My performance for this year follows; it submits itself, kind reader, to thy censure, but hopes for thy candor, to forgive its faults. It devotes itself entirely to thy service, and will serve thee faithfully: and if it has the good fortune to please its master, ’tis gratification enough for the labor of poor
R. Saunders
Faith Versus Good Works
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.
THE PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE, APRIL 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.
T. I wish we may. Ill consider of what you’ve said, and wish you well.
S. Farewell.
Poor Richard Blames His Printer
In the preface for his 1737 edition, Poor Richard turns his attack on another almanac writer, John Jerman, for making weather predictions that were so vague as to be useless. He does concede, however, that his own weather predictions are sometimes off by a few days. This he blames on his “printer” (i.e., Franklin) for moving his predictions around a bit in order to fit in the holidays. Since he had noted the previous year that Franklin was getting the credit for what Poor Richard wrote, it was only fair that he also take the blame.
POOR RICHARD’S ALMANAC FOR 1737
Courteous and kind Reader,
This is the fifth time I have appeared in public, chalking out the future year for my honest countrymen, and foretelling what shall, and what may, and what may not come to pass; in which I have the pleasure to find that I have given general satisfaction. Indeed, among the multitude of our astrological predictions, ’tis no wonder if some few fail; for, without any defect in the art itself, ’tis well known that a small error, a single wrong figure overseen in a calculation, may occasion great mistakes: but however we almanac-makers may miss it in other things, I believe it will be generally allowed that we always hit the day of the month, and that I suppose is esteemed one of the most useful things in an almanac.
As to the weather, if I were to fall into the method my brother J——n sometimes uses, and tell you, snow here or in New England, rain here or in South Carolina, cold to the northward, warm to the southward, and the like, whatever errors I might commit, I should be something more secure of not being detected in them: but I consider, it will be of no service to any body to know what weather it is 1000 miles off, and therefore I always set down positively what weather my reader will have, be he where he will at the time. We modestly desire only the favorable allowance of a day or two before and a day or two after the precise day against which the weather is set; and if it does not come to pass accordingly, let the fault be laid upon the printer, who, ’tis very like, may have transposed or misplaced it, perhaps for the conveniency of putting in his holidays: and since, in spite of all I can say, people will give him great part of the credit of making my almanacs, ’tis but reasonable he should take some share of the blame.
I must not omit here to thank the public for the gracious and kind encouragement they have hitherto given me: but if the generous purchaser of my labors could see how often his five pence helps to light up the comfortable fire, line the pot, fill the cup and make glad the heart of a poor man and an honest good old woman, he would not think his money ill laid out, though the almanac of his
Friend and Servant, R. Saunders
were one half blank Paper.
The Drinker’s Dictionary
Franklin was ambiguous when writing about drinking. He was a temperate man who nevertheless enjoyed the joviality of taverns. In one famous Gazette piece, destined to become a poster in countless pubs, he produced a “Drinker’s Dictionary” listing 228 or so synonyms for being drunk.
THE PENNSYLVANIA GAZETTE, JANUARY 13, 1737
Nothing more like a Fool than a drunken Man.
—Poor Richard
’Tis an old remark, that vice always endeavors to assume the appearance of virtue: thus covetousness calls itself prudence; prodigality would be thought generosity; and so of others. This perhaps arises hence, that mankind naturally and universally approve virtue in their hearts, and detest vice; and therefore, whenever through temptation they fall into a practice of the latter, they would if possible conceal it from themselves as well as others, under some other name than that which properly belongs to it.
But DRUNKENNESS is a very unfortunate vice in this respect. It bears no kind of similitude with any sort of virtue, from which it might possibly borrow a name; and is therefore reduced to the wretched necessity of being express’s by distant round-about phrases, and of perpetually varying those phrases, as often as they come to be well understood to signify plainly that A MAN IS DRUNK.
Though every one may possibly recollect a dozen at least of the expressions used on this occasion, yet I think no one who has not much frequented taverns would imagine the number of them so great as it really is, it may therefore surprise as well as divert the sober reade
r, to have the sight of a new piece, lately communicated to me, entitled
The Drinker’s Dictionary
A
He is Addled, He’s casting up his Accounts, He’s Afflicted, He’s in his Airs.
B
He’s Biggy, Bewitch’d, Block and Block, Boozy, Bowz’d, Been at Barbadoes, Piss’d in the Brook, Drunk as a Wheel-Barrow, Burdock’d, Buskey, Buzzey, Has Stole a Manchet out of the Brewer’s Basket, His Head is full of Bees, Has been in the Bibbing Plot, Has drank more than he has bled, He’s Bungey, As Drunk as a Beggar, He sees the Bears, He’s kiss’d black Betty, He’s had a Thump over the Head with Sampson’s Jawbone, He’s Bridgey.
C
He’s Cat, Cagrin’d, Capable, Cramp’d, Cherubimical, Cherry Merry, Wamble Crop’d, Crack’d, Concern’d, Half Way to Concord, Has taken a Chirriping-Glass, Got Corns in his Head, A Cup to much, Coguy, Copey, He’s heat his Copper, He’s Crocus, Catch’d, He cuts his Capers, He’s been in the Cellar, He’s in his Cups, Non Compos, Cock’d, Curv’d, Cut, Chipper, Chickery, Loaded his Cart, He’s been too free with the Creature, Sir Richard has taken off his Considering Cap, He’s Chap-fallen.