LECTURE IV. HERESY, BIGOTRY, AND CHARITY. 2 2 Peter ii. 1, 2. But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction. And many shall follow their pernicious ways, by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of. WHAT intolerable bigotry! How illiberal and uncharitable ! What a lamentable want of the spirit of Christ! Surely it would have been much better, if Peter had confined himself to expounding the Sermon on the Mount, or the Parables, and enforcing moral duties, instead of "hurling damnation at his fellow creatures," and "consigning people to hell for mistaken opinions." But St. Paul is, if possible, more arrogant still; for he sets up his own preaching as the standard which every one is to follow, with the most awful denunciations against any, who should dare to think for themselves, or presume to differ from him in doctrine-" But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal i. 8. And even John, the mild and affectionate John, the disciple whom Jesus loved, and who leant upon his breast at supper, the apostle whose writings speak of nothing but love, actually commands, "If there come any unto you and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him* God speed." 2 John, 10. How refreshing to turn from the bigotry and intolerance of Peter, Paul, and John, to the enlightened liberal sentiments of the present day! "Our system (I lay stress on the word "our" to mark the contrast between it and the apostles' system)—" Our system," writes Dr. Armstrong, a Unitarian minister in Dublin, "is one of unlimited charity, and Christian love. We do not indeed pretend to say, that it is the only way to heaven: God forbid that we should have such presumption! but we maintain that as a system of peace and charity, it redounds more to the honour of Christ, than any system which engenders animosity and strife. With cheerfulness and cordiality we are ready to clasp the hand of every pious believer in every Church, and to hail him as our Christian brother. And though we think it our duty to vindicate our religions freedom, to set forth firmly our own view's I understand this, with most commentators, as referring only to false teachers, persons who came to the place to propagate their doctrines. To have afforded accommodation to such would of course have been assisting them in their evil work. D of religious truth; yet believing that every pious, sincere, and upright disciple of every Church and sect is on the path that conducts to eternal life," &c. &c. How perfectly agreeable this is with all the feelings of our nature! How instinctively we sympathise with its loving spirit, and recoil from the stern declarations of the apostles! And no wonder; for our nature is fallen, "the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God," and "the carnal mind is enmity against God." We therefore naturally choose the evil and refuse the good." I am sure there is not a person here, who, if he considered the sentiments of Peter or Paul to be of no higher authority than those of Dr. Armstrong, would not reject the former as abominably bigoted, and admire the latter as delightfully charitable. A man must acknowledge the Bible to be the word of God, and his will must be conformed to God's will, before he can feel the falseness, and the danger, of sentiments so congenial to human nature. This system of "universal charity" is, perhaps more strikingly than any thing else, the very spirit of the age. I believe that very much both in and out of Parliament, that looks like a leaning to Popery, proceeds mainly from the popular infidel notion of all religions being equally right and good. Romanists are thought to have been the most oppressed, and therefore, to make all fair, they must have a little extra favour shown them. Nay, even Popery itself is obliged to swim with the stream, and wear the mask of liberalism. Nearly every one's motto is For modes of faith let graceless bigots fight, Let a man only subscribe to this, and no one will find fault with him, whatever he may profess to believe or disbelieve; "all men will speak well of him." This is especially the case with Unitarians; indeed they boast of it, as one of the loveliest features in their system. The most extraordinary instance however of extremes meeting is to be found in two statements of Mr., Barker's on this subject. When writing against a Calvinist in one of his tracts he says, "that bad as infidelity is, there is no form of infidelity with which I am acquainted, so horrible, so unnatural, so utterly infernal and devilish, as this calvinistic theology, which he has hired himself to preach." Now observe, he does not say that a Calvinist, who dishonours his Christian profession, is worse than an Infidel; but that Calvinistic theology is worse than Infidelity. Well, you will say, this does not look much like universal charity. But stop; there's something more. Hear what he says, when arguing with Mr. Cooke on the question, What is a Christian? His object now is-not to vilify a particular creed, but-to show that a belief of certain doctrines is not essential to Christianity, and that a man may believe almost anything, and yet be a Christian. He therefore tells us, that 66 a man may be a Christian, and yet be a Quaker, a Baptist, a Methodist, a Calvinist." Again, "He may be a Calvinist, a Methodist, a Baptist, a Quaker, a Trinitarian, an AntiTrinitarian, and have faith in Jesus as the Messiah; and be sincere in heart, and sound in the faith." So that a man may hold doctrines worse than the worst form of Infidelity, and yet be a Christian, sincere in heart, and SOUND IN THE FAITH!! Now I should like to know, whether a man who holds such an opinion, is likely to be at all particular about what he believes himself, or to examine his own faith very earnestly and prayerfully. Rely upon it, this is one main cause of a vast deal of the heresy and infidelity around us. People do not believe, that there is any sin in heresy, or at all events that there is such a thing in the world as a "damnable heresy"; they think it's very little matter what a man's creed is, if he only acts up to it; they are quite sure no one will be condemned for not believing right, as long as he is sincere and virtuous: and therefore they are not afraid of listening to all sorts of false teachers; they go to the bible "without the slightest fear of the result," instead of "trembling at God's word," and earnestly seeking the Spirit's guidance, as on a matter of life and death. Can we wonder at the consequence? The subject then being so important, let us bring the popular doctrine of sincerity to the test of scripture. We may begin with Prov. xvi. 25. "There is a way that seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death." Čan anything be more plain and positive? But Jesus mentions a particular instance of it; "The time cometh" he tells his disciples "when whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service." John xvi. 2. Now here our Lord asserts that the murderers of his saints would act from sincere and upright motives; but does any one suppose that they were therefore free from blame? Yes, Mr. Barker does! In the noted case of Saul of Tarsus, afterwards Paul the apostle, he actually tells us, that his receiving the apostleship was a reward for the sincerity and zeal he displayed in what he thought was the cause of God, when he persecuted Christians unto death!* But let us see whether Paul himself viewed it in this light. In the first place he says, "I have lived in all good conscience before God unto this day." Now many divines think that he only meant-since his conversion: but the words seem much more naturally to refer to his whole life; and besides, saying that he lived in all good conscience" was nothing more than saying, he had acted conscientiously; and this is nothing more than what he unquestionably says in another place, "I verily thought that I ought to do many things against Jesus of Nazareth. So far then is clear; Saul did act sincerely or conscientiously in his persecutions. And now how does he de This is in his discussion with Mr. Cooke. I forget the page; but I observed it so particularly, that I am quite sure the above conveys exactly his meaning. scribe his conduct to Timothy? “And I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who hath enabled me, for that he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry; who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious; but I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. And the grace of our Lord was exceeding abundant, with faith and love which is in Christ Jesus. This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief. Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might show forth all long suffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting." 1 Tim. i. 12-16. The two expressions" for that he counted me faithful," and "because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," taken alone, might seem to favour Mr. Barker's theory; but such an interpretation of them would be so directly opposed to the whole drift of the passage, that it is absolutely impossible to adopt it. There was something in the character of Saul, which he here describes by the word "faithful," that God saw would make him a valuable apostle, when turned in a right direction. This no doubt was his zeal, perseverance, ardour, and impetuosity: but that there was any merit in all this, as he had hitherto used it, we altogether deny, and shall prove it. The simple fact was, that Saul was a man, who would serve faithfully whatever master he followed. He had hitherto served the devil faithfully, and the Lord knew, that when converted he would serve Him faithfully. As to the other expression-"because I did it ignorantly in unbelief," there can be little doubt of his meaning. If he had really believed Jesus to be the Messiah, and therefore run to such a length of wickedness wilfully and knowingly, it might have amounted to the unpardonable sin against the Holy Ghost, and so have become impossible for him to "obtain mercy." No one pretends to say, that sin committed in ignorance is as great as the same sin committed against light and knowledge: but instead of Saul's conduct commending him to God, and deserving a reward, he represents it as so heinous, that it was only "because he did it ignorantly in unbelief" that he was not beyond the pale of mercy altogether. And surely this one word "mercy" is quite enough of itself to overthrow Mr. Barker's theory for ever; for no conduct can require mercy, that does not deserve punishment. If Saul had deserved a reward, what could he want with mercy? The two things are flatly contradictory. The sum and substance then of this account of himself is this;-that, although he had throughout acted conscientiously and sincerely, yet he was "the chief of sinners," and his obtaining mercy was a special instance of the long-suffering and exceeding abundant grace of God. But we shall be reminded of the text, "If our heart condemn us not, then have we confidence towards God." I John iii. 21. A most striking instance this, of the necessity of "comparing spiritual things with spiritual," and the danger of drawing conclusions from single texts without reference to the general testimony of scripture: for St. Paul says, "I know nothing by myself; yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord." 1 Cor. iv. 4. Every Greek scholar knows that the words, "I know nothing by myself," mean-I am not conscious of anything; that is, he was not conscious of living in any allowed wilful sin; in other words-his heart did not condemn him. Yet am I not hereby justified, but he that judgeth me is the Lord": he had "confidence "-not in himself, not in his own heart, but-"towards God." "The heart" naturally "is deceitful above all things and desperately wicked; who can know it?" Jer. xvii. 9, And therefore "he that trusteth in his own heart is a fool." Prov. xxviii. 26. The heart must be changed by converting grace, it must be enlightened and sanctified by the Holy Ghost, before it can give a true verdict. If our heart then condemn us not, if notwithstanding all our short comings and infirmities and corruptions, we are conscious of an earnest desire to do God's will, and to be delivered from the bondage of sin, "then have we confidence towards God," we have a satisfactory proof, that we belong to Christ's family, and therefore possess an interest in his atonement. 66 So far with regard to the general subject of sincerity.-But let us come to the definite question, Is it possible for any one to be condemned, solely for holding false doctrine? Hear the teaching of Christ, when he sent forth his apostles; "Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature; he that believeth and is baptized shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned." Matt. xvi. 16. Here our Lord solemnly condemns all who do not believe what? Why of course the gospel which he sent the apostles to preach. Were the apostles afraid of telling their hearers this? Were they afraid of being called bigoted and presumptuous? Let St. Paul answer; "I marvel that ye are so soon removed 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 ye have received, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, if any man preach any other gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed." Gal. i. 9. There is no affectation here of "universal charity," and enlightened liberalism. Hear also what he says in the 5th chapter of the same Epistle, verse 19; "Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, HERESIES, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not in |