Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

in the world, it would be different; but seeing we may have access to churches which can receive us, why should we insist that others should receive us who cannot do it conscientiously? Let Christian denominations study the Bible on this subject prayerfully, and cultivate Christian fellowship so far as they are able to agree, and wait patiently for the day, when one Lord, and one faith, and one baptism, will unite, in one blessed fellowship, the entire family of

man.

3. The churches of our Lord, of different denominations, are bound to unite their influence and exertions for the promotion of religion and morality, on all those great points in which they are happily united.

There are many things which different denominations cannot accomplish alone, which may be reached by their united energies. There is an influence of religion upon society, which no one denomination can exert-which the opposition of denominations to each other may hinder, and their union easily produce. Now it is for the interest of all Christian denominations, that the institutions of Christianity be regarded with respect, and be practically observed; and the concurrent opinion and influence of all denominations would go far to create a public opinion which no man could repeal, or lightly disregard. And while this is possible, it is doubtless a duty which we owe to God, to endeavor to bring the judgment and conscience of the community into a subjection to the laws of Christ. Much might be done in this way to prevent profane swearing, lewdness, the violation of the Sabbath, and all those vices which war against the soul.

Even the government of the nation may be made to feel the restraining and purifying influence of Christian morality, and may be moved, to cooperate, in its proper sphere and manner, in strengthening the laws of Christ, and extending the empire of the Gospel. Why should governments respect their constituents, and consult their wishes on all subjects, but the subject of religion? God be praised that they are never to legislate for our consciences. But if governments often represent the vices of their constituents, and help to destroy those religious liberties which they are established to protect, can any good reason be assigned why they should not represent the virtues of their constituents, and lend their influence to favor, in their proper sphere and manner, those religious institutions which lie at the foundation of civil liberty? Rulers are generally disposed to treat with respect the known wishes of their constituents; and can the churches of our Lord, of different denominations, united in so many points of vital interest, forbear to combine their influence, and cause their wishes to be understood by their rulers, and not be guilty? Why should all the moral influence of our sanctified nature be excluded? No doubt, the Christian denominations of this land, are called, by the God of

[blocks in formation]

heaven, to engage in a great work of pacification, of mutual benevolence, and public usefulness, of which, as yet, we have scarcely formed a conception.

WHICH SOCIETY SHALL YOU JOIN, THE LIBERAL OR THE

ORTHODOX?

A Letter to a Friend.

[The following Letter was addressed to one, who, amid a population divided into the fundamentally opposite religious sects, the Orthodox and the Liberal, had not determined to which of them he ought to give his influence. The letter now appears in print, that all, who are unsettled in their opinions on the comparative claims of the two sects, may be aided in forming a decision; and that every candid man, who has joined the ranks of either denomination, may be incited to a more thorough examination of the principles, and the influence, of the system which he has defended, and may diligently inquire whether he has not been opposing the cause of God, and the best interests of men.

He

As the opposers of free investigation have loudly complained of the practice of commending the piety, and of censuring the impiety, of any particular sect, the writer has been careful to make no application of his expressions of commendation or of censure. has simply stated the criteria of truth, and added a few remarks for the purpose of assisting in making a just application. Such an application he invites both the Orthodox and the Liberal to make, to their own, and to the opposing, denomination. And he earnestly hopes, that every one who regards truth, and fears God; and, especially, that every one who is now in a state of "halting between" the "two opinions" so diametrically opposite, and subversive of each other, will consider the questions proposed as addressed to himself; and will, as far as he is able, answer them definitely and correctly; and that, then, he will attach himself to that religious society, whether the Universalist or Unitarian on the one side, or the Orthodox on the other, which he thinks the safer and the better.]

DEAR SIR, You well know that the controversy between those who style themselves Orthodox, or Evangelical, and those who style themselves Liberal, is becoming, every day, more prominent, and more important. Many who once stood on neutral ground; and even some, (more candid than the rest,) who once fought in the lines, and for the cause, of the enemies of truth; have now left their forbidden stations, and become the decided advocates

of what they profess to regard as the system of religion taught by Christ and his apostles. Your town, once so harmonious, is now divided in religious opinion. And, as an emblem of the division, two spires now point up to heaven in your delightful village; and two men, who style themselves ministers of Christ, preach to distinct congregations, doctrines opposite in themselves, and, as all allow, widely different in their tendency. You, I understand, Sir, are undecided to which of these congregations you ought, in duty to yourself, your family and relatives, and your God, to give the influence of your name, and example, and support. As the two denominations with which these congregations have connected themselves maintain systems of belief, differing so entirely from each other in themselves, and in their tendency, it will not, I presume, be disputed by the members of either denomination, or by yourself, that one maintains the true system, and the other a false system, of religion; one inculcates a system beneficial in its influence, and the other, a system injurious in its influence, That which inculcates the true and the beneficial system, you will choose to promote; and that which inculcates the false and injurious system, you will choose to oppose. You will then endeavor, first, to ascertain which is the true, and which the false, system; and, secondly, which is the beneficial, and which the injurious, system.

In order to ascertain which system is the true one, you will, diligently and impartially, compare the doctrines of each with the Scriptures. The peculiar doctrines of the Evangelical system, are, that Christ is God; that man by nature has no supreme love to God; that all men are required to change from a state of entire - sinfulness, to a state of holiness, exercising supreme love to God, and impartial love to men; that men are justified by faith only through the atonement of Christ; that the Holy Spirit is God, and is the author of all actual holiness in our fallen race; and that, unless men, in this life, are radically and essentially changed in the temper of their hearts, they will, in the future life, be punished endlessly. The Liberal system is maintained, with some modification, by two classes of nominal Christians, the Unitarians and the Universalists. You will perceive by the sequel, that both of these classes embrace essentially the same doctrines. They both resort to the same arguments in defending their opinions; are both opposed, diametrically, and, in substance, equally, to the system of the Orthodox; are both regarded by the Orthodox, as really, and, in the same manner, dangerous; in your town, and in many other places, the advocates of both are harmoniously united in one religious society, under one minister, whom they equally approve. They may, therefore, both be ranked under the same title,-a title, for which, both, with equal zeal, contend.

The peculiar doctrines of Universalism are,—that man by nature has in his heart some moral goodness; that he is not required to

change entirely his affections with regard to God, and other beings; and that all men, virtuous or vicious, will, in some way, be eventually saved. The peculiar doctrines of Unitarianism are, that our Saviour is infinitely inferior to God, and did not, in any proper sense, make an atonement for the sins of men; that the Holy Spirit is not a divine Person; that man has by nature, some moral goodness in his heart; and that he is not required to change, entirely, his affections from selfishness to benevolence. On the sub-ject of the duration of future punishment, the Unitarians have not so generally and unequivocally declared their opinion. Some expressly deny the doctrine of endless punishment. Others have in their pulpits, and published writings, expressed no opinion on the subject; nor is there any evidence that they believe the doctrine. As a denomination, no Unitarian, I presume, will censure me for saying, they disbelieve the doctrine of future endless punishment.

It is then, Sir, I suppose, obvious to you, that Unitarianism and Universalism, (though not, in all cases, alike explicit on the same points,) in their characteristic, essential points, so nearly agree, that they may, as to all practical purposes, and without impropriety, be denominated one system; and that this system, styled the Liberal system, is, in its characteristic, essential points, entirely dif ferent, and directly contrary to the system, denominated Orthodox. Which then, of these contrary systems, is the true one? To answer this question, you will not inquire first and solely of your own reason. You will remember, that God knows, better than man, whether we have naturally no true holiness, whether we must be born again, and whether any will go away into everlasting punishment. Go then, to the sacred Scriptures, and compare both of these systems with this unerring standard; and when you have ascertained which of them God has taught in his word, you will be prepared to decide, and to act vigorously for God and for his truth.

You will next proceed to examine the comparative influence of the two systems on the conduct of men. Here it is to be remembered, that, even on the supposition, that each system is, to a limited extent, beneficial, when considered separately from the other; still, if the Liberal be found more beneficial than the Orthodox, or the Orthodox more beneficial than the Liberal, when viewed in comparison with the opposite system, then, in either case, the latter must be pronounced injurious. For it robs mankind of a greater good, which, but for it, would, in the case supposed, have been conferred. Whether each system, viewed by itself, is to be regarded as, to some extent, beneficial, I shall not stop to inquire. For the sake of facilitating the investigation which I recommend, I propose that, instead of inquiring, simply, which is the useful, and which the hurtful system; you inquire, which is the more useful of the two, and which the more hurtful.

And here it is necessary that you constantly bear in mind the correct idea of a beneficial, and of an injurious system of theology. A beneficial system, you instantly say, is that, which produces good effects; and an injurious system is that which produces bad effects. But what are good effects, and what bad effects? Good effects are, humble and habitual prayer to God; delight in meditating on his character, in reading his word, and attending to his ordinances; activity, and self-denial for the promotion of his cause; exertions to benefit our fellow beings, by sending to the destitute the pure Gospel, by imparting religious instruction to those who need it, particularly to the young, and by relieving the temporal wants of the poor and distressed. These effects are the best effects that can be produced on society. Reason teaches, the Bible teaches, that there can be no effects better than these. The example of all good men teaches the same. No one ever performed these duties aright, without meeting the approbation of God; and no one who neglected the right performance of them, when the performance was possible, ever received the divine approbation. These are the duties, the disposition to perform which, constitutes supreme love to God, and good will to men. The opposite to these duties are bad effects. Neglect of prayer, and religious meditation; inattention to the Bible, and the ordinances of God; refusal to deny one's self for the cause of God, and to exert one's self for the good, both spiritual and temporal, of men; all these are pernicious effects, even of heathen mythology, and vastly more so, of professed Christian revelation.

I am aware, that there have been licentious, and, among all candid men, ill reputed writers, who have sophistically started doubts, whether the duties which have been enumerated, can be safely denominated good effects; and whether a system which produces them, can be called more beneficial than one which produces them not. That is not the beneficial system, say such writers, which secures the performance of these specific duties; but that system is the beneficial one which promotes, in the general, love to God, and good will to men; which induces men to live as our Saviour lived. But is not love to God the same feeling with a disposition to converse with God, and extend his cause? Is not love to men identically the same feeling with a disposition to promote their temporal and eternal good? And what was the life of our Saviour, but a life of prayer, of self-denial, of philanthropic exertion, and, emphatically, of missionary enterprise? The life of Christ is a complete exhibition of all the duties which I have mentioned they are all expressions of supreme love to God, and good will to men. And no one would ever think of making a difference between these duties and love to God and man, but for the desire to hide the deformities of a character, by diverting the mind, from particular and definite objects of contemplation, to a vague and general conception.

« AnteriorContinuar »