Causes and evils of contentions : unveiled in letters to Christians

x-w.^. .. '?";3'~*J?^™»S

I

BR 121 .W59

Worcester, Noah, 1758-1837
Causes and evils of
contentions

CAUSES AND EVIL

OF

CONTENTIONS

UNVEILED IN

LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS

BY NOAH WORCESTER.

BOSTON:
PUBLISHED BY GRAY&BOWEN.

1831.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year
1831, by Gray & Bowen, in the Clerk's Office of the
District Court of Massachusetts.

Peirce «S& Parker Printers.

CONTENTS

LETTER I. Introductory Observations, - - - - 6
" II. A Primary Ground of Alienation among Cbris-

tiajQS, 9

" III. The Truth as hated by the Wicked, - - 17

" IV. An Important Question answered, - - 22
" v. Two Examples of Error from the Ambiguity

of Language, - 33

" VI. The Messiah's censures of the Scribes and

Pharisees, 41

" VII. Paul's censures of Schismatic Teachers, - 46

" VIII. Paurs account of the Natural Man, - - 51

" IX. The Injunctions and Examples of Christ, - 60

" X. Paul's Reasonings with Contending Christians, 69

" XI. The Apostle James on Censorious Judging, - 73

" XII. False Standards occasion False Estimates, - 77

" XIIL The Disregarded Parable, .... 86

" XIV. Example of the Four Evangelists, - - - 91

" XV. Pernicious Effects of Censorious Judging, - 95

" XVL Vices Compared, ICO

" XVII. The Gospel Remedy for Contention, - - 104

"XVm. Conclusion, 114

Postscript, 119

LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS.

LETTER L

INTRODUCTORY OBSERVATIONS.

'My Christian Brethren^

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 commu-
nicating such instructions as they were then able to
bear, and such as he wished them to obseive. 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 anoth-
er." 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,

A

b LETTERS

not only for his apostles but for all that should be-
come 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 thern 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 niay know that
thou hast sent me." John 17. 2i), 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 BELIE\^E THAT THOU HAST SENT ME."

To believe that the Father sent him was to believe
that he was not an impostor, but the promised Mes-
siah, 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 conver-
sion of the world to the Christian faith, greatly de-
pended on the mutual love and union of those who
believe in him ; that such love and union are adapt-
ed to bring others to believe in him, as the way, the
truth, and the life. When Christians thus walk in
love thoy exhibit the true spirit of Christ and his
gospel, excite attention and inquiry, command es-
teem, and produce conviction of the reality and
usefulness of the Christian religion. The spirit

TO CHRISTIANS. 7

of Christ then appears to great advantage in con-
trast 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 dis-
cord 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 dark-
ness, and why Deism, and even Atheism still show
their heads in Christian lands 1 How awful and
aflfecting 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 pro-
gress 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 mu-
tual love, or union among Christians be an ap-
pointed means for the spread of the Gospel, and
the conversion of the world, it behooves Christians

8 LETTERS

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 im-
partially 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 mu-
tual love among Christians, or by the existence of a
contrary spirit, this state of things must have re-
sulted 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 prin-
ciple or principles, which for want of due examina-
tion may have seemed to justify schism and alien-
ation.

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

TO CHRISTIANS. 9

that the principle is false and delusive. Or if cer-
tain 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 bit-
terness and show its deleterious nature.

LETTER II.

A PRIMARY GROUND OF ALIENATION AMONG CHRIS-
TIANS.

My Christian Brethren,

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 wick-
edness of heart.

I have not been able to find any other hypothesis

10 LETTERS

or principle which so naturally accounts for the
alienation and hostilities which are so common
between men of different opinions ; and this prin-
ciple 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 con-
duct 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

TO CHRISTIANS. 11

doctrine by which any denomination of Christians
has been known. What I have now advanced re-
specting it I 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 oppo-
nent 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 prac-
tice ]

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 him-
self"— 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.

13 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 minis-
try, 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 hnow that this man
is a sinner." He claimed to be " the Son of God ;"
this they pronounced to be blasphemy, and deserv-
ing 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 ?'*
or when the apostles were persecuted as men who

TO CHRISTIANS. 13

turned the world upside down ? 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 pro-
ceeds 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 pro-
testants. The papists might be in error respect-
ing 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 deerns 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 uni-
formly 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 oppos-
ing party.

14 LETTERS

5. It will probably be neither denied nor doubted
that the papal Inquisition was founded on the prin-
ciple that error of opinion proceeds from wicked-
ness of heart; nor that the myriads of victims
which have been murdered by these terrific tribu-
nals, 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 kill-
eth 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 self-
denying 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 excla-
mation 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.

TO CHRISTIANS. 15

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, humil-
ity, 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 broth-
er, "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 them-
selves, 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 persecu-
tors and revilers in every age and country. What
person was ever persecuted on the accusation that
he was a good man ?

16 LETTERS

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, other-
wise, than by imputing it to depravity of heart.
When I reflect how contrary it must be to the na-
ture of humility and benevolence to impute a broth-
er's opinions to his wickedness, while there is noth-
ing else in his character to lead to such a conclu-
sion, I am often amazed to hear the principle avow-
ed 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 reli-
gious 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 denomina-
ted the BoHON Upas of the Christian world. It is a
tree which has extended its branches and its poison-
ous influence over every Christian country, changing
the milk of brotherly kindness into the bitter waters
of hatred and censure, and causing contention, cal-
umny and persecution to reign triumphant, where
nothing should have been known but peace and love,
with their genuine fruits.

, TO CHRISTIANS. 17

LETTER III.

THE TRUTH AS HATED BY THE WICKED.

My Christian Brethren,

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 lo 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 truths
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

16 LETTERS

bear witness of the truth ; and he said of himself,
*' 1 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 geo-
graphical truths, as well as those of a moral or re-
ligious 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 ever-
lasting 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.

TO CHRISTIANS. 19

When by truth, is meant the righteous require-
ments 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 shalt
love tliy 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, ihat
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

^0 Letters

sin, they love darkness rather than light, and will
Hot come to the light, lest their deeds should be re-
proved. 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 Bi-
ble, 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 Mes-
siah, 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 mira-
cles which he WTought 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 ^QVf mir-
acles would have been necessary to induce them to
flock to his standard by thousands. But when in-

TO CHRISTIANS. 21

«tead 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, notwithstand-
ing his thousands of beneficent miracles.

As they rejected him in the character of the Mes-
siah, so they r^^jected 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 ;
but he that believeth not, is condemned already, be-
cause 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

22 LETTERS

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 i even be-
cause 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."

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 min-
istry, may justly be imputed to the wickedness of
their hearts. Nor can it be doubted that other faith-
ful 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 ANSW^ERED.

3Ii/ Chridian Brethren,

It being granted that our Lord imputed the
error of the unbelieving Jews respecting himself, to
a disobedient heart, why may not ministers of

TO CHRISTIANS. 23

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 inquir-
ers after truth — all wjio wish the peace and prosper-
ity 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
Judge 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 com-
mon to all, who but an inspired teacher shall be able
to say to whom the right belongs, and to whom it
does not ] 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

24 LETTERS

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 evi-
dence 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 re-
spect to the hearts of those who dissent from his
creed ! Under such circumstances, what reflecting
man would dare, unauthorized, to assume such re-
sponsibility 1 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 pla-
ced in the opinions of religious partizans under
similar circumstances.

5. There are many causes of error, and many
ways to account for it, besides the wickedness of the
human heart ; and it is a law of love, and the nature
of true love, to put the most favorable construction
upon a brother's conduct which the circumstances
of the case will admit. Every man duly aware of
his own liability to err, must feel it to be desirable
Jthat others should act on this principle towards

TO CHRISTIANS. 25

himself. The ambiguity of language is a source of
error, by which every man is liable to be led astray,
whether he be learned or illiterate, good or bad.
Many ambiguous words and phrases are used in the
Bible, and in some instances it must be doubtful per-
haps to every one in which of two or more senses
these words or phrases are used in particular passa-
ges. The man who is not aware of his own liability
to mistake the intended meaning of an ambiguous
word or phrase, and thus to form an erroneous opin-
ion, is as little to be envied for his intelligence as
for his candor.

That good men are liable to mistake when ambig-
uous words are used by inspired teachers, may be
evident from what occurred during our Lord's min-
istry. Several instances are recorded of the mistakes
of his apostles, which arose from this source. When
he exhorted them to beware of the " leaven of the
Pharisees;" they supposed it to be the " leaven of
bread" that he meant, till by reasoning with them
Christ led them to understand that it was the doc-
trine of the Pharisees which he had called " leaven."
Thousands of similar mistakes result from such a
figurative use of common words. The apostles
again mistook the meaning of Christ, when he said
to them " our friend Lazarus sleepeth." The eve-
ning before the crucifixion, Christ said to Judas,
'^ What thou doest, do quickly." Now no man at
the table knew for what purpose Jesus thus address-
ed the traitor ; but as it was known to them that
Judas kept the purse of the company, some supposed

26 LETTERS

that Jesus had directed him to purchase the things
that would be needed at the feast, or to give some-
thing to the poor. After the resurrection, the apos-
tles again misapprehended the meaning of their Lord
in the answer he gave to Peter's question relating to
John. Jesus replied to Peter, by another question —
'* If I will that he tarry till I come, what is that to
thee ? From this ambiguous answer, the opinion was
formed and circulated that John should not die.

Now what should we have thought of our Lord's
character, had he imputed such mistakes as have
been mentioned, to wickedness of heart in his disci-
ples? Yet this would have been as proper as it is
for Christians at this day, thus to account for their
differences of opinion. For a great part of these dif-
ferences result from the ambiguity of Scripture lan-
guage.

6. Children of different sects are differently taught
as to the meaning of particular words and phrases,
as they occur in the Scriptures; and many of them
are perhaps to the end of their lives incapable of
correcting the errors thus imbibed in childhood.
Though in discoursing with the Jews, Christ impu-
ted their rejection of his testimony to a disobedient
heart ; yet it is not to be supposed that what he said to
them, was applicable to oil the Jews of that age who
did not become believers in him — nor to any who
had not an opportunity to be correctly informed of
the evidences of his divine mission. Many of the
people of Judea, as well as Jews in foreign lands,
had probably no knowledge of Jesus, of his preach-

TO CHRISTIANS. 27

ing, or his miracles, but what they received from his
enemies. In regard to persons thus situated, it can
hardly be said that light had come into the world ;
and it cannot be supposed that they were held ac-
countable for privileges bestowed on others, which
were denied to them by the course of divine provi-
dence. When children are brought up under the
influence of pious parents, who happen to entertain
erroneous doctrines, they are under a kind of neces-
sity of imbibing erroneous opinions. For a child to
be thus situated may be a calamity, but not a crime;
and it is rather an evidence of an obedient than a
disobedient heart, that he imbibes the erroneous
opinions of his parents. For he is required to honor
father and mother, and a disposition to obey this com-
mand, will naturally incline him to listen to parental
instruotion and to receive as truth what his parents
inculcate as the doctrines of the Gospel. It is as
unreasonable as it is cruel for a Protestant to impute it
to wickedness of heart that the children of Papists
grow up strongly attached to the doctrines of the
Catholic church. We may as rationally blame a
child for not having been born omniscient, or for
possessing the spirit of filial love and reverence, as
to blame him for receiving as truth the erroneous
opinions which were inculcated on him by his pa-
rents, while it was impossible for him to know that
they were incorrect. Let any censorious minister
ask himself, what would be his views of others, who
should impute it to wickedness of heart, that his
children hearken to his instructions, and grow up in

28

LETTERS

the belief of his religious opinions ? To whatever
denomination a child may belong, the more pious
and humble he is, the more likely he is to imbibe
the religious opinions of his parents, whether they
be correct or erroneous.

7. The doctrines about which Christians have con-
tended, have seldom been strictly the doctrines of
the Gospel ; they have more commonly been the
doctrines of men — of men who assumed the right to
say in other words what was meant by the inspired
writers, and to set up their explanations of Scrip-
ture as unquestionable truth. In some instances,
indeed there have been disputes about the genuine-
ness of certain passages, which have found a place
in the Bible. In other instances there have been
disputes in regard to the correctness of the com-
monly received translations. But I have not learned
that any sect of Christians has been formed on either
of these grounds of dispute. The disputes which
have divided Christians into sects, have originated
in differences of opinion about the meaning of par-
ticular passages of Scripture, which were acknowl-
edged to be genuine by each party, — and to be true
in the sense intended by the inspired writers. To
express the supposed sense of the passages more
definitely, has been an object with those who have
formed creeds or confessions of faith. Propositions
which men have thus formed have been set up as
standards of faith, and as tests of Christian charac-
ter ; and to these others must give their assent, or be
denied Christian privileges. These propositions of

TO CHRISTIANS. 29

human manufacture are what their advocates de-
nominate the truth as it is in Jesus. Those who
refuse their assent to these dogmas are reproached
as enemies to the truth, while they freely admit as
the truth the very texts of Scripture, on which
these articles are supposed to be founded. It seems
to have been thought not sufficient for a man to be-
lieve the doctrines of the Gospel as given by the
wisdom of God, but he must assent to an edition of
these doctrines as revised and amended, by the wis-
dom of self-sufficient men. The " bones of con-
tention" have not been the words of God's wisdom,
but the words of man's wisdom : and these words
of man's wisdom have been preferred to the words
of God, as standards of truth and tests of character.
1 think I do not go too far in saying that these hu-
man compositions have been preferred to the Bible,
for the purposes I have mentioned. If they are not
PREFERRED, why are they urged, and substituted, as
if the Bible were insufficient ? 1 am aware that
those who adopt this course profess great respect for
the Bible, and are not commonly backward to accuse
dissenters from their creed with disrespect for the
oracles of God. But it seems to me an extraordinary
mode of evincing a regard for the Bible, to substi-
tute for it, as a rule of faith, the compositions of
fallible and uninspired men.

If one sect of Christians may adopt this course, so
may another ; and thus it has been that different sects
have adopted the same self-sufficient principle, and
mutually censured, reproached and persecuted one an-

30 LETTERS

Other. Then a third sect is formed, which condemns
each of the preceding ; then a fourth, and a fifth, and
so on till the family of professed disciples of Christ
have become divided and subdivided into numerous
parties or hostile bands, as unlike a " building fitly
framed together," as are the fragments of a temple
after having been rent asunder and dispersed by the
violence of a hurricane, — and almost as far from
that oneness which Christ prayed might exist among
all who should become believers in him, as are the
different parties of ths belligerent troops of a nation
in a time of civil war. What can be more adapted to
promote infidelity than such perpetual hostilities
among those who profess to be disciples of the
Prince of peace, and to love one another as Chiist
has loved them !

What is the difference between denying the Gos-
pel to be a sufficient revelation, and establishing the
creed of a particular sect as a standard of faith and
a test of character? If the Gospel is not so clear
and definite as to supersede the necessity of human
creeds as standards of faith, why should it be called
a revelation from God ? Suppose I should form a
confession of faith, expressive of my own views of
the meaning of Sciipture. This might be useful
for giving information of what I think to be true in
regard to the doctrines of the Gospel. If I stop
here, I give no just cause of offence. But if I pro-
ceed further and make my opinions a test of charac-
ter, and impute it to moral depravity that others
dissent from my creed, what do I less than to

TO CHRISTIANS. 31

act the part of the '* Man of sin," assuming to be
" as God" or " above all that is called God" — inva-
ding the rights of my fellow men, and arrogating
the prerogative of God in judging the hearts of my
brethren ? There is, I suspect, much more of the
" Man of sin," in this business of creedmaking
and censuring such as dissent, than has generally
been imagined. If it be said that by the " Man of
sin" the Pope was intended ; I would ask, who and
what is a Pope but a man who assumes the right of
determining how his brethren should understand the
doctrines of the Gospel, and the right of censuring
and persecuting such men as dare to question his in-
fallibility ? The Pontiff of Rome is not the only man
who presumes thus to invade the rights of men and
the rights of God.

Party creeds, in the language of human v»?isdom,
have uiiquestionably been adopted in the belief,
that the doctrines of the Gospel can be better ex-
pressed than they were by Christ and his apostles —
at least, expressed in language less ambiguous, and
more sure to keep heretical persons from joining a
church. It has been pleaded that creeds or articles
of faith, expressed in Scripture language, would
afford no security against the admission of persons
of very different opinions, as all who profess to re-
gard the Bible as their rule of faith will readily
assent to articles thus expressed. Hence it has been
deemed proper to express articles of faith in language
more definite than the language of the Scriptures,
that there may be more uniformity of opinion among

32 LETTERS

the members of the same church, and that men of
erroneous opinions may be excluded.

But do such articles of faith insure uniformity of
opinion? Look at the Church of England, whose
clergy subscribe " The Thirty Nine Articles."
The majority of them are supposed to be Arminians,
and being the majority, they are called *' the Ortho-
dox.'^ Another large and respectable class of these
clergymen are Calvinisls. Some are supposed to
be Antinomians. They all subscribe a creed which
is in the strongest language Trinitarian ; yet how
many of the clergy of that church have been Unita-
rians, except in name ! And how many of the ex-
planations of the doctrine of " three persons in one
God," given by the ministers of that church, have
amounted to nothing more than Unitarianism under
a Trinitarian cloak or veil ! What better than this
have we when we are told, that by the three persons
in one God are meant three attributes, or three offices,
or three relations, or three unknown distinctions ?
Is it not a fact, too, that many of the clergy of the
Church of England subscribe the Thirty Nine Arti-
cles, not in reality as articles of their belief, but as
" Articles of peace V

In that Church we have an example illustrative of
the benefits or the disadvantages which result from
the establishment of Articles of faith in the words
of man's wisdom. In our own country, too, some-
thing of the same diversity of opinion is known to
exist among ministers who profess an assent to pop-
ular articles of faith, which are called essential doc-?

•A.

TO CHRISTIANS. 33

trines ; and the same articles are also in our country
differently explained by different writers. What
worse than this might be expected to result should
all their articles of faith be stated in the very words
of Christ and his Apostles ? And would there be
no advantage in having the articles so expressed as
to preclude the strong temptations to hypocrisy
and dissimulation ?

LETTER V.

TWO EXAMPLES OF ERROR FROM THE AMBIGUITY OF
LANGUAGE.

My Christian Brethren,

Having mentioned the ambiguity of language
as a prolific source of error and diversity of opinion
among Christians, I shall now present two examples.
When our Lord instituted the supper as a memo-
rial of his death, on giving the bread to his disciples
he said, '' Take, eat, this is my body ;" and on
giving the cup he said, " This is my blood.'*' On
such ground as this the Catholic clergy formed the
doctrine of transubstantiation. In other words
they formed propositions to be received as articles
of faith which affirmed that the bread and the wine,

84 LETTERS

as used in the Lord's Supper, are changed into the
body and blood of Christ, — so that those who par-
take of the supper, eat the flesh and drink the blood
of the Lord Jesus. This doctrine has been deemed
by the Catholics not only as true, but so essential
that those who deny it are deemed guilty of damnable
error or heresy, and on this ground thousands of
Protestants have been subjected to imprisonment
torture and death, as heretics.

Protestants as well as Papists admit that Christ
uttered the words which have been quoted ; and they
believe them to be both true and important in the
sense they were used by our Lord. There has been
a difference of opinion between Lutherans and other
Protestants as to the import of the words, as used by
Christ. The most common opinion among Protes-
tants of the present day is probably this, that the
words are to be understood in a figurative sense,
meaning that the bread and the wine in the Lord's
Supper, are to be regarded as symbols of the body
and blood of Christ.

i\nother example may be the following :
In foretelling his death, Jesus said — " I lay down
my life for the sheep." His Apostles represent that
"while we were yet sinners Christ died for us" —
that " he suffered for sins, the just for the unjust" —
that "he died for all," and "tasted death for every
man." A large portion of the Christian world have
understood these and similar passages as importing
that Christ suffered as a substitute lor sinners — endur-
ed for them a vicarious punishment — the wrath of God

TO CHRISTIANS. 35'

— the full penalty of the law, or an equivalent to the
" punishment due to us all" — at least " all the elect."
The doctrine of vicarious punishment, like that
of transubstantiation, has been declared to be an
essential doctrine, and those who dissent from it
have been denounced as heretics, enemies of Christ,
despisers of the truth, and unworthy of the name of
Christians.

Yet as it was in the other case, those Christians
who dissent from the doctrine of vicarious punish-
ment, readily admit all that the Bible says of the
sufferings and death of Christ ; they believe that he
laid down his life for his sheep, that he gave his life
a ransom for sinners, and " died for all" — " the just
for the unjust, that he might bring us to God.'' They
believe too, that in his death, his love and the love
of God for our sinful race, were really and wonder-
fully displayed. And that we are reconciled to God
by the death of his Son. All these ideas they
believe to be as true as they would have been had
Christ suffered a vicarious punishment — but not true
in the sense which has been supposed by the advo-
cates for that doctrine.

Now let it be observed that in both examples the
words relied on are ambiguous ; for there is more
than one sense in which they are capable of being
understood. As b. portrait or image is called by the
name of the person represented, so the bread and
wine may be called the body and blood of Christ,
•.yhich are represented by them ; and it is well known

36 Letters

that there are several senses in which one person
may die for another, or for many others.

Let it also be observed that in the first example,
Christ did not say, This bread is changed into my
body — nor, This wine is changed into my blood
Not a syllable was said by him about any change or
transubstantiation. This idea was added to the
words of Christ by the framers of the doctrine. So
in the second example, Christ did not say I lay down
my life as a vicarious punishment for my sheep. Nor
did his Apostles in any instance say, that Christ
endured for us " the wrath of God," or the penalty of
the divine law due to our offences. This idea was
added by the framers of the doctrine of vicarious
punishment, just as the idea of change was added by
the framers of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I
have no doubt that in each case the framers thought
the idea they added to be implied in the words of
Scripture ; but this is no proof that it was implied,
nor that any man had a right to insert it5 as the word
of God. It is, however, by thus adding to the words
of Scripture what men have supposed to be implied,
that numerous propositions have been formed as es-
sential articles of faith. Nor has the mischief of
this creed-making policy stopped here. Each sect,
after having thus formed its essential articles, have
called them the truth. Hence, with them to love
the truth, is to love the articles of their creed, formed
in the words of man's wisdom ; and any one who
dissents from these articles, is supposed to be a des-
piser of the truth, an opposer of the truth, an enemy

TO CHRISTIANS. 37

to the God of truth. Of course, the opposition to
these supposed truths, is imputed to depravity of
heart. Hence persecution in various forms, has been
practised by one sect of Christians against another.
What an awful responsibility does a fallible unin-
spired man take on himself, when he ventures to
substitute his own opinion of an ambiguous passage
of Scripture for the word of God, and to make that
opinion a test by which he may judge the hearts of
others !

That ministers of the gospel have a right to ex-
plain the Scriptures according to their ovtn under-
standing of them, and to do what they can to make
them plain to the understandings of their hearers or
readers, is readily admitted. But no man has a right
tojequire others to assent to his interpretations con-
trary to the convictions of their own consciences,
nor to set up his own explanations as of equal author-
ity with the word of God. As it is my duty to explain
the Scriptures according to the impartial dictates of
my own understanding, I ought to know that it is
the duty of my brethren to explain according to their
respective understandings, and not according to mine.
If they dissent from me, I ought to consider that I
also dissent from them ; and the same candor and
forbearance which I may reasonably desire from them
towards myself, I should evince in my conduct to-
wards them.

To the honor and praise of the Four Evangelists,
it has been said of them, that, in their history of our
Lord, " They tell the world what he said, and what

38 LETTERS

he did; but they invariably leave the judgment that
ought to be formed of both, to the discernment of
their readers." * Happy it would have been for the
Christian world if all creed-makers had adopted the
wise policy of the Evangelists, so far as to give all
articles of faith in the language of the inspired wri-
ters, or as nearly so as possible. Summaries of the
Christian faith in this form might have been very
useful, and have been the means of preserving union
and peace among the disciples of the common Lord.
Notes and comments too might have been safely added,
asaccompanimentsof the articles, had they been prop-
erly distinguished from the articles, and only given
as the opinions of fallible men, with proper cautions
to the reader to consider them in no other light — but
to use his own understanding, and all the means he
may possess to ascertain what is truth and what is
error. " Add thou not to his words, lest he reprove
thee, and thou be found a liar." Such is the wise
counsel of Agur. Mr. Poole, in his Annotations
on this text says — " As the word of God is pure, do
not thou corrupt and abuse it by adding to it thy own
or other men's inventions and opinions, and deliver-
ing or receiving them in the name and as the words
of God." Prov. XXX. 6.

Now I may seriously ask, were not the doctrines of
Transubstantiation and vicarious punishment formed
by adding to the word of God the " inventions and
opinions" of men ? Have not these " inventions
and opinions been delivered and received as the
* Dr. Campbell.

TO CHRISTIANS. 39

words of God ?" And have they not been treated
as such by the propagators of these doctrines, in
their denunciations against those who dissent from
them ? I may also ask, has it not been by thus
adding the opinions of men to the word of God, that
all the creed-making sects have formed their essen-
tial articles of faith — all the articles which have
caused alienation and strife among Christians ? If
such a mode of forming articles of faith may not be
called adding to God's words, I know not what de-
serves that name.

If articles of faith, expressed in the words of
Scripture, were accompanied by such notes, and
comments as I have mentioned, with proper cautions
to the reader to distinguish between the words of
Scripture and the opinions of the compilers, there
would be no ground for the charge of adding to the
words of God. But when fallible and uninspired men
venture to assert their own opinions as the doc-
trines of the Gospel, and make them a test of Christ-
ian faith or a Christian character, they appear to me
to act in direct violation of the counsel of Agur, and
assume an authority in the church which God has
never delegated to any of the sons of men. To make
such articles of faith the standard by which men
must be measured for admission into the churoh, or
for exclusion from it, is, in my opinion perfectly
unwarranted by the Scriptures, and in a high and
reprehensible sense adding to the word of God.

The counsel of Agur is enforced by the admonitory
clause " lest he reprove thee aiid thou be found a liar."

40 . LETTERS

** Lest he reprove thee." Lest God reprove thee
by the course of his providence. There are various
ways in which God may reprove the imprudences and
the vices of mankind. A great portion of the trou-
bles which come on imprudent or vicious men in the
present life, may properly be regarded as reproofs or
chastenings from the hand of God. Such evils may
occur in the natural course of providence, and yet be
of the nature of reproof. The alienations, conten*
tions and innumerable difficulties which have occur-
red among Christians, are the natural and direct
fruit of adding to God's words, in forming articles of
faith, and seem to me of the nature of reproof for such
conduct, and as evidence" of divine disapprobation.

" And thou be found a Zmr." I do not think that
men are generally guilty of intentional falsehood
when they add to God's words in forming articles of
faith ; and probably Agur meant no more by the word
" liar," than one who ventures to assert his own
opinions of the word of God as^of equal authority
with the word itself. When a man has so little
sense of his own fallibility as to do this, or is pos-
sessed of such arrogance or self-sufficiency, as to as-
sume such a power, he exposes himself to the charge
of uttering that which is really false, although he
may fancy that it is the truth. He may be free from
the charge of intentional falsehood, while he is verily
guilty of uttering false opinions, as the doctrines of
the Gospel. In this respoct, how often are men found
guilty, through self-sufficiency or the want of that hu-
mility and caution which ever become uninspired men !

TO CHRISTIANS. 41

Having said so much against forming articles of
faith in the *' words of man's wisdom," I ought per-
haps freely to confess, that there was a time when I
could express in my own language what I thought to
be the meaning of the Scriptures, as articles of faith
to be adopted by a church But in several particu-
lars my own views afterwards became so changed
that I could- not again have assented to the articles
ofmyovvn forming. These facts with further re-
flections and inquiries convinced me, that there is
neither safety nor propriety in the common mode of
forming articles of faith ; that such compositions
operate as fetters to the mind in regard to free in-
quiry after truth, and as obstructions to the progress
of light ; that they expose the members of a church
to be involved in contentions, or to act the part of
hypocrites or persecutors, — and that the adoption of
such articles by a church, implies a presumption of
such infallibility on the part of the framers or the re-
ceivers, as is not warranted by either Scripture, rea-
son, or experience, but is contradicted by them all.

LETTER VI.

THE Messiah's censures of the scribes and

PHARISEES.

My Christian Brethren^

Those who are in the habit of uttering censures
against their dissenting brethren, imagine that their

42

LETTERS

conduct may be justified by Scripture examples.
These I shall examine in this and subsequent letters.

That the Messiah censured the Scribes and Phar-
isees cannot be denied ; and his awful language re-
specting them, as we have it recorded in the 23d chap-
ter of Matthew, has been viewed as sufficient to war-
rant the party censures of the present day. " Wo
unto you scribes and pharisees, hypocrites," is many
times repeated ; and to this language partizans ap-
peal to justify their own sweeping denunciations,
against suph as dissent from their religious opinions.
But is there not a great difference between the au-
thority of Christ to judge the hearts of men, and
the authority of any man of the present age?

Besides, it seems to me that the spirit of our Lord's
language has been grossly misapprehended. When
a person is himself under the influence of resentful ,
passions, the language *' Wo unto you" will seem to
be the proper expression of such feelings. But let
him be under the influence of benevolent feelings, and
the same words may appear to him with an entirely
different aspect, and as the expression of pitying love
or commisseration, towards persons whose characters
expose them to the displeasure of Heaven. In the lat-
ter sense they are viewed and explained by Dr. Camp-
bell ; and in this sense I think they ought to be regard-
ed. When thus viewed, they imply nothing indignant
or resentful, any more than the prayer on the the cross
*' Father, forgive them, for they know not what they
do." When Christ's language is referred to as jus-
tifying party denunciations, an indignant, resentful

TO CHRISTIANS. 43

and imprecating spirit is imputed to him, which as
I conceive, was foreign from his heart. " Alas for
you" — or " Wo is unto you," is, I believe, the cor-
rect interpretation ; not '* Wo be unto you," as has
been often imagined.

When our Lord predicted the destruction of Jeru-
salem, he used the following language : ** Wo unto
the women with child, and to them that give suck
in those days " The peculiar situation of these
women was deprecated as what would add to their
distress in such a time of general calamity; and no one
can doubt, in this case, that the language of Christ was
the language of pity, not of indignation or censure. It
is very true that Christ imputed blame to the scribes
and pharisees, and not to the women, whose condition
he deplored. The blame however imputed to the
scribes and pharisees, was not expressed in the words
translated " Wo unto you," but by the words that fol-
lowed, in which he described their wicked conduct.
The Saviour possessed God-like benevolence ; while
he abhorred sin, he loved and pitied the sinner. A
deficiency in this respect is too often apparent in
many who profess to be his disciples. Is it not too
generally so with partizans of every sect? And will
not this defect in a great measure account for the
adoption of the persecuting principle, which imputes
error of judgment, or supposed error of opinion, to
wickedness of heart? How exceedingly different
was the benevolence of the Saviour from that affec-
tion which is confined to a party, and which under
a pretext of love to the truth, can calumniate a dis-
senting brother !

44 LETTERS

I have admitted that Christ censured the scribes
and pharisees ; but for what did he censure them 1
Was it for any error at all resembling the supposed
errors of opinion by which Christians at this day are
divided into sects ? or for which Christians of one
sect denounce those of another 1 On the contrary,
was it not for immorality in practice, and for such
errors relating to the law of God, as encouraged im-
morality? Let anyone impartially examine what
Jesus said of these men in the chapter which has
been mentioned, and on other occasions ; and he
will find that so far as his censures had any refer-
ence to error of opinion, they were such errors as
encouraged immorality and crime. By their ex-
positions of the law and their regard to traditions,
the scribes and pharisees made '* the word of God of
no effect," and made their religion a cloak for their
covetousness. They " devoured widow's houses/'
while " for a pretence they made long prayers"- —
they " paid tithes of mint, annise, and cummin,"
while they " passed over the weightier matters of
the law, judgment, mercy and faith," or "justice,
humanity and fidelity."* They made '' clean the
outside of the cup and the platter," while " within
they were full of extortion and excess." They pro-
fessed a great regard for the Sabbath, while they
could spend it in calumniating the Saviour for his
beneficent miracles on that day. Yes, and while
such was their own inconsistency, they could " trust
in themselves that they were righteous and despise
others" — even the Messiah himself.
* Campbell's translation.

TO CHRISTIANS. 45

Such were the grounds on which the Saviour cen-
sured the scribes and pharisees. How very dissim-
ilar are these from such supposed errors of opinion
as are at this day made the grounds of reproach by
the partizans of different sects ! When men of li-
centious habits give such expositions of divine pre-
cepts, as are adapted to countenance their immoral
conduct, we have then reason to fear that their
errors of opinion proceed from depravity of heart.
Such appears to have been the fact with the scribes
and pharisees. This was known to our Lord ; for
he knew what was in man. But no one of these
facts afford any proof that the differences of opinion
among Christians, which do not relate to moral pre-
cepts, are the fruit of depravity, on which side soever
the error may be found. Much less, if possible, do
such facts prove that the errors are on the part of the
accused, and not on the part of accusers ; nor that
the censures may on either part be justified. How
does it appear that the accused sects are more liable
or more likely to be in error than their accusers ?
I know not : and 1 suspect that there are few per-
sons who will be able to answer the question in a
manner satisfactory even to themselves.

It is worthy of serious inquiry whether the opin-
ion which leads partizans to think they may be jus-
tified in reproaching others for supposed misinter-
pretations of Scripture, is not in fact an error of the
same nature of those for which Christ reproved the
scribes and pharisees — an error that makes " the
word of God of no effect," which forbids censorious

46 LETTERS

judging, and speaking evil one of another. If any-
thing is immoral, it is immorality to violate these
precepts.

LETTER VII.

Ipaul's censures of schismatic teachers.

My Christian Brethren,

Perhaps there is not another passage in the
Bible which has been more frequently perverted than
the following : — *' I marvel that ye are so soon re-
moved from him that called you into the grace of
Christ, unto another Gospel, which is not another ;
but there be some that trouble you, and would
pervert the Gospel of Christ. But though we or an
angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto
you, than that which we preached unto you, let him
be accursed." Gal. i. 6, 7, S.

This language of Paul to the Galatians is one of
the strong holds to which censorious Christians of all
sects resort in justification of schismatic conduct, or
such reproachful language as tends to alienate
Christians from each other. By this example of
Paul, the Catholics justify their anathemas against
Protestants ; and Protestants of different sects on

TO CHRISTIANS. 47

the same ground justify their censures of the Catho-
lics and of one another. But to the Pope himself,
and to every minister of the Gospel, who like the
Pope denounces fellow Christians on account of dif-
ference of opinion, these questions may be urged, —
Art thou like Paul, invested with apostolic authority
and miraculous powers ? Hast thou like him, been
inspired to teach the doctrines of Christ, and to
distinguish between truth and error ? And what
analogy is there between the doctrine which Paul
censured, and any doctrine which in modern times
has divided Christians of our land ; or on account
of which they have censured one another ?

From the contents of the epistle to the Galatians,
it appears, that soon after they had received the
Gospel, and had been formed into a church state,
certain teachers came among them who were zeal-
ous for the Mosaic rituals, and who ventured to
teach these Christians that circumcision was neces-
sary to salvation. The same doctrine had been
taught at Antioch, and had occasioned the council
which was held at Jerusalem ; the records of whose
proceedings we have in the fifteenth chapter of the
Acts of the Apostles. This council decided that
circumcision was not to be required of the Gen-
tile converts. But this result seems not to have
been satisfactory to all the Jews who believed in
Jesus as the Messiah. Some of them were disposed
to make circumcision an essential article of the
Christian religion, and thus taught the gentile con-
verts, '* except ye be circumcised, ye cannot he

48 LETTERS

saved ! Had these teachers merely practised cir-
cumcision to satisfy their own consciences, Paul
would probably have made no objection. For he
was himself so liberal on this point that he readily
consented to the circumcision of Timothy, whose
father was a Greek, when he found this to be neces-
sary to satisfy the consciences of others — or necessa-
ry to the usefulness of his son in the faith.* But
the teachers whose conduct was censured by Paul,
undertook to introduce an article as essential to the
salvation of others, which the Messiah had not en-
joined ; and on this ground they were disposed to
make a division in the church, by excluding those who
dissented from their creed, and also reviled the apos-
tle himself. It was for this schismatic conduct that
they were censured. In Paul's view they preached
another Gospel, or a pretended Gospel, contrary to
the one he had taught, and which the Galatians had
received — and contrary, too, to the great doctrine of
union and peace. From Paul's writings, it is very
clear that his prayer was the same as that of Christ,
that believers might be one, and be preserved from
division. Of no other persons did he speak with
such severity as of schismatic teachers. The lan-
guage quoted at the head of this letter, is awfully
severe ; and in another part of the same epistle, he
said to the Galatians, " I would that they were even
cut off who trouble you."

Paul also exhorted the Christians at Rome, in the
following manner : — " Mark them who cause divis-*
* Acts xvi,l.

TO CHRISTIANS. 49

ions and offences, contrary to the doctrine ye have
received, and avoid them." To Titus he thus wrote :
" A man that is an heretic, after the first and second
admonition, reject." Titus iii, 10. In Dr. Camp-
bell's opinion, instead of*' a man that is an heretio"
the Greek words should have been translated, '* a
factious man" — meaning one who was disposed to
promote contentions and divisions in the church.
It was against such men that Paul's thunders were
uttered — against men who dared to make doctrines
essential to salvation which had not been authorized
as such by the Head of the church. I may here
quote the last paragraph of Dr. Campbell's Disserta-
tion on Heresy, as both pertinent and important : —

" I shall conclude with adding to the observations
on schism and heresy, that how much soever of a
schismatic or heretical spirit in the apostolic sense
of the terms, may have contributed to the formation
of the different sects into which the Christian world
is at present divided, no person, who in the spirit of
candor and charity adheres to that which to the best
of his judgment is right, though in his opinion he
should be mistaken, is in the Scripture sense either
schismatic or heretic. And that he on the contrary,
whatever sect he belong to, is more entitled to these
odious appellations, who is the most apt to throw the
imputation on others. Both terms, for they only
denote different degrees of the same bad quality, al-
ways indicate a disposition and practice unfriendly
to peace, harmony, and love."

In the same Dissertation, having shown how thing

50 LETTERS

had been managed to make the term " heresy" ap-
plicable to error of judgment, Dr. Campbell remark-
ed.— " Thus mere mistake is made at length to in-
cur the reproach originally levelled against an as-
suming and factious temper, which would sacrifice
the dearest interests of society to its own ambition."
Two striking facts relating to the teachers who
were censured by Paul, should not be overlooked
nor forgotten.

I. These teachers were men who dared to teach
a doctrine as essential to salvation, and as a test of
Christian character, which no inspired teacher had
ever exhibited in that light.

II. These teachers were, I think, of the first class
of professed Christian teachers, who ventured to set
up their own interpretations of Scripture as articles
of faith essential to salvation, and as a test of Christ-
ian character.

It is very certain that Paul's censures were level-
led against men who assumed this schismatic and
creed-making power. Is it not then remarkable
that, in modern times, those who have imitated the
schismatic teachers, have also justified their own-
denouncing spirit by Paul's censure of the very-
principle and practice which they have adopted?
Such inconsistency is not confined to any one sect :
it has been common to individuals of various de-
nominations.

TO CHRISTIANS. 51

LETTER VIII.

Paul's account of the natural man.

My Christian Brethren,

The following is the language of the Apostle
Paul :—

*' For the natural man receiveth not the things of
the Spirit of God ; for they are foolishness unto him \
neither can he know them, because they are spiritu-
ally discerned." 1 Cor. ii. 14.

Dr. Macknight translates the verse as follows : —

" Now an animal man receiveth not the things of
the spirit of God, for they are foolishness unto him ;
neither can he know them, because they are spiritu-
ally examined."

This text is often quoted to account for the differ-
ence of opinion, which occurs between persons of
different sects, by imputing the opinion of one of the
parties to moral depravity, or an unconverted state.
1 shall therefore exhibit what I believe to be the
meaning of the text, and then inquire respecting the
propriety of the common mode of applying it. " The
natural man," or *' animal man," I suppose to be
one who is governed by animal or fleshly appetites,
lusts or passions, and who seeks the gratification of
these as his highest good, and in this way becomes
blind to the value and importance of spiritual things.

By *' the things of the Spirit of God," I understand
the doctrines and precepts of God, revealed by the

52 LETTERS

Holy Spirit. These things are not received by the
natural man. His heart is so set on other objects,
the gratification of his animal desires, that he has no
cordial relish for divine truths. His understanding
and conscience may acknowledge their importance,
but his heart says — " Go away for this time, and
when I have a more convenient season, I will*' attend
to them. On such ground the things of the spirit
are regarded as foolishness, or of little value com-
pared with sensual gratifications.

*' Neither can he know them." It cannot, I
think, have been the intention of the Apostle to re-
present the natural man as an excusable idiot, desti-
tute alike of a good heart, of reason, understanding
and common sense, and thus incapable of knowing his
duty, or the meaning of words. In such a case he
could not be regarded as an accountable or moral be-
ing. To " knoio'' often means the same as to approve^
acknoioledge or cnjoij^ and has respect to the heart,
rather than to the understanding. In such a sense
of the word it is very obvious that a man governed
by fleshly lusts, cannot know, approve, or enjoy the
things of the Spirit of God, while in such a state.
The reason assigned by the Apostle is, " because
they are spiritually discerned,^' or " examinedJ^ Dr.
Macknight paraphrases the words as follows — '' Nei-*
ther can he know them because they are spiritually
examined — examined by the light which revelation,
not reason, affords." This may possibly be the
meaning , but to me it appears quite as probable that
by the last clause Paul meant to teach that cordially

TO CHRISTIANS. 53

to know, approve, or enjoy the precepts and truths
of religion, we must have a spiritual taste or relish
adapted to spiritual objects — in other words a dispo-
sition to love what is true and excellent. A worldly
minded man may understand the precept, •' set not
your affections on things below." A revengeful man
may understand the exhortation — '' avenge not your-
selves." The reviler may understand the precept,
" Speak not evil one of another." In each case, while
the mind understands, the heart may be opposed to
obedience, so that in the apostles sense of the words,
he cannot " know" the things required or forbidden.
He has no relish for such instructions. He cannot
say, *' How sweet are thy words to my taste !"

Besides, a perverse taste or a disposition to indulge
the fleshly lusts may be so strong — and probably of-
ten is so strong, as to prevent that attention to the
precepts and truths of the gospel, which is really
necessary to a correct discerning of their true im-
port. The influence of party prejudices and pas-
sions, may often so bewilder the understanding as to
occasion a false meaning of a divine precept to be
preferred to the true meaning. Dr. Campbell,
if I rightly remember, has given a striking in-
stance of this, in an address to the people of Scot-
land. He informs us that when it was the fashion
to murder men for their supposed heretical opinions,
the command of Christ, '' Love your enemies," was
said by the clergy not to mean, " enemies to our
faith," but "personal enemies." Hence they infer-
red that destroying dissenters for their opinions

54 ^ LETTERS

was not forbidden by this divine precept. In this
place 1 may ask, does it not appear from the conduct
of many, that the commands, " Judge not that ye
be not judged," and" Speak not evil one of another,"
are so interpreted as not to forbid the most censorious
judging and reviling of those who dissent from their
opinions?

I may now inquire respecting the propriety of quo-
ting Paul's language respecting the natural man, to
account for the differences of opinion between per-
sons of different sects. I may remark,

1. That the greater part of the disputes among
Christians result from the ambiguity of words and
phrases, while each admits the text to be true in the
sense which he supposes was intended by the inspired
writer.

2. If the words of Paul may properly be applied
by either party, the ground is common, and the other
party may retort the insinuation.

A case may now be stated to test the principle,
or the propriety of such a proceeding.

Two persons are disputing on the words of Christ,
" I lay down my life for the sheep." One supposes
the words to mean that he would suffer a vicarious
punishment for mankind. The other believes that
he died for us, but not in that sense of the words, yet
in a sense which he thinks far more to the honor of
God. These men happen to be of different charac-
ters, as well as of different opinions. One of them
is meek and humble ; the other self-sufficient — hQ
trusts in himself that he is righteous and despises

TO CHRISTIANS. 55

Others. Now which of these men will be the more
likely to account for the difference of opinion by in-
sinuating that the other is a natural man ? In this
case no candid and intelligent person can hesitate for
a moment. On which side soever the self-sufficient
person may be, as to the meaning of the text, he will
be the one to reproach his brother as a '* natural
man." Candor, however, requires me to admit, that
there may have been instances in which good men in
other respects have been so bewildered by custom,
theory, or party feelings, as to adopt such an unchris-
tian mode of proceeding. But I believe it to be a
truth, that such a course is much more frequently
resorted to by self-righteous hypocrites, than by men
of truly Christian feelings; and that it behooves those
who are in the habit of thus accounting for a dissent
from their opinions, seriously to inquire how their
conduct can be reconciled with gospel love and hu-
mility, and whether they are not in fact, in that de-
plorable state which they are so forward to impute to
others.

Should any still imagine that it was the intention
of Paul to represent every unconverted man as nat-
urally incapable of knowing the true meaning of
gospel precepts and doctrines, and that this is the
reason why he misinterprets them ; I may ask, on
what ground can he be justly condemned for not receiv-
ing and obeying the truth 'I What better excuse can
any man possess, for not doing the will of God than
this, that he is naturally incapable of understanding
the meaning of divine precepts and prohibitions ?

56 LETTERS

If there be any blame in such a case, on whom does
it fall ? on the creature, or his Creator 1

Besides, if the natural man has no perception of
the truth, how can he be said to hate the truth 1 Can
he hate that which he does not perceive 1 Should it
be said that it is not the tt^ue meaning of Scripture
that he hates, but a false meaning which he gives to
the words ; what is this but saying in other words
that it is falsehood, and not truth, that the sinner
hates 1

Where there is no law there is no transgression,
and surely there is no law to him who has not natural
understanding to perceive what a law forbids or re-
quires. The following are divine precepts — '' Thou
shalt not kill; Thou shalt not commit adultery : Thou
shalt not steal." These are among " the things of
the spirit of God." But if the natuial man perceives
not their meaning, why should he be punished for
apparent transgression 1

Some perhaps will plead that the words of Paul
do not extend to such plain precepts and prohibitions,
but are to be limited to the doctrines of the gospel.
But how is this known ? The precepts and prohibi-
tions of God are surely the best tests of the moral
character, and they are as properly " the things of the
spirit," as the doctrines revealed. Besides, no man
is blameable for not believing a doctrine which he
does not and cannot understand, any more than for
not obeying a precept which he never saw nor heard.

If the "things of the spirit of God," do not in-
clude all that is revealed by the spirit, who shall draw

TO CHRISTIANS. 57

the line or set the limits between the things meant,
and the things not meant? I may further observe,
that the most important doctrines of the gospel are as
plain and easy to be understood as the precepts and
prohibitions. " Unto us there is but one God, the
Father," is as plain as the first and great cominand-
ment : " Thou shalt love the Lord thy God," &c.
" Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God,"
is as plain as the precept, " All things whatsoever
ye would that men should do unto you, do ye even
the same to them." Now what is there in either of
these doctrines or precepts which is not intelligible
to an unconverted man, and as intelligible to him as
to the converted, so far as mere intellect is concerned
in understanding them ? And are not these doc-
trines and precepts in fact understood by thousands
of wicked men, as they are understood by good men ?
The feelings and relish of the heart may be very dif-
ferent in the two classes of people. To the one the
doctrines and precepts may be sources of deliglrt,
while the other regards them with indifference, and
treats them with disrespect. If I understand the
Scriptures, the defect of the sinner consists not in
the want of natural understanding to " hioia his
master's will," but in the want of an obedient tem-
per of heart.

It will perhaps be pleaded by some that Scripture
propositions have an internal sense, different from the
natural meaning of the words, and that this is what
the natural man cannot discern. There are undoubt-
edly many passages of Scripture which have a mean*

58 LETTERS

ing different from the common acceptation of the
words. Our Lord once said, " Destroy this temple,
and in three days I will raise it up." The Jews who
heard him supposed him to mean their splendid house
for worship, which they said had been forty-six years
in building. " Howbeit," says the Evangelist, " he
spake of the temple of his body." Now what is
there in this internal sense, when thus explained,
that is not easy to be understood by any unconverted
man of common sense ? All the parables of Christ
have a meaning distinct from the literal sense of the
words. This may be called the internal sense, but
when this sense is explained, it may be as intelligi-
ble to a wicked man as to a good man. In explain-
ing the parable of the sower, Christ said, ^' The
seed is the word." Now this is just as plain to an
unconverted man as if he had said, " The seed is
wheat." When Jesus uttered the parable of the
vineyard, " the chief priests and the scribes the same
hour sought to lay hands on him." Why so ? Not
because they could not understand the meaning, but
because " they jjerccivcd that he had spoken the
parable against them." Now this parable was one of
"the things of the spirit of God," and yet these
wicked Jews "perceived" the meaning, without
waiting for an explanation. Those who were " cut
to the heart" by the dying speech of Stephen, seem
clearly to have understood what he spoke against
them, though they were so wicked that they stoned
him to death for his faithful reproofs and admoni-
tions.

TO CHRISTIANS. 59

As further proof that Paul's meaning lias been
misapprehended, I may remark, that in the days of
Ezekiel, God appealed to the reason and conscience
of a wicked people to decide on the equity of his
conduct towards them. " Are not my ways equal ?
Are not your ways unequal ?" But if the sinner is
so deficient in intellect, that he cannot understand
the meaning of God's words, of what use could be
such an appeal ?

I may also remark, that the duty of every man is
limited by the extent of his understanding. To love
the Lord vvith all the understanding, is all that is re-
quired of any man, whether that understanding be
great or small. Of course, if the natural man is
so deficient in intellect that he cannot understand
any of God's precepts, he is under no obligation to
obey them.

In both the Old Testament and the New, the con-
version of sinners is represented as the effect of
divine truth on their minds. " The law of the Lord
is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the
Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Psalm xix. 7.
"Being born again not of corruptible seed, but of
incorruptible, by the word of God which liveth and
abideth forever." I Pet. i. 23. Now if the uncon-
verted, as such, are incapable of perceiving the true
meaning of Scripture language, and consequently
misunderstand it ; then it must be by a false mean-
ing of the word that they are converted. Of course,
their conversion must be the effect of falsehood, and
not of truth. For they are in an unconverted state

60 LETTERS

till the change occurs ; and it is by such views of the
word as they have in an unconverted state that they
are regenerated, or that the work of regeneration is
commenced.

If men come into tlie world with a nature which
renders them incapable of understanding the mean-
ing of divine precepts, they are no more blameable
for not perceiving their meaning, than is the man who
was born blind, for not being able to distinguish the
colors of the rainbow. Besides, when the precepts
of a parent are conformable to truth, or to the pre-
cepts of God, an unconverted or disobedient child is
just as liable to misconceive the meaning of a parental
precept, as a precept of the gospel. If the child is
naturally incapable of understanding a precept, why
does the parent give it? When a reasonable parent
perceives that a child has misunderstood his precept
through a defect of intellect, or ignorance of the
meaning of words, he of course excuses the child :
so we may presume it is with our heavenly Father.

LETTER IX.

THE INJUNCTIONS AND EXAMPLE OF CHRIST.

My Christian Brethren,

Among the numerous injunctions of the Sa-
viour there is perhaps not one which has been treat-

TO CHRISTIANS. ^ 61

ed with less respect or more frequently violated
than the following :

*' Judge not, that ye be not judged. For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged; and
with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to
you again." Matt. vii. I, 2.

Luke has expressed the injunction, differently :

*' Judge not and ye shall not be judged. Con-
demn not, and ye shall not be condemned." Luke
vi.37.

How very little are these injunctions regarded by
different sects of Christians in their treatment of
one another ! It will be pleaded that no one can
suppose that Christ meant to prohibit ail kinds and
instances of judging. He could not mean to pro-
hibit judicial decisions in courts of justice, and
probably nothing was prohibited by these injunc-
tions but what may properly be called rash and cen-
sorious judging or condemning one another. Be it
even so. What then is rash and censorious judging t
If I judge and condemn my brother as a wicked
man merely because he dissents from my opinion
respecting some important texts which we both
admit to be genuine Scripture, am I not chargeable
with rash and censorious judging ? Or if I say that
it is owing to the wickedness of his heart that he
dissents from me, is not this rash and censorious ?
How often has the censorious accuser been the one
in error ? Was not Jesus in the right, as to his
opinion of what it was lawful to do on the Sabbath 1
Yet on account of his healing on that day the Phaf-

62 LETTERS

isees ventured to say " We know that this man is a
sinner." Why then may I not be liable to a similar
error when I thus judge my dissenting brother? If
I am not inspired, how do I know that the error is
not on my part 1 Or that my brother is less honest
than I am in his inquiries after truth ?

The reason given by Christ why we should for-
bear judging is deserving of notice. " For with
what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged ; and
with what measure ye mete it shall be measured to
you again." This I consider as similar to the ad-
monition given to Peter, " For he that taketh the
sword shall perish by the sword." It was not, I
conceive, the intention of our Saviour to be under-
stood in either case, that the wrong done would in
every instance be retaliated ; nor that those who
should retaliate would do right; but to forewarn
his disciples of what would be the natural conse-
quence of such rash and injurious measures. As a
motive to forbear such conduct, he would have his
disciples keep in view the common retributions of
providence, even in the present state. Now what
is more common than for censorious persons to be
censured? Or for warriors, duellists and assassins,
to perish by the sword, or suffer a violent death ?

Another precept of Christ is this — " All things
whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do
ye even so to them." This precept is as applica-
ble to judging one another as to any part of human
conduct. But where is the Christian who " would"

TO CHRISTIANS. 63

that his brother should impute supposed errors of
opinion to the wickedness of his heart ? If I would
that others should forbear thus to judge me, then of
course I should forbear thus to judge them. This
is called the Golden B.ule on account of its excel-
lence. But alas, how often is it treated by professed
Christians as of no worth at all !

I have still another precept of Christ to exhibit ;
but I shall first present his example ; because the
other precept makes his example the rule of our
conduct.

The dispute hi/ the 7ua}j,

On a certain occasion, Jesus thus interrogated
his disciples, " What was it that ye disputed by the
way ? But they held their peace ; for by the way
they had disputed among themselves, who should
be the greatest." Mark ix. 33 — 4. The circum-
stances of this case are remarkable. So also was
our Lord's manner of treating his apostles on that
occasion, while they were in gross errors of opinion.
Though they had been for a considerable time in his
family, and under his tuition, daily hearing his dis-
courses and witnessing his miracles, they still re-
tained the errors of education respecting the object
of his mission and the nature of his kingdom.
From various facts it is obvious that they supposed
the Messiah was to be a temporal prince, that his
kingdom v/as to be of this world, that he would
reign on the throne of David, and deliver the Jews
from their subjection to the Romans. As Christ

64 LETTERS

had selected the twelve for his special associates,
they naturally supposed that they should be his prin-
cipal ministers, when he should assume the regal
power. The dispute by the way appears to have
been on this question, Who of them should be the
first minister of state. It seems that more than one
of them was ambitious for this dignity. On another
occasion James and John appear to have solicited
the two highest offices, one on his right hand, the
other on his left ; and their mother is represented as
having urged the same request in their behalf
What would now be thought of ministers of the
Gospel who should evince such ignorance and error
respecting the purpose of the Messiah's mission,
and the nature of his kingdom !

How then did Christ treat these erring apostles?
Did he denounce them as his enemies? Did he
impute their error of opinion to the depravity of their
hearts? Did he show towards them any bitterness
or alienation ? Not any thing of this kind is to be
found on record. When he saw them struck dumb
by his questions, — " ¥/hat is it that ye disputed by
the way V' " He called a little child and set him in
the midst of them," as an emblem of that humility
which became them as his disciples, and said to
them "Except ye be converted and become as little
children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of God."
Matt, xviii. 2. This was, indeed, a reproof, not for
their errors of opinion, but for their ambition and
contention. In further discoursing with them, he
let them know that he that would be great in his

TO CHRISTIANS. 65

kingdom, must be like his Lord, of a meek and
humble temper, ready to be " servant of all" in the
work of doing good. It is, however, a remarkable
fact, that the apostles retained their error in regard
to the object of his mission and the nature of his
kingdom, till the very moment of his ascension. For
it appears that the last question they proposed to
him implied that error. — " Wilt thou at this time
restore again the kingdom unto Israel?"- In reply
he said to them, " It is not f )r you to know the
times and the seasons which the Father hath put in
his own power. But ye shall receive power after that
the Holy Ghost is come upon you, and ye shall be
witnesses unto me in Jerusalem, and in Judea, and
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost parts of the earth.
And when he had spoken these things, while they
beheld, he was taken up and a cloud received him
out of their sight." Acts i. 6, 7, 8.

To me it is probable that the apostles had suppos-
ed the mission of the Messiah to be for a two fold pur-
pose : the religious reformation of the Jews, and their
political redemption from the Roman yoke. But
it is pretty evident that the latter purpose was re-
garded by them as the main object; and that they
possessed no clear views of Ithe nature of his king-
dom till they were miraculously endued on the day
of Pentecost. Yet Christ bore with them, continu-
ed them in his service, instructed them as they were
able to receive, and finally employed them as his
apostles of salvation. He not only assured them of
his own love, but of the love of the Father, on ac-

66 LETTERS

•count of their love to liim, and their belief that he
** proceeded forth and came from God." This was
done in the last interview prior to his death ; and in
the same interview he gave them his New command-
ment. " A new commandment," said he " I give
unto you, that ye love one another as 1 have loved
you," to which I shall now pay some attention.

This command he repeatedly uttered in the same
conversation, as though it were of tiie very first im-
portance, and on obedience to which, very much
was depending. It may naturally be inquired, why
was Jesus so urgent and impressive in giving this
precept to his disciples ? And why did he so long
defer to correct their errors relating to his mission
and his kingdom ? As Jesus knew what was in
man, he very well knew that his disciples in all ages
would be liable to errors, and to differences of opin-
ion, while in the body. He also knew how prone
mankind are to judge and censure one another on
account of differences of opinion, or supposed errors.
He knew, too, of how great importance it would be
that his apostles should be united in affection, and
show a constant regard to his precepts in their ex-
amples before the world. He had before given
them the Golden Rule ; but this was more liable to
be misapprehended than a precept founded on his
own example — on what they all knew to have been
his conduct towards them. He therefore gave them
the *' new commandment," which, every time it
should occur to their minds, must naturally bring to
view his example as the standard of their love one

TO CHRISTIANS. 67

to another. " This is my commandment, that ye
love one another, as I have loved you."

There might be several reasons why Christ neg-
lected to explain to his apostles at an earlier period
the nature of his kingdom, and to show them clearly
their error in supposing that he had come to reign
as a temporal Prince. I shall however mention but
one. The course which he adopted gave an oppor-
tunity to evince by his own example the spirit of be-
nignity and forbearance, which would become his
followers in their treatment one of another, in re-
gard to supposed or real errors of opinion. Had
there been no difference of opinion between him and
his apostles, there woukl have been no opportunity
for such a display of forbearing love as he evinced
towards them. Hence the new commandment could
not have appeared with the force and importance
which it now does, in view of all the circumstances
under which it was delivered. The apostles them-
selves could not have had a perfect view of its
force and beauty till the day of Pentecost, when
their eyes were opened. But after this, they
could see what errors they had entertained during
the whole of Christ's ministry, and what forbearing
kindness he had constantly displayed towards them,
notwithstanding their errors. How affecting and
impressive must have been the recollection of his
words. — " This is my commandment, that ye love
one another as I have loved you !" So when differ-
ences of opinion afterwards occurred between any
of the apostles, or between them and other disciples,

68 LETTERS

this new commandment was at hand, as a light to
their feet and a lamp to their way.

This precept was addressed to the apostles, who
had personally witnessed and experienced Christ's
candor and benignity towards erring men ; and the
words may be regarded as the injunction of ahead of
a family when about to leave his children ; but it
was doubtless meant for the benefit of Christians in
all succeeding ages. For it was at the close of the
interview in which this command was uttered, that
Jesus poured out his soul in prayer to the Father,
that all who should become believers in him might
*' be one." It is the love required by this command-
ment, which unites Christians to one another and to
their Lord.

Had Christians from the beginning been duly
mindful of the dying injunction and prayer of Christ,
they never could have been divided into hosr
tile sects and parties ] every species of persecution
would have been avoided ; and Christians would
have been distinguished in every age by the charac-
teristic mentioned by their Lord : — " By this shall
all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have
love one to another."

TO CHRISTIANS. 69

LETTER X

Paul's reasonings and expostulations with
contending christians at rome.

My Christian Brethren,

In the time of Paul, the church at Rome was
composed partly of Jews and partly of Gentiles, or
of converts to Christianity from these two classes of
people. As these converts had been differently ed-
ucated, they possessed clashing prejudices and opin-
ions, relating to certain rituals and observances of
the Jewish religion. This diversity of opinion and
prejudice, gave rise not only to disputation but to
censorious judging ; Paul wrote to them on the sub-
ject, and exerted his reasoning powers and his in-
fluence, to check the propensity to censoriousness,
and to show them how the controversy might be put
to rest. As he was an inspired teacher, it may be
useful to observe his manner of treating his brethren,
some of whom he knew to be in error.

'•' Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but
not to doubtful disputations. For one believeth
that he may eat all things ; another who is weak
eateth herbs. Let not him that eateth despise him
that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not,
judge him that eateth; for God hath received him.
Who art thou that judgest another man's servant ?
To his own Master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he

E

70 LETTERS

shall be holden up, for God is able to make him
stand. One man esteemeth one day above another.
Another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man
be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regard-
eth the day, regardeth it to the Lord ; and he that
regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not re-
gard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord ; for he
givelh God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the
Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. — But
why dost thou judge thy brother ? or why dost thou
set at nought thy brother? For we must all stand
before the judgment seat of Christ." Rom. xiv. 1 — 6,
and 10th.

In this passage we have a case in which a differ-
ence of opinion had occasioned serious difficulty,
and censorious judging. Christians of the present
time will probably say, that the questions in dispute,
were trifling, and ought to have occasioned no aliena-
tion among brethren. The questions, however, did
not appear to be trifling to the parties concerned ;
and they were not, perhaps, in reality more trifling
or unimportant than most of the questions in dis-
pute at the present day. Party spirit can magnify
the importance of any subject in favor of which it is
indulged. Besides, the questions at Rome involved
cases of conscience in relation to duty ; and such
questions cannot appear trifling to conscientious
persons. No difficulty, however, would have occur-
red, no censorious judging, had each party been
willing that the other should obey the dictates of
conscience, without molestation or censure. But

TO CHRISTIANS. 71

one assumed the right of judging for the other ; and
this always tends to mischief. I may then observe
the manner in which Paul expostulated with these
contending Christians.

1. Paul did not assume the right of blaming either
party, on account of the opinions entertained. One
party or the other must, indeed, have erred in judg-
ment, and Paul doubtless knew which party had the
more correct opinion. But it appears that the error
of opinion was regarded by him as of little consider-
ation, compared with the error of temper, which
each party indulged towards the other. He well
knew that people were liable to differ in opinion,
and that it was the duty of each to love God with
all his own understanding, and to do what he con-
scientiously believed that God required of him.
Paul did not impute the error of opinion to wicked-
ness of heart. He had not so learned Christ, nor
his religion.

2. Paul gave the parties clearly to understand,
that if they obeyed the dictates of conscience, act-
ing uprightly for God, error of opinion would not
prevent the acceptableness of their different modes
of conduct. Though the parties diftered in practice
as well as opinion in regard to days and meats ; yet
he charitably expressed the opinion, that both parties
aimed at thesame end, and that the conduct of each
was acceptable in the sight of God. '' He that re-
gardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord ; and he
that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not

72 LETTERS

regard it ;" that is, they both aimed at the glory of
the Lord.

3. We should observe with what solemnity the
apostle expostulated with the parties, on account of
their contention and censorious judging. " Who
art thou that judgest another man's servant ? To
his own Master he standeth or falleth ; yea, he shall
be holden up, for God is able to make him stand.'*
Again, *' Why dost thou judge thy brother? Or
why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? For
we must all stand before the judgment seat of
Christ." Thus while he blamed neither party, on
account of its opinions, he blamed both for their
contention, and their censorious manner of judging
one another.

4. It is to be remarked that Paul did not so
much as express his opinion on the questions in dis-
pute, till he had assured them that their difference
of opinion was not a proper ground of contention or
of censure. But having expostulated with them on
the unreasonableness of their censorious conduct
one towards the other, he expressed his opinion on
a question in dispute. '' I know, and am persuaded
by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean in
itself." He, however, immediately adds, — " but to
Jiim that tJiinketh anything unclean, to Mm it is un-
clean'^

By this decision he clearly maintained that the
conscience or judgment of every person, in view of
the divine requirements, must be the rule of his
duty.

TO CHRISTIANS.

73

Dr. Macknight has an important note on the 6th
verse of this chapter, a part of which may here be
quoted. " Every man ought to believe concern-
ing his neighbor that in all religious matters he acts
according to conscience, especially if he professes
so to do ; and though his conscience may be ill in-
formed ; he should be left to its dictates in these
matters. The Greek commentators affirm that the
rules in this chapter relate to meats and fastings
only, and not to doctrines of faith and matters of
great importance. But I see no reason for that lim-
itation. The rights of conscience and private judg-
ment are the more sacred, the more important the
affairs are about which they are exercised. And,
therefore, in everything of importance, as well as in
lesser matters, a man's own judgment and con-
science, and not the opinion and conscience of an-
other, are appointed by Christ to be the rule of his
conduct."

LETTER XI.

THE APOSTLE JAMES ON CENSORIOUS JUDGING.

My Christian Brethren^

The following impressive language was ad-
dressed by James to the Christians of his day.

74 LETTERS

** Speak not evil one of another, brethren. He
that speaketh evil of his brother, and judgeth his
brother, speaketh evil of the law and judgeth the
law. But if thou judge the law, thou art not a doer
of the law, but a judge. There is one law-giver
who is able to save and to destroy. Who art thou
that judgest another." James iv. 11, 1"2.

The following remarks are from Dr. Macknight's
paraphrase of the two verses. '* Speak not against
one another, brethren, on account of your difference
of opinions in religion. He who speaketh against
his brother and condemneth his brother in matters
pertaining to conscience, speaketh against the law
both of Moses and Christ, which forbids that kind
of speaking. Thou, who art thou that condemnest
thy brother, and thereby assumest the prerogative of
Christ ?"

It may be asked, how can it be said that in judg-
ing and condemning a brother on account of his
religious opinions, we judge and condemn the law ?
We practically judge and condemn the law when
we do that which the law prohibits ; for the language
of our conduct is, that the law is unworthy to be
obeyed. The law forbids bearing false witness; and
I may be guilty of bearing false witness if I accuse
a man of moral evil without evidence of his guilt.
His differing from me in opinion is no proof of guilt
on his part, for his opinion may be right while I
think it to be erroneous ; or if his opinion is not
right, he may have been led into error by causes
very different from that of a depraved heart. The

TO CHRISTIANS. 75

law requires my neighbor to love God with all his
understanding, and not with mine. His differing
from me is no proof that he does not love God with
all his understanding. By condemning him I im-
plicitly say, that the law is not as it should be, and
that the man is blameable for not loving God ac-
cording to my understanding. Again the law says,
" Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." I must
therefore be as tender of my brother's character as I
wish him to be of mine. Do T then think it right in
him, not only to impute to me error of opinion, but
to ascribe that opinion to the pride or wickedness
of my heart 1 If not, I practically speak against the
law when I thus accuse my brother.

It would be in vain to search the scriptures for
more clear prohibitions and expostulations against
murder, than we have against reviling and cen-
sorious judging on account of differences of
opinion ; and is it not a lamentable truth that in
each of the cases Christians have too commonly
regarded custom as of higher authority than
the prohibitions of God ? The sixth commandment
is, " Thou shalt do no murder ;" but as soon as the
rulers of two nations have declared war against each
other, murder is regarded as not only lawful but
laudable. So as soon as the ministers of one sect
of Christians have ventured to denounce the people
of another sect as heretics, the commands, *' judge
not" " condemn not," "speak not evil one of anoth-
er," are treated with as little regard as the sixth
commandment is in time of war. As in time of
national hostilities, killing men is deemed a duty

76 LETTERS

and not a crime, so it is with censorious judging in
time of sectarian hostilities ; and in both cases the
most glaring violations of the divine commands are
vindicated on the principles of necessity and self
preservation.

There are other melancholy coincidences in these
two cases. In time of war the leaders of one party
will deliver harangues, publish tracts, and insert
articles in newspapers, of the most inflammatory
kind, to excite a spirit of hostility against the people
of another country, against eminent individuals,
against the nation as a body, against thousands of
better people than themselves, and against myriads
of whose real characters they are perfectly ignorant.
I appeal to the consciences of my fellow Christians
to say, whether this atrocious policy has not its
parallel in sectarian hostilities 1 Besides, when the
rulers of a nation make war, not one in a hundred
of those who engage in the quarrel, have any correct
knowledge respecting the real grounds of the con-
test, nor is in a capacity to judge on which side
there is the greater share of blame, nor whether, on
the whole, there was the least cause or necessity
for such a war. Yet, relying on their leaders, they
will calumniate, condemn and fight. I need not
show how this has a parallel in sectarian wars. But
I may express the opinion that in both cases the
laws of Christ are flagrantly violated ; that Christian-
ity can never appear to advantage till such customs
are abolished ; and that in both cases an awful share
of responsibility is attached to the conduct of those
who take the lead in such conflicts.

TO CHRISTIANS. 77

In national wars, love of country is the boast of
each party in the quarrel, yet the course pursued
tends directly to fill both countries with crime and
calamity. So in sectarian strife men profess to be
influenced by love to Christ, love to the truth, and
love to the souls of men. Yet the strife is carried
on by disobedience to the commands of Christ — by
conduct manifestly repugnant to his example and
the spirit of his religion — by conduct too, which
really tends to the ruin of souls. The love required
by the gospel worketh no ill to its neighbor. Can
this be said of the love displayed in the wars of
nations, or the wars of different sects of Christians?
If not, what awful delusions have prevailed in both
cases ! And how constantly is the reproof applica-
ble— " Ye know not what manner of spirit ye are
of!" If God should be strict to mark this iniquity,
who among us would be found able to stand?

LETTER XII.

FALSE STANDARDS OCCASION FALSE ESTIMATES.

My Christian Brethren,

Mankind in their commercial dealings are often
defrauded by the use of false balances, weights and

78 LETTERS

measures. In the concerns of religion, standards
are used for estimating the characters and actions of
men. Here, as well as in commerce, there may be
false standards by which men may deceive, and be
deceived. By adopting a false standard, the people
of one sect may overrate their own worth, and under-
value the worth of people of other sects. It hence
becomes a serious question whether false standards
are not in use at the present day ? and whether these
are not the occasion of much censorious judging, as
well as of self-deception ?

Ever since Christians were divided into sects,
creeds or confessions of faith have been set up as
standards of character, or tests of moral worth. That
many of these standards have been false may be ob-
vious from the following considerations : —

1. In all the creed-making sects, each sect has a
standard of its own, which is different, and in some
particulars often directly opposite to that of another
sect. Of course, there must be a false standard with
one or the other, and perhaps with both of the two
clashing sects.

2. It is a known fact that the creed of a sect may
become so changed in a course of years, that what
was once deemed essential, is afterwards deemed er-
roneous ; still the sect may retain its distinctive
name.

3. All party standards are formed by substituting
the inferences or explanations of fallible men for the
language of the inspired writers : and these tests,
formed in the vvords of man's wisdom, are preferred

TO CHRISTIANS. 79

to the language of the Bible, and are passed as a sub-
stitute for the word of God, as bank bills are made a
substitute for silver and gold. Is there nothing in
this of too near an approach to self-sufficiency and
self-exaltation ?

4. " The poor have the gospel preached to them"
— was a circumstance mentioned by our Lord, as a
proof that the gospel day had commenced ; because
it had been predicted that such should be the case
in the days of the Messiah, and that the way of ho-
liness should be so plain as to be easily understood
by the illiterate and the way-faring man. But what
advantage can the gospel be to the illiterate and to
children, if they are to be measured by such stand-
ards as have been adopted by many of the creed-making
sects ? How great a portion of those who give their
assent to such creeds, are totally incapable of judg-
ing of their truth or correctness. Suppose I should
subscribe a creed in a foreign language with which
I am unacquainted, to obtain Christian privileges ;
what would be thought of me ? and what should be
thought of those who require such a subscription ?

5. So far as articles of faith are made a test of
character in the New Testament, they are the follow-
ing :

That Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living
God : and

That God raised him from the dead.

A belief in the first of these articles was the test
of discipleship during the ministry of Christ. After
his crucifixion, a belief in his resurrection became

80 LETTERS

necessary to a belief that he was the Messiah. Hence
a belief in the second article was required, as added
by the Apostles. Accordingly Paul in stating the
faith required said, " That is the word of faith which
we preach — that if thou shalt confess with thy
mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thy heart
that God raised him from the dead, thou shalt be
saved." John, in stating the object for which he
wrote his gospel, said, " These things are written that
ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of
God, and that believing ye might have life through
his name." To persuade people to believe the two
articles which have been named, was the great ob-
ject of the sermons recorded in the Acts of the Apos-
tles. These, if I mistake not, are the only articles
of faith, a belief of which is spoken of in the New
Testament as necessary to the Christian character,
or as connected with regeneration, pardon, or eternal
life.

A cordial belief in these articles naturally led to
obedience to the precepts of Christ, and these are
the appointed standard or test of moral character.
Avowing a belief in Jesus as the Messiah, appears to
have given such satisfaction to the Apostles, that, on
such a profession, 3000 persons were admitted as
converts or believers on the day of pentecost, the
very day on which their profession was made. To
be a disciple of Christ then meant to be a pupil or
learner in his school. For admission to this school
or the church of Christ, no articles of faith were
proposed as terms, but the two which have been men*

TO CHRISTIANS. 81

tioned. We are not, however, to suppose that noth-
ing was required of disciples but a belief in these
articles, nor that Christ instituted no other test of
moral character. As the followers of Jesus were
then a persecuted people, to acknowledge him as the
Messiah under such circumstances, afforded much
evidence of integrity of heart ; and when a person
made this profession, he implicitly professed a desire
to come under the guidance of Christ, and a willing-
ness to conform to his precepts and example. Hence-
forth the precepts of Christ were to be regarded by
him as the rule of duty, and the test of Christian
character. That this is a correct view of the sub-
ject may appear from the following passages : —

" Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Lord
shall enter into the kingdom of heaven ; but he that
docth the will of my Father who is in heaven." Matt,
vii. 21. " Therefore, whosoever heareth these say-
ings of mine, and doeth them^ I will liken him to a
wise man who built his house upon a rock." v. 27,
*' And whosoever doth not bear his cross and come
after me cannot be my disciple." Luke xiv. 27, '' He
that hath my commandments and keepeth them, he
it is thatloveth me." John xiv. 21. *' If ye keep my
commandments ye shall abide in my love." John xv.
10. " This is my commandment, that ye love one
another as I have loved you." v. 12. " Ye are my
friends, if ye do whatsoever I command you." v. 14.
" Hereby do we know that we know him, if we keep
his commandments. He that saith T know him, and

83 LETTERS

keepeth not his commandments is a liar, and the
truth is not in him." 1 John ii. 3, 4.

Besides these plain declarations, as to the proper
standard of Christian character, we are assured both
by Christ and his apostles, that works of obedience
will be rewarded at the final account, and that works
of disobedience will be punished. But where shall
we find in the Bible the least evidence that any man
will be rewarded or accepted on account of his be-
lief of such doctrines as are at this day made the test
of Christian character ? I know not ; and I suspect
that, after due examination, every honest man will be
able to say the same.

Before I dismiss the subject of false standards or
tests, it may be proper to mention one more, which
I deem as dangerous as a party creed. It has been
the opinion of many persons of different sects, that
the heart of a true Christian, a spiritually-minded
man, is a good test of the truth or falsehood of a
proposed doctrine — that if the doctrine be true, it
will be sweet to his taste — if false, it will be disgust-
ing. Hence a believer in this opinion is prepared to
say, " I know that this or that doctrine is tiue from
my own experience," and in the same confident man-
ner he will afiirm of another doctrine that he hiows
it to be false. On this principle too, the same per-
sons often feel at liberty to censure the hearts of their
dissenting brethren. This opinion has sver appear-
ed to me delusive and dangerous ; and in support of
this view of it, I shall suggest the following consid-
erations.

TO CHRISTIANS. 83

1. Persons of different sects urge the same mode
of proof in favor of opposite doctrines, each affirm-
ing that he knows his beloved doctrine to be true from
his own experience, or its agreement with his own
heart. When such opposite results occur from the
same mode of proof, there must be gross delusion on
one side or the other, and it may be so on both.

2. I believe it to be a fact that a good Christian
will receive for truth any doctrine which he believes
to have been revealed by God — ^just as a dutiful and
confiding child will receive for truth whatever his pi-
ous parent inculcates as true and important. But
such is the ambiguity of language, and such the im-
perfection of the child's understanding, that he may
misapprehend the meaning of the words uttered by
his father, and imbibe an idea /ery different from
the one .the parent meant to impress on his mind. In
like manner the humble and confiding child of God
may form an incorrect idea from the language used
in the Bible. Besides, as children have very fallible
guides in their parents, so have adult Christians falli-
ble expositors in their public teachers.

3. There are thousand of cases in which falsehood
will afford as great, and even greater delight to a
good man than the truth. I will give one example —
A benevolent father hears that his prodigal son, who
had been absent for ten years, is now on his return,
a penitent and reformed man. The report is accom-
panied with such circumstancesas precludes all doubt
of its correctness. The father's heart leaps for joy.
But alas ! the report was founded on a mistake, and

84 LETTERS

of this the father is informed by the next mail. The
report, however, while uncontradicted, had the same
effect that it would have had if true ; — and the fa-
ther's feeling towards his son were as apparent and as
commendable as they would have been had there
been no mistake in the case.

Should it be said that this case cannot illustrate
the effect of divine truth on the mind of a good man,
I may ask, why not ? The report was indeed of an
historic nature ; but the same may be said of many
of the important truths of the gospel. It was so with
the glad tidings of the birth of the Messiah ; and
such were the truths relating to his baptism, his min-
istry, his miracles, his death, his resurrection and
ascension. Historical truths, therefore, may be di-
vine truths of the first importance.

4. When any person makes his own heart or ex-
perience a test, by which to judge of the truth or
falsehood of a particular doctrine, he assumes more
than can be easily reconciled to Christian humility.
For he assumes for a fact that he is not, like other
men, liable to be misled by false information, by the
ambiguity of words or phrases, by passion, nor by
prejudice — in a word, that his mind is so enlighten-
ed and his heart so pure, that he is far less liable to
err than any one of the multitude of people who
dissent from his opinions.

Were there no other way to account for the pleas-
ure which a good man feels in hearing a certain
doctrine, but its truth, there would be less of danger
in his making his heart a test of truth than now ex-

TO CHRISTIANS. 85

ists. But even in that case, his delight could be proof
only to himself, unless others could know the state
of his heart. Could it be shown that a good man's
heart is an infallible test of truth, and could a man
be found whose goodness would be universally ac-
knowledged, then whatever creed he should approve
might be safely adopted, and made a test by which
to estimate the hearts of his fellow-men. But where
shall such a man be found ? Should any one pro-
pose himself for such a purpose, might not his hu-
mility be justly called in question ? Yet what better
than such arrogance is seen in any man who makes
his own heart the test of truth, and his own creed
the standard by which to estimate the moral worth of
his fellow-men ?

I have not a doubt that thousands of pious Catho-
lics have found great delight in the doctrine of tran-
substantiation, while partaking of the bread and wine
in the Lord's supper. But their delight results from
a belief that the doctrine is true, and not from the
truth of the doctrine. So good people of each sect
may find pleasure in their respective doctrines, from
a belief that they are true, honorable to God, and
useful to man. Such pleasure in a doctrine may be
a proof that it is sincerely believed to be true, but
not a proof of its truth or correctness.

86 LETTERS

LETTER XIII.

THE DISREGARDED PARABLE,

My Christian Brethren,

The Gospel contains one parable which seems
to me to have been very much overlooked or disre-
garded. I shall copy the parable according to New-
combe's translation. " Then he spake a parable to
those that were invited, when he marked how they
chose out of the chief places ; saying unto them,
When thou art invited by any man to a marriage
feast, take not the chief place ; lest a more honora-
ble man than thou be invited by him ; and he that
invited thee and him come, and say to thee, Give
place to this man ; and then thou begin to take the
lowest place with shame. But when thou art invi-
ted, go and take the lowest place ; that, when he
who invited thee cometh, he may say unto thee,
Friend, go up higher. Then thou wilt have honor
in the presence of those that are at meat with thee.
For every one that exalteth himself shall be hum-
bled ; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalt-
ed." Luke xiv. 7—10.

On three different occasions our Lord uttered the
words with which this parable is closed. The par-
able of the Pharisee and Publican is closed in the
same manner ; and the same words were also used
when the Messiah cautioned his disciples against

TO CHRISTIANS. 87

imitating the arrogance of the Pharisees, who loved
the uppermost rooms at feasts, the chief seats in the
synagogues, and to be called of men Rabbi, Rabbi.
The reason which he gave for the caution was this,
" For every one that exalteth himself shall be abas-
ed; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted."
We may therefore feel assured that these words con-
tain a lesson of great importance, and that the par-
able which has been quoted, and so often disregard-
ed, was uttered by our Lord for a higher purpose
than merely to teach his disciples a principle of po-
liteness, or how they should conduct at common
marriage feasts. More than once he represented
' the Gospel message as an invitation to a marriage
feast, or great supper. Nor can it be doubted that
by the parable it was his purpose to teach his disci-
ples a lesson of gospel humility, and to beware of
indulging an undue self-esteem in comparing them-
selves with others. He well knew how prone men
are to overrate their own moral worth, and to mis-
take or undervalue the characters of those who dis-
sent from their views.

This admonitory parable is worthy to be regarded
by different sects of Christians, as well as by indi-
viduals of the same sect. Those who are well ac-
quainted with the present state of things in our
own country must be aware, that persons of more
than one sect are eager for the higher places, and
assume them with very little ceremony. Nor are
there wanting persons who seem disposed to assume
the authority of the Master of the Gospel feast, and

88 LETTERS

to exclude from any place at their Lord's table such
as cannot acquiesce in their party creeds. Of the
many who claim the higher places, some of them
must be disappointed when the King shall come in
to view the guests, and assign to each his rank.
They cannot all possess the places which they have
claimed ; and how, on that occasion, will those feel
who shall be ordered to " go down lower" and
" give place" perhaps to thousands who are now by
them despised as unworthy of any place in the fam-
ily of Christ. In this way will probably be fulfilled
or verified another admonitory remark of our Lord :
— " Many that are first shall be last, and the last
shall be first." Those who are now first in self-es-
teem have reason to fear and tremble. For every
one that exalteth himself shall be abased ; and he
that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

What intelligent and good person does not know
that men are very liable to err in^ estimating their
own characters, and in comparing them with the
characters of others ? And since our Lord has
given us such solemn and repeated admonitions on
this very subject, is it not surprising that so many of
different sects are to be found, who unblushingly
assume the higher places ; and who practically, if
not verbally, say that they are much better than any
who dissent from their opinions ? If this be not
exalting themselves, I know of nothing in human
conduct to which the admonitory parable will apply.

Is it not too common to see in the writings of par-
tizans of different sects, not merely rash censures of

TO CHRISTIANS. 0\f

the opinions of others, but of the hearts or moral
characters of all who possess such opinions 1 Are
not similar censures also heard from the pulpit, and
seen in the manner in which the people of one de-
nomination treat their brethren of another 1 How
much more of Gospel humility and Christian love
would writers and preachers display, if they would
kindly endeavor to convince others of their suppos-
ed errors in opinion, and leave the judgment of
their moral condition to Him who knows the heart,
and who has said to his fallible disciples " Judge
not" — " Condemn not." Some self-confident per-
sons probably think there can be little danger of
their censuring good persons, while they only con-
demn such as they verily believe to be in error. But
let them remember with what daring confidence the
scribes and pharisees censured Him whom the Fa-
ther had sent to be the Saviour of the world.

What well informed Protestant has not been
shocked at the confidence with which some Catho-
lics have asserted the doctrine of transubstantiation,
and denounced as heretics all who deny that doc-
trine! But this indiscreet conduct of a Catholic
may be a mirror in which many Protestants may see
their own dispositions. The Catholic has as good
a right to assume the highest place as the Protes-
tant ; but neither of them can do it without expos-
ing himself to the dishonor of being publicly told
by the Master of the feast to take a lower place.
For those who have the better claim to the higher
places, are too humble to assume them, or to take
them without beincr ordered so to do.

9D LETTERS

In extempore speaking men have not always suf-
ficient time for premeditation, and in the heat of
their zeal, they are very liable to utter things which
will not bear an impartial review, and which are un-
justly reproachful to others. But in writing for the
pulpit or the press, I think it would be a good rule,
after having written, seriously to examine the copy
and inquire, whether nothing has been penned which
is contrary to the New Commandment, or the Gol-
den Rule — nothing which evinces the disposition to
take the highest place, or that must excite the idea
that the writer is one of those who " trust in them-
selves that they are righteous and despise others."
In such a review of what has been written, it might
be useful for the writer to inquire, how the language
and tone he has used would be likely to appear to
him, if adopted by a person of another denomina-
tion against himself; and then erase whatever he
would deem anti-christian and unkind, if used by
another in an exchange of circumstances. Should
the parable of our Lord be duly regarded in future,
in conducting religious Newspapers and other Peri-
odicals, the effects may be happy in relation to the
progress of religion, and the peace of the Christian
world.

TO CHRISTIANS. 91

LETTER XIV.

EXAMPLE OF THE FOUR EVANGELISTS.

My Christian Brethren^

Seldom, if ever, had any ministers of religion
greater provocation to use the language of reproach,
or more sure ground on which to censure the hearts
of fellow-men, than the evangelists had to judge and
censure the Scribes and Pharisees, and others who
were agents in persecuting the Messiah. In this
case there was something more than a diversity of
opinion — there were acts of flagrant injustice and
abuse. What then was the manner of the evangel-
ists in writing the history of our Lord, and the treat-
ment he received from his persecutors 1

In writing their histories, the evangelists had fre-
quent occasion to state the opposition which the
Messiah received — the manner in which he was
treated — the snares which were laid to entangle him,
and the accusations brought against him. Near the
close of their history they had occasion to state the
conduct of the chief priests, the sanhedrim, and rulers
of the people, in hiring Judas to betray him, in em-
ploying soldiers to arrest him — their treatment of
him while on trial — -suborning false-witnesses, their
mockings and derisions, their sending him to Pilate
to obtain a sentence of crucifixion, their stirring up
the people and exciting the clamorous cry^ — " Cruci-
fy him I Crucify him !" They also mention what oc-

92 LETTERS

curred at the crucifixion — how even the ministers of
religion insulted him in his agonies.

Now let it be remembered that all these writers
were friends and disciples of Jesus ; and two of them
his apostles, who had witnessed his ministry, were
members of his family, and strongly attached to
him as their Lord. It may also be considered how
certain it was to them that the character of Jesus was
without spot and blameless ; that his doctrines and
precepts were divine truth, and of the highest im-
portance to mankind. And that all the opposition
against him was groundless and unreasonable. Had
the evangelists then been influenced by party feel-
ings, we should doubtless have found in their narra-
tives severe reproaches and accusations against the
persecutors of the Messiah, and high encomiums of
his character and conduct. But in vain do we look
into their writings for anything of this kind. In the
most simple and artless manner they related such
facts as might enable others to judge of the conduct
and character of the parties. As became faithful
and dispassionate witnesses, they impartially gave
their testimony to facts. They neither applaud their
Lord, nor reproach his enemies, by expressing their
own feelings in favor of him or against them. " The
historians," says Dr. Campbell, " speak of nothing,
not even the most atrocious actions of our Lord's
persecutors with symptoms of emotion — no angry
epithet, or pathetic exclamation can escape them —
not a word that betrays passion in the writers, or is
calculated to excite the passions of the reader."

These facts are remarkable ; and, in the purpose

TO CHRISTIANS. 93

of God, they were probably meant for our good —
meant to have a moral influence on the ministers of
the Gospel, on ecclesiastical historians, and on all
who profess the religion of the Lord Jesus. If ever
there was a time when the spirit of resentment, re-
proach and censure was commendable, such it would
seem was the time when the evangelists wrote their
histories. But where shall we find four other wri-
ters who so perfectly conformed to our Lord's in-
junctions, ''judge not," '^ condemn not," ''Let your
yea, be yea, and your nay, nay." It cannot be
doubted that the evangelists clearly understood the
meaning of these precepts, or prohibitions; and
they seem to have been disposed to give an example
of obedience to them which would be worthy of im-
itation. They had learned of him who was meek
and lowly, and they exemplified his spirit in their
writings.

I cannot but regard it as one of the best evidences
that the evangelists wrote under the influence of the
divine spirit, that they all so perfectly agree in the
manner of their writing, or the temper they displayed
in speaking of men who had persecuted their Lord
even unto death. They wrote at diflferent times, in
different countries, without any pre-concerted plan ;
yet all under the direction of the same Spirit.
Though the writers were /owr, the Spirit was but one,
and that the most amiable.

Not only were the Evangelists of a forbearing
spirit, in speaking of their enemies, but they were
frank and unreserved in stating the errors and faults

G

94 LETTERS

of their own party. They not only record the con-
duct of Judas in betraying their Lord, and the con-
duct of Peter in denying him ; but they also re-
cord the disputes of the apostles, about which of
them should be the prime minister, while they were so
in the dark as to suppose that Jesus had come to
reign as a temporal prince on the throne of David —
how James and John would have called fire from
heaven to avenge the unkind treatment given to
their Master by the Samaritans ; and how they all
forsook him and fled, when he was arrested by a
band of soldiers.

The conduct of the Evangelists in recording the
miscarriages and errors of their own party, has some-
thing in it deserving of special notice. It does not
appear to have been done to fix reproach on the
character of any one, but to furnish an opportunity
the more fully to illustrate the forbearing spirit of
our Lord towards them, while he knew them to be
very imperfect, and in great errors of opinion.

How happy it would have been for the world had
all the ministers of the Gospel uniformly displayed
the forbearing spirit of our Lord and the four Evan-
gelists ! But when we compare many of the wri-
tings of ministers of past ages and of the present
day with the writings of the Evangelists, how lament-
able is the contrast ! When the Evangelists had
closed their narratives of important facts, they fore-
bore to subjoin any bitter remarks, appeals, or in-
Tectives, to excite prejudice against those who had
acted as enemies to them or their Lord. This
caution appears highly commendable, when we con-

TO CHRISTIANS. 95

sider that they were writing memoirs of one who was
so dear to them, and how naturally it might have
been supposed that their minds were strongly pre-
possessed against his persecutors. How different
from this has too often been the conduct of ministers
of the Gospel, in speaking of brethren who only dis-
sented from them in opinion ! How often, on such
ground, have many ventured to censure the hearts
of their dissenting brethren, when they might have
known themselves to be in such a manner interested
and prejudiced persons, as would disqualify them for
jurors in the opinion of well-informed and impartial
men ! And not content with this, how many, under
such circumstances, have dared to do what they
could to excite prejudice in the minds of others
against their dissenting brethren ! How different
from this were the dispositions and the conduct of
the four Evangelists !

LETTER XV.

PERNICIOUS EFFECTS OF CENSORIOUS JUDGING.

My Christian Brethren,

As censorious judging has been shown to be
as clearly forbidden by the Gospel as theft or mur-

96 LETTERS

der, it is natural to infer, that it must be pernicious
in its effects. Some of which have been incidentally
mentioned ; but others of them seem to demand
more distinct notice.

1. Censorious judging, on account of differences
of opinion, tends to divert the attention of people
from the law of love as the true standard of Chris-
tian character, and to fix it on the creed of the party
to which the persons severally belong. Hence in-
stead of regarding the divine precepts as a common
standard for all, each party has a standard of its
own ; and then party love very naturally becomes a
substitute for that benevolence which is the fulfilling
of the law, and the bond of peace. The conse-
quences of this must be dreadful.

2. The practice tends to prevent the usefulness of
those who are censured and defamed. It cannot be
reasonably doubted that the censorious conduct of
the scribes and pharisees did much to prevent the
success of the preaching of even Christ and his
apostles. Their slanderous accusations could not
fail to prejudice the minds of their adherents against
the Saviour and his doctrines. New opinions, or
opinions which are regarded as new, are very com-
monly deemed erroneous and dangerous, whether
they be true or false ; and their propagators are
generally calumniated as wicked men. It was so
with Christ and his apostles. The evils of this
cruel and mischievous policy have been in some
measure counteracted by that law of providence
which usually produces in the minds of the consid-

TO CHRISTIANS. 97

erate a sympathy for the persecuted. Were it not
for this, it is difficult to conceive how a reformation
of doctrines could ever be effected against the clamor
which is so uniformly raised against the teachers of
new opinions.

3. The practise of censorious judging also tends
to diminish the usefulness of those who indulge
themselves in it. For it tends to blind their own
eyes, and to turn off" their attention from the care of
their own hearts — it also sours and embitters their
minds, and thus prevents the exhibition of that meek
and quiet spirit which is necessary to a person's own
usefulness. Their conduct may be applauded by
persons of their own disposition ; but the truly hum-
ble of their own party must be shocked by the con-
trast between such conduct and the precepts of the
Gospel.

4. This odious practice tends to excite and cher-
ish the spirit of war. The war spirit is but the cen-
sorious spirit acted out in political conflicts. Hence
the person who indulges the censorious spirit must
naturally be in a great measure blind to the evils of
war and persecution.

5. Censorious judging tends to prevent the pro-
gress of light and truth, as well as of love and
peace. When new views of any doctrine or of any
passage of Scripture are discovered and proposed,
it is by no means certain that they are true, nor
that they are false. All improvements or advances
are made by new discoveries. True wisdom would
dictate that such discoveries should be examined

98 LETTERS

with impartiality and candor, not hastily received
nor rashly rejected. How happy it might have been
for myriads of the Jews had they but candidly ex-
amined the new doctrines, or new views of religion
inculcated by the Messiah ! But self-sufficiency
blinded the minds of the scribes and pharisees ; so
they rejected the counsels of God against themselves
and led others into the ditch. — People of this age
should take warning by iheir sad example.

6. The practice in question has a pernicious in-
fluence on the rising generation. It gives them
false views of the nature of true religion. The
children of different sects naturally imbibe the feel-
ings as well as the opinions of their respective pa-
rents, and of course grow up with a spirit of hostility
towards such as are despised and reproached by
their guides. How exceedingly pernicious must
have been this practice to the Jewish children in
the days of the Messiah ! Perhaps stronger preju-
dices never existed against any Teacher than the
unbelievincr Jews indulcred towards him. The chil-
dren of course heard him reviled as a Sabbath break-
er, a glutton, a drunkard, an impostor and a blas-
phemer. The common people sometimes '' heard
him gladly," and they might perhaps generally have
done so to their own advantage, had it not been for
the slanderous tongues of their religious teachers.
But these leading men embittered the minds of their
followers against the Messiah, and prepared them to
raise the cry — *' Crucify him ! Crucify him !" It
seems in fact that the prejudices thus formed and

TO CHRISTIANS. 99

transmitted have been hereditary evils among "the
Jews in all quarters of the world for eighteen hun-
dred years. The Jew9 were indeed driven from
their own country and dispersed among the nations;
but wherever they went they seem to have carried
with them their prejudices against the Messiah and
his followers ; and their children from age to age have
been educated in these prejudices. Similar preju-
dices have existed between Christians and Mahome-
tans, and between Christians of different sects one
towards another. Children in this country — and per-
haps in every Christian country, are trained up with
prejudices against many good people of different de-
nominations from the one to which they respectively
belong ; so that these prejudices, like those of the
Jews, are likely to be transmitted to unborn genera-
tions. As it was among the Jews, so there is reason
to believe it is among Christians, that the bitter prej-
udices which exist between different sects may be
principally ascribed to the influence of their teach-
ers. What an awful share of responsibility then is
connected with the conduct of such ministers as em-
ploy their influence to excite, cherish, and inflame the
prejudices of one sect of Christians against another!
To reconcile such conduct with the new command-
ment, or with the prayer of Christ for his disciples,
is to me as impossible, as to reconcile with the same
standards the political hostilities of Christian na-
tions. A very great portion of the depravity of
Christendom at the present time may perhaps be
justly ascribed to the anti-christian practice of dif-
ferent sects in reviling one another.

100 LETTERS

LETTER XVI.

VICES COMPARED.

My Christian Brethren,

Within a iew years that species of intemper-
ance which results from the use of strong drink has
excited much attention, and called forth commenda-
ble exertions for its suppression. By publishing the
result of various inquiries respecting the extent to
which the vice had prevailed, and its numerous mis-
chiefs, much astonishment was produced. People
had not been aware of the extent of these evils ; and
many became alarmed, and willing to make exertions
to stop the flood which threatened to desolate the
country.

On further inquiry it may be found, that another
species of intemperance prevails in the land to a
greater extent than hard drinking ; and that its mis-
chiefs are not less to be deplored. Censorious judg-
ing is a vice which results from the indulgence of
party spirit ; and this spirit is not less pernicious
than rum or whiskey. By either of them men may
become intoxicated even to madness, — and of course
prove dangerous and troublesome members of soci-
ety. Party spirit has often produced such intoxication
as to make people believe that they were doing God
service by flagrant violations of the law of love. In-

TO CHRISTIANS. 101

toxication from strong drink, seldom proceeds from
hatred to fellow-men ; but intoxication from party
spirit has the appearance of proceeding from ill will,
and on this account is more odious than that which
occurs from hard drinking.

That species of intemperance from which censo-
rious judging originates, is not confined to any sect
or party, in politics or religion. It is a common and
contagious disease — so common that its evils seem
to be in a great measure overlooked, except by those
who are personally assailed and injured.

Much has been truly said of the numerous broils
which occur in families and societies by intemperate
drinking. Much of the boxing, duelling, and blood-
shed in various forms is accounted for in this way.
But do not similar evils occur from party spirit. Be-
sides occasional paroxysms of rage and violence, how
often has party intemperance produced long contin-
ued agitations in families and communities, and even
civil war, and bloody persecutions. To a dread-
ful extent this species of intoxication prevailed in the
times of the Messiah and his apostles. Paul was ex-
ceedingly mad with this distemper prior to his con-
version— so mad that he verily thought he ought to
do many things contrary to Jesus and his humble
disciples. In every country where persecution has
raged, the mischiefs have originated in party spirit,
party intemperance, and censorious judging.

In the political struggles of our country, we have
had much evidence of the mischievous effects of
party intemperance. In some instances it has seem-

H

102

LETTERS

ed as if almost the whole population of the country
were in a state of intoxication at the same time. Men
of rank and respectability in society have, on such
occasions, been too often seen to act like mad men,
rather than like themselves, in sober moments. But
times of political excitement have not been the only
occasions, on which party intemperance has disgraced
the American character. What should be said of
our religious or anti-religious scenes of party intem-
perance 1 How often have the professed disciples of
Him who was meek and lowly been so intoxicated by
party passions as to feel above all obligations to sub-
mit to the precepts of their Lord, in regard to judg-
ing one another, and doing to others as they would
that others should do unto them ? How often have
even whole sects been denounced, including thou-
sands of whom the defamer was wholly ignorant, as
to their moral characters ! Those who have witnes-
sed scenes of intoxication by hard drinking, may
have observed how strangely men will talk when their
passions are excited by strong drink ; how unguard-
ed they often are in their remarks ; how bitter in
their revilings, and how foolish in their pretended
reasonings. Similar things are witnessed in men
when intoxicated with party spirit.

The inquiry naturally occurs. Is there no remedy
for party intemperance ? Must the Christian religion
be forever thus disgraced by its professed admirers
and votaries. For a time it seemed a hopeless en-
terprise to attempt a suppression of the other species
of intemperance. Soon, however, a hope was exci-

TO CHRISTIANS. 103

ted that by due exertions many moderate drinkers
might be induced to give up their habit before they
should pass the bounds of temperance , and that ma-
ny might be saved from forming the habit of moder-
ate drinking. It was hardly expected that men might
be reclaimed who had advanced far in the road of
intoxication. Their case was deemed nearly hope-
less. It was, however, found that the moderate use
of ardent spirits at stated periods, exposed men of
become drunkards ; that by daily indulgence a thirst
was excited which endangered both body and soul,
— and that entire abstinence from the use of ardent
spirits was the path of safety. Many thousands have
become convinced of this, and have adopted the pol-
icy,— among whom are an unexpected number of
those who were supposed to be past recovery, and
bound over by intemperate habits to perish as drunk-
ards. What happy results of a few years exertion !
When all the evils of party intemperance shall
have been disclosed, they may be found not less ter-
rific and portentous than the evils of intemperate
drinking. Why then shall not Christians of all de-
nominations unite and adopt the same saving policy
for both species of intemperance — and resolve on
total abstinence from party spirit as well as from liquid
fire ? Should this policy be cordially and universally,
or even generally adopted, it is believed that im-
mense advantages would speedily result to the cause
of religion, as well as to individual and social happi-
ness. There is perhaps no case in reference to which
it may be more safely said, '' the tongue is a fire, a

104 LETTERS

world of iniquity ; it setteth on fire the course of na-
ture, and is set on fire of hell," than when it is em-
ployed in censorious judging, under the control of
party passions. By due obedience to the new com-
mandment, the work of thorough reformation would
be effected. This would imply total abstinence from
party spirit, the great source of mischief among
Christians. For it was not party affection that Christ
exercised towards his disciples, but pure, impartial,
and forbearing love. This had been the source of
ail his conduct towards them when he said — '* This
is my commandment, that ye love one another as I
have loved you." With the same love he prayed for
all his disciples, that they all might be one even as he
and the Father are one. To this precept and this
prayer let the heart and tongue of every Christian
say. Amen. — Such a revival of religion would diff"use
joy throughout heaven and earth.

LETTER XVII.

THE GOSPEL REMEDY FOR CONTENTION.

My Christian Brethren^

It would be useless to investigate the causes of
a malady and display its evils, if God had failed to

TO CHRISTIANS. 105

provide a remedy. What has been said in preced-
ing letters may seem to have anticipated the purpose
of the present ; but the importance of the subject
may justify further attempt for elucidation.

Admitting the correctness of Solomon's maxim —
" Only by pride cometh contention," we may nat-
urally infer that humility is both a preventive and a
remedy — a preventive if adopted in season, and a
remedy if duly applied after the disease has occur-
red.

The first contention among the professed disciples
of the Messiah, of which we have any account, oc-
curred among the Twelve, whom he had selected
for apostles — on the question, " who is the greatest
in the kingdom of heaven ?" — Or as Luke more de-
finitely states the case, " There was a strife among
them which of them should be the greatest." What
but pride could have originated this contention 1
What but humility was wanting to have prevented
it 1 And what but humility could be a proper re-
medy after the strife had occurred ? This was in
fact the remedy prescribed by the great Physician.
As was observed in a preceding letter, the first time
Christ discoursed with the Twelve concerning their
strife, " He called a little child and set him in the
midst of them and said. Verily I say unto you, except
ye be converted, and become as little children, ye
shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven. Who-
soever, therefore, shall humble himself as this little
child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven."
Matt, xviii. 2, 3, 4. Mark and Luke have recorded

106 LETTERS

some observations made by our Lord, which were
omitted by Matthew. " If any man desire to be
first of all, the same shall be last of all." Mark ix.
35. '' For he that is least among you all, the same
shall be great.'^ Luke ix. 48.

Notwithstanding the admonition thus given, Jesus
had further occasion to interpose his authority and
instructions, to check the ambition of his disciples,
and put an end to their strife. It appears to have
been, after what has been related that James and
John had the confidence to request the two higher
offices, or to say to him " Grant unto us that we may
sit one on thy right hand, and the other on thy left,
in thy glory." It is evident that the other disciples
were present when Jesus replied to this request ;
and what followed his reply I shall state according
to the translation of Dr. Campbell.

" The ten having heard this conceived indigna-
tion against James and John. But Jesus having
called them together, said to them — " Ye know that
those who are accounted princes of the nations
domineer over them, and their great ones exercise
authority upon them ; but it must not be so among
you. On the contrary, whosoever would be great
among you shall be your servant ; and whosoever
would be chief of all shall be the slave of all. For
even the Son of man came not to be served, but to
serve, and to give his life a ransom for many."
Mark X. 41—45.

Luke has reported the words of Christ in a differ-
ent form, but in a manner forcible and impressive :

TO CHRISTIANS. 107

" The kings of the nations exercise dominion over
them, and they who oppress them are styled bene-
factors. But with you it must be otherwise. Nay,
let the greatest among you be as the smaller ; and
him who governeth as he who serveth. For whether
is greater he who is at table or he who serveth ? Is
not he that sitteth at table ? Yet I am among you
as one that serveth." Luke xxii. 25 — 28.

The discourses of Christ on these occasions were
illustrative of the principle which he so repeatedly
announced, '' Whosoever exalteth himself shall be
abased ; and he who humbleth himself shall be ex-
alted." It seems to have been his purpose to lay
the axe at the root of the tree of contention, by teach-
ing that greatness or dignity in his kingdom was not
to be estimated according to worldly maxims or
principles, — not by the amount of wealth which a
person may amass, nor by the splendor of his talents
or acquirements, nor by the height of his official
station ; but that in God's esteem, a man is " great"
in proportion as he possesses a humble and benevo-
lent mind — a disposition to do or to suffer whatever
may be necessary to the good of others — a disposition
"not to be served, but to serve." Hence his own
example was proposed for their imitation. A similar
lesson was taught the apostles the evening before the
crucifixion, when Jesus washed their feet.

The disposition of mind which was thus made the
standard of dignity or greatness is the spirit of obe-
dience. Hence, in the sermon on the mount, Jesus
said, " Whosoever, therefore, shall break one of these

108 LETTERS

least commandments," or even the least of these com-
mandments, " and shall teach men so, shall be called
least in the kingdom of heaven ;" but whosoever shall
do and teach them shall be called great in the king-
dom of heaven." Matt. v. 19. On the same princi-
ple he also said " Love your enemies, and do good
and lend, hoping for nothing again, and your reward
shall be great, and ye shall be called the Children
OP THE HIGHEST J for Hc is good uuto the unthank-
ful and to the evil. Luke vii. 35. The same dis-
position is by Paul denominated love or charity.
1 Cor. xiii, which he says " suffereth long and is
kind — envieth not — vaunteth not itself — is not puffed
up — doth not behave itself unseemly — seeketh not her
own." This, too, is what James calls the " wisdom
that is from above, which is first pure, then peacea-
ble, gentle, easy to be entieated, full of mercy and
good fruits, without partiality and without hypoc-
risy ;" and this he mentions in contrast with that
diabolical wisdom whence cometh envying, strife,
confusion and every evil work." See James iii. 14
—17.

Possessing in perfection the humble, peaceable
and benevolent temper, '* the Son of man came not
to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ran-
som for many ?" In view of this glorious example,
John says, " we ought also to lay down our lives for
the brethren." The meaning is supposed to be this,
that Christians should possess the same disposition
that was displayed by Christ, and be ready to do or
to suffer whatever may be necessary for the happiness
of others, or the good of the Messiah's kingdom.

TO CHRISTIANS. 109

Here I may ask, what can be more obvious than
that the humble and benevolent temper required
and exemplified by the Saviour, is totally incompati-
ble with that bitterness, reviling and contention
which is so frequently manifested by different sects
of Christians one towards the other ? Let the prin-
ciple of spiritual dignity be duly esteemed — let
Christians know and feel that he only " who hum-
bleth himself shall be exalted," and let the meek
and benevolent spirit of the Messiah be manifest-
ed by the people of the several sects in their treat-
ment of each other ; then it will be seen that the
spirit of the Gospel is a remedy for those contentions
which have so long been a reproach to Christians,
and a stumbling block to unbelievers. Water is no
better adapted to extinguish material fire than hu-
mility is to put out the fires of contention among
brethren. But all liquids are not adapted to quench
fire. Brandy, if poured on ever so abundantly, would
increase the flame. In like manner party spirit —
which too frequently passes for religion, only serves
to increase the flames of strife, and to destroy the
happiness of society.

Humility disposes a person to be jealous of him-
self, and to observe his own imperfections. The
humble man will naturally discover many defects in
himself, which are not visible to others, and which
perhaps he cannot see in them. Hence it will be an
object of his care " not to think more highly of him-
self than he ought to think," and to be one of the
number of Christians who comply with another of

110 LETTERS

Paul's exhortations: — *' Doing nothing through con-
tention or vain glory ; but in humility of mind esteem-
ing others better than yourselves." Philippians ii. 5.
Newcombe's translation.

Humility is not only meek but benevolent and for-
giving. It seeks to " overcome evil with good."
Hence it is certain, that the more there is of humili-
ty among Christians, the less there will be of con-
tention. Many of the contentions among Christians
are occasioned by that unruly evil the tongue *' which
setteth on fire the course of nature, and is set on
fire of hell." Now what can be named short of
death or paralysis, which is more sure to restrain
the tongue from sarcasm and evil speaking, than hu-
mility of mind ? The more humble a man is the
more conscious he is of his own liability to errors of
the understanding and of the heart ; and this con-
sciousness united with benevolence will dispose him
to be candid towards others, and to do unto them as
he would that they should do unto him. To illus-
trate the nature of humility, I will state a supposable
case.

In a time of great excitement and party strife, a
minister sits down to write a sermon in vindication
of some disputed doctrine, which he believes to be
of great importance. But having failed to call hu-
mility to his aid, he writes under the influence of
party passions. As he proceeds, he grows warmer
and warmer, with feelings of contempt or resentment
towards all who have opposed his doctrine. He is
not contented with producing arguments in its favor ;

TO CHRISTIANS. Ill

he must give vent to his passions against dissenters.
He boldly accuses them of gross errors in their inter-
pretations of the Scriptures ; and imputes these errors
to the wickedness of their hearts ; and fails not to
reproach them either as heretics or as bigots. Thus,
while he wantonly calumniates others as destitute of
the gospel temper, he evinces a deplorable defect
in his own heart. But prior to the time for deliver-
ing his discourse, some affecting event of providence
occurs that calls him to deep reflection, occasions a
favorable change of feeling, gives humility leave to
rise and speak for herself. Hence occurs the follow-
ing soliloquy : —

' What have I written for a sermon to be delivered
by myself, as the ambassador of Him who was " meek
and lowly of heart?" He exercised forbearance to-
wards his erring Apostles, during the whole course
of his ministry, though he knew them to be in gross
errors of opinion ; yet I have reproached hundreds
of his professed disciples as his enemies ; and have
said much to excite against them the contempt of
others. But why all this rashness 1 They indeed
differ from me in their interpretations of some passa-
ges of Scripture ; but if this be a good reason for me
to be offended with them, why may not they as justly
be offended with me 1 Are not some of them at least
possessed of as good talents as myself? May they
not have had as good advantages for acquiring knowl-
edge 1 and how do I know that they have been less
honest and impartial in their inquiries than I have
been in mine ? How has it happened that I have

112 LETTERS

been so forward to accuse them, and yet so backward
in regard to suspecting myself? Could this be the
work of humility or benevolence ? Have I done to
others as I would that they should do to me 1 Even
taking it for granted that they are bad men, is my
sermon adapted to do them or any body else any
good ? Will it not give far more proof of wrong in
me than of wrong in them ? I indeed have accused
them ; but I have done it with a temper which is the
reverse of what is required in the gospel of every
disciple of Christ. I will therefore revise the ser-
mon, and erase every word which shall appear to me
inconsistent with that love which worketh no evil to
its neighbor.'

Such I think would be the natural operations of
humility, if allowed to speak in the supposed case ;
and this illustration is capable of being applied in a
great variety of different circumstances. If Chris-
tians would but listen to the dictates of humility, in-
stead of the suggestions of self-esteem and party
passions, it is very certain that most of the occasions
of strife would be avoided — a more salutary charac-
ter would be given not only to sermons, but to con-
versations, and to the various publications on religious
subjects. Should the tongue and the pen be duly
subjected to the control of such a disposition as in-
duced " even the Son of Man to come not to be ser-
ved, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for
many," it might soon be found a possible thing for
men of different opinions to be united in affection,
and to love one another with a pure heart fervently.

TO CHRISTIANS. 113

The tender affection which existed between Jesus
and his Apostles, while they differed so greatly in
opinion on some important subjects, is a proof that
unity of opinion is not essential to mutual affection.
He indeed had occasion to reprove his apostles for
their ambition and contention ; but he did it in such
meekness and love that it occasioned no alienation.
Though he well knew their errors of opinion, he did
not go about the country denouncing or reproaching
them, either as heretics or as bigots. Notwithstand-
ing all their imperfections Jesus loved them to the
end of his ministry ; and never perhaps did he evince
towards them more sincere and tender affection than
in his last interview with them, and in his prayer for
them, prior to the crucifixion. In what way then
can Christians of the present age better evince love
to Christ, than by imitating this benignant and for-
bearing example, and by obeying his commandment,
*'Love one another as I have loved you ?" However
high may be our opinion of his natural dignity, or
however confident and loud we may be in asserting
that opinion, this will not insure his approbation.
He was " meek and lowly of heart," and it Was his
" meat and drink" to do his Father's will. If the
same mind is in us that was in him, we shall be ac-
knowledged as his friends and disciples indeed.
Without this we shall be found wanting. For thus
saith our Lord and Judge — "Not every one that
saith unto me Lord, Lord, shall enter into the king-
dom of heaven ; but he that docth the will of my Fa-
ther who is in heaven. ^^

114 LETTERS

LETTER XVIII

CONCLUSION.

My Christian Brethren,

In preceding letters I have attempted to unveil
some of the causes and evils of contention among
Christians, that they may be seen in a true light. It
has been my aim to write with friendly feelings to-
wards my brethren of all denominations, — and to
express my views in a dispassionate and inoffensive
manner. But if in this I have failed, or should it be
thought that I have misinterpreted some passages of
scripture, still I hope that my readers will not regard
my faults as an excuse for omitting a thorough exam-
ination of the subject for themselves. For however
imperfect my efforts may have been, the subject is
unquestionably of great practical importance. It is
my belief that duelling can be as easily vindicated
on Gospel principles, as the mutual revilings of Chris-
tians of different opinions. So far as any of my writ-
ings may have evinced an unkind or a censorious spir-
it, I would humbly implore the forgiveness of God,
and the forgiveness of all my fellow Christians who
have been injured by my remarks, or misled by my
example. I have doubtless often erred in the opin-
ions I have expressed, while I verily believed them
to be correct. As an excuse for such errors I may
plead the fallibility of my understanding, or the want

TO CHRISTIANS. 115

of means to obtain correct views. For my con-
science bears me witness, that truth has been the ob-
ject of my inquiries, and that I have never intention-
ally published erroneous opinions. But if I have
indulged bitter or unchristian feelings towards any
of my brethren, for these I have no excuse to make ;
but must plead guilty, and supplicate for pardoning
mercy.

Of the Turks it has been said — *' Their religion
inspires them with contempt and hatred for those of
another creed." It is to be feared that this may be
said of too many who bear the name of Christians ;
but if so, it is ^' their religion" — not the religion
taught by Jesus Christ, which bears such bitter fruit.
His religion, like the Father from whom it descend-
ed, seeks the good of all. It is that " wisdom" from
above, which is " full of mercy and good fruits."
When I compare with this the wisdom which is fre-
quently displayed in sectarian strife, the contrast is
shocking ; and I seem to see a cause for the preva-
lence of Deism in the most favored countries of Chris-
tendom. If by any means I should be made to be-
lieve that the Christian religion has authorized the
unkind and censorious spirit which has so often agi-
tated society, I should either doubt its divine origin,
or relinquish the idea that " God is love." But when
I perceive that all party bitterness and reviling are
forbidden by the Gospel, and are the reverse of what
its precepts enjoin, my faith in the divine origin of
this religion is really strengthened by observing the
deplorable contrast. For it then seems unquestion-

116 LETTERS

able that a religion so pure, so peaceable, so forgiving-,
and so benignant, must have descended from above ;
that it could not have been invented by such beings
as men have been in all past ages. Indeed the char-
acter of the Christian religion seems to me one of
the best proofs that there is a God ; that he is wise
and good ; and that he has made to men a revelation
of his character and his will.

To some persons it may be gratifying to know that
the views I have expressed in this series of letters on
the evil and danger of ascribing error of opinion to
wickedness of heart, are not the effect^ of recent
changes in my own mind. When I was a Trinita-
rian, and nearly forty years ago, I published similar
views of that principle in what I then wrote to the
late Dr. Baldwin, on the subject of '' Close Commun-
ion." Very soon after I entered on the work of the
ministry, I became dissatisfied with the practice of
referring all error of opinion on religious subjects to
a criminal source ; and also with the practice of re-
proaching whole sects of Christians as destitute of
piety, on the ground of their alleged erroneous opin-
ions. The more I have reflected on the subject since
that period, the more I have been convinced of the
injustice and the danger of such practices. The
more too I have been convinced that such practices
imply a deplorable want of humility in those who
adopt them, and an astonishing degree of blindness
in regard to their own liability to err.

Some of the views however, which are contained
in these letters respecting the principle of dignity

TO CHRISTIANS. 117

established by the Messiah — his example in liis treat-
ment of his erring and contending apostles, and his
New Commandment, are of more recent origin in my
own mind. I cannot but wonder that they did, not
occur to me at an earlier period of my inquiries. If
these views are correct, it is surely of vast impor-
tance that they should be diffused, clearly under-
stood, and reduced to practice by Christians of ev-
ery name. Should Christians generally, adopt the
principle of spiritual dignity, as stated by our Lord,
and conform to his New Commandment in their treat-
ment of each other while of different opinions, there
will be further occasion to adopt the animating
language of David — " Behold how good and how
pleasant it is for brethren to dwell together in unity !"
The due observance of that one principle, and one
command would exclude from Christendom all na-
tional hostilities — all persecution and sectarian strife,
and fill every Christian country with the blessed
fruits of love, peace, and joy. Nor is this all ; the
benign influence would be continually extending the
boundaries of Christendom till it should embrace all
the nations of the earth. Then too would be seen a
cheerful compliance in every land with Paul's exhor-
tation to the Colossians ; —

*' But now do ye put off all these, anger, wrath,
malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your
mouth. Lie not one to another, seeing that ye have
put off the old man with his deeds ; and have put on
the new man, which is renewed in knowledge after
the image of him that created him ; where there is

K

118 LETTERS TO CHRISTIANS.

neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision nor uncircum-
cision, Barbarian nor Scythian, bond nor free ; but
Christ is all and in all. Put on therefore as the elect
of God, holy and beloved, bowels of mercies, kind-
ness, humbleness of mind, meekness, long-suffering ;
forbearing one another, and forgiving one another.
If any man have a quarrel against any, even as Christ
forgave you, so also do ye. And above all things,
put on charity, which is the bond of perfectness ; —
and let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to which
also ye are called in one body, — and be ye thankful."
Col. iii. 8—15.

Such a reformation as would result from due con-
formity to this exhortation, might remove every doubt
as to the divine oricrin of the Christian reliction, or
its adaptedness to promote the happiness of mankind,
both in this world, and in the world to come. To show
the necessity and importance of such a reformation,
has been a principal object in writing this series of
letters, which is now to be closed. The more there
is in Christians of different sects a disposition to
contend about " which of them is the greatest," the
more they need to be changed and reformed. I
what I have written should on y be the means of ex-
citing in myself and a few of my brethren a more
due consideration of what Christ said to his apostles
when he saw them thus contending, my labors will
not have been in vain ,• and that these letters may be
of use to myself, as well as to others, is the ardent
desire of your ffectionate brother.

April, 1831. NOAH WORCESTER.

POSTSCRIPT.

As a proof that I have not been alone in my
views of the present state of Christians, I subjoin
the following passage from the wdtings of the late
celebrated Robert Hall. The extract is from the
first paragraph of what he wrote " On the Terms of
Communion."

'^ To see Christian societies regarding each other
with the jealousies of rival empires, each aiming to
raise itself on the ruin of all others, making extrava-
gant boasts of superior purity, generally in exact
proportion to their departure from it, and scarcely
deigning to acknowledge the possibility of obtaining
salvation out of their pale, is the odious and dis-
gusting spectacle which modern Christianity pre-
sents. The bond of charity, which unites the gen-
uine followers of Christ in distinction from the world
is dissolved ; and the very terms, by which it was
wont to be denoted, exclusively employed to express
a predilection for a sect. The evils which result
from this state of division are incalculable. It sup-
plies infidels with their most plausible topics of in-
vective. It hardens the consciences of the irreli-
gious, weakens the hands of the good, impedes the
efficacy of prayer, and is probably the principal
obstruction to that ample effusion of the Spirit which
is essential to the renovation of the world."

After the whole series of Letters to Christians
had been prepared for the press, I opened the first
volume of Mr. Hall's writings, and my attention
was soon attracted by the passage which has now
been copied. It struck my mind as a remarkable

120 POSTSCRIPT.

epitome of what I had written. The first sentence,
however^ seemed to contain more of severity than
I had allowed myself to express. But if it be a
truth that rival sects are chargeable with ^' making
extravagant boasts of superior purity, generally in ex-
act proportion to their departure from it," what can
be of greater importance to them than that this truth
should be understood ? A due consideration of the
nature of humility, as contrasted with pride, will per-
haps justify the sentiment expressed by Mr. Hall ; and
in this manner, though dead, he now speaks to the
Christian world. May his admirers of every sect
duly hearken to his admonitory voice, and exert
themselves to correct the evils of which he complain-
ed. In proportion as Christians shall possess the
true spirit of the Gospel, they must desire to see a
reformation of such lamentable evils and inconsis-
tencies.

Perhaps there are few persons of any sect of Chris-
tians who will object to the foregoing letters, if they
can make themselves believe that the remarks which
imply blame were meant to be applied only to such
as dissent from their creed ; yet many may be dis-
pleased, from an apprehension that inconsistency
has been intentionally imputed to themselves or their
party. Let it then be observed, that I have written
the letters in the belief that there are errors — both
of opinion and practice, in all the denominations of
Christians with which I am acquainted ; and in the
hope that there are good people in each sect, who
will deplore the existing evils, and exert their influ-
ence to effect a reformation. N. W.

ri'lll'l'lllllimMin^.' Semmary-Speer L,l

1 1012 01023 8204