Causes and evils of contentions unveiled in letters to Christians

Front matter

BX ute

(UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, t

CAUSES AND EVILS

Letter I. Introductory Observations

Knowing that the time of his crucifixion was at hand, our Saviour took an opportunity to prepare the minds of his disciples for the event, by communicating such instructions as they were then able to bear, and such as he wished them to observe. It was in this discourse that he gave them his " New Commandment" which he repeated again and again " that ye love one another as I have loved you." He also said to them, " By this shall all men know that ye are my disciples if ye have love one to another." He forewarned them of the trials which they would have to endure as his disciples, and promised to send to them the Comforter, which is the Holy Spirit. He not only assured them that they were beloved by himself, but also beloved by the Father At the close of the interview he poured forth the desires of his soul in fervent prayer to the Father, not only for his apostles but for all that should become believers on him through the instrumentality of their preaching in his name. The following are important portions of his prayer. " Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also who shall believe on me through their word ; that they all may be one as thou Father art in me and I in thee, that they may be one in us, that the world may know that thou hast sent me." John 17. 20, 21.

It is remarkable of what importance it seems to have been in his view that his apostles and all his disciples should love one another, and be one as he and the Father are one. But why this fervency for love and union among his disciples ? The reason is assigned in the following words — " That the

WORLD MAY BELIEVE THAT THOU HAST SENT ME."

To believe that the Father sent him was to believe that he was not an impostor, but the promised Messiah, whom God had sent to be the Light and the Saviour of the world.

The words of Christ very clearly import that in his view the progress of the gospel and the conversion of the world to the Christian faith, greatly depended on the mutual love and union of those who believe in him ; that such love and union are adapted to bring others to believe in him, as the way, the truth, and the life. When Christians thus walk in love th^y exhibit the true spirit of Christ and his gospel, excite attention and inquiry, command esteem, and produce conviction of the reality and usefulness of the Christian religion. The spirit of Christ then appears to great advantage in contrast with the spirit of party and of the world.

Another truth of awful import is implied in this prayer of Christ, which is, that alienation and discord among professed believers in Christ, tend to prevent the conversion of others, and to promote infidelity. If the oneness of Christians, or their mutual love tends to multiply conversions, to the Christian faith, discord and alienation must have the contrary tendency.

May it not then be a solemn truth that the party strifes and contentions among professed believers in Christ, have been the principal reasons why the world ere this day has not been filled with the benign influence of the Gospel — why so great a part of the world is yet enveloped in pagan darkness, and why Deism, and even Atheism still show their heads in Christian lands ? How awful and affecting is the thought that the dying prayer of our Lord has had so little influence on the minds of his avowed friends, and that their anti-christian conduct has been the means of preventing the progress of the Gospel and the salvation of their fellow men ! What real friend of Christ with his prayer in view, can reflect on the ecclesiastical history of Christendom, or observe the contentions among Christians at the present day, without feeling shocked, grieved and ashamed ? Surely if mutual love, or union among Christians be an appointed means for the spread of the Gospel, and the conversion of the world, it behooves Christians seriously to inquire what each has to do that the stumbling block may be removed. It is not to^be supposed that the evil is limited to any one or two denominations — nor that the evil can be removed by mutual sectarian reproaches as a substitute for mutual love. If the people of each sect will impartially examine at home, and correct what may be found amiss, they will perhaps find enough to do in the work of self-reformation, and in cultivating that humility of heart without which mutual love can never exist among Christians.

All well informed Christians must acknowledge that the conversion of the world to the Christian faith, is a desirable event, and one which has long been predicted. If the fulfilment of the prophecy has been prevented or retarded by the want of mutual love among Christians, or by the existence of a contrary spirit, this state of things must have resulted from causes which should be sought out and set aside. It is possible that much of the evil has resulted from the adoption of some erroneous principle or principles, which for want of due examination may have seemed to justify schism and alienation.

No intelligent Christian will dare to say that the prayer of the Messiah, that his disciples might be one was foolish, or unreasonable. If then it shall be found that a principle has been extensively adopted which tends to defeat the object of this prayer, or which is incompatible with the oneness for which Christ prayed, we may pretty safely infer that the principle is false and delusive. Or if certain passages of Scripture have been so interpreted as to favor such a principle, we may infer that the interpretations are erroneous. To show that such a principle and such interpretations have been adopted will be the object of succeeding Letters ; and in doing this I hope to unveil the root of bitterness and show its deleterious nature.

Letter II. A Primary Ground Oe Alienation Among Chris- Tians

For a long time it has been with me an object to ascertain the principle which has for ages been the occasion of alienation and bitterness among Christians. It is not however to be supposed that the whole of the evil is to be ascribed to any one principle or cause ; but, on mature reflection it is my belief, that a large portion of the mischief is to be ascribed to the following hypothesis, — That error of opinion on religious subjects proceeds from wickedness of heart.

I have not been able to find any other hypothesis or principle which so naturally accounts for the alienation and hostilities which are so common between men of different opinions ; and this principle has often been avowed by persons of different sects. On what other principle can I feel alienation from a brother whose opinions happen to be different from mine, as to the meaning of a text of Scripture ? As every man necessarily regards his own opinions as correct, if I have adopted the principle that error proceeds from depravity, I shall naturally impute blame to every man who dissents from me. But if I have not adopted this principle, and have candor enough to account for the supposed error of my brother on excusable grounds, I see no cause at all for alienation or censure. If in addition to this candor, I possess humility and self-knowledge enough to believe, that it is very possible the error in the case, may be on my own part, this will surely make me very cautious in regard to imputing the difference of opinion to my brother's depravity.

As it is my intention to examine the subject impartially, I shall here admit, that wickedness of heart is one of many occasions of error on religious subjects. In some cases it may be the principal cause; but in others it may have no influence at all.

The hypothesis that error always proceeds from wickedness of heart, considered as a principle of conduct among Christians, appears to me of the most pernicious tendency, and to have as fair a claim to be regarded as the fruit of a wicked heart, as any doctrine by which any denomination of Christians has been known. What I have now advanced respecting it 1 shall aim to illustrate by various facts and considerations.

1. If the principle is just and may be safely acted upon, it is a weapon which may be wielded by each sect against all others. For conscientious men of every sect must regard every thing as error which contradicts their own real opinions. Each must therefore think that if any one has a right to apply the principle, it must be so with himself. His opponent may think the same. Hence a scene of mutual accusation and reproach will naturally result. But who can conceive of a more anti-christian state of society, than this principle would produce, if universally adopted and reduced to practice?

2. The principle encourages the indulgence of a temper the reverse of that which is inculcated by the Gospel. " Let each esteem others better than himself" — Charity or love " thinketh no evil — hopeth all things" — <; worketh no ill to its neighbor." How different the feelings indulged by him who imputes the supposed errors of dissenting brethren to the wickedness of their hearts. He will of course think himself better than others — think evil of them, hope little or nothing ; and what he calls love will work evil to his neighbor, and dispose him to defame and revile. The more his mind is imbued with this principle, the more he will trust in himself that he is righteous and despise others.

If LETTERS

Every man who has sense enough to know that the opinions of others differ from his, may also know that his opinions differ from theirs. How then are we to account for the fact, that of the many who ascribe error to the depravity of heart, so few of them are seen to suspect that their own opinions proceed from this corrupt source ? Does not this single fact evince a great want of self-knowledge and humility, too great a propensity to look abroad for faults, and too little desire to cleanse first that which is within ?

3. From the preceding remarks it would be very natural to suspect, that the censorious principle has been much more frequently adopted by men who were themselves in gross errors, than by those who delight in the truth. It may therefore be proper to look into history and inquire, who have been the men most forward to act on this principle ?

If we go back to the time of the Messiah's ministry, we shall find that the principle was applied to him, and that on this ground he was accused, arraigned, and crucified. He dissented from the pharisees as to what was lawful to be done on the Sabbath ; on which ground they said, " We know that this man is a sinner" He claimed to be " the Son of God ;" this they pronounced to be blasphemy, and deserving of death. On which part was the error in these cases ?

Who was in error when Paul thought he " ought to do many things contrary to Jesus of Nazareth V or when the apostles were persecuted as men who turned the icorld upside down 1 Who was in the wrong when papists persecuted the protestants ? Or when the English hierarchy caused our ancestors to emigrate to this country ? In all these cases the persecutors acted on the principle that error proceeds from wickedness of heart. Indeed this is the fundamental principle of all persecution.

Should it be asked, who were in the wrong when protestants persecuted papists? I answer, the protestants. The papists might be in error respecting the questions in dispute ; but in persecuting them for their opinions, the protestants acted on the worst error of popery. It has been so in all the forms of persecution which protestants of different sects have carried on against each other. In how many instances have honest and peaceable men been persecuted because they refused to engage in the works of war and military murder ! Or because they were unwilling to engage in sectarian strife !

4. Every man deems the principle in question unjust, when acted upon towards himself. Even the men who are most forward to impute error to wickedness of heart, are very sure to raise the cry of persecution when others apply the principle to themselves. This is surely a circumstance which deserves attention. For it is similar to what uniformly occurs in the sanguinary wars of nations. On each side the partizans practise and justify revenge in their own soldiers, but condemn the same thing as murder when practised by the opposing party.

5. It will probably be neither denied nor doubted that the papal Inquisition was founded on the principle that error of opinion proceeds from wickedness of heart ; nor that the myriads of victims which have been murdered by these terrific tribunals, were put to death on the same principle. Should it be said that this has been an abuse of the principle ; I may ask, when has the principle ever been applied but in acts of abuse or injustice?

6. This principle when associated with party spirit has often so bewildered the minds of men, that they have thought ihey were pleasing God by the most flagrant violations of his law, and by the most atrocious acts of injustice towards fellow men. By such delusions men were led to fulfil our Lord's prediction, " The time will come when he that killeth you will think he doeth God service." Under such a malignant influence men can seldom see any thing good in the objects of their censure ; for they are prepared to impute the most benevolent and selfdenying acts to wicked motives, or a diabolical agency; and if reproved for their censoriousness they can exclaim, " Thou wast altogether born in sin, and dost thou teach us ?" Though this exclamation may seldom be expressed in these words, it may be intelligibly expressed by contemptuous smiles insinuations and gestures.

7. Were it a revealed and unquestionable truth, that error always proceeds from depravity of heart, still no uninspired person could safely act on the principle in his treatment of Christian brethren.

For when a disagreement of opinion occurs between brethren as to the meaning of a text of Scripture ; who that is not inspired, can certainly know that the error is not on his own part? In such a case, humility, benevolence, and a consciousness of liability to err, would naturally restrain the meek and lowly from wielding the weapon of censure against his brother's heart ; yet the self-sufficient Pharisee would not hesitate practically to say to his dissenting brother, " Stand by thyself, for I am holier than thou;" it is owing to the wickedness of your heart that you do not see with me. Be as humble as I am, and you will think as I do.

Is it not then, a clear case that this principle is far less likely to be resorted toby the righteous, than by the wicked ? When this weapon falls into the hands of party spirit, it will assuredly be employed for party purposes, and those who wield it, will be pretty sure to call evil good and good evil, to put darkness for light and light for darkness. What is evil in themselves, they will call good ; and what is good in others, they will call evil. It was obviously so, with the persecutors of our Lord. While they appear to have had no concern, lest the error should be found on their own part, his benevolent acts were viewed by them as acts of wickedness, and deserving of death. " For a good work we stone thee not," was their plea, and such is generally the plea of persecutors and revilers in every age and country. What person was ever persecuted on the accusation that he was a good man ?

There are many opinions avowed by persons of different sects at the present day, which appear to me very erroneous ; but seldom have I heard an opinion avowed, that I could not account for, otherwise, than by imputing it to depravity of heart. When I reflect how contrary it must be to the nature of humility and benevolence to impute a brother's opinions to his wickedness, while there is nothing else in his character to lead to such a conclusion, I am often amazed to hear the principle avowed by men who in other respects appear to be good people.

Excepting the principles which justify deciding political disputes by national hostilities, I know not another, which I think has done a tenth part so much mischief, as that which imputes error on religious subjects to wickedness of heart. If the nature of a tree is to be known by its fruits, or the nature of a principle by its practical results, the censorious principle now under review, may well be denominated the Bohon Upas of the Christian world. It is a tree which has extended its branches and its poisonous influence over every Christian country, changing the milk of brotherly kindness into the bitter waters of hatred and censure, and causing contention, calumny and persecution to reign triumphant, where nothing should have been known but peace and love, with their genuine fruits,

Letter III. The Truth As Hated By The Wicked

The word truth frequently occurs in the Bible, and also in controversial writings. It has been common to represent that the hearts of sinners are naturally opposed to the truth, and to account for supposed error of opinion by ascribing it to hatred of the truth. Uncharitable Christians of different sects, have too frequently reproached each other as enemies to the truth, and on this ground each, perhaps, has accounted for what he believed to be error in the other.

As the term truth is used in the Bible, it has several significations. When used in relation to facts, it is the opposite to falsehood — in relation to opinion, it is the opposite to error — in relation to promises, it is the opposite to unfaithfulness — in relation to commands, it is the opposite to partiality or injustice — in relation to moral character, it is the opposite to unrighteousness, and is of the same import as uprightness or moral rectitude. " God is true ;" and in the same sense that " God is light:" and " God is love," it may be said " God is truth" He is the source and fountain of truth in all its forms or significations. As his benevolence and righteousness are expressed in the law, and in the Gospel, these are called the truth. Jesus came " to

IS LETTERS

bear witness of the truth ; and he said of himself, " I am the way, the truth, and the life." To delight in goodness or in doing good, is to delight in the truth. To walk in obedience to the law of love and to do what is right, is to walk in the truth.

There are truths innumerable and of various classes. Every art or science has its system of truths. In the Bible we have historical and geographical truths, as well as those of a moral or religious nature. Whatever is right or true, is the truth.

In what sense of the word then, may it be said that the sinner is opposed to the truth ? Would it not be in vain to try to convince him that his heart is opposed to such truths as the following : — Eight and two are ten — Paris is the capital of France — Alfred was once the king of England ? Should we succeed better in attempting to convince him that he hates the following Scriptural truths. " In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth'* — Jesus was born in Bethlehem — he was crucified on Calvary — God raised him from the dead — God so loved the world that he sent his Son that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. It is possible that an Atheist or a Deist might become convinced that he had hated these truths; but it is believed that no person who had grown up in the belief that the Bible is of divine authority could be convinced that he ever hated such truths, any more than that he hated the truth which affirmed his own existence.

When by truth, is meant the righteous requirements and prohibitions of God, it may with propriety be said that the habitual transgressor hates the truth ; and it may not be in vain to try to convince him of this fact. Men are of course opposed to whatever opposes their governing propensity. The covetous worldling is opposed to the command, " Thou shaty love thy neighbor as thyself." The revengeful man is opposed to the precept, " Love your enemies." The drunkard is opposed to the laws of temperance, and the delaying sinner is opposed to the command " Repent" — " Cease to do evil, and learn to do well."

The just requirements of a benevolent earthly parent, are the truth, in the same sense that God's law is the truth. They prescribe what is right for the son to do. The disobedient son, whose heart is devoted to gambling and dissipation, hates his father's commands and prohibitions; and in so doing, he hates the truth. But it does not hence follow, that he hates the truths which affirm the existence of his father, and that his father is a good man, who is ready to forgive him as soon as he shall repent.

Preceptive truth is a rule of duty. Historical and doctrinal truths, furnish motives to obedience. While men are under the dominion of unbridled passions, they may be said to hate the law of truth, which requires of them self-denial, and the devotion of their hearts and their all to God. From the same influence they may disregard the divine threatenings and make " light" of the offer of pardon and salvation. While they delight in the ways of sin, they love darkness rather than light, and will not come to the light, lest their deeds should be reproved. Their ardor to gratify their lusts, disposes them to turn a deaf ear both to the requirements of God, and the motives to obedience. But there are a multitude of important truths contained in the Bible, to which the sinner is no more opposed than he is to the whole system of mathematical truth.

in two senses of the word the unbelieving Jews rejected the truth, during the Messiah's ministry, and that of his apostles.

I. They rejected the truth by which Jesus was proclaimed as the Son of God, the promised Messiah, and Saviour of the world.

II. They rejected the truth by which he declared the righteousness required by God for the remission of sins.

The truth in the first sense was proclaimed by an audible voice from heaven at his baptism, and also at his transfiguration, and by the innumerable miracles which he wrought in his Father's name. The truth in the second sense, was declared by his preaching and his example.

They rejected him as the Messiah, because they had expected a temporal Prince to deliver them from their subjection to the Romans, and not a spiritual Prince to deliver them from their thraldom of sin. Had Jesus appeared in the character which their prepossessions had given to the Messiah, but few miracles would have been necessary to induce them to flock to his standard by thousands. But when instead of a splendid military chieftain, to call them to arms and war, they perceived a spiritual Teacher, calling them to repentance, peace, and a life of self-denial, they despised and rejected him, notwithstanding his thousands of beneficent miracles.

As they rejected him in the character of the Messiah, so they rejected the heavenly messages of truth and peace proclaimed by his ministry. Had they been of a candid and obedient heart, they would soon have perceived that he came not in his own name, but in the name of the Father that sent him. But being of a perverse and disobedient temper, they rejected the light and truth of his precepts, and hated him because he testified of them, that their deeds were evil. Hence the following passages in his preaching : —

" He that believeth on him, is not condemned 5 but he that believeth not, is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation that light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil, hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth, cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest that they are wrought in God." John iii. 18 — 21. "My doctrine is not mine, but his that sent me. If any man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine whether it be of God, or whether 1 speak of myself." John vii. 16, 17. " If God were your Father, ye would love me, for I proceeded forth and came from, God ; neither came I of myself, but he sent me. Why do ye not understand my speech ? even because ye cannot hear my words/ ' John viii. 4, 2. The last clause is translated by Dr. Campbell — " It is because ye cannot bear my doctrine. u

It may be true that the ambiguity of some of the predictions respecting the Messiah, led the Jews to expect a temporal Prince, but the obstinacy with which they adhered to that opinion in opposition to all the light resulting from his miracles and his ministry, may justly be imputed to the wickedness of their hearts. Nor can it be doubted that other faithful teachers, and their preaching, have been rejected in a similar manner. Still it may not be true, that all error of opinion concerning religious truth results from depravity of heart.

Letter IV. An Important Question Answered

It being granted that our Lord imputed the error of the unbelieving Jews respecting himself, to a disobedient heart, why may not ministers of the Gospel of the present age, impute all supposed errors on important doctrines to the same source ?

This is a question which should interest all inquirers after truth — all who wish the peace and prosperity of Zion. I shall endeavor to give such answers as will commend themselves to every impartial mind.

1. God gave to his Son the Holy Spirit not by measure — by which he could infallibly distinguish between truth and error ; and by which he so knew what was in man, that he could tell the motives by which they were governed, and the reasons which operated in the adoption of their opinions. This cannot be said of the ministers of the Gospel at the present day.

2. Jesus Christ was ordained of God to be the JuaVe of the living as well as of the dead. It is not so with the ordinary ministers of the Gospel.

3. Ministers of the Gospel are not only liable themselves to error ; but they are greatly divided in their opinions. If any one of them has a right to impute the errors of his brethren to moral depravity, why is not this right common to all ? If not common to all, who but an inspired teacher shall be able to say to whom the right belongs, and to whom it does not 1 If all have the right, it is then certain that some must have a right to judge unjustly and injuriously. Because where there is opposition of opinions there must be error on one side or the other, if not on both.

4. Ministers of the Gospel, as well as other men are very liable to be under the influence of party passions, and to be governed by such influence in estimating both the opinions and the characters of those who dissent from them. The annals of past ages furnish melancholy proof of this fact — such evidence as might well make any considerate man tremble at the thought of assuming such a power or right.

Besides, in civil cases, an interested person is deemed unqualified to act as a judge or a juror. So also is the man who is known to be prejudiced against a person or party whose cause is to be decided. How imminent then must be the danger, when after long controversy and excitement, a minister of one sect ventures to assume the office of a judge in respect to the hearts of those who dissent from his creed ! Under such circumstances, what reflecting man would dare, unauthorized, to assume such responsibility ? How little confidence is to be placed in the censorious opinions mutually expressed of each other by political partizans, in a time of great excitement ? Quite as little, I suspect, is to be placed in the opinions of religious partizans under similar circumstances.