A Benjamin Franklin Reader (15 page)

Franklin’s objection to the Calvinist theology of the Puritans of Boston and the Presbyterians of Philadelphia was based on its insistence that salvation could come only through God’s grace rather than through good works. In 1734, a preacher from Ireland named Samuel Hemphill came to Philadelphia and began preaching the doctrine of good works, much to Franklin’s pleasure. But the local synod put him on trial for heresy. In a fictional dialogue Franklin printed in his paper, he defended Hemphill and his doctrine.

T
HE
P
ENNSYLVANIA
G
AZETTE
, A
PRIL
10, 1735

Mr. Franklin,

You are desired by several of your Readers to print the following
Dialogue.
It is between Two of the Presbyterians Meeting in this City. We cannot tell whether it may not be contrary to your Sentiments, but hope, if it should, you will not refuse publishing it on that Account: nor shall we be offended if you print any thing in Answer to it. We are yours, &c.

A.B.C.D.

S.
Good Morrow! I am glad to find you well and abroad; for not having seen you at Meeting lately, I concluded you were indisposd.

T.
’Tis true I have not been much at Meeting lately, but that was not occasioned by any Indisposition. In short, I stay at home, or else go to Church, because I do not like Mr. H. your new-fangled Preacher.

S.
I am sorry we should differ in opinion upon any account; but let us reason the point calmly; what offence does Mr. H. Give you?

T.
’Tis his preaching disturbs me: he talks of nothing but the duties of morality: I do not love to hear so much of morality: I am sure it will carry no man to heaven, and I do not think it fit to be preached in a Christian congregation.

S.
I suppose you think no doctrine fit to be preached in a Christian congregation, but such as Christ and his apostles used to preach.

T.
To be sure I think so.

S.
I do not conceive then how you can dislike the preaching of morality, when you consider, that morality made the principal part of their preaching as well as of Mr. H’s. What is Christ’s sermon on the mount but an excellent moral discourse, towards the end of which, (as foreseeing that people might in time come to depend more upon their
faith
in him, than upon
good works,
for their salvation) he tells the hearers plainly, that their saying to him,
Lord, lord,
(that is, professing themselves his disciples or
Christians
) should give them no title to salvation, but their
doing
the will of his father; and that though they have prophesied in his name, yet he will declare to them, as neglecters of morality, that he never knew them.

T.
But what do you understand by that expression of Christ’s,
doing the will of my father?

S.
I understand it to be the will of God, that we should live virtuous, upright, and good-doing lives; as the prophet understood it, when he said,
what doth the lord require of thee, o man, but to do justly, love mercy, and walk humbly with the lord thy God.

T.
But is not faith recommended in the new testament as well as morality?

S.
’Tis true, it is. Faith is recommended as a means of producing morality: our savior was a teacher of morality or virtue, and they that were deficient and desired to be taught, ought first to
believe
in him as an able and faithful teacher. Thus faith would be a means of producing morality, and morality of salvation. But that from such faith alone salvation may be expected, appears to me to be neither a Christian doctrine nor a reasonable one. And I should as soon expect, that my bare believing Mr. Grew to be an excellent teacher of the mathematics, would make me a mathematician, as that believing in Christ would of it self make a man a Christian.

T.
Perhaps you may think, that though faith alone cannot save a man, morality or virtue alone, may.

S.
Morality or virtue is the end, faith only a means to obtain that end: and if the end be obtained, it is no matter by what means. What think you of these sayings of Christ, when he was reproached for conversing chiefly with gross sinners,
the whole,
says he,
need not a physician, but they that are sick;
and, I
come not to call the righteous, but sinners, to repentance:
does not this imply, that there were good men, who, without faith in him, were in a state of salvation? And moreover, did he not say of Nathaniel, while he was yet an unbeliever in him, and thought no good could possibly come out of Nazareth,
behold an Israelite indeed, in whom there is no guile!
That is,
behold a virtuous upright man.
Faith in Christ, however, may be and is of great use to produce a good life, but that it can conduce nothing towards salvation where it does not conduce to virtue, is, I suppose, plain from the instance of the devils, who are far from being infidels,
they believe,
says the scripture,
and tremble.
There were some indeed, even in the apostles days, that set a great value upon faith, distinct from good works, they merely idolized it, and thought that a man ever so righteous could not be saved without it: but one of the apostles, to show his dislike of such notions, tells them, that not only those heinous sins of theft, murder, and blasphemy, but even
idleness,
or the neglect of a man’s business, was more pernicious than mere harmless infidelity,
he that neglects to provide for them of his own house,
says he,
is
worse
than an infidel.
St. James, in his second chapter, is very zealous against these criers-up of faith, and maintains that faith without virtue is useless,
wilt thou know, o vain man,
says he,
that faith without works is dead;
and,
show me your faith without your works, and I will show you mine by my works.
Our savior, when describing the last judgment, and declaring what shall give admission into bliss, or exclude from it, says nothing of
faith
but what he says against it, that is, that those who cry
lord, lord,
and profess to have
believed
in his name, have no favor to expect on that account; but declares that ’tis the practice, or the omitting the practice of the duties of morality,
feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, visiting the sick,
&c. In short, ’tis the doing or not doing all the good that lies in our power, that will render us the heirs of happiness or misery.

T.
But if faith is of great use to produce a good life, why does not Mr. H. Preach up faith as well as morality?

S.
Perhaps it may be this, that as the good physician suits his physic to the disease he finds in the patient, so Mr. H. May possibly think, that though faith in Christ be properly first preached to heathens and such as are ignorant of the gospel, yet since he knows that we have been baptized in the name of Christ, and educated in his religion, and called after his name, it may not be so immediately necessary to preach
faith
to us who abound in it, as
morality
in which we are evidently deficient: for our late want of charity to each other, our heart-burnings and bickerings are notorious. St. James says,
where envying and strife is, there is confusion and every evil work:
and where confusion and every evil work is,
morality
and good-will to men, can, I think, be no unsuitable doctrine. But surely
morality
can do us no harm. Upon a supposition that we all have faith in Christ already, as I think we have, where can be the damage of being exhorted to good works? Is virtue heresy; and universal benevolence false doctrine, that any of us should keep away from meeting because it is preached there?

T.
Well, I do not like it, and I hope we shall not long be troubled with it. A commission of the synod will sit in a short time, and try this sort of preaching.

S.
I am glad to hear that the synod are to take it into consideration. There are men of unquestionable good sense as well as piety among them, and I doubt not but they will, by their decision, deliver our profession from the satirical reflection, which a few uneasy people of our congregation have of late given occasion for, to wit, that the Presbyterians are going to persecute, silence and condemn a good preacher, for exhorting them to be honest and charitable to one another and the rest of mankind.

T.
If Mr. H. Is a Presbyterian teacher, he ought to preach as Presbyterians use to preach; or else he may justly be condemned and silenced by our church authority. We ought to abide by the Westminster confession of faith; and he that does not, ought not to preach in our meetings.

S.
The apostasy of the church from the primitive simplicity of the gospel, came on by degrees; and do you think that the reformation was of a sudden perfect, and that the first reformers knew at once all that was right or wrong in religion? Did not Luther at first preach only against selling of pardons, allowing all the other practices of the Romish church for good? He afterwards went further, and Calvin, some think, yet further. The Church of England made a stop, and fixed her faith and doctrine by 39 articles; with which the Presbyterians not satisfied, went yet farther; but being too self-confident to think, that as their fathers were mistaken in some things, they also might be in some others; and fancying themselves infalliable in
their
interpretations, they also tied themselves down by the Westminster confession. But has not a synod that meets in King George the seconds reign, as much right to interpret scripture, as one that met in Oliver’s time? And if any doctrine then maintained is, or shall hereafter be found not altogether orthodox, why must we be for ever confined to that, or to any, confession?

T.
But if the majority of the synod be against any innovation, they may justly hinder the innovator from preaching.

S.
That is as much as to say, if the majority of the preachers be in the wrong, they may justly hinder any man from setting the people right; for a
majority
may be in the wrong as well as the
minority,
and frequently are. In the beginning of the reformation, the
majority
was vastly against the reformers, and continues so to this day; and, if, according to your opinion, they had a right to silence the
minority.
I am sure the
minority
ought to have been silent. But tell me, if the Presbyterians in this country, being charitably inclined, should send a missionary into Turkey, to propagate the gospel, would it not be unreasonable in the Turks to prohibit his preaching?

T.
It would, to be sure, because he comes to them for their good.

S.
And if the Turks, believing us in the wrong, as we think them, should out of the same charitable disposition, send a missionary to preach Mahometanism to us, ought we not in the same manner to give him free liberty of preaching his doctrine?

T.
It may be so; but what would you infer from that?

S.
I would only infer, that if it would be thought reasonable to suffer a Turk to preach among us a doctrine diametrically opposite to Christianity, it cannot be reasonable to silence one of our own preachers, for preaching a doctrine exactly agreeable to Christianity, only because he does not perhaps zealously propagate all the doctrines of an old confession. And upon the whole, though the
majority
of the synod should not in all respects approve of Mr. H’s doctrine, I do not however think they will find it proper to condemn him. We have justly denied the infallibility of the pope and his councils and synods in their interpretations of scripture, and can we modestly claim
infallibility
for our selves or our synods in our way of interpreting? Peace, unity and virtue in any church are more to be regarded than orthodoxy. In the present weak state of humane nature, surrounded as we are on all sides with ignorance and error, it little becomes poor fallible man to be positive and dogmatical in his opinions. No point of faith is so plain, as that
morality
is our duty, for all sides agree in that. A virtuous heretic shall be saved before a wicked Christian: for there is no such thing as voluntary error. Therefore, since ’tis an uncertainty till we get to heaven what true orthodoxy in all points is, and since our congregation is rather too small to be divided, I hope this misunderstanding will soon be got over, and that we shall as heretofore unite again in mutual
Christian Charity.