A Defense of Mr. Hemphill’s Observations
A Defence of the Rev. Mr. Hemphill’s Observations: or, an Answer
to the Vindication of the Reverend Commission.
Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by B. Franklin at the New
Printing-Office near the Market. 1735. (Boston Public Library)
A Defence, &c.
When I first read the Rev. Commission’s
Vindication, I was in doubt with my self, whether I should take any
publick Notice of it. I had reason to believe this Part of the
World was troubled with Impertinence enough already, and that a
Reply would be only affording our Authors a new Occasion for more
of it by another Publication. Besides, I had little Reason to hope,
that the most obvious Refutation of what our Reverend Authors have
said to flatter and deceive their unthinking Readers into an
Opinion of their honest Zeal and inflexible Justice, should ever
gain one Proselyte from the Dominion of Bigotry and Prejudice.
As for the discerning Part of Men in this
Place, especially those who were immediate Witnesses of the
Proceedings which gave Rise to this Controversy, they must be own’d
to be the most impartial Judges of this Affair; And those who were
not present at the Tryal, if they are at all concern’d about the
Merits of the Cause, will depend rather upon the Relation of those
who attended it, as they are respectively influenc’d by an Opinion
of the Veracity and Judgment of the Relater, than upon any
Vindication of the Parties themselves.
For these Reasons then, tho’ Occasion be taken
to address this Part of the World once more about this Affair, yet
I shan’t undertake a formal Answer to every trifling Impertinence
in the Vindication. It were but an ill Complement paid to the
intelligent Reader, to pretend helping him to see Absurdities in
such Meridian Lustre, as our Authors elegantly phrase it.
There is good Reason to believe the Opinion of thinking Men, who
know the Affair, is not much chang’d by it, and that they entertain
much the same Sentiments of the Rev. Commission which they did
before. Perhaps the more Pains they have taken, by invented
Surmises, wrested Constructions of Hemphill’s Words and Actions,
and sinister and palpable Prostitutions of Scripture-Phrase, to
hang him up, as a Scare-crow to the People, and represent him as a
dangerous Innovator; the more Occasion they have given to many to
call in question their slavish and arbitrary Principles; and the
more they have convinc’d them, even in these remote Parts of the
Earth, (where they thought themselves secure) of their
Inconsistency to every Thing that is real Virtue, Religion and
Christian Liberty. Actions, and the Principles from whence they
flow, do mutually illustrate each other; at least we can have no
other Way in judging of either, but by comparing them respectively:
However it must be own’d, that here the most curious Observers of
Men, their various Affections and Desires, in many Instances make
erroneous Conclusions; but ’tis evident, that nothing can render
such Error or Mistake excusable, but a fair and candid Enquiry,
free from all Humour and Interest, and a Consciousness of Honesty
in Searching after Truth. Now whether the Authors of the
Vindication had this latter more in view, than an Impatience to
justify themselves by any Methods they could contrive, not to be
too obviously reprehended by the Bulk of their Readers; and to
raise a religious Pannick among the People, by pointing out one as
professedly disclaiming the most important Doctrines in the
Christian Scheme, I would even leave to their own Consciences upon
a serious Self-Examination.
But this is not the first Time, that such
pretended Defenders of the Faith once delivered to the
Saints, have us’d the same Artifice, and let loose the popular
Rage upon their Adversaries.
A Defender of the Faith, must be own’d a truly
great and venerable Character; But I can’t forbear quoting the
Advice of a great Author, and applying it to the Gentlemen, Members
of the Commission, “That since they have of late been so elated by
some seeming Advantages which they are ill-suited to bear; they
would at least beware of accumulating too hastily, those high
Characters, Appellations, and Titles, which may be Tokens perhaps
of what they expect hereafter, but which as yet don’t answer the
real Power and Authority bestowed on them.”
If Truth stands in no need of false and
deceitful Arts to support it, as our Rev. Authors themselves
own; I wonder that they should in the very next Paragraph, use so
much Flourish, either to palliate what they were asham’d to own, or
to publish a palpable Falsehood. Certainly had they been more
honest to have told the Truth, or more ingenious in the Texture of
their Inventions, they would not have expos’d themselves so much; I
speak with Reference to the Sermons preach’d by Messrs. Cross and
Pemberton during the Tryal; which were mention’d by Hemphill, as an
Evidence of their having prejudg’d his Cause; Here they say, “they
thought they could recommend the great Doctrines of the Gospel to
their Hearers, and warn them against destructive Errors, and the
prevailing Errors of the Day, without being charg’d with reflecting
upon Mr. Hemphill, or accusing him as a guilty Person, and that Mr.
Hemphill was neither accus’d nor condemn’d in them.” But if these
Discourses were not calculated against Hemphill, against whom then?
who besides himself had at that time stirr’d up their watchful
Zeal? None surely. For they say themselves in the second Page of
their Performance, “that they had no Suspicion of being call’d into
the Field of Battle, and oblig’d to defend the great Doctrines of
the Christian Religion, ’till Complaints were deliver’d in against
Mr. Samuel Hemphill, a Minister who arriv’d at Philadelphia the
last September.” Now if they had been enclin’d to have spoke Truth,
they would have said, That Mr. Andrews’s long establish’d Character
for Virtue and Integrity, was sufficient Evidence of the Truth of
any Charge they might have received against Hemphill from him, and
that it was high Time to bestir themselves, and exorcise the Demon
out of Philadelphia.
What occasion’d, say our Authors,
Hemphill’s Removal from his native Country, we know
not, &c. What it was that occasion’d his Removal is not
material to enquire. He may return to his native Country, when he
will, which is more than a certain Person (and a principal one too)
among them dare do. But I forbear——
Page the 5th our Authors say, “Now let the
World judge, whether our declaring our selves of an Opinion
different from Mr. Hemphill, and refusing to own him as one of our
Members, while his Principles were so contrary to ours, gave him
any Ground to load us with so many hard Reflections, and represent
us as Men fir’d with a persecuting Spirit, and fill’d with Malice
and Prejudice against him. Have not we an undoubted Right to judge
for our selves, and to declare what our Opinions are?”
Tho’ I believe no body will deny their
undoubted Right to declare their Opinions, yet ’tis certain
that to go farther, and deprive him as far as they can of Liberty
to declare his; to deprive him of the Exercise of his
Ministerial Funcion, and of a Livelihood as far as it depends on
it, because his Principles were thought contrary to theirs, gave
him a just Occasion to represent them as Men fir’d with a
persecuting Spirit, since this was Persecution, as far as
they could carry it. They farther add “Has not the Commission that
Liberty which is common to all Societies, of Judging of the
Qualifications of their own Members? Mr. Hemphill is possess’d with
the same Right, and may declare Non-Communion with us, if he sees
Reason for it.” If, by judging of their Members Qualifications,
they mean, that they have a Right to censure them, as they have
done him, and expel ’em their Society; I think it is clear they
have no such Right; for, according to this way of Reasoning, the
Spanish Inquisitors may say to a Person they imagine heretical,
You, ’tis true, have a Right to judge for your self, to quit our
Communion, and declare yourself Protestant; but we have likewise
the common and natural Right of Societies, to expel you our civil
and ecclesiastical Society, destroy your Reputation, deprive you of
your Estate, nay your Life, or in other Words do you all the
Mischief we please, notwithstanding your Right of declaring
Non-Communion with us. How so? Because we have the Power, and
Inclination to do it. Are not these Reasons by which they vindicate
themselves every whit as good to justify the Practice of the
Inquisition? Neither do, nor can the Synod or Commission give any
better, for expelling a Man their Society, branding him with the
Name of Heretick, and depriving him of a Livelyhood, as much as
lies in their Power, for a meer Difference in Opinion: And after
all, out of their great Goodness, declare, they neither gagg his
Mouth nor cut off his Hands; or in other Words, allow him Liberty
to declare Non-communion with them. A great Favour this! A most
extraordinary Act of Grace indeed But how long he would enjoy it,
if ’twas in their Power to dispossess him of it, is not difficult
to guess, if we may judge of what Men would do by what they have
already done. How then were they injur’d by a Comparison with the
Inquisition, when thus they justify themselves by the same Reasons,
and copy them as far as they can, or dare do?
How then must we act, say they; have we no
Power to suppress Error and advance Truth? Yes, all the Power that
any Set of calm, reasonable, just Men can wish for. They may
consider his Assertions and Doctrines expose their evil Tendency,
if such they have, and combat the Falshood they find in them with
Truth, which will ever be the most effectual Way to suppress them
and to attempt any other Method of doing it, is much more likely to
propagate such suppos’d Errors of false Doctrines, than suppress
them: In this free Country where the Understandings of Men are
under no civil Restraint, and their Liberties sound and untouch’d,
there is nothing more easy than to shew that a Doctrine is false,
and of ill Consequence, if it really be so; but if not, no Man, or
Set of Men can make it so, by peremptorily declaring it unsound or
dangerous, without vouchsafing to shew how or where, as the
Commission did at the Beginning of this Affair, and indeed have yet
done no better.
Upon the whole, if the controverted Points be
false and of ill Consequence, let them be expos’d to the World, if
not, the Sentence which the Commission hath pronouc’d against them,
will prove their own Condemnation; for, to alledge they may treat
any Doctrines they please to call false, and the Believers of them,
as they have done Hemphill and his Doctrines, is to give them an
unbounded Latitude, an unlimited Power of discouraging and
oppressing Truth it self, when it happens to clash with their
private Judgment and mercenary selfish Views, as I dare say it will
often do. See this Argument farther discuss’d in a late Pamphlet
entitled, A Letter to a Friend in the Country, containing the
Substance of a Sermon, &c.
Page 6. Our Rev. Authors observe, that
“in the greatness of his (Hemphill’s) Modesty, he takes Care to
inform us, how universally his Sermons were applauded, to
what large Audiences he preach’d, and how much (upon their
being read in the Synod) they were approv’d by People of all
Perswasions, for the Strain of Christian Charity that runs
thro’ them, &c.”
This aukward, ill-tim’d, and unjust Raillery is
level’d against Hemphill for his being, as they elegantly phrase
it, the Trumpeter of his own Praises; ’Tis true, he
says, his Sermons were applauded, &c. but this they shou’d have
omitted [for] their own sakes, for if it be Matter of Fact that
they were so approv’d (on being read in the Synod) as they neither
do nor can deny, ’tis a very fair and weighty Argument against
them, and plainly shews they proceeded against and censur’d what
was the avowed Common Sense of all unbias’d and disinterested
Judges at the time; and surely we may suppose, he inserted it from
some other Motive than meer Vanity, when it was so much to his
purpose in helping to strengthen his Argument, and set their candid
Proceedings in a fair Light.
Here they also endeavour to lessen Hemphill, by
representing him as a Plagiary, and say, They are apt to think,
that if he had honestly given Credit to the several Authors
from whom he borrowed much of what de deliver’d, it wou’d
have made a considerable Abatement of the Reputation he
supposes he gain’d, &c.
But which of these Gentlemen, or their
Brethren, is it, that does give due Credit for what he borrows? Are
they beholden to no Author, ancient or modern, for what they know,
or what they preach; Why then must we be told, the Ministers ought
to have a good Salary, because they are at great Expence in
Learning, and in purchasing Books? If they preach from their own
natural Fund or by immediate Inspiration, what need have they
either of Learning or Books? Yet Books they have, and must have,
and by the help of them are their Sermons compos’d: But why then,
you will ask, are we entertain’d with such dull, such horrid Stuff,
for the most part? ’Tis the want of the Bongoût [good Taste]
that spoils all. Their Taste is corrupted, and like a bad Stomach
will corrupt the best Food in digesting it. They chuse the dullest
Authors to read and study, and retail the dullest Parts of those
Authors to the Publick. It seems as if they search’d only for
Stupidity and Nonsense. If there be in a Book a weak Piece of
Reasoning on any Point of Religion, That they remark, and keep it
safely to be adopted upon Occasion. If an Author otherwise good has
chanc’d to write one Impertinency, ’tis all they retain of him. But
when Hemphill had Occasion to borrow, he gave us the best Parts of
the best Writers of the Age. Thus the Difference between him and
most of his Brethren, in this part of the World, is the same with
that between the Bee and the Fly in a Garden. The one wanders from
Flower to Flower, and for the use of others collects from the whole
the most delightful Honey; while the other (of a quite different
Taste) places her Happiness entirely in Filth, Corruption, and
Ordure.
Page 6 and 7. We have a lively Instance
of their boasted Candor, Truth and Probity, both in their
Proceedings at the Trial, and in their Writing of the Vindication.
They acknowledge the Charge against ’em for admitting Thompson and
Gillespie as Hemphill’s Judges, (who, it was alledg’d had
condemn’d him already, having declar’d their Sentiments that
he was guilty of preaching great Errors) wou’d have some Weight
in it, were it true; But these Men have the Confidence to say,
No Evidence appear’d to the
Commission, that these Gentlemen had prejudg’d his Cause, or
declar’d him guilty. ’Tis true, the Letters written by Thompson
cou’d not be produc’d; They were burnt; by whose Instance I know
not; But was there therefore (as these Authors are hardy enough to
say) No Evidence? Were there not three
Gentlemen of undoubted Credit, that declar’d they had seen those
Letters? Men of unquestionable Understanding, and therefore capable
of giving an Account of what they had read? Did they not evidence,
that the whole Tenor of these Letters discover’d a manifest
Prejudice in Thompson towards Hemphill? and did they not repeat one
Sentence that made it evident to the whole Congregation? If this
was not Evidence, I wou’d fain know what
Evidence is. But it cou’d not be admitted
by our wise Commission as Evidence; and the
Case must have been the same with regard to the Words spoken
against Hemphill by Gillespie. That Thompson had written in
Prejudice of Hemphill, was prov’d; But That Proof, it seems, must
pass for nothing, unless the Writing appear’d to the Commission; By
the same Rule, if Evidence had been brought of Gillespie’s Speaking
against Hemphill, it wou’d have signify’d nothing with these
righteous Judges, unless Gillespie had been pleas’d to repeat the
Words before them. Senseless therefore is the Introduction of their
Latin Scrap, De non entibus et non apparentibus, idem est
Judicium. A Maxim, which if it prov’d what they wou’d have it,
wou’d prove that no Fact, how atrocious soever, and witness’d by
ever so many credible Persons, shou’d be punish’d unless done in
open Court, that the Judges themselves might see it. Extraordinary
Doctrine truly! and worthy none but it’s reverend Authors; who have
giv’n us this Sample that they are able to outdo the Jesuits
themselves, in Subterfuge, Distinction and Evasion.
And therefore topical Evasions
Of subtil Turns and Shifts of Sense
Serve best with th’ Wicked for Pretence,
Such as the learned Jesuits use,
And Presbyterians, for Excuse.
Hud.
But when Hemphill had with so much Justice
excepted against these Gentlemen, how mean, how ungentlemanlike,
how scandalous, was their earnest Insisting to be continued his
Judges! A strong Evidence of that Partiality and Enmity which they
deny’d and labour’d to conceal!
I dare venture to say, that, except themselves,
there was not a Man so mean in that Congregation, who being call’d
upon a Jury, in a common Court, if he had been excepted against by
the Prisoner, tho’ without cause, but wou’d have thrown up the
ungrateful Office with Pleasure, and scorn’d to open his Mouth, or
say the least Syllable tending to continue himself in the Place.
But the Zeal of having a hand in the Condemnation of a Heretick
carried them beyond all other Considerations. The Synod upon the
whole unanimously voted them proper Judges; which Unanimity, in the
Extract of their Minutes, they ascribe to God as the Work of divine
Providence. To make God the Author of a palpable Piece of
Injustice, is little better than Blasphemy, and I charge it on ’em
as such. And their saying, in the case of Thompson, that there was
no Evidence; I charge upon ’em, as a downright Falsehood. Of these
two Burthens, I leave them to disengage their Shoulders as well as
they can. But
Tis the Temptation of the Devil,
That makes all human Actions evil,
For Saints may do the same thing by
The Spirit in Sincerity
Which other Men are tempted to,
And at the Devil’s Instance do. Hud.
Page 8. of the Vindication, it is said, Nor
was it any Breach of Charity in the Commission, to suppose,
that his Persisting in the Refusal, (of his giving up his
Notes) look’d too much like a Consciousness of his own
Guilt, when the first Reason he gave for this his Refusal, was,
that no man was oblig’d to furnish Matter of Accusation against
himself. What was this but a tacit Acknowledgment of his Guilt,
otherwise his producing his Notes wou’d have been his best
and noblest Defence, and no Accusation against him.
But however they censure Hemphill for refusing
to give up his Notes, it appears from all their Proceedings, that
he was in the right to do so, since the worthy, candid and
impartial Commission was determin’d to find Heresy enough in them,
to condemn him; nor cou’d any thing annex’d to the Paragraphs
objected against, (which explain’d or obviated their suppos’d
heretical meaning) have any weight at all with them; for elsewhere
in their Performance, when they allow that Hemphill in his Sermons
and Prayers gave several Proofs of his Orthodoxy; yet, to
invalidate this, they charitably insinuate at the same time, that
he cloaks his real Sentiments, in order to have the more ample
Occasion of doing secret Mischief to the Cause he publickly
professes to espouse. A Suspicion truly replete with christian
Charity, and in every Respect worthy it’s Authors.
But say they, they cou’d not allow some
Gentlemen to contradict the Evidence against Hemphill, by
affirming that they heard no such Words in his Sermon,
as their Evidences said they had heard, because they were a
negative Evidence, or cou’d only swear they did not hear such
Words; But that was not the case; and here as in other places,
their pious Fraud, their sanctify’d Prevarication stands them in
great Stead; for at the same time, that those illiterate Evidences
were sworn against Hemphill, there were Gentlemen of undoubted
Probity and good Sense ready to affirm to the particular
Expressions, as they really were deliver’d by Hemphill, the meaning
of which widely differ’d from that of those sworn to, by his
Accuser’s Witness which when Mr. Moderator saw, he stifled the
Motion by crying out, He wou’d have no clashing of Evidences so
that tho’ the Evidence in Hemphill’s Favour was beyond Comparison,
the least likely to mistake the Expression, (and as much a positive
Evidence as the other or any Evidence cou’d be in such a case) yet
their appearing for him was Cause sufficient to make the impartial
Commission disregard or suppress their Testimony. What was this,
but chusing to credit the Evidence against Hemphill at all hazards;
to encourage his Accusers, and stifle every Truth that seem’d to
make in his Favour?
These Reverend Gentlemen have always made a
mighty Noise about a pretended Promise of Hemphill’s to produce his
Sermons to the Commission; and now they tell us, that three
Gentlemen of undoubted Veracity solemnly declar’d that they
heard Hemphill say, he wou’d give up his Notes to the
Commission of the Synod, if requir’d. Two of these Gentlemen of
undoubted Veracity, were the Rev. Mr. Tenant, and one of his Sons,
of whose Evidence having taken particular Notice, I shall beg leave
to set it in its true Light.
Mr. Tenant the Father was ask’d What he knew of
the Affair? (the Clerk being ready to write down what he shou’d
say) and he answer’d thus, Being with Mr. Hemphill, I ask’d him,
if he thought he shou’d be willing, when the Commission met,
to shew them his Notes, if requir’d; and he answer’d,
Yes. The Clerk minuted it thus, I ask’d him, if when the
Commission met, he wou’d shew them his Notes, if requir’d;
and he answer’d, he wou’d.
Thus by a Hocus Pocus slight of hand in
the management of this Evidence, they converted an Opinion of
Hemphill’s of what he might be willing to do some Months
afterwards, into an absolute Promise of what he really wou’d do.
And thus alter’d and wrapt up, the Rev. Witnesses took their solemn
Affirmation to the Truth of what the Clerk had written.
For if the Devil to serve his turn
Can tell truth, why the Saints shou’d scorn,
When it serves theirs to swear or lye,
I think there’s little reason why.
Hud.
But, as they pretend, It was the glorious Cause
of Christ and his Church, and in behalf of the Faith once
delivered to the Saints, and who can doubt, after what one of
the Commission has said concerning innocent Wiles, but that
in such a Cause, ’tis lawful to say or swear any thing.
However, since the Vindicators declare their
Abhorrence of the Principles of that unknown Member of theirs, who
thinks any Method of promoting a good Cause, innocent and lawful; I
imagine it not improper to inform them who he is, if it were only
to see how far their Abhorrence will carry them in their Dealings
with him, and whether their Zeal against Impiety be equal to their
Zeal for Orthodoxy. The Rev. Gentleman’s Name therefore is Nath.
Hubbel.
I pass by, and leave to the Observation of
every Reader, what sad Work the Vindicators, Page 10, make
on’t, when they wou’d justify Andrews upon the Charge of adducing a
false Evidence. Vain is their Endeavour to wipe out the indelible
Stain he has fix’d upon his Character by his Conduct in that
Affair. They flounder and wallow in his Quagmire, and cover
themselves with that Dirt, which before belong’d to him alone;
bringing as a Proof of his Innocence, That, which in the strongest
Manner confirms his Guilt; Since it shews that he knew the Truth at
the same time, that he procur’d a Witness to swear the direct
contrary. But to proceed,
In this Page, They put the Trial on the Credit
of Hemphill’s Notes, and yet out of their usual Good-nature and
Charity, suppose that Evidence true, which is utterly falsify’d by
his Notes, and rather believe he had delivered some Heresy from the
Pulpit omitted in his Notes, than mistrust the Memory or Integrity
of a crazy, weak, furious and partial Evidence. Behold the Men and
their Impartiality! Lo the Desire they profess to have of seeing
him vindicated from every Article of Accusation!
They farther insinuate that Hemphill had no
right to expect their particular Objections to the Extracts, and
for this reason, because they were there, not as his Accusers, but
Judges; and tell us, that their sincere Design was to give him
full Opportunity of explaining his Sense, defending his
Doctrines, &c.
I shall not now dispute what was their sincere
Design, which, I believe, is by this time very evident to every
impartial and discerning Man, nor whether they came there with an
Intent to judge or condemn him, tho’ the latter plainly appear’d to
all By-standers. But they ask, how they cou’d point out
his Errors to him, before they found him guilty of any;
how they cou’d acquaint him with the Censures they
thought him worthy of, before they had concluded him
censurable, &c.
I wou’d gladly have seen these Gentlemen, when
they were writing this; they must certainly have been in great pain
to keep Countenance, with all their saint-like Assurance, when they
assert a thing so ridiculous, false and absurd; for, Who mark’d out
the several Passages objected against in Hemphill’s Sermons? I
suppose the Commission. What did they mark ’em out for? They
thought them not Orthodox; or did they mark ’em at random without
understanding their Meaning, or without meaning any thing
themselves. I believe they’ll hardly allow this to be the Case,
tho’ one wou’d almost think it was, from reading their Minutes and
the Extracts. I take it then for granted that the Extracts were
made by the Commission, because they were thought Heterodox: Now
with what Face can they say that they cou’d not shew him his Error
because they had not discover’d it, when they themselves had cull’d
out those Passages from his Sermons, as containing the most
flagrant Heterodoxy and Error. Is not this then a vile, canting,
false, prevaricating Excuse? For who were they that ought to have
shewn the Errors and Falsehoods of the Doctrines contain’d in the
Extracts? Certainly those Men who had made the Extracts, and
thought ’em unsound and erroneous. And did not they, by making
them, shew themselves the Supporters of Andrews’s Charge, and the
Abettors of the Accusation? For to prove the Charge on Hemphill was
properly the Business of his Accuser, (Andrews) but lest the
Accuser shou’d not be able sufficiently to support and make out the
Impeachment, the merciful and impartial Judges took
it upon themselves. Behold that Spirit that wou’d have rejoic’d
to see Hemphill vindicate himself; and brought them there,
as merciful Judges, not Supporters of the Accuser!
Nor can they by any Means extricate themselves
out of this Difficulty, by alledging they gave him an Opportunity
of vindicating himself from the Charge, and explaining what he
meant in the Extracts; For, was it to be suppos’d that Hemphill,
who did not think them faulty, shou’d happen to pitch upon every
particular Article in the Extracts, which they consider’d as
objectionable? And to put him upon a general Explanation was to
impose a tedious, and indeed a useless Task; for he who had an
Opinion of the Extracts, and their Tendency, quite different from
the Commission, was very likely in such a Number of them to
expatiate sometimes, where They wou’d think it needless, or
entirely omit what they thought most heterodox. For, as he neither
meant to preach, nor thought he had preach’d any dangerous Error,
he cou’d not of himself find out where it lay, to explain it, or
defend himself upon it, till they who were convinc’d he had done
it, wou’d shew him where and how he had done so, and in what Sense
they understood him; and this was absolutely the Business of the
Commission.
Their Endeavours to justify Cross, p. 39, for
changing his Sentiments, and condemning for Heresy, what but a day
or two before he acquitted, need not be much insisted on. I shall
only say, ’tis strange a Gentleman of his acute Penetration cou’d
not ’till after much Consideration discover Heresy in a Paragraph,
that shock’d an illiterate Evidence at the first Hearing, and
oblig’d him to run out of the Church in the midst of it. But they
have, methinks, giv’n up the Point entirely, in blaming the
Philadelphia Gentleman for publishing what was spoken in private
Conversation, since this is a tacit Acknowledgment that Cross then
spoke his true Sentiments in Confidence, however he intended
to act in Publick. But who, ’till now, cou’d have imagin’d, that
the Sentiments of a Minister of the Gospel, deliver’d to one of the
Laity upon a Matter of Religion, ought by all Means to have been
kept a Secret?
Let us now consider a little their Remarks on
Hemphill’s Observations upon the Articles of Accusation exhibited
against him in their Minutes.
It is a very melancholy and affecting
Consideration to find any, who pretend they are set for the
Defence of the Gospel, taking so much Pains (tho’ perhaps
ignorantly) to propagate Doctrines tending to promote Enthusiasm,
Demonism, and Immorality in the World. This may be look’d upon to
be a very heavy Charge upon the Authors of the Pamphlet now before
me; yet the Charge is so easily made good, that it looks like an
Affront to the Reason and a distrusting the Common Sense of Men to
be at any trouble in doing it. But before I come to a particular
Examination of the Accusations, &c. it is necessary to consider
briefly the main End and Design of the christian Scheme of
Religion, which our Authors seem, by their Performance, not at all
to understand.
It is well observ’d by an ingenious Writer,
“That the common Mistake to which the Folly and Superstition of
Men, in all Ages, has led them, is to over-value things of lesser
Importance in Religion in comparison with greater; to substitute
the Means in Place of the End; or rest on these as in themselves
sufficient. Now if in any case the Worth and Excellency of Means
lies in their Subserviency to the End, whence they derive their
Value, there can hardly be a grosser Blunder in Practice, than to
substitute the Means in place of the End; or to use them otherwise
than with Regard, and in Subserviency to it. But if we once justly
fix the main End of the christian Institution; a due Regard to that
will lead us to a right understanding of the comparative Worth and
Excellency of the several things contain’d in it; will direct us
what we ought chiefly to be concern’d about, and shou’d have in
view, in our use of all the Means Christianity points out to
us.”
Now the surest way to find out the End and
Design of the Christian Revelation, or what View the Author of it
had in coming into the World, is, to consult the Revelation itself.
And he himself (the great and glorious Author) tells us, he came
to call Sinners to Repentance; that is, not only to a
hearty Concern for Sin, but to an actual Amendment and Reformation
of what was amiss in their Conduct. And Jesus Christ, the Redeemer
of Mankind, elsewhere gives us a full and comprehensive View of the
Whole of our Religion, and of the main End and Design of the
christian Scheme, when he says, thou shalt love the Lord they
God with all thy heart, and with all thy Soul, and with all
thy Mind, and thy Neighbour, as thyself, and he plainly tells
us, that these are the most necessary and essential parts of God’s
Law, when he adds, on these two Commandments hang all the
Law and the Prophets. “These are what Nature and eternal Reason
teach us; and these are the two great moral Precepts, which the
Revelations the Almighty has made to Mankind, are design’d to
explain and enforce.” Moreover St. Paul in his First Epistle to
Timothy expressly tells us, that the End of the Commandment,
(i.e. of the christian Institution) is Charity, or Love, (as
the original word might as well, or better, be translated here, and
in several other Places) i.e. Love to God, and Love to Mankind.
It wou’d be needless to quote any more Texts of
Scripture to this Purpose; they are to be found in almost every
Page of the New Testament. So that upon the whole, it may justly be
concluded, that the main Design and ultimate End of the christian
Revelation, or of Christ’s coming into the World, was to promote
the Practice of Piety, Goodness, Virtue, and Universal
Righteousness among Mankind, or the Practice of the moral Duties
both with Respect to God and Man, and by these Means to make us
happy here and hereafter. All the Precepts, Promises, Threatnings,
positive Institutions, Faith in Jesus Christ, and all the
Peculiarities and Discoveries in this Revelation tend to this End;
and if God gives a Revelation to Mankind at all, it is this, and
this only that can make it worthy of him.
Now that natural Religion, or that the Laws of
our Nature oblige us to the highest Degrees of Love to God, and in
consequence of this Love to our almighty Maker, to pay him all the
Homage, Worship and Adoration we are capable of, and to do every
thing we know he requires; and that the same Laws oblige us to the
Love of Mankind, and in consequence of this Love, as well as of our
Love to God, (because he requires these things of us) to do good
Offices to, and promote the general Welfare and Happiness of our
Fellow-creatures: That the Laws of our Nature, I say, oblige us to
these things, even the Rev. Vindicators themselves, will hardly be
altogether so absurd as to deny, since they acknowledge, p. 20, of
their learn’d Performance, the christian Revelation to be
agreeable to our Nature. By what Accident such an
Acknowledgment slipt from their Pen is not easy to guess; I imagine
it to be a Mistake of the Printer; if not, how consistent it is
with other parts of their wise Scheme is obvious to the lowest
Capacity.
What Hemphill means by the first Revelation
which God made to us by the Light of Nature, is the
Knowledge, and our Obligations to the Practice of the Laws of
Morality, which are discoverable by the Light of Nature; or by
reflecting upon the human Frame, and considering it’s natural
Propensities, Instincts, and Principles of Action, and the genuine
Tendencies of them.
Now, that to promote the Practice of the great
Laws of Morality and Virtue both with Respect to God and Man, is
the main End and Design of the christian Revelation has been
already prov’d from the Revelation itself. And indeed as just now
hinted at, it is obvious to the Reason of every thinking Person,
that, if God almighty gives a Revelation at all, it must be for
this End; nor is the Truth of the christian Revelation, or of any
other that ever was made, to be defended upon any other Footing.
But quitting these things; if the above Observations be true, then
where lies the Absurdity of Hemphill’s asserting,
Article I.
That Christianity, [as to it’s most
essential and necessary Parts,] is plainly Nothing else, but a
second Revelation of God’s Will founded upon the first
Revelation, which God made to us by the Light of Nature. Let it
not be pretended, that these Words, [as to it’s most
essential and necessary parts,] are here added to get
over a Difficulty; for, it is plain even from the Extracts
themselves, mangl’d as they are, that this is his Meaning; Nor can
any Mortals upon Earth be suppos’d stupid enough, (our Authors, and
the Rev. Commission excepted) to understand what he says otherwise.
Where lies the Absurdity of his saying, that this second
Revelation of God’s Will is agreeable to the first, and is
an Illustration and Improvement of the Law of Nature, with
the Addition of some positive Things, such as two Sacraments,
and going to God and making our Approaches to him, in the
Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ; and so of the
rest of the Propositions under this Article. These Gentlemen
surely, wou’dn’t take upon them to say that the contrary
Propositions are true and orthodox; for Instance, That this second
Revelation of God’s Will, is not agreeable to the first, nor
is it an Illustration and Improvement of the Law of Nature, &c.
If what Hemphill has asserted be false, this must be true. But,
whether they look upon what he has advanc’d, to be true or false,
they do not directly say, only in general find Fault with it.
What they say, is this, p. 16, What farther
serves to illustrate the meaning of all this, [of what
Hemphill has said] (I wish they had plainly told us how they
understand him) is his consideration of these things,
which are properly christian, wherein Christianity, as being an
Improvement of natural Religion, carries our Duty higher than
Men generally thought themselves oblig’d to by the Light of
Nature. Among all which Peculiars of Christianity, say
they, wherein (if in any thing) it is distinguish’d from
the Law of Nature, we hear not one word of Faith in Jesus
Christ, of the Necessity of our Interest in the Benefits of his
Redemption, of Justification by his Righteousness, or of
Sanctification by his holy Spirit; nor one Word of any thing
but what we find urg’d by the Heathen Moralists from the
same Sort of Arguments.
Surely these Gentlemen must have a strong Itch
for wrangling, and be greatly inclin’d to Suspicion and evil
Surmises. Does it follow from Hemphill’s not mentioning
Faith in Jesus Christ among the Instances which he gave of
the Peculiarities of Christianity, that therefore he does not look
upon Faith in Jesus Christ to be a Peculiar of it?
Besides does he not expressly mention (as in the Extracts
themselves) our going to God, and making our Approaches
to him in the Name and Mediation of his Son Jesus Christ, as
an Addition [i.e. a Peculiar] of this Second Revelation of God’s
Will [i.e. of Christianity?] Now can any one imagine that
Hemphill, or any one else, that is a Christian, wou’d thus make his
Approaches to God without believing in Jesus Christ? But to
proceed,
Has Hemphill any where deny’d the Benefits of
our Redemption by Christ, or the Assistances of the holy Spirit to
all good Men in the Work of their Sanctification? ’Tis possible
indeed he may not understand these things, as these Gentlemen do;
and since they have not explain’d what they mean by them, nothing
more need be here said about ’em, but that it is certain, they were
intended, as Means, to promote the great End and Design of the
christian Revelation, viz. The Practice of Piety and Virtue; and if
this End be not answer’d by the Peculiarities of the christian
Revelation, they can be of no Advantage to us with Respect to our
Acceptance with God. But again,
What do these mysterious Authors mean here, by
these Words, Justification by his (Christ’s) Righteousness,
or as they elsewhere call it his imputed Righteousness to
justify us in the Sight of God? Do they mean, that the Almighty
transfers the personal and perfect Righteousness of Christ to Men,
or that he infuses it into them, and looks upon it, as the same
thing with their own actual Obedience to his Law, and that in him
they fulfil the Law?
Such a Notion is abominably ridiculous and
absurd in itself; and is so far from being a Peculiar of
Christianity, that the holy Scripture is absolutely a Stranger to
it; Nor does the Notion tend to any thing less than the utter
Subversion of Religion in general, and Christianity in particular.
To prove this, I shall here transcribe the Reasonings of a Pious
and learn’d Divine, the late Rev. Mr. Boyse of Dublin in
Ireland.
“First,” says he, “This Scheme [of imputed
Righteousness] renders Christ’s Satisfaction to the Justice of God,
by offering up himself as our expiatory Sacrifice, needless and
superfluous.
“The divine Law never subjects any to
Punishment, who are regarded and accepted by God any Way as perfect
Fulfillers of it. They may have transgress’d it in their natural
Persons; but if another by God’s own Appointment, is
constituted their legal Proxy, and his sinless Obedience to the Law
be in God’s Account, and by an Act of strict Imputation made their
personal Obedience, then after such an Act of Imputation, no Sins
commited by them in their natural Persons, can be any longer
charg’d upon them as theirs; and as a noted Writer (tho’ no
profess’d Antinomian) speaks, as to the Elect, there was never
any Guilt upon them in the Judgment of God. And this shews the
Confusion that those run into, who supposing Christ to be in the
strictest sense our Surety, assert him to have both
discharg’d our Debt of perfect Obedience, and our Debt of
Punishment too. Whereas he that has fully discharg’d the
Debt of Obedience by another, as a legal Surety, can never
be liable to the Debt of Punishment. For the Penalty of a
Law never extends to any that are justify’d as perfect
Fulfillers of it by one that God himself has constituted
their legal Proxy, made his sinless Obedience to become
theirs by his own Act of Imputation. We need indeed both the
Merit of Christ’s sinless Obedience and Satisfaction too to
obtain for us that Act of Grace, by which we are pardon’d
and entitl’d to Life upon our Compliance with the gracious,
and indeed necessary Terms of it. But if his sinless
Obedience be made by a strict Imputation, our Personal
Obedience, we need no Satisfaction to attone for the past
Disobedience of our natural Persons.
“2dly. This Scheme of theirs is
subversive of the Gospel Doctrine of Forgiveness.
“For, he that is accounted and accepted as a
sinless Observer of the Law, by one that by God’s Allowance and
Estimation was the same Person with himself, stands in no need of
Forgiveness for what he may have done in his natural Person, and is
only dealt with according to the sinless Obedience of his legal
Proxy, whose Obedience was perfect and sinless from his Birth to
his Death, and whose Performance of it is suppos’d by God’s Act of
Imputation, to be made theirs, whose strict Representative he was.
And therefore as far as I can see the Antinomian Writers very
justly infer from this rigid Notion of Imputation that God sees
no Sin in Believers, that there never was any Guilt upon
them in God’s Judgment, that they have no Occasion or Need
to pray for the Pardon of it. And how this can be reconcil’d
with that perfect Pattern of Prayer which our Lord has taught, that
directs us as much to pray for the daily Forgiveness of our
Trespasses, as, for our daily Bread, the Favourers of
this unscriptural Scheme, wou’d do well to consider. And how this
can be consistent with the constant Practice of all christian
Churches, as well as private Christians, who are wont in their
publick Assemblies, their Families, and their secret Devotions to
implore divine Forgiveness, needs to be resolv’d by the Patrons of
this Scheme. For sure the Meaning of those Prayers, is not barely
that God wou’d manifest our Pardon to our own Consciences. For
Desert of Punishment inseparably attends all Sin. For Sins of
Ignorance, meer inadvertency, &c. God’s Act of Grace provides
for their Pardon, upon a general Repentance. For Sins that are
wilful, a particular Pardon, upon a particular Repentance; and as
to both we need to sue for Pardon, and this is God’s appointed
Means of our obtaining it.
“3dly. This Scheme weakens the Force of
those powerful Motives which the Gospel sets before us to persuade
us to Holiness of Heart and Life.
“The Gospel manifestly supposes us to be
reasonable and free Agents plac’d in a State of Trial, and
Probation for the Rewards and Punishments of a future State. And
accordingly makes Use of a great Variety of Arguments to disswade
us from all ungodliness and worldly lusts, and to
perswade us to live righteously, and soberly, and godly
in this present world. And those Arguments are suited to those
various Passions of human Nature, that are the usual Springs of our
moral Actions. Sometimes it uses Arguments to work upon our Fears;
and such are all Threatnings of eternal Punishment it denounces
against all unbelieving, impenitent and finally disobedient
Sinners, against all that refuse to believe this Gospel, or to obey
it when publish’d to them. Sometimes it makes Use of Arguments
proper to work upon our Hopes; and such all those exceeding
great, and precious Promises furnish us with, which
assure us of God’s gracious Acceptance, and liberal Reward of our
sincere and persevering Obedience. Sometimes it makes use of
Arguments proper to work upon our Ingenuity and Gratitude; and such
are those that are drawn from the manifold Blessings of common
Providence, but especially from the Consideration of the unexampled
and astonishing Love of our heavenly Father, and of our Redemption
and Salvation.
“Now whatever persuasive Force the Defenders of
this Scheme may suppose to be in the Arguments proper to work upon
our Ingenuity and Gratitude, yet their Scheme enervates the Force
of all those that are proper to work upon our Fears and
Hopes, those two powerful Springs of our moral Actions. For
he that has already satisfy’d divine Justice, by One consider’d and
allow’d to be his legal Surety, is fully secure from all Danger of
Punishment for Sins committed in his natural Person, and he
that has perform’d Sinless Obedience by the same Legal
Surety, whose Performance of it is by Imputation made and
accepted as his, has an immediate Right to the Reward, and has
nothing to do as any appointed Means to obtain the actual
Possession of it. And therefore not only do the Antinomian Writers
make these their favourite Maxims, that Sin can do a Believer no
Hurt, and that God is not displeas’d with him on Account of
it. He must work from Life, and not for Life, (i.e. must not
yield sincere Obedience as an appointed Means to obtain it) that
the Holiness of his Life, is not one Jot of the Way to his
Salvation: But even other Writers that disclaim the Title of
Antinomians, yet thro’ this mistaken Sense of the Imputation of
Christ’s Righteousness, adopt the same false Maxims.” Thus far
our judicious Author. Now let any unprejudic’d Person judge of the
Tendency of this Enthusiastick Doctrine; Whether it does not tend
to destroy all Religion, and to introduce all Immorality and
Wickedness into the World. Is it not then the Duty of every body to
disapprove and discourage the Propagation of such a Notion, that
not only tends to subvert the Doctrines of the Gospel, but the
Happiness and Welfare of human Society? Even heathen Moralists
themselves, how inferiour soever these Theological Wits may suppose
’em to be to them, wou’d blush to teach such a palpable Absurdity.
It is easy then to apprehend who they are that endeavour to render
the Cross of Christ of none Effect, to frustrate the
Grace of God, and render Christ’s Death in vain, how
strongly soever, they may boast themselves to be set for the
Defence of the Gospel. Noble and Worthy Defenders undoubtedly!
and if this be the Way to defend it, Know all men by
these Presents, That, according to our Rev. Authors, the Way to
defend the Gospel, is to promote Immorality and Wickedness among
Mankind.
But they next proceed to observe, that He
(Hemphill) tells us, that allowing freely, that he deliver’d
such a Description of Christianity as this, he nevertheless
denies the Assertion of these Gentlemen, that it is
inconsistent with their Confession of Faith, and more especially
he denies, that it is subversive of the Gospel of
Christ.
Whether Hemphill’s Notions of Christianity be
or be not inconsistent with the darling Confession of Faith, he is
not at all concern’d to enquire; whatever Notions he might have
formerly entertain’d of this Idol Confession, he now declares it to
be no more his Confession, &c. That his Description of
Christianity is not inconsistent with, or subversive of the Gospel
of Christ, is already prov’d. But our Authors attempt to prove the
contrary; and indeed in such a manner as every Man of Common Sense
laughs at. Hemphill has said in his Observations, “That what
he means in his Account of Christianity, is, that our Saviour’s
Design in coming into the World, was to restore Mankind to that
State of Perfection, in which Adam was at first created; and that
all those Laws that he has given us, are agreeable to that original
Law, as having such a natural Tendency to our own Ease and Quiet,
that they carry their own Reward, &c.” That is, that our
Saviour’s Design in Coming into the World, was to publish such a
System of Laws, as have a natural Tendency to restore Mankind to
that State of Perfection, in which Adam was at first created,
&c. Hemphill’s Meaning being thus in a few Words explain’d, it
is altogether needless to say any thing about the Observations of
these incomprehensible Writers upon this part of Hemphill’s
Doctrine. The Scriptures they have adduc’d to prove it false, and
every thing they say about it are altogether impertinent and
foreign to the Purpose, as every common Reader (our Authors
excepted) will easily apprehend. And indeed if they (our Authors)
had purposely endeavour’d to give the World an Idea of their
impenetrable Stupidity they cou’d hardly have fallen upon more
effectual Methods to do it, than they have (I’ll not say in this
Part of their Performance only, but) thro’ the whole of it.
But before we proceed to the Consideration of
the next Article, let us observe (en passant) how grosly
these orthodox Writers, page 20, mistake the Question between them
and Hemphill. The true State of the Question is, Whether
Christianity [as to its most essential and necessary
Parts] be not a second Revelation of God’s Will
founded upon the first Revelation (the Law of Nature)? Or,
Whether Christianity, [as to its most essential
and necessary Parts] be not a Reinforcement of the
Religion of Nature? And, Whether our Redemption by
the Blood of Christ, and all the Peculiarities of the Christian
Revelation, were not ultimately intended to promote the
Practice of Piety, Virtue and universal Righteousness among
Mankind? Nothing need be further said upon the Question thus
fairly stated, than what has been already said, ’till these Men
please to put Pen to Paper again, and let us know their Sentiments
about it; and the World may undoubtedly expect a wise Scheme from
this quadruple Alliance. Let us then proceed to the Consideration
of their Remarks upon
Article II.
Which is, That Mr. Hemphill denies the
Necessity of Conversion to those born in the Church, and not
degenerated into wicked Practices. This our Reverend Authors think
is sufficiently justified by the Extracts mentioned in their
Performance. Let us then see how sufficiently they have made their
Charge good. Hemphill in his Discourse upon these Words, For in
Christ Jesus, neither Circumcision availeth any thing, nor
Uncircumcision, but a new Creature, attempted among other
Things to explain this Phrase, a new Creature; and observ’d
that this metaphorical Expression is sometimes made use of in
Scripture, to denote that Change or Alteration made by the Grace of
God in a Man, when he passes from the State or Character of a
Heathen or a Jew to the happy State of Condition of a true and
sincere Christian; and that it is sometimes made use of to denote
in general the Change and Alteration made by the same Grace of God
in wicked and immoral Persons, tho’ profess’d Christians, when they
sincerely endeavour to practise the Laws of the Gospel: And
Hemphill in his Enlargement took Notice, that this Change is
most visible in the Conversion of Heathens to Christianity;
and of wicked Professors of Christianity to a Conversation
becoming the Gospel of Christ, and that it may be truly
affirm’d of such, that they are new Creatures, different
from what they were, and scarce to be known for the same
Persons; and that, tho’ this be so, yet (as in the Extract)
the Effect of Christianity truly believ’d and duly practis’d, is
the same upon those who were neither Heathens, nor wicked
Christians, but were born of christian Parents, and brought
up in a christian Country, and had the happiness of a
virtuous Education, and were never engag’d in vicious
Courses. Such as these, he says, tho’ they can’t properly
be call’d new Creatures, (that is, in the same Sense and
so properly as Heathens or Jews converted to Christianity, or
wicked, immoral Persons, tho’ profess’d Christians, brought to a
Sense of their Crimes, and a virtuous Course of Action, may be said
to be New Creatures) when compar’d with themselves, because they
were always what they are, (i.e. Christians) except
the Progress which they daily make in Virtue.
How the Charge of Hemphill’s denying the
Necessity of Conversion, i.e. in one Sense of every Man’s believing
the Truth of Christianity, that has a fair Opportunity of being
convinced of it, and of practising every Thing that Christianity
recommends, or the Necessity of Conversion with Respect to wicked,
immoral Christians, i.e. the Necessity of forsaking their evil
Courses, and sincerely endeavouring to practise all Holiness, and
Virtue; how, I say, this Charge is founded upon this Extract, and
the others mention’d in the Vindication, I confess, I am utterly at
a Loss to see; and I believe, every Man of common Sense will be as
much at a Loss.
Hemphill indeed supposes that Persons, who have
all along had the Happiness of a christian and virtuous Education,
and who have sincerely endeavour’d to practise the Laws of the
Gospel, cannot so properly in the Scripture Sense be stil’d new
Creatures; therefore say his wise Adversaries, he denies the
Necessity of a Sinner’s Conversion to God: Admirable Reasoning!——To
which I answer, that
Asses are grave and dull Animals,
Our Authors are grave and dull Animals; therefore
Our Authors are grave, dull, or if you will, Rev.
Asses.
This Reasoning is every Whit as conclusive, and as infallibly
just as theirs.
It wou’d be a needless spending of Time to make
any farther Remarks upon what they say under this Article, or to
take Notice of what little Use the Texts of Scripture, they
mention, are to prove the Necessity of inward Pangs and Convulsions
to all truly sincere Christians; they are only different
Expressions signifying the same Thing; viz. pointing to us the
Necessity of Holiness and Virtue, in order to be entitl’d to the
glorious Denomination of Christ’s real Disciples, or true
Christians.
But lest they shou’d imagine that one of their
strongest Objections hinted at here, and elsewhere, is designedly
overlook’d, as being unanswerable, viz. our lost and undone
State by Nature, as it is commonly call’d, proceeding
undoubtedly from the Imputation of old Father Adam’s first Guilt.
To this I answer once for all, that I look upon this Opinion every
whit as ridiculous as that of Imputed Righteousness. ’Tis a Notion
invented, a Bugbear set up by Priests (whether Popish or
Presbyterian I know not) to fright and scare an unthinking
Populace out of their Senses, and inspire them with Terror, to
answer the little selfish Ends of the Inventors and Propagators.
’Tis absurd in it self, and therefore cannot be father’d upon the
Christian Religion as deliver’d in the Gospel. Moral Guilt is so
personal a Thing, that it cannot possibly in the Nature of Things
be transferr’d from one Man to Myriads of others, that were no way
accessary to it. And to suppose a Man liable to Punishment upon
account of the Guilt of another, is unreasonable; and actually to
punish him for it, is unjust and cruel.
Our Adversaries will perhaps alledge some
Passages of the sacred Scriptures to prove this their Opinion;
What! will they pretend to prove from Scripture a Notion that is
absurd in itself, and has no Foundation in Nature? And if there was
such a Text of Scripture, for my own Part, I should not in the
least hesitate to say, that it could not be genuine, being so
evidently contrary to Reason and the Nature of Things. But is it
alledg’d, that there are some Passages in Scripture, which do, at
least, insinuate the Notion here contradicted? In answer to this, I
observe, that these Passages are intricate and obscure. And
granting that I could not explain them after a manner more
agreeable to the Nature of God and Reason, than the Maintainers of
this monstrous System do yet I could not help thinking that they
must be understood in a Sense consistent with them, tho’ I could
not find it out; and I would ingeniously confess I did not
understand them, sooner than admit of a Sense contrary to Reason
and to the Nature and Perfections of the Almighty God, and which
Sense has no other Tendency than to represent the great Father of
Mercy, the beneficent Creator and Preserver of universal Nature, as
arbitrary, unjust and cruel; which is contrary to a thousand other
Declarations of the same holy Scriptures. If the teaching of this
Notion, pursued in its natural Consequences, be not teaching of
Demonism, I know not what is.
All that Hemphill has to say about the Mistake
of citing Words for Scripture Expressions, which he owns are not,
is, that such a Mistake is not so bad, nor of so dangerous
Consequence, as perverting the holy Scriptures, which these Authors
are most miserably guilty of; and he thinks his Opinions still
just, and agreeable to the sacred Scriptures, for any thing they
have said to the contrary. Now for
Article III.
Which is, that Hemphill has declaim’d against
the Doctrine of Christ’s Merit and Satisfaction. A heavy Charge
indeed; and to support it they produce several Extracts from his
Sermons. Now, if what is advanc’d in these Extracts be false and
heterodox, the contrary Propositions must be true and orthodox. Let
us then compare Hemphill’s Sentiments and the opposite together in
the subsequent Manner. After Hemphill had observ’d that to preach
Christ is universally allow’d to be the Duty of every Gospel
Minister; he asks, What does this mean? and observes that “It is
not to use his Name as a Charm, to work up the Hearers to a warm
Pitch of Enthusiasm, without any Foundation of Reason to support
it. ’Tis not to make his Person and Offices incomprehensible. ’Tis
not to exalt his Glory, as a kind condescending Saviour, to the
dishonouring of the supreme and unlimited Goodness of the Creator
and Father of the Universe, who is represented as stern and
inexorable, as expressing no Indulgence to his guilty Creatures,
but demanding full and rigorous Satisfaction for their
Offences.”
The opposite and orthodox Principles of the
Presbyterian Ministers of Pensylvania are, that to preach Christ
is to use his Name as a Charm, to work up the Hearers to a
warm Pitch of Enthusiasm, without any Foundation of Reason
to support it. ’Tis to make his Person and Offices
incomprehensible. ’Tis to exalt his Glory as a kind,
condescending Saviour, to the dishonouring of the supreme
and unlimited Goodness of the Creator and Father of the
Universe, who is really a stern and inexorable Being,
expressing no Indulgence to his guilty Creatures but
demanding full and rigorous Satisfaction for their Offences.
Well, these are glorious Principles, and a most excellent Method of
preaching Christ.
These gloomy Writers after a Story of a Cock
and a Bull, observe that Hemphill can’t pretend to instance in any
Preachers of Christ, that ever directly or in terms applied these
Epithets, stern, rigorous, &c. to the glorious God.
Suppose this granted; yet it is easy to mention some who pretend to
preach Christ, that maintain Doctrines, which, if pursued thro’
their just and natural Consequences, would lead any unprejudic’d
Mind to entertain such unworthy Conceptions of our glorious, good
and beneficent God.
But Hemphill is charg’d with denying the Merits
and Satisfaction of Christ, and that too for preaching the Laws of
Christ. Let us then consider what the Scripture Doctrine of this
Affair is, and in a Word it is this: Christ by his Death and
Sufferings has purchas’d for us those easy Terms and Conditions of
our Acceptance with God, propos’d in the Gospel, to wit, Faith and
Repentance: By his Death and Sufferings, he has assur’d us of God’s
being ready and willing to accept of our sincere, tho’ imperfect
Obedience to his reveal’d Will; By his Death and Sufferings he has
atton’d for all Sins forsaken and amended, but surely not for such
as are wilfully and obstinately persisted in. This is Hemphill’s
Notion of this Affair, and this he has always preach’d; and he
believes, ’tis what no wise Man will contradict.
That the ultimate End and Design of Christ’s
Death, of our Redemption by his Blood, &c. was to lead us to
the Practice of all Holiness, Piety and Virtue, and by these Means
to deliver us from future Pain an Punishment, and lead us to the
Happiness of Heaven, may, (besides what has been already suggested)
be prov’d from innumerable Passages of the holy Scriptures. If St.
Paul’s Authority be of any Weight with these Rev. and Ghostly
Fathers, he distinctly tells us that the Design of Christ’s giving
himself for us, was, that he might redeem us from all Iniquity,
and purify unto himself a peculiar People, zealous of good
Works. And he elsewhere tells us, that Christ dyed for all,
that they which live, should not henceforth live unto
themselves, but unto him, (i.e. in Obedience to his Laws)
which died for them, and rose again. And St. Peter expresly
tells us the same thing, when he says, that Jesus Christ
bore our Sins in his own Body on the Tree, that we being
dead unto Sin should live unto Righteousness. Our
Saviour himself, as was before observ’d, tells us, that he came
to call Sinners to Repentance. But what need I trouble the
Reader with quoting any more Passages to this Purpose? To proceed
then,
It is most astonishing to find those who
pretend to be christian Ministers finding Fault with Hemphill, p.
40, for teaching, that to preach Christ is not to
encourage undue and presumptuous Reliances on his Merits and
Satisfaction, to the Contempt of Virtue and good Works?
This, say they, is a most dangerous Doctrine.
And wou’d they really have Hemphill preach the
contrary Doctrine? Wou’d they have him encourage impenitent Sinners
with the Hopes of Salvation, by teaching them an undue and
presumptuous Reliance on Christ’s Merits and Satisfaction? And was
it for this that God sent his Son into the World? If then Christ
has shed his Blood to save such as wilfully continue in their Sins,
and obstinately persist in a vicious Course of Action, then in
Order to evidence our Trust and Reliance upon the Merits and
Satisfaction of our Lord Jesus Christ, we must continue quietly in
a State of Impenitence and Wickedness, and promise ourselves Favour
and Acceptance with God, notwithstanding all our Sins.
If this be not Antinomianism, if it be not to
preach the Doctrine of Devils, instead of the Gospel of Jesus, I
know not what is. How great and valuable soever the Merits and
Satisfaction of Christ may be (as undoubtedly they are great and
valuable beyond Conception) yet, they are no more with Respect to
us, than what God in his Word has declar’d them to be. They will be
of no Use to us, without sincerely endeavouring to conform to his
Will. And when Christians sincerely endeavor to obey God’s
Commands, and perform their Duty really and affectionately, tho’
very imperfectly; to rely then and depend upon the Merits and
Satisfaction of Christ for our final Acceptance with God, is
undoubtedly not only the Duty, but the Comfort of all Christians.
This is a Trust and Reliance founded upon the Gospel. But when Men
continue in a vicious Course of Action, and imagine that God,
notwithstanding their impenitence, will save them at last, and that
because of the Merits and Satisfaction of our Lord and Redeemer
Jesus Christ, provided they at particular Times, when they happen
to fall into a Paroxysm of Devotion, confidently declare their
Trust and Dependence thereupon, and apply them to themselves, as
our unmeaning Authors sometimes talk; when Sinners, I say, trust
and rely upon this; it is a foolish, presumptuous and extravagantly
unreasonable Reliance, and it is obvious to the meanest Capacity
(our Authors still excepted) that such a Dependance is no way
founded upon the Gospel. Besides, such a Trust and Reliance as
this, is to injure and affront the great Redeemer of Mankind in the
most extravagant manner imaginable; as if he came from Heaven, as
if he suffer’d so much, not to lead Sinners to
Repentance, but to encourage them in their Impenitence. But
enough of this; every unbias’d Reader will easily see how
ill-grounded the Charge of Hemphill’s denying the Merits and
Satisfaction of Christ is, and also the ridiculous Impertinence of
the Whole of what our Reverend Authors have said upon the Affair;
and they will easily apprehend too, the Truth of this Position of
Hemphill’s, found so much Fault with by our Authors, viz.
That God hath no Regard to any thing but Men’s inward
Merits and Deserts; that is, no Regard to any thing in
Men but their inward Merits; What else can the Almighty regard
in them?
’Twould be a needless Trouble (and the Reader
would hardly forgive the doing it) to follow these dark Authors
Step by Step, thro’ all their incoherent Starts and Hints. I shall
therefore only take Notice of one Thing more under this Article.
Hemphill is condemn’d for advancing this Piece of Heresy, viz.
They who have no other Knowledge of God and their Duty,
but what the Light of Nature teaches them; no Law for the
Government of their Actions, but the Law of Reason and
Conscience; will be accepted, if they live up to the Light
which they have, and govern their Actions accordingly. To this
our stern Authors answer, Will the Heathen be accepted of
God, by living up to the Light which they have, and
governing their Actions accordingly? then, say they,
there is no need of Christ’s Merits and Satisfaction, in
order to our Acceptance with God. Well concluded! Pray, how
came these Rev. Gentlemen to know that the Heathen, living up to
the Light of Nature, may not have an Interest in the Merits and
Satisfaction of Christ, or that they may not be accepted of God
upon account thereof. The Merits of Christ’s Death and Sufferings
may be so great as to extend to the Heathen World, they may reap
the Advantages of it, tho’ they never had an Opportunity of hearing
of him, provided they make a good Use of their Reason, and other
Principles of Action within them. And to say otherwise is actually
to lessen and diminish the Merits of the Redeemer of Mankind: The
Holy Scriptures represent his Mission as a general Benefit, a
Benefit which Regards all Men, and in Fact, tell us that Christ
dyed for all. And can any imagine that our good God, as is here
suppos’d, will eternally damn the Heathen World for not obeying a
Law they never heard of; that is, damn them for not doing an
Impossibility. Surely none can imagine such a thing; except such as
form their Ideas of the great Governor of the Universe, by
reflecting upon their own cruel, unjust and barbarous Tempers, as
our Authors seem to do. If God requir’d Obedience to an unknown
Law, Obedience to the Gospel from those that never heard of it, or
who never were in a Capacity or Circumstances of being reasonably
convinc’d of it, it would be in the first Place manifest Injustice;
for surely, Promulgation or Publishing of a Law must be allow’d
necessary, before Disobedience to it can be accounted criminal. It
is utterly impossible to reconcile the contrary Notion with the
Idea of a good and just God; and is a most dreadful and shocking
Reflection upon the Almighty. In the next Place, we should find the
Mission of our Saviour so far from being a general Benefit, as the
Scripture teaches, that on the contrary it would be but a
particular one, distributed only to the smallest Part of Mankind:
But, which is more, this Mission of our Saviour wou’d be a very
great Misfortune and Unhappiness to the greatest Part (three
Fourths) of Mankind. For it is probable, that without this
Necessity of Obedience to an unknown Law, many would be able to
save themselves by a good Use of their Reason and the Light of
Nature; whereas by the Mission of our Redeemer, and the Imposition
of an unknown Law, a Law which they could not observe (I mean what
is peculiar to Christianity) they are reduc’d to an utter
Impossibility of being sav’d. I do not think that these
Observations can be contradicted without saying Things very
injurious to the Deity, and therefore erroneous. Agreable to the
general Notion here advanc’d are the Sentiments of St. Paul in Rom.
4:15 where he says, For where no Law is there is no
Transgression. And Rom. 5:13 Sin is not imputed when
there is no Law. See also Rom. 2:14, 15.
I know that some Passages of Scripture are
adduc’d by the Maintainers of this Notion to prove the Truth of it.
But some of the Observations made in page 32 [above, p. 114], are
applicable here, which I need not repeat. And give me leave to
remark here by the by, that if after all requisite Care and Pains,
Reason clearly teaches the Truth of such or such a Proposition, and
that we find in the holy Scriptures some Passage that seems to
contradict the clear Decisions of Reason, we ought not, for we
really cannot, admit that Sense of the Passage that does so, altho’
it shou’d be receiv’d by all the Divines, that call themselves
orthodox, upon Earth; So that any Man must be altogether in
the right to look out for another Sense of the Passage in Question,
which will not contradict the clear Decisions of Reason.
This Principle is to be extenden only to
Propositions, which evidently contradict the clear and manifestly
well-founded Decisions of Reason in general (as in the Case before
us;) and I say that such Propositions, such Doctrines cannot be
contain’d in divine Revelation; so that we must look for another
Sense of the Passages, by which they wou’d pretend to establish
these Propositions or Doctrines; we must, I say, look for a Sense
agreeable to Reason and the known Perfections of God; and it is
absolutely impossible to reconcile the Opinion here contradicted to
either; and if this Notion be not to represent the Almighty, as
stern, arbitrary, inexorable, &c. pray what is?
As for those Passages of Scripture, which are
often adduc’d to prove the absolute Necessity of all Men’s
believing in Jesus Christ without Distinction, in order to
Salvation; Reason, common Sense, Equity and Goodness oblige us to
understand and apply them only to those to whom infinite Wisdom has
thought proper to send the Gospel.
These Gentlemen can hardly take it amiss to be
advis’d to take the utmost Care of saying any thing, or
interpreting Scripture after a Manner injurious to the infinite
Justice, Goodness and Mercy of God, and contradictory to Reason. If
the christian Scheme of Religion be not a reasonable one, they
wou’d make but a dull Piece of Work on’t in attempting to vindicate
the Truth of it.
But they ask, What are the Benefits and
Advantages of the christian Revelation, if the Heathen World living
up to the Light of Nature and Reason may be sav’d? For Answer to
this, I refer them to that excellent Defence of Christianity by Mr.
Foster, Chap. 1. But not to insist any more upon this Point, their
remaining Objections against Hemphill, under this Article are
easily obviated from what has been already said.
Article IV.
The next Article of Accusation exhibited
against Hemphill, is that he describ’d saving Faith, but an
Assent to, or Perswasion of the Gospel upon rational
Grounds; as they word it. Which Article, say they, is supported
by this Extract; viz. That by saving Faith is always
intended such a firm Perswasion of Mind of the Truths of the
Gospel, as is founded on reasonable and good Grounds, and
produces suitable Effects. “The Commission,” say the
Vindicators, “complain that this Description is too general, as not
explicitly mentioning our receiving of Christ upon the Terms of the
Gospel.”
Pray, what do the Commission or their learn’d
Advocates mean by this Enthusiastick Cant, more than what is
included in Hemphill’s Definition? What is it to receive Christ
upon the Terms of the Gospel? I should be apt to suspect some Charm
in this, and the Authors of Sorcery and Witchcraft, had they not
given so many Instances of a contemptible Stupidity; and among the
rest is the following, viz. their concluding that Hemphill’s
Description of Saving Faith may be apt dangerously to mislead
Persons, and encourage them to trust to a naked Assent to
the Gospel Revelation, when the very contrary is included in
the Definition itself. Saving Faith, in Hemphill’s Sense, is always
attended with suitable Effects; that is, with Piety and Virtue, or
Love to God and Mankind; this in the Opinion of our worthy Authors
and Rev. Commission, is apt dangerously to mislead People, &c.
This is New-Light indeed! But How, as Hemphill has already
said in his Observations, can such a Faith, in the
Description of which Good Works are mention’d, be a Means to
lead Men from Good Works, or mislead them?
One would imagine these Men were jesting about
this Affair, or that they really wrote with a Design to burlesque
Christianity, did not a dull, phlegmatic Air of Seriousness run
thro’ their whole Performance; when they in the very next Page
condemn him for saying, the only End of Faith is Obedience.
Pray what is the End of it, if Obedience be not? Is Disobedience
the End of it? He, surely, must deserve to be as heartily laught
at, as our Authors themselves, that would undertake a formal
Refutation of what so sufficiently refutes it self. Let’s try if we
can find any better Sense in the Accusation contain’d in
Article V.
And here we are told, that Hemphill has
open’d the Door of the Church wide enough to admit all
honest Heathens as such into it. Well, these Men have the
rarest Knack of Writing unintelligibly of any I ever met with! What
do these Words of theirs mean? Would they be for shutting the Doors
of their Churches against honest Heathens that had a mind to come
in, and so deprive them of any Opportunity of being convinc’d of
the Truth of the Christian Religion? Wonderful Charity indeed! of a
Piece with their damning them to all Eternity for an Impossibility.
What Connexion there is between the Accusation, and the Extracts
upon which they say it is founded, I own I am not able to see. And
till they please to explain themselves, if they know what they
would be at, I have nothing further to say, but Darapti Felapton
Disamis Datisi Ferison Bocardo Bamarip Cameres Dimatis
Festapo Fresison,
Article VI.
The next and last Article of Accusation is,
that Hemphill has subverted the Doctrine of Justification
by Faith. The Observations of these unlucky Writers, and their
pretended Proofs of this, are every whit as impertinent and
senseless as the rest.
In the Discourse from whence the Extracts are
taken, upon which this ridiculous Censure is foolishly suppos’d to
be grounded, Hemphill, among other Things considered how, or in
what Senses, Christians might be said to be sav’d by Faith. One
Sense in which he alledg’d they might be said to be sav’d by their
Faith in Jesus Christ was, that this their Faith saves them from
the Guilt of their Sins committed before their Faith;
that is, when, for Instance, a Jew or a Gentile commenc’d
Christian, or profess’d his Faith in Jesus Christ, all Sins
committed while a Jew or a Gentile, were forgiven him upon Account
of this his first sincerely professing to believe, &c. and this
Notion seems still to be agreeable to the christian Scheme of
Religion: And he farther observ’d this to be a Priviledge
peculiarly belonging to the first Christians, converted at Years
of Discretion from a Life of Sin and Impurity; and
therefore, this first Justification, or Forgiveness of past
Sins, is often inculcated by St. Paul in his Epistles,
and attributed to Faith; but this doth not concern those who
have been educated and instructed in the Knowledge of the
Christian Religion. And it is very true indeed, that
Justification, or Forgiveness of past Sins, in the Sense here
mention’d, is not, nor can it be applicable to such as were always
Christians, or were educated and instructed in the
Knowledge of the Christian Religion; except you’ll suppose,
that those that were always Christians, were notwithstanding Jews
or Gentiles, before they were Christians, tho’ they were always
Christians. An Absurdity which our Rev. Authors alone are capable
of.
Tho’ Hemphill, upon farther Reflection, will
own that Justification, in the Sense above, is not a Privilege so
peculiarly belonging to the first Christians, but that it may be
applicable now-a-days; yet this will not at all answer their
foolish Design, because the Case is exactly the same with that of
the first Christians, or those converted from Judaism or Gentilism
to Christianity, at the first Propagation of it. What Hemphill
means, is this; Suppose an Indian, for Instance, now converted to
Christianity, Justification in the Sense above might as well be
apply’d to him, as to the first Christians: If the Reason of Things
continue the same, God Almighty, according to the Christian Scheme
of Religion, would forgive our suppos’d Indian, upon his
Conversion, all his past Sins, as he did the Sins of the first
Christians upon their Conversion, or upon Account of their
believing in Jesus Christ. Now the Question with respect to our new
Convert, or new Christian, is, What are the Terms or Conditions of
his final Acceptance with God? In Hemphill’s Opinion, and
according to his Notions of Christianity, a sincere Endeavour to
conform to all the Laws of true Goodness, Piety, Virtue, and
universal Righteousness, or the Laws of Morality both with respect
to God and Man, are the Terms of his final Acceptance with God; and
when he fails in any Instances, a sincere Repentance and a renew’d
Endeavour, begging divine Assistance, to practise the contrary
Virtues; and when our Convert, and all other Christians, have thus
endeavour’d sincerely to conform to the Laws of Piety and Virtue,
tho’ their Obedience be attended with many Imperfections, they
will, as Christians, or as Believers in Christ Jesus, be accepted
of by God, according to the christian Scheme of Religion, the
Imperfections of their Virtue will be forgiven upon account of the
Merits and Satisfaction of Christ, as was before observ’d. So that
what Hemphill farther says (as in the Extract) is still true, if
rightly understood, viz. that all Hopes of Happiness but
what are built upon Purity of Heart and a virtuous Life,
are, according to the Christian Scheme, vain and delusory. That
is, all Hopes of Happiness to Christians, as such,
consider’d separately and distinctly from the Practice of the Moral
Virtues, are vain and delusory. If these Gentlemen assert
the contrary, they must infallibly run into Antinomianism, how
angry soever, they may appear to be at the Charge. Now, how justly
the Accusation of Hemphill’s denying our Justification by Faith is
founded upon the Extracts before us, is obvious to every body. The
first Extract has nothing to do with us at all, who were all along
educated and instructed in the Christian Religion; the second has
been shewn to contain in it the Terms or Conditions of our
Acceptance with God, as Christians, for Christ’s Sake, or upon
Account of his Merits and Satisfaction. How ridiculously silly and
impertinent then are all their Observations upon these
Extracts!
These Authors in very angry Terms condemn a
Remark of Hemphill’s in his Observations, which yet appears to be a
very just one. He (Hemphill) supposes, that all
Christians (Antimonians excepted) will allow, that Faith
will not be imputed for Righteousness to those Men who have
been educated in the Christian Religion, and yet have never
endeavour’d to practise its Precepts; that such Men, says he,
have no reason to expect that they shall be justify d by a bare
Faith, as the primitive Christians were, who embrac’d
Christianity assoon as they heard it preached; that is,
have no reason to expect the Forgiveness of their Sins upon account
of a bare Faith, as the primitive Christians were forgiven their
past Sins upon their first Conversion, or their Believing in Jesus
Christ.
To this our very reverend Authors, with a pious
and orthodox Sneer, answer, It is scarce possible for a Man to
bind together a greater Bundle of Error, Ignorance and
Impertinence in so few Words, than this Gentleman has
done. Hah! a home Thrust! a bold Stroke! next Turn’s mine. Here
they suppose this Position of Hemphill’s to be erroneous, &c.
And yet in the next Paragraph tell us, with a sanctify’d Leer, that
the whole Protestant World, the Antinomians only
excepted, have constantly taught, that those Men who have been
educated in the Christian Religion, are justifyed by a
Faith, that from the very Nature of it is necessarily
accompanied with Good Works, by a Faith that can no more
exist without good Works, than the Body can live without the
Spirit, &c. So then we are now justify’d by a Faith, the
very Life and Soul of which consists in good Works, as certainly as
the Life of the Body consists in the Spirit. Such Inconsistency!
Such Self-contradiction! Surely these Men’s Spirits must be
strangely muffled up with Phlegm, and their Brains, if they have
any, encompass’d with a Fence of a most impenetrable
Thickness.
Thus, I think, I have examin’d the principal
Things in this Vindication of the Rev. Commission; and upon the
whole, it appears even from a plain Narration of Matter of Fact,
that they (the leading Men among them at least) came to
Philadelphia with Malice, Rancour and Prejudice in their Hearts,
resolv’d at all Hazards to condemn the Man and his Doctrines; and
their Aversion to both carry’d them those shameful Lengths which we
have here shewn in their true Light. For if to justify a known
Perjury, to lye openly and frequently in the Face of the World; if
to condemn Doctrines agreeable to the main End and Design of the
Gospel, and calculated for the common Welfare of Men; if to stamp
an Appearance of Sanctity upon Animosity, false Zeal, Injustice,
Fraud, Oppression, by their own open Example as well as Precept;
and to behave as bitter Adversaries instead of impartial Judges; if
to do all this be truly christian Candour, Charity and
Truth, then will I venture to say, these Rev. Gentlemen have
given the most lively Instances of theirs. For all these Things
have been so strongly charg’d and fairly prov’d upon ’em, that they
must of Necessity confess their Guilt in Silence, or by
endeavouring a Refutation of the plain Truth, plunge themselves
deeper into the Dirt and Filth of Hypocrisy, Falsehood and Impiety,
’till at length they carry their quibbling Absurdities far enough
to open the Eyes of the weakest and most unthinking Part of the
Laity, from whom alone they can expect Support and Proselytes.
I have one Thing to desire of the Vindicators,
before I come to a Conclusion, viz. that they wou’d, for Shame,
take in the Motto they have hung out in the Title Page of their
Performance, from II Tim. 3, since ’tis plainly applicable to none
but themselves, and can by no means touch Hemphill; for, he
contended for the Power of Godliness, denying the
Form; and ’tis well known, that none but the Men of Sense
were on his Side, and that all the silly Women of the
Congregation were inveterately bent against him, being zealous
Abettors of Mr. Andrews, who crept into their Houses, and
led them away captive to the Commission to say and swear
whatever he had prepar’d for them. This Motto therefore was the
most improper one they cou’d possibly have pick’d out of the whole
Bible.
The Rev. Mr. David Evans, one of the
Commission, in his Sermon at the Ordination of Mr. Treat, says,
Page 49, That it is a Wonder to
see any truly gracious, considerate
wise Man in the Gospel Ministry. And confirms it at the
End of the Paragraph, by saying, It is no Wonder to see
thousands of Ignorant, inconsiderate, carnal Ministers, but
a Wonder to see any truly understanding, considerate,
gracious ones. I am really inclin’d to be of his Opinion;
especially, if he confines his Observations to the Presbyterian
Ministers of this Part of the World. I am sure, however, that their
Proceedings against Hemphill has convinc’d Multitudes, that this
Wonder was not to be seen in the late
Commission.
I might therefore divide the Gentlemen that
were concern’d in this Affair (and I trust, I should do them no
Injustice), into these three Classes; first, the Men of Honesty who
wanted Sense; secondly the Men of Sense, who wanted Honesty; and
lastly, those who had neither Sense, nor Honesty. And I believe
this Division may comprehend the whole Commission.
622211 = 002-090a.html