صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son. If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed; for he that biddeth him God speed, is partaker of his evil deeds."*

This, Sir, is genuine-divine charity:-charity, which can discern between truth and errour; which rejoiceth in the truth, and in the light, the happiness, and the holy fellowship of those who embrace and obey it; and, while it rejects and condemns errour, deeply deplores the darkness, the darger, and the delusive communion of those who yield to its fascinations, and ardently desires and seeks their conviction and salvation: which adores the Lord Jesus with a reverence too holy to trifle with his sacred institutions, and regards all men with an affection too benevolent to cheer them in the ways of destruction. Yes, genuine charity rejoiceth in the truth. It is essentially love of truth; and it regards God and Christ, saints and sinners, all beings and things, according to truth. It delights in truth as the foundation of all pure religion, genuine virtue, and substantial happiness;-as of the first importance to the essential and everlasting interests of mankind. In all ages of the world, therefore, it has been the grand ef fort of charity to convince men of their crrours, to rescue them from their delusions, and to bring them to the knowledge of the truth. In this arduous work, it has endured the contradictions and reproaches, the unappeasable resentiments and varied persecutions, of the erring, and proud, and adverse world, The palms and crowns, which distinguish the hosts of holy martyrs before the throne of God and the Lamb, were all won by the labours, and sufferings, and conflicts of charity, in maintaining, defending, and propagating the truth upon the earth.

How different from this, in its nature and in its labours, is the misnamed charity for which you contend;-a charity which is fondly indulgent to all errour, and inimical only to the truth; which consists in thinking or admitting that men may be good and acceptable in the sight of God, though they utterly reject the gospel as a "cunningly devised fable," and

* 1 John ii, 18-27; ii, 1-6; 2 Jolin 9-11.

ought to be held in christian fellowship, if they only acknow edge that "Jesus is the Christ," though they disbelieve, and contemn every essential doctrine of christianity. This spurious charity, it ought to be distinctly noted, may be possessed, in its utmost extent, by the most unholy men; by infidels of every species of disbelief,-by libertines of every degree of licentiousness. It is an indisputable fact, that the open scoffers at religion, the "lovers of their own selves," the "proud," the blasphemers," the "covetous," the "fierce," the "despis ers of them that are good," can shew as much of this sort of charity, and clamour as loudly for it, as the very best of your liberal christians. Listen to the pagan writers with whom the primitive christians had to contend,-to the free-thinkers, deists, and atheists of modern times,-to the "unruly and vain-talkers," the "murmurers and complainers," who "speak evil of things that they understand not," and utter "great swelling words of vanity:"-all these, while they strenuously oppose all the efforts of holy love, both divine and human, to reclaim men from the errour of their ways unto the wisdom of the just;" yet with one voice cry out for charity and liberality, denounce christians as so uncharitable and illiberal as to deserve the execration of the world, and charge upon them all the guilt of all the divisions, contentions, and persecutions, of which truth and religion have been innocently the occasion.

"Are we blind also?” was indignantly said by some of the masters of Israel to the great Teacher from heaven, who would have "guided their feet into the way of peace." To the inspired apostles, to the successive ministers of Christ, and to others who have been valiant for the truth upon the earth, similar language has been used, and with a similar spirit, in every succeeding age. The pride of man revolts at the imputation of errour, and the passions take fire to revenge the alleged insult. To compose and prevent the strife, "the wisdom of this world" has devised and proposed, that all religious truth should be held as matter of mere opinion, that all religious opinions should be entitled to equal favour,—that the acknowledgement of this title should be called charity,— and that this charity should be regarded and inculcated as the essence and sum of religion. Were this compact universally

adopted and carried into effect, the world, it is imagined, would be settled in millennial tranquillity, and men would be left, without molestation, to follow their own opinions, to worship their own gods, and to pass on to their final state in their own chosen ways. All therefore who dissent, are to be regarded as common enemies, uncharitable, illiberal, bigotted fanaticks,-men who would turn the world upside down, and against whom 'charity calls for a combination of all classes and persuasions. The system," you say, "of excluding from christian fellowship men of upright lives, on account of their opinions,-necessarily generates perpetual discord in the church. Thus the wars of christians will be perpetual. Never will there be peace, until christians agree to differ, and agree to look for the evidences of christian character in the temper and the life:" that is, without regard to faith or disbe lief. Pages 31-33.

Such, Sir, is the charity for which you contend, which you represent as incomparably more excellent than faith, and to which you make no ordinary pretensions. But, high as your pretensions are, you are eclipsed in this particular, by deists and atheists, by scoffers and libertines.

You seem to be aware, that the apostles were not entirely in this system. You desire, however, that we may never forget that the apostles were inspired men, capable of marking out with unerring certainty those who substituted another gospel for the true," p. 27. In this desire I cordially unite with you. It ought certainly never to be forgotten, that they were inspired men; and as little should it be forgotten, that by excluding from fellowship "these, who substituted another gospel for the true," they made it as certain as the high authority of inspiration could make it, that those who do reject the true gospel and embrace another, however their tempers and lives may appear, are not entitled to the privileges of christian communion. This point then is decisively settled.

But you will say, who can now pretend to inspiration, and who, without this gift, has a right to decide what the true gospel is, and what is another. "Show us their [the apostles] successors and we will cheerfully obey them." Much is to be found to this effect in all your pamphlets: importing that no

uninspired man can know, nor has a right to decide, what the true doctrines of the gospel are, or what are false doctrines; and charging with an arrogant assumption of “infallibility,” those, who profess any assurance or certainty, that, in their articles of faith, or their "opinions," they are right. This indeed seems to be the very basis of your system.

Is it however so, that no uninspired man can know, nor has a right to judge what the true gospel of Christ is? For what purpose then were the apostles and the prophets before them inspired? Was it merely for their own benefit? or at most for theirs, and the benefit of others of their own times? For what purpose then were the revelations which were communicated to them, committed to writing, and transmitted with so much care to succeeding generations? Of what use are the scriptures, if no uninspired man can know with any certainty what are the doctrines contained in them?-The celebrated Hume has asserted, that miracles could be of no use, as attestations to a divine revelation, excepting to such as were eye-wit nesses of them; because no other persons could have sufficient evidence of the facts. But I believe that even that gigantick adversary of the gospel never went so far as your argument goes: never undertook to assert that a divine revelation, though well attested, could never make any doctrine or truth certain, excepting to inspired men; because no other persons could ever know with any certainty what doctrines or truths are revealed. Had he lighted upon this discovery, he would have found an argument against revelation, incomparably more available than any which he has urged; an argument which, if correct in its premises, must be decisive in its conclusion: for unquestionably a God of infinite wisdom and goodness would never communicate a revelation to the world, for the instruction and faith of uninspired men, if none but the inspired could understand it, or attain to any certainty in regard to its doctrines. Upon this Unitarian principle, inspiration, to answer its purpose, must be continued throughout all ages; just as Hume contended that miracles must be.

This point demands very particular attention, for it is the very hinge on which the question respecting fellowship turns. et it then be again distinctly noted, that you have found

yourself compelled to concede, that the inspired apostles did exclude from fellowship those who embraced another gospel, or doctrines or opinions subversive of the gospel of Christ. This establishes the principle decisively, that it would be right to separate from such now, could it only be determined what the gospel of Christ is, and what another gospel. But this, you contend, no uninspired man or body of men has a right to determine. The Unitarian system, as set forth by Mr. Belsham, is clearly opposite, in every essential point, to the orthodox system. Yet no uninspired man has a right to determine, which of these two opposite systems is the true gospel; no one has a right to pronounce either of them false! And, therefore, the believers in either of them have no right to separate from the believers in the other!-If it be really so, then let us hear no more of the great Protestant principle, that the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith; for instead of being a sufficient rule, they are no rule at all. They do not enable or warrant us to decide between two systems, fundamentally and diametrically opposite, which is true, or whether both of them are false. What the gospel of Christ is, no uninspired man can tell. If any undertake to determine, and to pronounce an opposite system another gospel, they are to be regarded as illiberal and uncharitable men. "proud and arrogant" pretenders to "infallibility," ignorant "bigots," and odious "persecutors."

The question respecting fellowship or separation certainly resolves itself into this point. If the scriptures are a sufficient rule of faith, if from them uninspired men can know what the doctrines of Christ are, or what the true gospel is; then they have apostolick, divine authority for withdrawing and withholding fellowship from those, who reject the true. and embrace another gospel. If the scriptures are not a sufficient rule of faith; if no uninspired man can know what the gospel of Christ is; then the faith of christians is vain, and our preaching also is vain;" and we have yet to wait, in gloomy uncertainty, in dismal darkness, until God in his sovereign goodness shall again bless the world, or some portion of it, with the gift of inspiration.

« السابقةمتابعة »