alledg’d against him in other respects, why he should
not?
The general Method in which it was propos’d to
manage this Point, was to consider the principal Arguments offer’d
by those who contend for other Terms of Communion than the Belief
of the holy Scriptures, &c. and to endeavour to shew their
Weakness.
The first Argument
examin’d was this:
A Thing agreed on by almost all Christian
Churches, of all Denominations: A Thing universally
practic’d in the early Times of Christianity, &c. ought
not to be abolish’d without the strongest Reasons. For tho’
it be acknowledg’d that even the greatest Unanimity of the
Christian Church in general, does not amount to a full Proof of
the Truth of any Position, or the Reasonableness of any
Custom or Practice, yet it must be confess’d, that the said
Unanimity forms at least a very strong Presumption in Behalf
of the Position asserted, or the Practice establish’d. Now
for the Point in question, we have Antiquity, Unanimity, and
the Practice of the Church Time out of mind.
Answer.
As there is no great Stress laid upon this
Argument, since it is confess’d that Antiquity, Unanimity, &c.
cannot amount to a full Proof, and do at best but form a strong
Presumption, so I might without much Prejudice to that Cause that I
here contend for, The Cause of Liberty, leave said Argument wholly unanswer’d; but to
evince that the Cause of Liberty in this Case, seems to have the
Advantage on all sides, let it be observ’d that the Custom
contended for is not Apostolical. We see nothing of it in the Holy
Scriptures; nay the very contrary may most probably be deduc’d from
several Passages. When the Eunuch, when Cornelius, when Three
Thousand Souls at once, were converted, there is not the least
Hint, that any of the Articles of Faith now stiffly maintain’d by
some Sects of Christians as essential ones, and esteem’d by others
not necessary, and altogether rejected by others as erroneous, were
impos’d as Terms of Communion, or even mention’d at all. It rather
appears, that nothing more was required of these new Converts, but
that they should acknowledge Jesus Christ to be the Messiah
promised by the Prophets, the Son of God; and that they should to
the best of their Power, act agreeable to his Precepts, and obey
his Laws. And really there was hardly a Possibility, that one
Discourse should inform them of all the metaphysical Notions, nice
Distinctions, which are now brought into our Confessions of Faith
as necessary Articles. Had infinite Wisdom thought it any way
necessary, or useful, to frame long Confessions of Faith, or to
establish numerous Tests of Orthodoxy, as is now done in most
Christian Churches, is to be suppos’d, that neither our Saviour nor
his Apostles would have left any such thing in their Writings;
especially if it be consider’d that many Things are wrote, which in
point of Importance are not to be compar’d to the Necessity or
Usefulness of Creeds contended for by the Imposers of them?
In the two or three first Centuries of
Christianity, those acquainted with the History of those Times,
tell us, they can find no Signs, no Footsteps of such Confessions
of Faith, or Tests of Orthodoxy. The Creed commonly called the
Apostles’ Creed, is on all hands allow’d to be an ancient Piece; it
is suppos’d by some, to be compos’d in the Beginning of the third
Century; and this is the utmost Antiquity that the Learn’d will
allow it. This Creed, however, is rather for than against the
Principle here contended for: And indeed it is very observable,
that it is couch’d in so loose a Manner, with respect to the Points
chiefly controverted among Christians, that it is highly probable
it was fram’d on purpose with that remarkable Latitude, in order to
let into the Church all such as in general sincerely believe the
Holy Scriptures, tho’ with respect to many metaphysical
Speculations, they should widely differ from other Christians, or,
if you will, from the far greatest Number of the Members of the
Catholick Church. This having in all Probability been the prudent
Practice of the two first Centuries, the Framers of this Creed
thought it proper not to recede much from that discreet Proceeding,
whatever it was that induc’d them to make the said Creed, and
engag’d afterwards the Church to receive and impose it. Upon the
whole, The Practice of the Apostles, and of the purest Ages of
Christianity, with respect to the Matter in Debate, seeming to be
on the Side of Liberty in this Case, a good deal of
Advantage might be taken from it; but having Arguments to offer
which I think of much greater Weight, I will infer nothing from the
aforesaid Observations, but that they are more than sufficient to
remove the first Difficulty alledg’d. What has been done since
those primitive Times, may be look’d upon as a general Corruption,
and the Authority of the Church in this Case is of no greater
Force, than it was in respect to the many Abuses which our
Reformers have successfully oppos’d: Nor indeed can our happy
Reformation from Popery and Religious Slavery be defended upon any
other Principle than what is here asserted.
Another Argument
consider’d was this;
Every Society, say Creed-Imposers,
has a Right to make such Laws as seem necessary for its
Support and Welfare: The very Nature of a Society requires,
nay supposes this; else it would lie open to all kinds of
Enemies; there would be no Provision, no Remedy against the
Intrusion of Adversaries, that might destroy its very
Vitals; in a Word, no Means to keep them off, or turn them
out. And why of all imaginable Societies, a Christian one
alone should be depriv’d of such a Right, is not to be
accounted for. It is acknowledg’d, say they, that in a
christian Civil Society, penal Laws may be justly made, to
punish even to Death notorious Transgressors of the Rules of
Morality; now, either you must suppose that all speculative
Matters of Religion are indifferent, or, in other Words,
that there are no Articles of Faith necessary to Salvation;
or else you must own, that such Persons as obstinately
refuse to believe such necessary Articles, may lawfully, nay
ought to be excluded that christian Society, wherein the
said Articles are receiv’d as essential to
Christianity.
Answer.
The Parallel that is so frequently drawn
between a Society consider’d meerly as civil, or as concern’d only
in Temporals, is very lame, or rather, it is no Parallel at all. A
civil Society may lawfully indeed make what Laws it pleases for its
Defence, Preservation and Welfare; It is not accountable for such
Laws to any superior earthly Power; it has no other Master here
besides the Consent of the Plurality, or the Will of one or more
whom the Plurality has appointed to act for the Good of the whole
Body. But a christian Society has no manner of Right to make any
Laws that may any how infringe upon the Laws already made by our
common King Jesus; or that may in any Measure encroach upon the
Rights and Privileges of his Subjects. Our King is absent, he has
left us a System of Laws which is on all Hands own’d to be perfect
and compleat (and for that Reason, no Occasion for new Laws) and
they that acknowledge him for their King and Head, and believe that
System to contain his Will in full, and seem resolv’d to act
accordingly, are upon that very Account to be admitted Members of
the Christian Society or Church. For this our spiritual King has
not deputed any one to be here on Earth his Vicegerent, or to
interpret that Will as he pleases, and impose that Interpretation
on any. Every Subject is equal to any other Subject; their Concerns
have nothing to do with this World; every one is accountable for
his Belief to Christ alone. Let no Man then presume to judge of
another Master’s Servant. One Man’s Salvation does not interfere
with the Salvation of another Man, and therefore every Man is to be
left at Liberty to work it out by what Method he thinks best.
Speculative Points are not indifferent, but
then their Necessity or Importance varies; it increases or
diminishes according to the various Circumstances and Capacities of
those to whom they are proposed. Those Articles of Faith which the
Society is pleas’d to declare to be essential, or necessary to
Salvation, may not appear so to this or t’other Man, altho’ he
acknowledge Jesus Christ to be his Redeemer or spiritual Monarch:
Now the Society’s insisting upon the Essentiality or Necessity of
such Articles, does not add to them one Grain of Importance with
respect to this or t’other Man’s spiritual Welfare.
If Jesus Christ has not most distinctly and
positively pronounc’d that such and such a speculative Point,
understood so and so and not otherwise, is necessary to Salvation;
then the Society’s peremptorily pronouncing and imposing the Belief
of it, according to its own Interpretation, as a Term of Christian
or Ministerial Communion, seems plainly to be an unjustifiable
assuming of a Power that belongs to Christ alone, a Tyrannical
Treating as a Rebel, a Man whom perhaps Jesus Christ himself loves
as one of his most faithful Subjects, and a manifest Infringement
upon the most sacred Laws of christian Charity.
The Words obstinate, obstinately, and
the like, are of no Force here; God alone knows whether a Man that
refuses to believe such or such a speculative Point, be guilty of
Obstinacy or no. What seems to Men to be the Effect of
Obstinacy, may in reality be the noble Result of a steady
Sincerity, and a real Love of Truth.
Here perhaps it will be said, that by this
Scheme all manner of Power and Authority is taken away from the
Church, even with respect to Matters of Indifferency, as suppose
Settling the outward Modes and Circumstances of Worship. And it is
very true, indeed; I know no proper Legislative Authority she is
invested with, no Power to make Laws which Christ has not already
made, and impose those Laws as Terms of Communion.
The Church, according to the very Notion of our
Antagonists, must be resolv’d into the Majority. By the by it may
happen, that a Blockhead, or a wicked Man may have the Casting
Vote, for establishing this or that Rite or Ceremony, or this or
that Doctrine. A very comfortable Thing indeed, that Terms of
Communion should be impos’d by the Decision of such a Man! A
mistaken, I had almost said a ridiculous Notion of Unity, is the
Spring of all those tyrannical Pretences which occasion the Dispute
before us. Some of our Adversaries seem to think it essential, or
at least highly useful to the Interests of Christianity; that there
should be not only an Unity of Opinion, but an outward Uniformity
in Worship, (and indeed, as to Worship, as well as Opinion, an
outward Uniformity is all that the most absolute Church Authority
can effect; for as to the secret Thoughts and Sentiments it cannot
reach them) whereas in reality such an Uniformity is neither the
One nor the Other. And if it be of some Advantage, I cannot help
thinking, that allowing Christians as much Liberty as is here
contended for, is the likeliest Means to produce that very Unity,
or Uniformity, so much recommended. The Reason is plain; many a Man
who justly and with Indignation rejects an erroneous Opinion, or an
insignificant Rite, which the Church or Religious Society would
impose upon him as a Term of Christian Communion, that is, as a
Thing essential to the Being or at least to the Purity of
Christianity, would let People quietly go on in such an Opinion if
it were not of an evil Tendency, and join with them in the
insignificant Rite if it were left to his Choice.
In abundance of Things in Life, but most
peculiarly in Religion, a rational Creature may easily be led, but
will not be driven. And tho’ a Thing be in itself of little
Consequence, yet the Making or Declaring it essential, renders it
highly prejudicial to Religion; and therefore out of a discreet
Zeal, not any Obstinacy, a good Man may reject and oppose it,
because enforc’d as material: Whereas if look’d upon and left as
what it really is, he would scarcely mind it, much less would he
scruple to comply.
But suppose that an outward Uniformity could be
introduc’d into the Catholick Church, yet at least an inward Unity,
a Unity of Affection, which is infinitely preferable, would in all
Probability soon spring from Liberty. Truth having then full Room
to play, would soon diffuse it self, and settle in almost every
Man’s Breast, at least with respect to Matters of Importance in
Religion.
On the other Hand, that same Liberty would
probably soon lead People to lay aside all impertinent Practices,
and cause them perfectly to forget, or at least hardly to think it
worth while Disputing about a Number of metaphysical useless
Points, which the Spirit of Pride and a Love of Power and Authority
on one side, and Impatience of spiritual Servitude on the other,
turn into so many Engines of Contention and War.
Here it may be farther ask’d; Must there not be
some Form of Worship? Must not that be agreed on? Must it not be
carried by the Majority either of the whole Church, or of those who
are appointed to preside in it, and settle such Matters? Yes. Well
what then? Why if there be in the Church some refractory Person,
who not liking the Form of Worship, or, if you will, the Confession
of Faith agreed on, What must be done with him? Why truly, just
nothing.
If a Man thinks your Worship inconsistent with
the Purity of Christianity, or your Confession of Faith subversive
of some fundamental Tenets, and that you (i.e. the Church in
general, or the acknowledg’d Rulers of it) on the other Hand, be
convinc’d that all your Tenets or Rites, or some of them, which are
rejected by that Man, are either necessary, or so highly useful,
that the Salvation of others would be endanger’d, or that their
Instruction and Edification cannot so well be carried on without
them; then indeed (and not perhaps in any other Case; for it were
better to erase out of your Creed twenty uncertain Tenets, which,
if true, have little or no Influence on the Conduct of Men; and
abolish twenty trivial Formalities in publick Worship, than to
offend one single weak Brother, and move him to separate from you)
then indeed, I say, you may retain such Tenets, and keep up the
Practice of such external Acts of Devotion: For surely you, i.e. a
Number of Men, have the same Liberty to think and act in Religion
as that one Man has.
But then, what will authorize you, or the
Church to impose these your Tenets and Forms upon him as Terms of
Communion? You cannot say he is not a Christian, for he solemnly
professes to believe the holy Scriptures. Let him alone as to his
Belief. Nay, hear him patiently if he be willing to preach to you;
for he may be in the right; and as to publick Worship, why
should you hinder him from joining with you if he pleases? He
certainly is or may be (and that May be is equivalent to a
Certainty with respect to our Duty to him) I say, he is, or may
be, a true Christian, and as such I think one may defie all the
World to show from Scripture or Reason, that Jesus Christ, the sole
King and Governor of the Christian Church, allows any Man, or any
Set of Men, or any Nation, to refuse him Admittance to all the
Advantages and Comforts of Christian, and consequently Ministerial
Communion.
To make Judging of a Man’s Soundness in the
Faith, who professes himself a Christian, to make that, I say, a
Matter of Prudence, and to invest any Set of Men with a Power of
thus Judging, and Censuring and Excommunicating according to their
Determinations, is prodigiously odd among Protestants. It seems the
Assertors of such Maxims do not consider that they make such Judges
just so many Popes.
As to those Texts of Scripture which are
sometimes adduc’d to prove such an Authority in the Church, they
are, in my humble Opinion, just nothing to the purpose. That we
ought to pay a certain Respect and Civility to such Persons as are
apppointed to teach others, to preside in the Church, and to take
Care that Things be done decently and in order, is not, I believe,
deny’d by any body; and that is all that can be fairly infer’d from
some of those Passages of Scripture. And it appears too, that the
rest of the said Passages are applicable only to the Apostles, or
to those Pastors who in the Apostolical Times were endued with the
Gifts of the Holy Ghost. And really, common Observation shews us,
that you stiff Maintainers of Church-Authority, are as far, if not
farther, than any other Men, from being bless’d with those heavenly
Qualifications.
Another Argument
consider’d was this;
Private Judgment in Matters of Religion,
will surely be allow’d of by Creed-Opposers; Now, if
every Man may judge for himself, then he may join with such
other Men as think as he does. They may form a Society, and
separate themselves from all others, who in their Way of
Thinking maintain pernicious Errors. They may reject any
Teacher that entertains erroneous Notions in Points which
they look upon upon as essential. It were very hard
truly, say Creed-Imposers, that Men should not have
the Liberty of chusing their Teachers. If a Man that offers to
be a Minister or Teacher, refuse to subscribe the Confesson
of Faith receiv’d in that Society into which he would be
introduc’d as a Teacher, that Society has reason to think
that that Man entertains and might broach Heretical
Doctrines; and if they have a Right to reject him, ’twould
be very imprudent to admit him. And those Proceedings, say
they, can by no Means be stiled Persecution, or any thing like
it. The Man thus excluded Christian or Ministerial
Communion, does not thereby suffer in his Person, Interest
or Reputation; far be it from us, say they, to make use of
Gibbets, Tortures, &c. nay to do a Man any Harm for Heretical
Principles, that have no Tendency to subvert the civil Society. Nor
do we imagine, that a Man’s being excluded Communion with this or
that Christian Society, can affect his spiritual Concerns. We do
not judge of the State of his Conscience, much less do we pronounce
Damnation. &c. Therefore there is here no placing our selves in
the Judgment-Seat of Christ, there is no usurping an Authority that
belongs to him alone, &c.
Answer.
How from the Right of private Judgment (and as
to that Right, we had as good give up at once, our Reason, our
Religion and all, as part with it) how from that Right, I say, it
is infer’d, that you may refuse a Man Christian or Ministerial
Communion, upon Account of his differing from you in Matters
disputable, I confess I am utterly at a Loss to see. Before I
proceed, I must observe, that by Matters disputable amongst
Christians, I mean all such as are or may be controverted. Perhaps
it will be said, that a Man may dispute even the Truth of
Christianity itself, reject Christ, look upon him as an Impostor,
&c. Well, what then? Why, say they, must even that Man be
admitted into Christian Communion with us? The Answer is obvious:
That Man does not at all pretend to Communion, for he declares
himself no Christian; he denies the Truth of Christianity in
general. We don’t exclude him, he excludes himself. But this is
altogether out of the Question: For the Person here suppos’d, is
one that professes to believe the Holy Scriptures, or who declares
himself a Christian. But to return.
The Right of private Judgment seems to me most
fairly and evidently to lead us to a Consequence directly opposite
to the one that was deduc’d. If I allow my self the Privilege of
private Judgment, surely I cannot without Injustice deny it to
another. I happen to differ widely from this or that Man,
concerning this or that Speculative Point; I should certainly think
it very rash in him to declare I am no Christian; since I am
conscious I believe in Christ, and exert my best Endeavours to
understand his Will aright, and strictly to follow it. By that
grand Law of Christianity, whatsoever ye would that Men
should do unto you, do ye likewise unto them, I ought not to
pass on him that Judgment, which I should think very presumptuous
as well as uncharitable in him. Now, the Case between a whole
Society and one Man, is exactly the same as between Man and Man;
the Number of Persons on one side, and their Fewness on the other,
does not make any Alteration in it.
Shall We refuse that
Man Communion with us Christians, who perhaps is deem’d by the
Almighty himself a good Christian? What Authority have we for doing
so? Infinite Wisdom has not thought it proper to appoint any
infallible Interpreters of his Reveal’d Will, and to impose this
Interpretation of theirs as a Term of Communion. And if he has not,
how come any Set of Men to pretend to a Power of determining the
Sense of the Holy Scriptures for others? Why should I pretend to
impose my Sense of the Scriptures, or of any part of them, upon
you, any more than you yours upon me? and since a Pretence to
Infallibility is absurd, these Interpretations may in many
Instances be wrong, and when this is the Case (as it is much to be
fear’d, it but too often happens) Error and Falshood is impos’d
instead of Truth.
But suppose nothing but Truths be impos’d, it
can never answer the End intended. The Man on whom they are impos’d
is either convinc’d of, and consequently believes them, or he is
not, and consequently does not believe them. If he be convinc’d,
there is no Occasion for such Imposition at all, it is altogether
unnecessary and foolish. If he be not, this Method will never clear
up his Understanding; will never set the Evidences, by which those
suppos’d Truths are supported, in a Light which shall convince him.
He may play the Hypocrite indeed, ‘dissemble and speak a
Language foreign to his Heart’ (I wish there was less
Ground for suspecting it to be too often the Case) nor, can I
conceive any other End that can be answer’d by the Imposition of
Creeds and Confessions. At best, if a Man pretends to believe the
Truth of such and such Propositions or Articles, the Evidences of
which he does not see, but meerly upon the Authority of other Men
like himself, or because they tell him they are true, his Faith can
be no other than human, not divine, or rather indeed it is
altogether a blind implicit Faith. The only Way to convince a Man
of his Errors, is to address his Understanding. One solid Argument
will do more than all the human Creeds and Confessions in the
Universe; and if a Man once clearly sees the Truth of any
Proposition or Article, his assent necessarily follows, and in all
Cases of this Nature his Assent will be in Proportion to Evidence
perceiv’d.
And as to Ministerial Communion, does it not at
first View appear extreamly odd, not to say whimsical, to deny it
to a Man of Piety and Virtue, Learning and good Sense. These are
the only Qualifications, that I know of, necessary to entitle him
to it.
Suppose he differs much from the Sentiments of
the Church, or Society to whom he offers his Ministry, if these
Differences in Opinion do not affect his Christianity, what Reason
can be assign’d for rejecting him? Why, he may, say you, preach
dangerous Doctrines; that is, Doctrines which you now think
dangerous; but those very Doctrines, for what you know at present,
may prove vastly conducive to the Interests of Religion in general,
and Christianity in particular. Take Care that you do not obstruct
the Propagation of Truth, by rejecting a Man, who is perhaps a very
wise and good Man. What are you afraid of? Let him be heard; and if
he cannot convince you that you are in the Wrong, retain your
present Notions. If you have the Truth on your Side, his
unsuccessful Attacks upon it, will rather root it deeper in your
Mind, than shake it. Trust your self to Reason and to God’s kind
Providence; but never do any Thing that may hinder the Discovery of
any useful and important Truth. You say, you may be led into Error,
but if you be sincerely persuaded an erroneous Opinion is a true
one, do you imagine our good and just God will punish you for it?
No, surely; or else what would become of all Mankind. Sincerity is
the Touchstone. ’Tis that will decide our future Condition. The
Justness of our Reasonings, in all Instances, we cannot absolutely
answer for; but we can know whether we be sincere in our Enquiries
and Searches after, or Love for any Truth, whereby we suppose God’s
Glory, and the Good of our Fellow-Creatures may be promoted. Nor
can I think it too bold to say, that it were better for a Man to
fall into many Errors, by earnestly and sincerely endeavouring to
find out Truth, than accidentally to stumble upon it.
It were hard, say they, that we
should not have the Liberty of chusing our Teachers; and
what if we will not receive any but such as do in the Main
believe as we do, what Injury or Wrong is done to them? Are we
in Duty bound to receive any one that desires it?
In answer to this, let it be observ’d, that I
do assert our own spiritual Liberty, and that our Fellow-Creatures,
by allowing every Man qualified according to the Scripture Rules,
to teach, and we our selves to mind and consider what he takes to
be Truth. No Man ought to resign his Liberty: Let him make Choice
of his Minister as his Judgment and Conscience direct him. The
Circumstances of the World require that some Men be establish’d
among us constantly to do the Functions of a Minister, and they are
maintain’d for that purpose. Now as a Maintenance can be afforded
only to a certain Number of such constant Ministers, so People are
necessitated to single out some Persons among those that pretend to
that Office. It is very proper to prefer a Man of Learning and good
Sense, to one that is known to be an ignorant Person. Discretion,
Good Nature, and an exemplary Life, are chiefly to be minded: But
to reject a Man in other Respects preferable, to reject him, I say,
because he does not in the Whole believe as we do, is to declare we
will not upon any Account, or for any Reason, alter our Opinions
whatever they be. It is to declare that we are infallibly in the
right: It is to profess we will not be taught any material Truth
but what we know and are persuaded of already. How absurd would it
not be to say to a Man, Sir, we acknowledge you to be a very
learned and diligent Person, we believe you know a vast deal
more than the Generality of Christians; upon these Accounts
we pitch upon you to be our Teacher or Minister, with this
one little Proviso, that you will teach us nothing but such
and such Truths which we perfectly know and are fully
convinc’d of. As ridiculous as this appears to be, ’tis exactly
the Case before us.
But, say they, that learn’d Person whom we
make choice of, and who submits himself to the Laws of our
Society, may adorn, illustrate, and set those Truths in a
clearer Light, &c. But yet the Absurdity still remains as
to the most material Points; and in a Word, I cannot see how a
fix’d Resolution to remain invariably in the Belief of such and
such Articles, can be freed from the heavy Imputation of either a
Pretence to Infallibility, or a wilful Blindness. Neither can I see
what great Occasion there is for a Teacher at all, except it be to
save Parents and Masters the Trouble of Instructing their Children
and Servants. It looks prodigiously odd that any should think That
an Act of Christian Liberty which in reality appears the very
contrary. To confine our selves to listen only to such Teachers as
are sworn to tell us nothing but what we do sufficiently know and
believe, is actually to forsake our Liberty, to fetter our
Understandings, and limit ourselves to a poor, slavish, narrow
Circle of Thought.
Allow me here to observe by the by, that it
were greatly to be wish’d that we had Teachers among us, who could
live independently of the Gratuities and Voluntary Contributions of
the People, who upon Occasion would give us the Fruits of their
studious Piety. Any Man in easy Circumstances, that had a competent
Share of Learning, and a fair Character in the World, should at
first Request be with Gratitude admitted into the Number of our
Teachers. It is easy to see what Advantages might probably flow
from his Instructions. But to proceed.
As to the Wrong done to a Man who is deny’d
Communion with a Society of Christians, tho’ he declares his Belief
of the Holy Scriptures, it is obvious that the Thing is not so
harmless as our Creed-Imposers alledge. How afflicting must it not
be to a Man who is conscious of his sincere Affection to
Christianity, and consequently for all those that profess it, to be
look’d upon by his Brethren as a Heretick and Infidel. &c. Thus
in the first Place he suffers in his Reputation. ’Tis well known
how the Generality of Men, shun, dread, and even hate a Person
branded with Heresy by the Rulers of a Church or spiritual Society.
No Advantages, no Places of publick Trust and Honour or Profit, no
temporal Favours to be expected for him wherever they can prevent
it. Thus he suffers in his Worldly Circumstances. Poverty,
Contempt, Aspersion often pursue him, and destroy his Health and
Constitution: Thus our suppos’d Heretic suffers in his very Person.
Now you may call this what you will; but if it be not Persecution,
it is something so very like it, that for my own Part I confess, it
shocks all my Notions, Sentiments and Affections of Humanity and
Christian Charity to a very high Degree. So also as to a Teacher; a
Man may have spent his Substance and Youth to fit himself for the
Ministry, if he be rejected when there is nothing against him but
his refusing to subscribe Creeds which perhaps he does not well
understand, or in the Belief whereof he cannot rest entirely
satisfied, or if he refuses if for some other Reason, it is or may
be a very great Disappointment. Then follows the general Odium that
constantly pursues a poor Soul once call’d a Heretick. The Case is
yet worse with a Man that has been a Minister for some Time, and
who in his Search after Truth having dropt into an Opinion deem’d
erroneous, is so ingenuous and fond of doing what he thinks
advantageous to Mankind, as to confess or declare the Alteration of
his Sentiments. The Case is worse indeed, for he is immediately
depriv’d of Office and Benefice, and may, for ought I know, he and
his Family, go and starve on a Dunghill with his fine Discoveries.
And is this then their Separating themselves from such a Man, (as
they mildly express it) is their Refusing him Christian or
Ministerial Communion, so inconsiderable, so easy, so harmless a
Thing? Who is it that does not see how inconsistent it is with
Christian Charity? And tho’ these Men tell us, they would not be
for making use of Racks, Tortures, Gibbets, Death, &c. yet it
is plain that if they have a Right to make Use of the lowest
Degrees of Persecution, or to lay a Man under any Restraints for
religious Speculations; they have a Right to proceed to higher
degrees, if the lowest don’t answer the End, and so to go on to the
highest that even a Spanish Inquisition cou’d invent, if nothing
less will do. O rare Protestants! It is well observ’d by an
ingenious Gentleman, that whoever would convince by
Stripes and Terror, proclaims open War against Christianity and
Common Sense, against the Peace of Society and the Happiness of
Mankind. Persecution, says he, for any Opinion
whatsoever, justifies Persecution for any Opinion in the
World; and every Persecutor is liable to be persecuted, upon
his own Principles, by every Man upon Earth of a different
Opinion and more Strength. What dismal Butcheries would such
a cruel Spirit raise! But to proceed.
To alledge that a Person truly heretical can by
no means deserve the Name of a true Christian, would not be to the
Purpose; for the very Point in question is, Whether a Person that
believes the Holy Scriptures, and that differs from the Generality
of Christians only in Points determined and interpreted by
Creed-makers and not by Christ, be undoubtedly a Heretick or no. Or
even, Whether real Errors in Matters not most distinctly and
evidently declar’d essential by Christ and his Apostles, but
afterwards denominated such by Creed-Makers, do constitute a Man a
Heretick, or blot out of him the noble Character of a sincere and
real Christian. Now in this Case to declare against that Man what
Christ or his Apostles have not declar’d, is demonstrably, as was
observ’d before, to usurp his Authority, and venture to act in
direct Opposition to his Design and Will. Who can deny, that to say
as the Romanists do, We are certainly in the Right, and
Heretics cannot plead the same, is grossly to beg the Question?
And in a Word, to deny Christian or Ministerial Communion with a
Man only because he does not think as we do, is evidently to make a
moral Impossibility a Term of such Communion. How injurious this to
the Spirit and Design of the Christian Scheme of Religion, which
breathes forth nothing but Concord and Harmony: How injurious to
the great and benevolent Author of it, who is all Love, Truth,
Meekness and Charity! It is, I say, to make a moral Impossibility a
Term of Christian or Ministerial Communion. For as long as Men are
made by God himself, of different Constitutions, Capacities,
Genius’s, &c. and since in his all-wise Providence he affords
them very different, very various Opportunities of Education,
Instruction and Example, a Difference in Opinion is inevitable.
Besides a Man’s Sentiments are not in his own Power; Conviction is
the necessary Result or Effect of Proof and Evidence; and where the
Proof does not appear sufficient, a Man cannot believe or assent to
the suppos’d Truth of any Proposition if he would. But to proceed
to the Consideration of another Argument
offer’d by our Creed-Imposers.
The strange Mixture of various and jarring
Opinions, the Confusion which it is imagined would
inevitably, upon the Principles here asserted, rush into the
Church of Christ, is the grand Difficulty often objected and
insisted upon.
Answer.
Indeed if Creeds were a sure Means to form and
preserve the Unity of the Church; if they could prevent that
Confusion, that Anarchy which it is suppos’d would be introduc’d
upon the Scheme of Liberty in this Case, then truly our
Creed-Imposers would have an Advantage much to be regarded: But it
seems, indeed, that Creeds and Confessions are so far from bringing
into or keeping up in the Catholick Church, that Unity, that
Concord and Harmony which we ought all most earnestly to wish and
pray for, that they have been one of the chief Causes of the cruel
Divisions whereby the Church has been as it were rent and torn into
so many Parties or Sects, and do still as much or more than any
Thing else, contribute to perpetuate and heighten Feuds,
Animosities and Dissensions; so that as long as such a Use of them
as is here oppos’d, remains in Force, there will be little or no
Hopes of a Coalition or Re-Union of the Christian Sects into one
Body.
In fact, the Catholick Church of Christ (and
this must be granted, except you confine the Catholicism of the
Church to this or that particular Sect, and will not allow any
other Sect to belong to the Church Universal, which I believe no
thinking Person will do) the Catholick Church of Christ, I say,
actually groans under all those mighty Inconveniences aforesaid;
and in fact, all the Creeds and Confessions now extant do not in
the least mend the Matter. Things, with respect to a strange
Mixture of Opinions, Confusion, Anarchy, &c. cannot be worse
than they are. Even in this City we have half a Dozen, for aught I
know half a Score, different Sects; and were the Hearts of Men to
be at once opened to our View, we should perhaps see a thousand
Diversities more. Many a Man who in Appearance is of this or that
Profession, entertains many Notions quite opposite to it, or to the
Notions of others of the same Denomination. Creeds or Confessions
may perhaps bring upon some small Christian Societies, an external
Show, an outside Appearance of Unanimity in religious Sentiments.
And this is the very best Effect they can produce. A poor, an
inconsiderable, a bad one indeed! so that the Scheme here contended
for can do no Harm but what by the opposite one is sufficiently
done already, and remains utterly unremedy’d. Fact is against the
Advocates for Creeds and Confessions, but they have nothing against
the other Party in the present Argument but Conjecture. Besides do
we not plainly see that the greatest Absurdities and Falshoods are
supported by this goodly Method of imposing Creeds and Confessions:
Such as Cringings, Bowings, Mortifications, Penances,
Transubstantiations, praying to Saints and Angels, Indulgences,
Persecution or playing the Devil for God’s Sake, &c. and if the
Church has a Power of imposing at all, she has a Power of imposing
every thing she looks upon to be Truth, and consequently the
aforesaid Impertinences, if she in her great Wisdom thinks proper
to do so. And can any Man in his Senses imagine that to be a proper
Method of promoting the Interests of Truth in the World, which will
as certainly propagate Falshood, Superstition, Absurdity, Cruelty,
&c?
It is readily granted, that according to the
common Proverb, As many Men as many Minds, so in all
probability, very great would still be the Diversity of Opinion,
should Creeds and Confessions be abolish’d. But then first, there
would be among Christians a full Liberty of declaring their Minds
or Opinions to one another both in publick and private. And
secondly Heresy, that huge Bugbear would no more frighten People,
would no more kindle among us the hellish Fires of furious Zeal and
Party Bigotry. We might peaceably, and without the least Breach
upon Brotherly Love, differ in our religious Speculations as we do
in Astronomy or any other Part of natural Philosophy. Those two
invaluable Blessings, full Liberty and universal Peace would in all
likelyhood make the Ways of Truth so easy, that the greater Number
of Christians would even come to think alike in many Cases in which
they now widely differ. And, in a Word, that mighty Diversity of
Opinions look’d upon as such a horrid and monstrous Thing, (and
such indeed it is, when it carries along with it the Venom and
Claws of religious Animosity, Tyranny and Persecution) that mighty
Diversity of Opinions, I say, would be look’d upon as a harmless,
innocent Thing, if Men would bring it under the amiable Power of
mutual Love and Forbearance. Let the Church but enjoy Unity in
Point of reciprocal Benevolence, make all the various Members of it
one Body by the Bonds of Charity and mutual Forbearance, and then
let them differ as much as you will in their Speculations, it will
not occasion any thing like Confusion or Anarchy. Whereas imposing
this or that System of Articles, this or that Rite or Ceremony,
enslaving People’s Minds, excluding them from Christian or
Ministerial Communion, in short, unjustly vexing them will hardly
ever change their Sentiments; but it will surely tend to turn their
Hearts against such Imposers, Enslavers, &c. and Animosities
will soon greatly encrease the speculative Differences.
Thus, Sir, you have a random Account of the
principal Things advanc’d in that frightful and monstrous Sermon;
and a longer one than I at first intended. There are several Things
in it, which would require farther Illustration: But I thought it
needless, since I write to you, Verbum Sapienti satis;
besides, I was afraid of tiring you overmuch; and indeed if the
Reading of this Scroll tires you as much as the Writing of it has
me, you’ll be provok’d to commit it to the Flames. I am, Sir, Your
most Humble Servant.
Philadel. Aug. 30. 1735.
Postscript.
Allow me here, however, to subjoin, by way of
Postscript, some Observations of a very worthy and ingenious
Gentleman, concerning the Argument drawn by Creed-Imposers from the
Rights of Private Judgment. This I add, because in our last
Conversation you seem’d not to be altogether satisfied with any
Thing I could offer upon this particular Argument. What follows,
will, I hope, thoroughly convince you; wherein the Author shews
that the Principle of the opposite Party, pursu’d thro’ its just
and natural Consequences, gives all manner of Encouragement to the
Popish Usurpation.
The Principle (of Creed-Imposers) says he, is
this, That even where the religious Rights of others are affected
by our private Judgments, we must judge for our selves, and are in
so doing only maintaining our own just Rights, that are concern’d
in these Judgments. The opposite Principle is, That where the
religious Rights of others are affected, we ought to rest in the
express Decisions of Scripture. I believe this, says the candid
Author, is a very fair State of the Controversy. If it be not so,
’tis owing to Mistake and not Design.
Now if we are to pursue our private Judgments,
even in those Cases in which the religious Rights of others are
affected, where shall we stop? Are we not to go as
far as our private Judgments direct us, and are not all Men right
in doing so? To this Argument, it is no matter, whether the
particular Judgments Men form, are just and according to Truth, or
not; for Truth consider’d as abstracted from the Discerning of the
Mind, is no Rule of Action to any Man, nor can any Thing be Truth
to us but as we apprehend it to be so, and see the Agreement
between the Ideas compar’d in our Minds. So that in
receiving the Truth ourselves, or imposing it upon
others it must be the Apprehension or Perception of
our Minds that must be our Rule. And this Rule must equally direct
Men, whether they are really in the Right, or only think
themselves so, seeing Truth not known or perceiv’d by the Mind, can
be no Rule at all. And so even supposing Men are wrong in their
Particular Decisions, yet they are right in following their
Judgment, while they continue of it; which is only saying that they
are right in not contradicting the Light of their own Minds; and
this, I suppose, no body will dispute. Now if all Men are right in
following their private Judgments, even where the religious Rights
of others are affected, will not this justifie any Encroachments
upon our religious Rights, that any Man or body of Men shall judge
necessary and just? To apply this to the Popish Usurpations, (which
I do to shew the Tendency of the Principle, without intending a
Reflection upon any Protestant, as if he approv’d what I know in
his Heart he abhors) Pray what has the Popish Church been doing all
this while, but pursuing this very Principle? Has she
not judg’d for herself in all the Creeds she has ever published?
Has not she judg’d for herself that she is infallible? Has
she not as the natural Consequence of this, judg’d that all
Men ought to submit to her? has she not judg’d for
herself that she ought to use Force? and that
Hereticks ought not to live at all? Has she not judg’d for her
self that the Magistrate ought to execute her Sentences? and
that the Civil Power should wait upon the Ecclesiastick?
These are very wrong Judgments, I own; but yet they are the
Judgments of that Church. They own no Conviction that
they are in the Wrong, and no doubt Thousands thro’ strong
Prejudice believe they are in the right. Well then, they must not
contradict the Light of their own Minds, but are right in going on
according to it. And here is no Stop. Let a Man or Body of Men be
never so far wrong, let him never so much injure the civil or
religious Rights of his Fellow-Creatures in following his private
Judgment; yet according to this Scheme, while he is of that
Judgment he is in the right to follow it. So that no Protestant
whatsoever can condemn a Papist, for doing what he does, while he
judges he ought to do so. This is so obvious, that I cannot make it
more so. Now it is not possible that a Principle should be a good
and just one, in Pursuance of which such odious Things can be and
have been done.———And this may be applied to all Imposition that
ever was in the World, and to all that ever shall be in it. Let Men
be never so far in the Wrong, let their Impositions be never so
unscriptural, while they have that way of
Thinking, they do right in imposing their Errors;
there never can be any Security for Truth from such Impositions,
and every Church that ever was or shall be, is right in fixing such
Terms of Communion, and such Doctrines and Usages, as shall be
agreeable to the Sentiments of such Men as have the
greatest Numbers or Interest on their Side, when the
Constitution is fram’d, and the publick Confessions
compos’d. So that here we can never have any fix’d Rule or
Standard, either for Faith or the Terms of Christian Communion; and
a Man that’s accepted as a good Christian in one Place, may stand
excommunicated in another; while ’tis certain, he is equally the
Object of Divine Favour in every Place. In a Word, Private Judgment
in this Scheme, is just another Name for Arbitrary Power,
and no Man can set a Limit to it.
The other Way of Thinking furnishes a very
clear Answer to Papists, and all others that are guilty of
Imposition, if it be but a just one, viz. that their
whole Scheme is wrong, for they are wrong in forming Judgments so
as to affect the religious Rights of others, other than the express
Decisions of Scripture: This cuts the very Nerves of all
Anti-Christian Authority, and leaves us a fix’d Point to rest
at.
622210 = 002-065a.html