The following document is actually a copy of a
letter written by Noah Webster in 1809. The letter was so well received that
Noah Webster was asked to publish the letter. This letter was then edited by
Noah Webster and published in
The Panoplist and Missionary Magazine (a magazine
created to encourage Americans by sharing stories and letters from
missionaries).
THE
PECULIAR DOCTRINES
OF
THE
GOSPEL,
EXPLAINED AND DEFENDED
From the Panoplist and
Missionary Magazine United[The following letter, from Noah Webster,
Esq. to a friend in Boston, written for private use, is now published at the
earnest request of some gentlemen of piety, who had read the original; the
author having, on revision, made some alterations, and added a few remarks to
elucidate particular points. Such parts as were of a more private concern are
omitted. Editors.]
New-Haven, Feb. 23d,
1809
DEAR BROTHER,
I have read the
little pamphlet, entitled, a “Review of Hints on Evangelical Preaching,” which
you sent to me, requesting my thoughts on the subjects of which it treats. That
the writer and the publisher of that review may have been actuated by very
honest motives, I would not dare to question. Multitudes of respectable and
intelligent men in this country, and probably in Europe entertain the same
unfavorable opinion of what is called
evangelical preaching. I once
entertained similar opinions, though probably not to the full extent with the
writer of the review. But I was opposed to everything that looked like
enthusiasm in religion, and talked much about the propriety of being a
rational Christian. I am still opposed to enthusiasm, but I am not
convinced that my former opinions were erroneous, and that I formerly included
under that term, a belief in some of the fundamental, and
most rational
principles of the Gospel.
That some preachers, who call
themselves
evangelical, may utter opinions which are
not
evangelical, is not at all improbable; nor is it to be expected that no
man, who ministers in holy things, should go too far in depreciating the moral
duties. Minds, impelled by zeal, may acquire a momentum that may carry them
beyond the Gospel mark, at which they aim. But, if I understand the reviewer, he
not only censures what may be really wrong in zeal, but aims to make the
moral duties the essence of the Gospel, which the publisher of the
pamphlet calls the
benevolent and moral religion of Jesus. And this I
understand to be the creed of many respectable men in this country. I am
probably as sincere a frien[d] to the moral duties as the reviewer; but that
these constitute the ground-work of the Gospel, I believe to be a fatal error; a
rock on which perhaps more intelligent men are shipwrecked than on any other.
Were there no other defect in this creed, this alone would overturn it, that no
man destitute of a principle of holiness, or a supreme love and regard to his
Maker, can perform the moral duties, in the manner which the laws of God
require. His motives cannot be pure; they cannot spring from the right source;
nor will any man, without a higher principle than a mere regard to social
happiness, ever be able to perform all the moral duties with steadiness and
uniformity.
But let us examine this scheme of religion on other
grounds. It is the principle of our religion, and of all true religion, that
there is a God of infinite perfection, who is the Author of whatever has been
created. This Being is man’s Creator and, of course, his sovereign Ruler; and if
his Sovereign Ruler, He has a right to give laws to man for his government. From
God’s sovereignty, or his character as Creator and Governor of the universe,
results necessarily his
right to the supreme reverence of all the
rational beings he has created; and from this sovereignty, and from the
perfection of His nature, as well as from His benevolence to man, in creating
him, and supplying him with all the means of happiness, results God’s
right
to man’s highest love and gratitude. For nothing is more obvious than that
supreme excellence is entitled to the first place in our esteem. Our
first
class of duties then respects our Maker, our Preserver, our Benefactor, and
Redeemer. These duties, I apprehend, are dictated by reason and natural
religion, as well as commanded in the Scriptures. They result necessarily from
our relation to the Supreme Being, as the head of the universe.
In the next place, men are made for society. Our natural propensities lead us to
associate with each other; and society is necessary to the continuation of the
species, as well as to our improvement, protection, and happiness. From this
association of men, and the various interests involved in it, result numerous
social duties, which we comprise under the general term,
morality.
These constitute the
second class of the duties of men. This
distribution of our duties is precisely that which Moses has made in the Ten
Commandments, which were originally divided and engraved on
two tables.
The
first table contained our duties to God; the
second
our duties to each other; and this distribution is expressly recognized by
our Savior, who declares that the
first and great commandment is to
love the Lord our God with all the heart, with all the soul, and with all the
mind; and that the
second, which is like to it, is to love our neighbor
as ourselves.
Now let me ask the advocates of a
moral
religion, with what propriety, or by what authority, can we dispense with
the
first table of the law, or even postpone it to the
second?
Are not the duties of
piety as necessary, and as positively
commanded as the duties of
morality? and more, are they not placed at
the head of the list? The command, “thou shalt have no other God before me,”
[Exodus 20:3] which enjoins supreme love, reverence, and adoration, as duties to
the Creator of the universe,
precedes all the other commands, not only
in the order of arrangement, but in the order of
propriety, resulting
from God’s character and supremacy. The Scriptures inculcate this doctrine from
beginning to end; and it is as consonant to reason, and the moral fitness of
things, as it is to the Scriptures.
To illustrate great things
by small, let me state the following case. The father of a family, wishing to
furnish his children with the means of enjoying happiness, tells them, “I have
the means of supplying you with everything you can desire. I will build, for
each of you, a house in my neighborhood, and I will send you every day whatever
you want or can enjoy; and you shall have no trouble in living, except in
dressing and preparing the provisions and materials I shall send, to suit your
own desires. But to secure to yourselves the continuance of my favors, it is
necessary that you comply with two conditions…the first is that you shall treat
me with the respect due to a parent and call daily at my house to thank me for
the benefits you receive. The second is that you shall treat each other with the
utmost kindness and justice.” Suppose then that these children, placed in this
eligible situation, and living in profusion on their father’s daily supplies, do
actually comply, in a good degree, with the second condition; performing all
their social duties, with tolerable, or even with strict punctuality; but pass
thirty, forty, or fifty years, without once calling upon their benefactor, to
make to him their grateful acknowledgments. What shall we say to such base
ingratitude? But suppose further, that these children, instead of H pious
veneration, and daily expressions of gratitude to their kind father, should
declare that
they owe him no immediate duties: that to be kind and just
to each other is all that is necessary to fulfill the conditions, on which they
hold their estates and enjoyments, and some of them even reproach their father
as a hard master, and treat him with open contempt! What can be said in
vindication of such conduct? Can such children claim from their insulted
benefactor a continuance of his kindness? Much less can they expect, or even
hope from him, further means of enjoyment, and a more splendid establishment! I
leave this case, my dear brother, to be decided by the advocates of a
religion consisting of
moral duties; referring you, however,
to a single passage of Scripture in which Jehovah, as the Father and Ruler of
men, claims His rights with the affecting benignity [kindness] of a God. “A Son
honoreth his father, and a servant his master; if then I be a Father, where is
my honor? And if I be a Master, where is my fear?” Mal. i. 6.
If
I understand anything of God’s character and moral government, and of our
relation to Him, as His dependent creatures, a supreme regard to Him, as the
first great cause and last end of all things, is the
foundation of all
true religion in the heart…as indispensable to the perfection of His moral
government, as it is to the happiness of His rational creatures. Perfect
excellence being entitled to supreme love and regard, and God being perfect
excellence and the only Being of that character in the universe, it results that
intelligent creatures must give to Him the first place in their hearts, or they
do not conform to the standard of moral rectitude which God has established; and
if they do not conform to that standard, they cannot be entitled to the
happiness which results from such conformity. Hence, we are repeatedly informed
in the Scriptures, that “the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom;” [Ps.
111:10, Prov. 9:10] the foundation on which the whole system stands. God then
claims from us, as the first duty, a supreme regard to His character and laws,
which is to be manifested by the duties of piety, prayer, worship, fear, love,
attendance upon His instituted ordinances, and a reference to His will as the
only rule of our moral and religious conduct; in short, an unreserved submission
to His laws and government. He, as the Sovereign of the universe, has a
right to this regard; He demands it as His right; and according to my
view of His character and government, He cannot dispense with it. It should even
say, with reverence, it would be an imperfection in His government if He
could.
But this is not all. While God makes His own glory the
chief object of His works and government, He has made holiness or conformity to
His image, the condition on which His rational creatures are to enjoy supreme
happiness. The connection between holiness and future felicity is inseparable.
The happiness of a future life is represented as consisting in the enjoyment of
God’s favor and presence. How, let me ask, can a soul enjoy the Divine presence
without supreme love to the divine character? What joy can a soul experience in
the presence of a God to whose attributes and laws it is not previously
reconciled? How can a soul be delighted with the favor of God in heaven, which
has never loved him supremely on earth? Is the heart to be changed after death?
This we are forbid to believe. A man may, in this life, perform moral duties
without any particular regard to his Maker and without any particular relish for
His character and government. He may perform good works to his fellow-men, even
from a sense of their fitness and propriety, without performing a single act of
homage to the Supreme Being, although, as I have before remarked, without a
reference to God’s will, he will rarely perform them with uniformity, even in
the view of the world. But the natural heart is enmity against God; and if such
moral man dies without a change in the affections of his heart, what
qualification will he possess for that heaven, whose employment consists in
loving and
praising God? How will he relish the joys of pure
and holy spirits? It is impossible. Even in this life, nothing is more painful
to a man than the presence of a kind benefactor whom he has injured. Were a man
of mere morality to be instantly transferred to the presence and favor of a pure
and Holy Being, Heaven itself would be a hell. An unholy being cannot be happy
in the immediate presence of a Holy God; at least, in my apprehension, it
appears to be impossible. Hence it appears that regeneration and holiness of
heart are in the very nature and fitness of things necessary to the enjoyment of
Heaven; and the Gospel doctrines really stand as well on the immutable order of
things in the universe, as on the positive declarations of Christ and His
apostles. We are placed on this earth in a state of trial and probation,
furnished with intellectual powers to learn the character of God and our own
duty; with the Word of God to direct us and a free will to accept or reject the
offers of salvation. To complete the means of salvation a Mediator has been
provided to make an offering of Himself for our sins and satisfy that law which
we have violated and which we ourselves are certainly unable to satisfy. In this
state, the seeds of holiness are to be planted in the heart and are destined to
grow and ripen into a full harvest of felicity in a future life.
Holiness,
in this life, is the
germ of Heaven. But holiness, in a Scriptural
sense, and indeed in any sense, is a distinct thing, from a principle of
morality. Morality, or good works, respect our fellow-men; holiness respects
God. It is that state of the heart which proceeds from supreme love to God,
faith in Christ, and entire submission to the Divine commands. Without this
holiness, the Bible informs us, no man shall see the Lord. And this holiness is
indispensable to the performance of good works. As faith without works is dead;
so good works are the fruit of faith [James 2:14-26]. And according to the
Gospel, it is not possible for moral duties to be acceptable to God unless they
proceed from faith and holiness or from a supreme regard to God’s will as their
spring or motive.
These doctrines involve the necessity of
regeneration, a doctrine which many men, called Christians, deny; and which the
morality-system utterly excludes. I know not how men who believe the Scriptures
can reason away a doctrine so fully and expressly revealed as that of the
new-birth. The passages of Scripture which directly assert the necessity of such
a change, I need not recite; they must be familiar to you, but I will make a few
remarks on this subject.
That the heart of man is naturally
destitute of holiness, or true love to God, is equally provable from the
Scriptures and from observation. That the natural heart is at enmity with God,
one would think any person must admit who reads history or observes the state of
society within his own view. But I want no other evidence of the fact than that
which is furnished by the men who make morality or good works the basis of all
religion, and the ground of acceptance with God. The disposition to exclude the
duties of piety as of primary importance in a scheme of religion; or a
disposition to obtain salvation, by the merit of moral duties in exclusion of
the merits of Christ’s righteousness, without a supreme love to God and His laws
and an entire dependence on sovereign grace, is to my mind a demonstration that
the natural heart is “enmity against God.” [Romans 8:7] Indeed, it is an
astonishing proof of pride and ingratitude, that men who acknowledge themselves
to have been created without any agency of their own and who cannot raise an arm
or draw a breath without the agency of their Creator, should attempt to prove
that they can obtain salvation by their own works, without Divine aid and
without the infusion of a principle of holiness by the same Spirit which first
breathed into man the breath of life. Why is it more improbable that God should
exert His sovereign power in regenerating the soul to make it a suitable being
to dwell in immortal glory, than that he should form the body as a suitable
being to inhabit the earth? It should be observed that the Supreme Being
reserves to Himself exclusively the glory of creation. He created man and the
universe with all its furniture. He has placed the animals, plants, and minerals
of this globe at the disposal of man. We have the means, under His providence,
of multiplying the number of animals and plants at pleasure; we can modify and
use the species which He has made; but observe, we can
create nothing.
We cannot add a single new species to those which God has made. If the heart of
man, in its natural state, is not qualified to be an inhabitant of Heaven and
must be renovated, how is the change to be effected? The Scriptures everywhere
represent the change of affections in the heart, as a
new birth or
creation; and if such is the change, who but God is to be the
Creator?
Regeneration consists in an
entire change of the
affections. The natural man’s affections are placed on temporal enjoyments
and objects of this life. Hence the social duties are the sum of his religion.
The affections of the regenerate heart are placed on God, as the first and
noblest object of love; on Christ as the Redeemer, through Whom man has access
to God and happiness; and on the will of God as the only rule of his conduct. It
looks to God as the Author of all good; trembles at the thought of offending
Him; submits cordially to his commands and dispensations; and reposes with
delight and unshaken confidence on his promises. The real Christian does not, in
his moral conduct, make his own honor, interest, or reputation the primary rule
of decision; but endeavors to regulate his actions by God’s law; “for of Him,
and through Him, and
to him are all things.” [Romans 11:36] In short,
his heart recognizes the great truths delivered by our Savior, that the
first and
great commandment is to love the Lord our God with
all the heart, soul, strength, and mind; and that the
second is to love
our neighbor as ourselves. This is unquestionably the order of pious affections;
the order of nature; the order of moral fitness; and the order of the Gospel.
And how is it possible for men who study the universe and read the Scriptures,
to attempt to invert this order? From what cause proceeds this unnatural
perversion of truth, as immutable as God himself? Is it not the natural pride
and the evil propensities of the human heart? Why does man wish to dispense with
the duties of piety and obtain salvation upon the strength of duties performed
to his fellow-men? Is there anything painful or mortifying in piety and a
dependence on Divine grace for salvation? If there is, the heart is wrong. There
is certainly no durable pleasure in sin. Long before I had these views of the
Gospel scheme of salvation, I was convinced that sin, even in this life,
produces more pain and misery than real pleasure. No, my friend, there is no
substantial satisfaction in this life, except in conforming to the laws of the
Supreme Lawgiver. As His laws and character are the most excellent, and as
intellectual happiness can proceed only from truth and excellence, it results
that man must enjoy the most happiness, when his heart is reconciled to the
Divine laws and most conformed to the Divine character.
So far
are the duties of piety and religion from being painful that the human mind,
roving from one temporal object to another, unsatisfied with the pleasures they
afford, perplexed with doubts, and, like Noah’s dove, finding no solid ground on
which to rest, never enjoys permanent peace until it has sought a refuge in that
ark of Divine safety, the Redeemer’s kingdom. The soul of man is, I am
persuaded, never tranquil till the will is subdued and has yielded, with
implicit submission, to God’s sovereign grace. This submission, however
humiliating it may appear to the natural man, is accompanied or followed with
unspeakable satisfaction. The most dignified attitude of feeble, sinful man is
that of a penitent at the foot of the cross, imploring pardon from an offended
God; and I firmly believe that every man must be brought to this posture before
he can enjoy any permanent tranquility of mind in this life, or possess any
qualification for the happiness of the next.
These sentiments may
perhaps expose me to the charge of
enthusiasm. Of this I cannot
complain, when I read in the Gospel that the apostles, when they first preached
Christ crucified, were accused of being full of new wine; when Paul was charged
by Felix with being a madman; and when Christ Himself was charged with
performing miracles through the influence of evil spirits. If, therefore, I am
accused of enthusiasm, I am not ashamed of the imputation. It is my earnest
desire to cherish evangelical doctrines and no other. That the opinions here
expressed are substantially true, I firmly believe; and I number it among the
strong arguments in favor of the truth of these doctrines and of revelation,
that pious men in every age have entertained similar views and experienced
corresponding affections of the heart. In every period of the church and in
every country where the true religion has been professed, men of piety have had
substantially the same views of the character of God and of the duty of man; the
same supreme love to their Maker; the same submission to His will, faith in His
promises, and zeal in His cause, as were manifested by Abraham, by David, and
the apostles. This uniformity of affections among pious men, in distant
countries and periods of time, affords a solid proof of the truth of their
religion and of its Divine original; for nothing is uniform but truth; nothing
unchangeable but God and His works.
Nor is the opposition to this
scheme of religion, in my apprehension, less an argument of its truth. In every
age, men who are unwilling to submit to God’s sovereignty and who desire to have
as little dependence as possible on His power and mercy, have opposed the
religion which gives to God His true place in the universe. The men who now
reject the doctrines of the divinity of Christ, of regeneration, of the
atonement, of saving faith, and of free grace; follow the footsteps of the chief
priest, scribes, and Pharisees; substituting external duties for the doctrines
of the cross. But, in my apprehension, we must receive these doctrines or reject
the Scriptures as a forgery and Christ as an impostor. To reject the Scriptures
as forgeries is to undermine the foundation of all history; for no books of the
historical kind stand on a firmer basis than the Sacred Books. The
correspondence of the geographical descriptions, interspersed in various books,
with the real state of the countries described as it now exists, will
demonstrate the historical truth of the Scriptures beyond the possibility of
cavil [objection].
If then the Scriptures are ascertained to be
faithful histories or relations of many facts still capable of unequivocal
proof, we have a pledge that the writers have not deceived us in regard to facts
not now equally susceptible of proof; and we have the strongest ground to
believe that they are what they are declared by the writers themselves to be,
the records of God’s revealed will. No historical facts are better attested than
the miracles performed by Jesus Christ; and to deny the facts is to set afloat
all history. If Christ then performed the miracles ascribed to Him, He must have
been a Divine person or a mere man possessed of Divine powers for particular
purposes; but He could not have been a mere man, for He expressly declares, that
“Before Abraham was, I am,” John viii. 58. “And now, O Father, glorify thou me
with thine own self, with the glory which I had with thee
before the world
was,” John xvii. 5. We must therefore admit with the apostle that Christ
was “God manifest in the flesh,” [1 Timothy 3:16] or place these declarations to
the account of falsehood, and hold Christ for an impostor; which no believer in
the Scriptures will have the hardiness to do. I once had doubts on this subject;
but my mind is now satisfied of the divinity of our Savior. “Never man spake as
He spoke.” [John 7:46] The prophecies respecting Christ and the astonishing
train of events recorded in the Jewish history, as preparatory to his
appearance, have had no small effect in satisfying my mind on this subject. Let
any man attend, among other prophecies, to the clear predictions of Christ, in
the ninth and fifty-third chapters of Isaiah and he will find abundant evidence
of Christ’s divinity and the inspiration of the Scriptures. It cannot be said
that these predictions are forgeries, for we have ample proof that they were
written several centuries before the birth of Christ. A part, if not the whole
of the Old Testament, was translated into Greek by the seventy, nearly three
centuries before Christ appeared, for the benefit of the Jews who, after their
captivity and dispersion, had lost a knowledge of the Hebrew language; and this
translation is now extant. In addition to this, it has been justly remarked,
that the quotations from the Old Testament by the apostles and evangelists are
taken from the Greek copy. If, then, the predictions of the prophets are
genuine, as I firmly believe, they must have been dictated by the Spirit of God.
Now the prophets apply to Christ not only the attributes, but the title of
Jehovah [ ]
Jehovah our righteousness, Jer. xxiii.6, and xxiii. 16. I
have long regretted that, in the common version of the Bible, the original word
Jehovah has not been generally retained in the translation. I think the
original loses much of its force in the English word Lord and, when applied to
Christ, the evidence of the Divinity of Christ contained in the title is to an
ordinary reader, entirely lost or much impaired.
To those who
object to this doctrine of Christ’s divinity on account of its mysteriousness, I
would reply, that there is nothing more mysterious in this doctrine than in
everything else respecting God and His works. Men should not stumble at mystery
after having disposed of the difficulties attending the belief of a preliminary
mystery, the least comprehensible of all. The existence of a God, infinite,
eternal, and unchangeable in His being and perfections is, in my apprehension,
by far the greatest mystery that can be presented to the human mind. Yet few men
hesitate to believe in the existence of such a Being. Men who are not staggered
at this first and greatest mystery, one would think, could not hesitate to give
their assent to doctrines involving less difficulties; for when once the
existence of a God of unlimited power is admitted, we may safely admit the
existence of any facts, however mysterious and astonishing, that do not involve
an absolute contradiction. I am not perfectly satisfied with the terms used in
creeds, “three persons in one God;” the terms are not Scriptural and may not
assist the understanding in its contemplations on this subject. I receive the
doctrine just as the Scriptures represent it without attempting to explain it in
terms of my own. I bow to this, as to all other mysteries in the kingdoms of
nature, providence, and grace. All creation is full of mystery; indeed the
constitution of man is, perhaps, as great a mystery as any other. The union of
an intelligent principle with a certain organic structure of bones, flesh,
vessels, and nerves, is perhaps as really incomprehensible by us as the
existence of God or the Divinity of Christ; for we cannot compare degrees of
incomprehensibility. Explain to my understanding, how a man, by an act of the
will, can move a finger, and I think I may safely undertake to unfold any
mystery in the Gospel. Explain to me the natural cause of attraction, in
gravitation, cohesion, or magnetism; describe to me the process of vegetation on
the earth, and of mineralization beneath its surface; attend the chemist in his
laboratory, and see two invisible colorless gases combined in a certain
proportion, producing that visible substance, water, and the same substance
decomposed and converted into gases; in short, unfold to my comprehension the
cause of heat, the operations of light, and of congelation [thickening], before
you complain of the mysteriousness of Christ’s divinity. What is there, my dear
friend, in Heaven above or on the Earth beneath, which we
do
comprehend? Surely, beings of our limited capacities have no right to
expect we shall be able to understand all the works and counsels of the infinite
Jehovah. It is our duty to admire and adore, to love and obey. In short, it is
the duty of man to be
humble. Indeed, it is a remarkable fact, that God
rarely communicates to man the consolations of His grace and evidences of His
favor till severe convictions have reduced him to a strong sense of the
feebleness of his powers as well as the
sinfulness of his
heart. “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace to the humble.” [Proverbs
3:34, James 4:6]
Men who depend on their own works for salvation,
appear to question the special influences of the Divine Spirit in renewing the
heart. It is difficult to reconcile this skepticism with a belief in the
Scriptures, which repeatedly and unequivocally assert the fact. Real Christians
have the witness within themselves; that is, they have evidence from their views
of divine things and the affections of the heart, which leave little or no room
to doubt the divine influence which produced them. The operations of the Spirit
are very various. In some persons convictions produce anxiety and error, which
drive them almost to despair. In others, convictions are less violent but
produce a solicitude which leads the subjects of them to read the Scriptures; to
inquire the way to Zion; to attend to the means of grace and gradually to
renounce all reliance on themselves, and to seek God through Christ with
humility, prayer, and submission. In some cases, though less frequently, persons
without much previous distress, have opened to their minds, most luminous views
of the excellence of the Divine character, of God’s love and mercy in Christ;
and seem to pass at once from death to life; and from the most determined enmity
of heart and opposition to the Christian scheme of salvation, to the most
cordial delight in the doctrines of the Gospel. These facts, which are within
the observation of every honest inquirer, correspond with the account of Christ
Himself has given of the operations of the Spirit, which are compared to the
blowing of the wind, whose
effects only are perceived. Many persons,
whose views and affections are evidently changed, are not sensible of any
particular operation on their hearts. They have new affections and views, but
know not the time or the manner in which they received them. In others, the
impressions are too sensible not to be recognized. I know there are men who
denominate such impressions
enthusiasm and
spiritual delusion.
But the instances of such sensible changes of the heart, in persons of
sound judgment and cool, dispassionate minds, not prone to yield to fanciful
suggestions and transient feelings, furnish evidence of the reality of such
special agency of the Divine Spirit on the heart which I cannot think it right
to reject.
That the operations of the Holy Spirit are sometimes
accompanied with a
light exhibited to the imagination, is not generally
believed; but I am inclined to believe the fact on the authority of well
authenticated cases. I see no more reason for disbelieving the fact, than for
rejecting the account of St. Paul’s conversion; for the soul of man is
undoubtedly the medium through which the Supreme Being makes His communications.
At the same time, there is so much danger of deception, in the force of the
imagination, that I think the evidence of such facts should be very clear to
encourage confidence. The proof of a real change of heart should rest on the
subsequent life; for “the tree is known by its fruit.” [Matthew 12:33, Luke
6:44] But that God does make special communications of His favor to man, through
the intellectual and spiritual principle, or soul; and that He often grants the
requests of His children, by a direct agency, independent of visible means, are
facts fully revealed in the Scriptures and well known to
Christians.
“Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do,
that the Father may be glorified in the Son,” [John 14, 13] is the repeated
promise of our Savior; a consolatory promise that many pious souls have known to
be fulfilled, to their unspeakable joy and to the great confirmation of their
faith.
These are points which I am sensible are not generally
believed. But why should they be questioned? For what purpose was the soul
infused into man? Why was man distinguished from the brute? If man was made to
perish like the beast of the field, of what use is his intellectual part? The
animal appetites of the brute afford, perhaps, in the gratification, as much
pleasure as those of man. Surely, then, man was endowed with superior powers and
faculties for some important purpose. For what purpose? The soul bears some
resemblance to divinity and is evidently designed for enjoyments of a superior
rank. To direct the intellectual powers of man to their proper objects, it was
doubtless necessary for him to have a revelation of God’s will and such
revelation requires a direct communication from God. It may be said that such
communications were undoubtedly made but having been made and the substance of
them recorded, further communications are unnecessary. This may, in a sense, be
true; but I see no improbability in God’s continuing to make special
communications of His will to man, by illuminating the mind, in the present, as
well as in former periods. The instances in which such revelations are
distinctly recognized, may be rare; but some well authenticated facts of this
kind may serve to confirm the truth of former revelations, and fortify the faith
of Christians. Such instances now, as in former ages, may be intended to answer
some important purposes in the economy of Providence and grace; and are,
probably in most instances, given in answer to fervent prayer.
It
is no objection to these opinions that such communications are not general or
common, any more than it is to the special infliction of punishment by Divine
wrath on some heinous crimes, while other crimes, apparently as offensive, are
suffered to pass, for the present, unpunished. If a blasphemer, riding in
company, should, with an oath and a lie upon his tongue, declare that the horse
he is on never stumbles, and his horse should instantly fall and break the man’s
neck, no person could hesitate to believe it at least probable that the Almighty
had interposed, by His agency, to execute sudden vengeance on the offender. Yet
many other men, committing a like offence, may escape present punishment
without, in the least, impairing the evidence of God’s special interference in
the case stated. For it is the character of God as represented in the Scripture,
and manifested every day, to exercise mercy rather than vengeance and, by a
few instances of His wrath, to give examples and evidences of His power
and government, to recall other offenders to their duty. It is equally probable,
that special communications of His will, and of His favor, may be made to
strengthen the faith and animate the hopes of those who confide in him. Not to
believe in such instances, is to discredit all human testimony. If you will take
the trouble to converse with experienced Christians, and read the written
accounts of their lives, you must, I think, be satisfied that God does, at
times, as directly interpose in behalf of those who
ask Him in faith,
as He did in restoring health to the sick, and sight to the blind, under
the ministration of our Savior on earth.
Such facts serve to
establish the doctrine of a
special Providence, the truth of which I
once questioned, but now fully believe. Indeed, it is surprising I could ever
entertain a doubt on the subject; for it is as unphilosophical as unscriptural
to admit a general Providence without a special one; as a general Providence
implies particular providences. I was probably led into this error by the false
philosophy which prevails in the world and of the universe. This philosophy
substitutes for the mighty hand of Deity, the operations of
second causes
and
laws of nature. We are taught in our youth that nature, or
created things, are subject to certain
laws, such as
attraction,
gravitation, and
repulsion; and with the help of these we pretend
to account for all the phenomena of the universe, without the direct agency of a
supreme, intelligent Cause.
But what are the
laws of nature?
Nature, in its most comprehensive sense, means all that is
made or
produced; and
laws, when applied to such created things,
signify the regular motions, operations, and changes of these things, or the
causes by which they are produced. If the laws of nature are the motions and
changes of bodies, then they are
effects and not causes, and we ascribe
the phenomena of the universe to the
effects of something else. If
these laws are the producing or primary cause, they must be the supreme Author
Himself, whom all rational men must admit to be an intelligent Being. Is it
possible that laws or principles, competent to carry on the stupendous
operations of the universe, can be attached to matter and not immediately
dependent on the Almighty Author! Is matter susceptible of such active
principles independent of an intelligent mind? I would not dare to circumscribe,
even in thought, the power of Jehovah; but I have given up this philosophy and
am compelled to resolve all the
laws of nature into the direct agency
of the
almighty First Cause. The operations of nature are evidently the
effects of that power constantly exerted, which first called all things into
existence. Hence their uniformity; for nothing can be uniform but God and His
operations.
The Jews were an illiterate people, cultivating
neither arts nor sciences, to any considerable degree; yet, surprising as it may
appear, they were, for ages, the only people whose history has come down to us,
who appear to have had just ideas of the only true philosophy which, mounting to
the true source of all created beings and their operations, ascribes all vents
to Jehovah. Upon this scheme of philosophy, the difference between miracles and
natural events is that natural events are
usual, constant, and
regular operations of Divine Power and supernatural events are the
unusual and
special operations of the same power which
astonish men merely because they are not frequent. It cannot be the
magnitude of the event which excites our wonder; for we have no ground
to suppose the raising of the dead is a
greater act of divine power, as
it regards the Supreme Being, than the growth of a tree. If any person should
incline to allege that the difference between a miracle and a natural event is
that a natural event takes place by means of some medium or instrument and a
miracle without such medium; this would only compel us to mount one step higher,
to find the immediate agency of God. The waters of the Red Sea were removed to
make a passage for the Israelites [Exodus 14], by a “strong east wind;” but it
was “God who caused that wind to blow,” and the effect produced may have been as
really supernatural as the revival of Lazarus from the dead [John
11].
I see nothing, therefore, in reason, to make me doubt, that
God’s moral government may admit and even require, in every period of the world,
special interpositions of power, divine and supernatural; nor can I see, in such
special interpositions, anything more improbable than in the first formation of
man, by molding matter into a particular organic frame and infusing into it an
intelligent principle. The God who created the universe governs it, and all the
things that inhabit it by such exertions or operations of power, general or
particular, as best suits His own purposes.
The doctrine of
predestination and election, is one which is much opposed by some denominations
of Christians. But I see not how this doctrine can be separated from the being
and attributes of an infinite God. If God is infinite, there can be no such
thing as
past and
future, or a succession of ideas in the
Divine Mind. The terms
predestination and
foreknowledge, are
therefore inapplicable to the Supreme Being; and are used only in reference to
finite beings, who have a succession of ideas. An Infinite Being must know with
certainty every event,
future as well as
past; and if events
are certainly known to Him, they must be unalterably determined: for how can He
know them but in consequence of His own determination? If they are not
certain, He cannot know them; and this supposition involves both a limitation of
His knowledge and an imperfection in His attributes. I conceive, therefore, the
Scriptural doctrine of election stands on the very character and attributes of
that Being, “with Whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.” [James
1:17] Yet we are conscious of free agency in our determinations. That man is
not, in a strict sense, perfectly free, that is, independent of God in
determining his actions, we must believe; for there can be but one such Being in
the universe as a perfectly independent mind; but I see no contradiction nor
absurdity in the doctrine of a predetermined order of events in the universe
and, at the same time, the possession by man of such a freedom of will as to
render him accountable for his actions. The first is affirmed in the Scriptures
and, in my apprehension, is inseparable from the sovereignty and infinite
perfections of the Deity; while the last is equally affirmed in the Scriptures
and authorized by our own experience. The terms,
unconditional election,
I think, are inapplicable to the subject; for we have the Scriptures for
our authority, supported by every principle of reason, that every man’s future
state will be determined by his voluntary obedience or disobedience. I think it
better to submit and obey, than to perplex our minds with abstruse [difficult to
understand] reasonings on subjects beyond our comprehension.
To
many men, the doctrine of
free, unmerited grace in the salvation of
sinners is very offensive. Such persons seem to suppose they can merit salvation
and claim it as a right. But was not our first formation an act of free grace
and uncontrolled sovereignty? Was not the gift of an intelligent mind to man,
distinguishing him from the brutes, an act of Sovereign grace? Did a man ever
plant a field with corn and claim from the Almighty, as a
right, a
fruitful harvest? Why then object to free grace in the work of salvation? Surely
man, a feeble, frail being, who holds his life and all his powers at Divine
sufferance, should be more humble.
But is there nothing for man
to do? He is commanded to “work out his salvation with fear and trembling.”
[Philippians 2:12] Yes, my friend, man has much to do…he must work out his
salvation with fear and trembling; but the misfortune is a great part of the
world wish to work out their salvation
without fear and trembling. They
are willing to be honest and just to their fellow-men and then confidently claim
salvation from their Creator, without fearing His laws, or trembling at his
judgments; without performing the duties of piety, submitting to His will, or
accepting a Savior: in short, without that humility which gives God all the
glory, and that holiness, without which there can be no enjoyment in Heaven. The
condition of salvation, which God has imposed, is that
the heart must be
right with God; not with man, for man is not the Lawgiver or Judge---but
with God, the only Being who has the right to judge and the power to
punish or reward.
Man comes into the world without any knowledge
of his Maker, and with a heart opposed to His law. His business is to learn the
character of God, from the Scriptures and from the works of nature and
Providence; then to learn his own sinfulness and frailty and his obligations to
love and serve his Maker. Being convinced of his own sinfulness and utter
helplessness without Divine aid, it is his duty to abandon every sin, to humble
himself before his Maker, repent of all His transgressions, bow to God’s
sovereign will, implore his pardon, and cordially accept of the Savior as his
only hope and refuge. On such conditions salvation is freely offered; and those
who comply with them, may expect the consolations of the Spirit and good hope
through grace of their acceptance with God. But men cannot expect these
consolations until they are humbled. Those who proudly rely on their own good
works, virtually tell their Maker they do not want His assistance and grace; and
God gives His Holy Spirit to those only who ask it in humility. God is the
Sovereign of the universe. He
does govern it; He has a right to govern
it; and men, if saved, can be saved only on the conditions which He has
prescribed. He reserves to Himself the whole glory of saving sinners and the
hearts of His children rejoice in the Divine determination.
I am
therefore of opinion that the doctrines of Divine sovereignty, the Divinity of
Christ, regeneration by the Holy Spirit, and free grace through Christ, are
fundamental in the Gospel scheme of salvation. Those who reject these doctrines
appear to me to tear out the vitals of Christianity, leaving nothing but a
lifeless skeleton. The cold doctrines of Arminianism almost exclude the Divine
agency in man’s salvation. They supersede the necessity of a Redeemer and of
public worship, for morality may be taught in families and schools. In short,
they never reach the heart and appear not to alter the life and
character.
Such are not the doctrines of the Gospel. These
elevate the soul to God, the Fountain of light, life, and blessings; they subdue
the natural pride of the heart, control the passions, and change the affections.
They infuse a principle of supreme love to God and create a faith in Christ
which tranquilizes the soul, dispels the gloomy anxieties of skepticism,
alleviates the cares, and enlivens the joys of life; and to crown all, reposes,
with delightful confidence, upon the Almighty Arm of a Redeemer for
salvation.
Nor are the temporal benefits of real religion less
conspicuous in the effects they produce in families and in society. In minds the
best regulated by family discipline and the rules of civility, there will at
times break forth sallies of envy, jealousy, petulance, and discontent, which
annoy the peace of families and of neighborhoods. Nothing seems effectually to
restrain such passions but Divine grace. The fear of man and a regard to
decorum, will not produce the effect in minds of a particular structure. But the
humbling doctrines of the Gospel change the tiger to a lamb. Real religion,
which implies a habitual sense of the divine presence, and a fear of offending
the Supreme Being, subdues and controls all the turbulent passions; and nothing
is seen in the Christian but meekness, forbearance, and kindness, accompanied by
a serenity of mind and a desire to please as uniform as they are cheering to
families and friends. On this subject I speak with delight from
observation.
At the same time, real religion inspires mutual
confidence, it establishes a guard over the heart, and creates a security for
fidelity and affection, in husband and wife, parents and children, brothers and
sisters, neighbors and friends, which cannot be derived from authority or
instruction, from the force of law, or the influence of example.
These, my dear brother, are some of my views of the Calvinistic doctrines and
their effects. These doctrines, in the main, I do believe to be
evangelical;
and my belief is not the effect of education, for formerly my opinions were
unfavorable to some of these doctrines. My belief is the fruit of some
experience and much inquiry and reflection.
It is with heart-felt
regret that I see a large portion of the world so inattentive to religion. Men
often live for many years, gazing upon the stupendous fabric of the universe,
apparently without a sentiment of piety; and wander among the charming beauties
of the earth, where the power, the wisdom, and the beneficence of the Creator
are displayed on every flower, and every leaf, with as little admiration and
gratitude as the beasts that graze on the field. Equally insensible are they to
the beauties of the Divine Character, unfolded in the works of Providence and
grace; forgetting that the same God who arrays the lilies of the field with more
than Solomon’s glory [Matthew 6:28-29], is ready to clothe his children with the
splendid robes of the Redeemer’s righteousness [Isaiah 61:10]. And what is
astonishing, but often true, the more temporal blessings men enjoy, the less
disposed are they to love and obey their heavenly Benefactor: a truth which gave
occasion for our Savior to remark, how difficult it is for a rich man to enter
into the kingdom of God [Matthew 19:23-24, Mark 10:25, Luke 18:25]. It is a
melancholy proof of the depravity of the human heart that men often invert the
order of things and suffer their gratitude to abate in proportion as their
wealth increases. Indeed it is extremely painful, to a reflecting mind, to
observe men in affluence, who live amidst a profusion of everything the bounty
of Heaven bestows, indulging in sensual gratifications and rolling in splendor;
but forgetting, or insulting the Benefactor, while they riot on the
benefit.
But I must come to a conclusion; or instead of a letter,
I shall write a book. I could dwell on subjects of this kind with pleasure; but
if what I have written is the truth, it is enough: if not, it is too much. If my
opinions are erroneous, I should be happy to be corrected; if they are
substantially true, I hope they will have their due weight. As pilgrims on the
same journey, it
would be for our mutual happiness on the road, “so to
be agreed as that we might walk together,” [Amos 3:3] and be united in principle
as well as by the most endearing of all ties, Christian love.
I am, with
sincere affection, Yours, &c.
NOAH WEBSTER, jun.
