And this is agreeable to the counsel of the wisest and best of men.
Mr. Adam, an eminently pious minister in England, who died in 1784, in his “Thoughts on Religion,” says, “We should study only the good of others, let them do what they will to us. If I aim at the real spiritual improvement of those I converse with, I shall never say any thing to irritate or vex them, but keep a constant guard on myself. Speaking evil of others at all, unless it be to prevent mischief to religion, or our neighbor, proceeds from pride. Say all the good you can of all; but if you would have ill spoken of any, turn that office to the devil.”
Cudworth said, “Truth and love are two of the most powerful things in the world, and when they both go together, they cannot easily be withstood. The golden beams of truth, and the silken cords of love twisted together, will draw men on with a sweet violence, whether they will or no.”
“Certainly,” says Bishop Hall, “God abides none but charitable dissensions; those that are well grounded and well governed; grounded upon just causes, and governed with Christian charity and wise moderation; those whose beginning is equity, and end is peace. If we must differ, let these be the conditions; let every one of God’s ministers be ambitious of that praise which Gregory Nazianzen gave to Athanasius; to be an adamant to them that strike him, and a loadstone to them that dissent from him; the one not to be moved with wrong, the other to draw those hearts which disagree. So the fruit of righteousness shall be sown in peace of them that make peace. So the God of peace shall have glory, the church of God rest, and our souls, unspeakable joy and consolation in the day of the appearing of our Lord Jesus.”
“It is,” says a respectable writer, “impossible to entertain sentiments of true friendship, towards those whom we are in the practice of maligning every day.” Milner, in his Church History, says, “Satire and invective are plants of rapid growth in the malignant soil of human nature.”
Rev. Mr. Jenkins, in his remarks on the Report submitted to the Senate of the United States, on the petitions presented to Congress, praying that the mails might not be transmitted through the country on the Sabbath, says, “They who are honestly concerned to preserve the sanctity of the Sabbath, can cherish no other than sentiments of heart-felt kindness towards the author of this report. Their disagreement with him on a subject of such vital and enduring interest, would prove it the offspring of some of the very lowest principles which govern human conduct, were it to lead them to return railing for railing.”
Some attempt to justify harsh language from the example of Luther. But besides the change in the times and the style of controversy, it ought to be recollected that Luther himself condemned what they adduce as a justification for the use of such language. “In my books of a polemical nature,” said he, “I avow, that I have been more violent and bitter than suits my religion and my robe.”
The distinguished Christian poet, Cowper, in a letter to Rev. John Newton, said, “No man was ever scolded out of his sins. The heart, corrupt as it is—and because it is so—grows angry if it be not treated with some management and good manners, and scolds again. A surly mastiff will perhaps bear to be poked, though he will growl even under that operation, but if you touch him roughly, he will bite. There is no grace that the spirit of self can counterfeit with more success than a religious zeal. A man thinks he is fighting for Christ, and he is fighting for his own notions. He thinks that he is skilfully searching the hearts of others, when he is only gratifying the malignity of his own; and charitably supposes his hearers destitute of all grace, that he may shine the more in his own eyes by the comparison. When he has performed this notable task, he wonders that they are not convicted. He has given it to them soundly, and if they do not tremble and confess that God is in them of a truth, he gives them up as reprobate, incorrigible, and lost forever. But the man that loves me, if he sees me in an error, will pity me, and endeavor calmly to convince me of it, and persuade me to forsake it. If he has great and good news to tell me, he will not do it angrily and in much heat and discomposure of spirit. It is not therefore easy to conceive on what ground a minister can justify a conduct which only proves that he does not understand his errand. The absurdity of it would certainly strike him, if he were not himself deluded.”
Ministers undoubtedly sometimes greatly injure their usefulness by their harshness of expression, and the want of a kind and conciliatory address. The abolition enterprise is often said to be “the cause of God,” and a “holy cause.” If so, it ought surely to be defended and sustained by “spiritual,” and not “carnal weapons.” And some of the advocates of the cause deeply feel this. William Ladd, the distinguished Advocate of Peace, in a letter addressed some months since to an Anti-slavery Meeting in Portsmouth, which he was invited to attend, says, “If I were present among you, I should say—let every thing be done in LOVE, not only to the poor down-trodden slave, but to his oppressor, and to the slaves of prejudice, ‘forbearing threatening.’ The chains of the slave may be melted off by the fire of love, but they cannot be severed by the sledge hammer of violence.”
Many abolitionists, instead of manifesting the meek, mild and forbearing spirit of Him who, “when he was reviled not again,” have too often displayed the spirit of party politicians. But even some of the politicians of the day seem to be convinced of the impropriety of treating opponents with rudeness. After the close of a four weeks’ session of the Legislature of Rhode Island, in 1838, it was said, “Not an angry or offensive personality has been uttered by any member.”