Chapter XX: Letter II

FROM THE REV. HOSEA BALLOU TO THE REV. JOSEPH WALTON.

PORTSMOUTH, DEC. 11, 1810.

_Rev. Sir_,--It is with pleasure that I hasten to acknowledge the receipt of your "friendly admonition," bearing date December 7th, which came to my hand late last evening, which I assure you is accepted as a token of friendship, and a mark of particular attention; and merits, as I conceive, a grateful acknowledgement as well as an early answer.

Your admonition begins by taking notice of what you conceive an egregious error which you have heard me suggest at two several funerals. You say that I "spake as if death was originally designed, by the Almighty, for the good of mankind." This statement you consider of such a dangerous nature that it renders an admonition necessary. But, dear sir, there are two important ideas contained in the above short sentence, and you have not distinguished between them, nor informed me whether it be both, or only one which is thus reprehensible.

That _God originally designed death_, is one idea; that he _designed_ it for the _good of mankind_ is another idea. In order to do you justice and to attach no other meaning to your communication than such as I conceive to be consistent with your real sentiments, I must suppose that you would not wish to fault the first of those ideas, as it is an item in your creed, that "God foreordained whatsoever comes to pass;" of course, you believe that God _originally designed death_. But, that God designed death for the _good of mankind_, I do not know it to be an article of your faith, and therefore, may, without doing you any injustice, suppose that you believed that God originally designed death, but _not_ for _the good of mankind_! Here, sir, I acknowledge that my sentiment differs from yours; and as you have given me no reason why God should not have designed death for the _good_ of mankind, I have only to consider the "friendly admonition," with which you oppose my idea. I would query why the idea that God should design death for the good of mankind renders me justly admonishable? Would the idea, should I avow it, that God designed death for the _damage_ of mankind, render me commendable? So, it seems; but at this expense I cannot avoid admonition! I would further query what interest God could have consulted which required him to design death for a _damage_ to those creatures whom he made subject to death? And I think it expedient to ask how God can be justified, in the sight of his rational creatures, if the idea be once established that he designed evil against them, even before they existed?

I feel it to be my duty, dear sir, to call on you to support this high allegation against the Father of our spirits. I would not pretend that you designed to bring an allegation against our Creator, but I am satisfied that every unprejudiced mind must see the nature of an allegation in what you are disposed to maintain. For if we say God, our Creator, designed death for the damage of those dependent beings whom he has made, it is giving him a character which, I believe, the wisest of men would find it difficult to justify.

Again, if the notion be true, that God designed death for the damage of mankind, is it not from hence evident that he was an enemy to mankind when he thus designed? Now, if God be considered an enemy to mankind even before he made them, I wish to know what reason can be given why mankind ought to love God since creation?

In relation to a number of scriptures which you have quoted, seemingly with a design to illustrate the foregoing subject, I can only say, that if any or all those passages relate at all to the subject, _that relation_ is out of my sight. And I can truly say, that I am glad that there is nothing, in any part of the scripture, so contrary to good sense and reason as to support the notion that God is an enemy to the works of his own hands. I believe, sir, if I prove from scripture that God designed death for the good of mankind, it must be considered a substantial support of what you wish to oppose; and will also be considered as placing the scripture doctrine on the most reasonable principle.

1st. I will show that death is not a token of God's enmity towards mankind. As a proof of this, see Rom. viii. 38, 39, "For I am persuaded, that neither _death_, nor _life_, nor _angels_, nor _principalities_, nor _powers_, nor _things present_, nor _things to come_, nor _height_, nor _depth_, nor _any other creature_ shall be able to separate us from the _love_ of God which is _in Christ Jesus our Lord_." This passage is a full and positive proof that neither _death_ nor any thing else, is a token of God's enmity to mankind.

2d. I will now show that _death_ was designed by God for the _good_ of men. Which to do, I must learn of Jesus. He is the truth. Was his _death_ designed, by the eternal Father, for the good of mankind, or not? Was his death a token of God's love to the world, or was it a token of his enmity? See Rom. v. 8, "But God _commendeth_ his _love_ towards us in that while we were yet sinners Christ died for us." This same apostle, believing in Christ, who, he says, was delivered for our offences, and was raised again for our justification, in a short, but comprehensive inventory of the things which are ours, has placed _death_ among them. See 1 Cor. iii. 21, 22, 23, "Therefore, let no man glory in men: for all things are yours; whether Paul, or Apollos, or Cephas, or the world, or life, or _death_, or things present, or things to come; all are yours; and ye are Christ's; and Christ is God's." Again, he says, to the Phil. i. 21, "For me to live is Christ, and to _die_ is _gain_." Nothing appears more evident than that the death of Christ was designed for the good of mankind; and as he is the head of every man, so his death is considered, in the scriptures, a gracious benefit to every man; as the apostle expresses it, "That he, by the grace of God, should taste _death_ for every man." And again, "As in Adam all die, even so in Christ, shall all be made alive." Who can impartially consider those scriptures and suppose that God designed _death_ for a damage to mankind? I view _death_, sir, as an appointment of God, a friendly messenger, sent to dissolve a tabernacle of corruption and vanity, at the dissolution of which, "the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit unto God who gave it."

Your admonition in the next place suggests, that "if" I "will read the whole chapter (meaning the 3d chapter of the 1st of John) and seriously consider it, and pray to God, through Jesus Christ, to open" my "understanding, that" I "may understand the scriptures," I "would not _misapply_ and _pervert_ them, as" you "fear" I "do."

Rev. Sir, are you sufficiently acquainted with my preaching and writing on the scriptures to warrant the propriety of the suggestion, that I am in the habit of _misapplying_ and _perverting_ the holy writings? Are you sufficiently acquainted with my retired studies and religious exercises to warrant the suggestion that I get along without acknowledging the wisdom of God? I humbly request you to reconsider this part of your admonition, and see if it do not wear the appearance of _judging another_ who must stand or fall to his own master. In the mean time I wish to observe, that a friendly advice to be constant in fervent supplication and prayer would be received by me as a mark of _christian friendship_ and _fellowship_. But I will ask you the question, if you would be willing to have me go into your desk with you in presence of your church and congregation, and there read the whole of the above named chapter, then in humble and solemn prayer to Almighty God, through Christ Jesus, implore a just and true understanding of his word and truth contained in that portion of his written will, and close my performance with a candid dissertation on the chapter? Grant me liberty to do this in your hearing; after which I will not object to your pointing out any _misapplication_ or _perversion_ which you may think you discover. By what law is a man condemned without first hearing his defence?

Again, your admonition suggests, that I did not, at either of the funerals where you heard me perform, speak one word of the necessity or nature of repentance. In this particular I believe you made a mistake at both places, which mistake, I believe I can rectify to your recollection. In the first place, I wish to observe that I as much believe in those scriptures which speak of the necessity of repentance as I do in any part of the sacred writings. But, after all, you and I may entertain very different ideas respecting the _preaching_ of repentance. The opinion that repentance is preached when a public speaker tells his congregation that their eternal salvation depends on their repentance, that eternal misery must inevitably be their doom unless they repent is an opinion to which I have no reason to subscribe.

_Preaching repentance_, I conceive _is teaching_ men and giving them such divine instructions as bring their minds to discover more glorious things than the sins and carnal vanities of this world; which _teaching_ produces a returning of the mind to the things of God and his ever blessed kingdom. The word _repent_ may or may not be used in the giving of such instructions. I conceive a preacher of Jesus Christ, warmed with the spirit of eternal love, breathing forth the gracious words of truth, may successfully preach repentance as well without the use of the word _repent_ as with it. At both those places of sorrow, dear sir, I endeavoured to lead the mourners' minds to the consideration _of eternal things_; I endeavoured to represent God our Creator and Governor, as a friend to his creatures, and strove to the utmost of my power to fix the love, regard and confidence of our mourning friends on God our Creator. This you will recollect, and I cannot suppose that you believe that a person can truly believe in the divine goodness, and love his Creator as the greatest good, and put confidence in him, so as to draw consolation, in the day of adversity, from such confidence, and still be a stranger to true penitence.

The many scriptures which you have judiciously quoted to prove the propriety of the doctrine of repentance are justly applied, as I conceive; and I accord with you in their use and meaning as far as you have explained them. I would wish to be understood that whenever repentance is spoken of as a creature act, originating in creature agency, it is represented directly contrary to the scripture sense as expressed in Acts v. 31, "Him hath God exalted with his right hand to be a _Prince_ and a _Saviour_, for to _give repentance_ to Israel and forgiveness of sins."

From the above passage it is evident that repentance is no more dependent on creature agency than the forgiveness of sins; and the idea that repentance is a grant of divine favour is plainly expressed in Acts xi. 18, "Then hath God also, to the Gentiles, _granted repentance_ unto life." By the above testimonies the idea that _repentance_ is a _creature condition_, on which the divine favour is bestowed, is proved erroneous.

The next particular which your "friendly admonition" occupies, is the subject of _Universal Salvation_ in the following words: "I could not but observe with what _emphasis_ you, at the grave, mentioned those selected texts of scripture which you supposed would confirm your hearers in the doctrine of Universal Salvation. Would Christ or the apostles preach Universal Salvation in one place of scripture, and in another contradict it? I believe they would not." In the above particular, sir, I agree with you in all which you express. I do not believe that Christ or any of his apostles ever contradicted the glorious doctrine, in which they all preached of Universal Salvation. And until this contradiction can be shewn in their preaching, you and I have full liberty to believe in God as "the Saviour of all men." Christ gave himself a ransom for all men; tasted death for every man; is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world. He says he will draw all men unto him, and he also says that "him that cometh after me I will in no wise cast out." St. Paul says that God will have all men to be saved and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. To which testimony we might add an immense number of scriptures from the Old and New Testaments; and as you agree that Christ and his apostles would not preach Universal Salvation in one place, and contradict it in another, so you must, of necessity subscribe to the _uniformity_ of the scripture doctrine in the Salvation of all men.

You inform me, that you are an "_old man_;" this I was sensible of before, in consequence of which, I have more particularly endeavoured to cultivate an acquaintance with you, since I have been in this town; for I conceive that the aged are not only entitled to the respects and attention of the younger, but the younger are also entitled to the advantages of their experience and wisdom.

You further tell me, that you have studied the scriptures twenty or thirty years. On this account, sir, I covet earnestly your assistance; for although I have studied the scriptures almost constantly twenty years out of less than forty, yet I find but a few who are notable to assist me in this agreeable employment. The happy method which you recommend, I have for many years endeavoured to observe, for I am sure that most of the vulgar errors, in respect to the scriptures, are for the want of a careful examination of all which is said on the same subjects.

Wherein you recommend the pious example of the prophet David, I fully accord in it, and would humbly hope and strive to be a partaker of the benefits arising from such an example.

What you say of men's explaining scripture in their own Strength and wisdom, and of their making _havoc_ of, and _mangling_ them by explaining them in a mystical or literal sense, I find myself rather embarrassed about. You begin your epistle under the character of a "friendly admonition," but what you mean by accusing me of the folly of mangling and making havoc of the scriptures when you do not attempt to show wherein I ever explained a passage wrong, I must leave for you to explain when it is convenient. Nor is it easy for me to understand you when you represent both the _mystical_ and _literal_ explanation of scripture equally erroneous. You immediately conclude those observations with the following quotation: "The natural man receiveth not the things of the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him." Did you mean that the natural man, supposing the things of the spirit of God to be foolishness, would say that the spirit _mangled_ and made _havoc_ of the scriptures? This could not be your meaning.

Your concluding query is the following; "My friend, is there the least room for us to believe from this scripture (meaning 2 Cor. v. 10, 11) and many others, that the wicked who have lived impenitent and in a disbelief of the gospel, or without the true knowledge of God, and of Jesus Christ whom God hath sent, have eternal life in the fruition and enjoyment of God?" This query I will endeavour to answer as plainly as possible.

1st. Unless we grant that a man has eternal life in Jesus Christ, given him before the foundation of the world, we cannot justly call him an _unbeliever_ because he does not believe he has this eternal life in Christ. Nor can we say, with the least propriety, that he does not _know_ the _truth_, because he does not know that which is not.

2d. If we allow that a man has eternal life in Christ, we must allow him to be an unbeliever if he do not believe it; and that he does not know the truth as it is in Jesus, if he be ignorant of this gift of eternal life.

3d. While a man is in a state of unbelief he is not in the _enjoyment_ of the truth.

I conceive, sir, these observations must appear reasonable to any reasonable man; and therefore I suppose they will appear reasonable to you.

The passage in Corinthians alluded to, fully refutes the notion of _endless_ rewards and punishments; for there it is stated, that "_every one_ may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad." Now as this same apostle tells us that all have sinned and come short of the glory of God, if he mean that all who have sinned must be endlessly punished, he cannot mean that any of the human race will be eternally blessed according to their own works, nor yet according to the grace of God. And you, sir, cannot but see if one sinner can be rewarded according to his works and yet be saved by grace through faith, and that not of himself, but by the gift of God, all the sinners of Adam's race may be thus rewarded according to what they have done either _good_ or _bad_, and yet be saved by grace as above.

Your suggestions respecting the resurrection require no other answer than that I profess to believe in the doctrine of the resurrection as taught by the scriptures, though I cannot flatter myself that that opinion agrees with the opinion of what you call _sound authors_. For myself, I call the writers of the holy scriptures _sound authors_, and those who differ from them I am willing to call orthodox according to our common schools of divinity. I join with you in a humble desire that the holy breathings of the true children of God may be yours and mine; and I am sensible if they be we shall not judge one another, nor condemn one another; but strive for the unity of the spirit in the bonds of divine peace. Yes, sir, I am confident that the true temper and spirit of the gospel, if possessed and practiced by the public ministers in this town, would lead them to open their doors to each other, to meet together and pray, preach, sing and exhort, in love and fellowship; but Antichrist's spirit is directly the reverse.

The assurance you give me in your postscript, that what you wrote to me was not written in an envious spirit is duly appreciated; nor do I much wonder that you do not envy me the numbers who attend my public ministry, while you suppose that they with innumerable multitudes of others are reprobated to endless sin and misery. Envy, in such a case, would be truly unaccountable! I will not say that I fully comprehend your meaning in calling the "great numbers" who attend my meeting, "_precious souls_." Why are they precious? To whom are they precious? If you view them the objects of divine love, of course you must suppose them to be precious in God's sight; but if not, why do you call them precious?

Your flattering acknowledgements of civilities received from me and the acceptableness of my person to you, is very gratefully considered, for it is an object with me to deserve the approbation of the pious who have treasured up much valuable knowledge by experience; and I wish to give you the fullest assurance possible that I consider my acquaintance with yourself highly worthy of further cultivation and improvement, which I shall always endeavour to promote, as opportunity may present, and it shall please you to favour.

Having noted the most important sections of your "friendly admonition" in as concise a manner as was convenient, permit me, dear sir, to make a few observations on the doctrine of Universal Salvation, that being a subject to which you allude in your epistle, though you did not see fit to plant any particular arguments against it. This doctrine I openly profess, and preach as a doctrine which I conceive is plainly taught in the scriptures of the Old and New Testaments; a doctrine which all good men in the world desire the truth of; a doctrine the most worthy of God of any ever published; a doctrine the best calculated to fill the soul of the believer with love to God and to our fellow creatures; a doctrine which harmonizes the divine attributes, the scriptures and every principle of reason and good sense, in a surprising and an astonishing manner; a doctrine, more than any other, calculated to destroy the hurtful animosities existing in the religious world; and to produce general fellowship and brotherly love; and in a word, I believe it to be the only doctrine which can be supported by reason or scripture, to a mind not improperly biased by tradition. Though I am sensible of your greater experience, yet I am willing to say to a man of your piety and Christian candor, that any arguments which you should see cause to lay before me, on the above subject, shall, by the blessing of God, receive an early attention and a judicious discussion.

In the spirit of the New Testament and not in the letter; in the spirit of life, and not in the death of the letter, in the spirit of salvation, and not of condemnation, I pray God, I may ever live and act according to your friendly desire; and feeling the same fervent desire for my highly esteemed and venerable friend, I acknowledge myself your most obliged and very humble servant, for Christ's sake.

HOSEA BALLOU.

Rev. Joseph Walton.

P.S. I have reserved three particulars in your "friendly admonition" for the subject of another communication.

* * * * *

LETTER. III.

From the Same to the Same.

Portsmouth, Jan. 5, 1811.

_Rev. Sir_,--Having notified you in a postscript of my letter of Dec. 11th, that I had reserved three particulars in your "friendly admonition" for the subject of another communication, I am disposed to embrace this opportunity to fulfil my engagement. The three particulars reserved are expressed, in your letter, in the following words:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers having itching ears; and they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables. You, my friend, once professed the true faith of the gospel--have you kept it? I think not. I fear you have fallen from it. You are now preaching a doctrine which pleases the world, but it makes against you according to scripture. The apostle John says in his 1st epistle 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses, They are of the world; therefore the world heareth them; we are of God; he that knoweth God, heareth us, he that is not of God, heareth not us; hereby know we the spirit of truth and the spirit of error." I would not, dear sir, knowingly misapply your words, nor make a use of the above quotation contrary to their most plain and evident sense which I conceive is as follows:

1st. The doctrine which I believed before I believed as I do now, is the true gospel according to the testimony of the apostle John, in his 1st epistle, 4th chapter 5th and 6th verses.

2d. That in believing as I now do, I have fallen from that faith, and turned unto fables.

3d. My now preaching a doctrine which pleases the world is good proof that my doctrine is not of God, and that those who hear me are justly described by the apostle as heaping to themselves teachers having itching ears.

In the first place I shall agree with you in the supposition that when I first made a profession of religion, I believed the true gospel.

In the second place I shall endeavour to show that I have not fallen from that faith.

In the third place I will attempt to show that the evidence, which you think makes against me, is by no means sufficient to prove that the doctrine I now believe and preach is consistent with the _lusts_ of the _world_ or contrary to the true faith of the gospel.

1st. The true faith of the gospel as expressed in 1 John, 4th, &c. is as follows--see verse 2, 3, "Every spirit that confesseth that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is of God; and every spirit that confesseth not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is not of God." The apostle here states in the most simple terms the true Christian faith, and brings it into such a short compass that none can mistake him. The belief that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh is the true faith, and a denial of that fact is a false faith.

When I first professed religion I professed to believe that "Jesus Christ is come in the flesh;" and this I am willing to say now is the true faith of the gospel, and the only article of faith which constituted a Christian believer in the opinion of the apostles; restricting this belief, at the same time, to Jesus of Nazareth, that he was the Christ.

2d. I as much believe now as I ever did that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. I have as clear evidences now as I ever had that Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ. These things being facts, the conclusion is that I have not _fallen_ from the true christian faith.

3d. The above faith I preach, believing and testifying that God sent his Son to be the _Saviour_ of the _world_; and I have reason to bless God that such feeble means are at all prospered, and that as you observe, "Great numbers of precious souls" adhere to the word, which I conceive is no evidence that the faith I preach is not of God, or that it is consistent with the lusts of the world. We are informed in the word of God, that the _common people heard Christ gladly_. Who did not hear him gladly? Answer, the Scribes and Pharisees. Do you think, sir, that the common people's hearing Christ gladly was a justifiable evidence to the Pharisees that he was not the true Messiah? When many thousands of men, women, and children flocked from their cities into desert places to hear the gracious words which proceeded from the lips of him who spake as never man spake, was it a justifiable evidence that he and his doctrine were not of God? To bring this matter, if possible, nearer home, should you find your meeting house crowded with hearers who expressed in their countenances an approbation of the doctrine which you preach, would it be sufficient evidence to convince you that your doctrine was not of God?

That the testimony that God sent his Son to be the Saviour of the _world_ is not consistent with the _lusts_ of the _world_, is shown by St. Paul to Titus; "For the grace of God which bringeth salvation to _all men_, hath appeared, teaching us, that denying ungodliness and _worldly lusts_, we should live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world."

I have not the least doubt in my mind, that if you and I preached more like our blessed master than we do, people in general, would be more engaged to hear us, and our meeting houses would be more thronged than they are now.

Should you hear a shepherd complaining that the increase of his flock was small, or that it rather diminished, you would think _that_ evidence made against _him_.

I suppose the particular idea which you had in view, which constitutes, in your mind, an _Apostasy_, is, that Jesus Christ, who was manifested in the flesh, will, pursuant to power given to him of his father, save all men from their sins, and reconcile all things unto himself. This idea, I acknowledge, I did not see clearly in, when I first made a profession of a belief in Christ; but now am fully persuaded in it. However, I cannot see why the adopting of this particular idea should be called an _Apostasy_.

I will, sir, mention some similar cases, not wishing however, to be considered an equal subject to the personage whom I shall introduce. The apostle Peter was a believer in the true faith of the gospel, that is, he believed that Jesus was the Christ, the Son of the living God: and Jesus says to him, on that confession, that flesh and blood had not revealed it to him, but his Father. This belief Peter had before he believed that Christ should suffer on the cross and rise from the dead. After many trials and dreadful temptations in which this poor, dependent brother of ours experienced the fallibility of all human strength, he was privileged with positive evidence of the resurrection of Christ from the dead.--Here I ask, was this new acquisition in Peter's faith an apostasy? Was it not an advancement? You will agree with me in this.

Again, this same apostle, even after he was endowed with power from on high, and preached and healed in the name of Jesus, did not know that the Gentiles were fellow heirs and of the same body, and partakers of the promises of God, in Christ, by the gospel. It was not until the angel of the Lord appeared unto Cornelius and directed him to send for Peter, that God gave to that apostle the knowledge of the fact which he acknowledged to Cornelius, that God had shewed him that he should call _no man common_ or _unclean_. It is very evident that the apostle Peter had more extensive knowledge of the gospel of the grace of God in consequence of the vision of the sheet by the sea of Joppa than he had before; but would any real Christian, knowing all the circumstances, suppose that Peter had _apostatised_ from the true faith, because he believed that millions would be benefited by Christ more than were comprehended in his former belief? While they who were of the circumcision remained ignorant of the revelation given to Peter, we find they "_contended_ with him, saying, thou wentest in to men uncircumcised, and didst eat with them." But when Peter had "rehearsed the matter from the beginning, and expounded it by order unto them, they held their peace and glorified God, saying, then hath God also to the Gentiles, _granted repentance_ unto life." Thus we see that the church in Jerusalem, who were of the circumcision, though believers in Christ were, until Peter's defence further enlightened them, ignorant of the extension of divine grace to the Gentiles through the gospel. But surely no real Christian would suppose that this enlargement of their faith in the great salvation was an _apostasy_ from the true faith!

With profound deference, sir, permit me to suggest, that should the foregoing observations present yourself, to your own mind, in a similar situation with those of the circumcision, yet they acknowledge you a believer in Christ, a minister of his word and a candidate for greater manifestation of that grace of God by which Jesus tasted death for every man.

I believe I may venture to say that unless the belief that _God is not the Saviour of all men_ can be maintained by positive scripture as an essential article of apostolic faith, I cannot be justly _admonished for falling_ from the true faith. May I not, with great propriety, call on my Rev. friend to show, if he can, that such an article of faith was ever required by Christ or his apostles as a term of christian fellowship and charity?

Let us look into the written word of God and see what is there required of us to believe. See Rom. x. 9, "If thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved." Acts viii. 37, "And Philip said if thou believest with all thine heart thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God." Matt. x. 32. "Whosoever, therefore, shall confess me before men, him will I confess also before my father which is in heaven." Luke xii. 8, "Also I say unto you, whosoever shall confess me before men, him shall the Son of man also confess before the angels of God." Not to multiply quotations, permit me to query whether there be in those passages, or in any other scripture on the same point any intimations given that the candidate must believe that this precious Saviour will not, through the peace made by the blood of his cross, reconcile all things to God? Are you fully satisfied, dear sir, that you are authorised to _admonish_ as an _apostate_, one who confesses with his mouth the Lord Jesus, and who believes in his heart that God hath raised him from the dead? Why did not Philip demand of the Eunuch a particular confession of a belief in _limited grace_ and _salvation_? Was there not the same authority to require this article of faith then, as there is now? If Jesus hath promised, in his word, that he will confess before his Father in Heaven, whosoever confesseth him before men are you satisfied with the authority by which you denounce, disfellowship, and deny those little ones? The thought is truly solemn! I feel a _chill_ in every vein of my body, when I consider the vain traditions of a corrupted church, in which it has long been a religious habit to anathematise those who confess Christ before men, because they _cannot_ believe in certain tenets never required by Christ or his apostles!

Rev. Sir, I can say in the sincerity of my soul, that I believe that Jesus of Nazareth is the true Christ, I believe him to be the Son of the living God, who was delivered for our offences and was raised again for our justification. And though I feel myself the most unworthy of the subjects of salvation, yet I should be ungrateful not to acknowledge the goodness of God my Saviour. Whatever men may think or say of me, I know that my soul experiences joys unspeakable in sweet meditations on the glories and inexpressible beauties of my Redeemer; and the thought that I am owned as his child before the angels of God, is infinitely better than to receive the approbation of men who are disposed to judge without knowing the heart.

If the Christian clergy were once disposed to strip their creeds and confessions of faith till they were reduced to the simplicity that is in Christ, and require no other belief than Christ and his apostles required, there would be an end at once of all the discord and animosity which have wounded the character of Christianity for ages. And the prayer of the blessed Jesus would be fulfilled in the _oneness_ of all who believe in him, which would convince the world that the Father sent him.

Although you have not yet found it convenient to favour me with any observations on my former letter, I have not done expecting it. And I shall endeavour to hold myself in readiness to pay an early attention to any communication which shall come from your hand. In hopes that nothing contained in this letter will be considered inconsistent with the true spirit of a humble believer in Christ, I remain, sir, your humble servant, for Christ's sake.

HOSEA BALLOU.

Rev. JOSEPH WALTON.

* * * * *