known; "repentance to the acknowledging of the truth" would more frequently have crowned the contest; and the religion which had such advocates would more likely have been accepted, as worthy of its high claim to be divine.

Our readers will understand from these remarks, that we trace the evils complained of to the manner of controversy, not to controversy itself, which, properly conducted, we be lieve would be productive of good only. Controversy is that power which presides over the labors of the Essayist, of the Chair of Philosophy, and of the Pulpit; which subjects, indeed, all doubtful propositions to the crucible of reason; which brings truth into the light of demonstration, and tears from error the veil of plausibility, which ignorance and sophistry have cast over it. It begins in criticism, by calling opinions in question, which, if erroneous, it exposes and refutes ; but which, if true, it only serves to confirm, by affording an occasion for displaying the evidence before the world. Disputing opinions which would otherwise be received by many on authority, and provoking a rejoinder, it brings up a re-investigation, and, in the end, strips error of its covering, and establishes the truth on a firmer basis.

There is one effect of controversy, in respect to which observing men are divided in opinion; some hold. ing it to be a serious evil, and others regarding it with indulgence-we refer to the agitation of the public mind. It will disturb the peace of church, is a sufficient reason in the opinion of some for suppressing discussion, by any lawful means, on questions which are likely to divide and excite the community. Others regarding a dead calm as a greater evil than the fiercest excitement, are pleased to accept a theological controversy with all the sad consequences of the hottest conflict, for the sake of the clearer sky, which is ex

pected to succeed the storm. We confess ourselves in sympathy with the latter class, rather than the former. We have less dread of a mountain torrent than of a stagnant pool; the one may swell into a deso. lating flood, but the other may breed a pestilence still more destructive. We concede too much, however, when we compare religious controversy to a destructive flood. It is controversy, as it has been too generally conducted, not as it should be, to which this comparison is ap plicable. There is something, we confess, in the very nature of con troversy, to awaken animosity; for opposition to one's cherished opin ions can never be agreeable, even if it should be conducted with perfect amenity and good breeding. But there is for this very reason a greater necessity of shunning every thing needlessly offensive to the other party.

In the exposition which we propose to offer, of the laws of controversy, we disclaim the pretension of novelty. We profess to have made no discoveries, and to have no views, which might not readily occur, on reflection, to any mind. We believe, however, that Christians generally have no well defined and settled views of the law of Christ on this subject, or of the extent to which it is violated by controversial wri ters; and we should be glad to aid in forming a correct public sentiment in respect to it, which no man, who values his reputation, would dare disregard.

Before defining the rule of duty on this subject, we would notice the relations of the controvertist to the truth.

The parties to a controversy may both be in error on the general subject at issue. History furnishes abundant illustrations of this fact. Those controversies in which the champions for the divine right of Presbytery contend against the equally exclusive claims of Epis copacy, belong to this category.

Neither party stood on tenable ground. They were right in denying each other's claims, while neither could maintain his own. Many of the fiercest conflicts have been waged upon points which could on neither side be established, and which, in some cases, were too frivolous to merit the least contention. Those who have inflamed the worst passions in the church, by violent controversy on such insufficient grounds, have a fearful account to render at the last day. It is manifest that all such controversies ought to cease.

But though both parties may possibly be contending for error, both can not be on the side of truth. One party, at least, must be designedly or undesignedly expending his energies against the cause of his master. The controvertist is therefore engaged in a business of terrible responsibility, on which assuredly no conscientious man will enter without fervent prayer, and careful study, lest he should be found fighting against God.

Both parties-the advocate of truth and his opponent-stand in one and the same relation to the law of Christ, in respect to the spirit and the manner of controversy. They are both within the pale of nominal Christianity. They both profess, though sometimes with serious qualifications, to take the Bible as their standard. They at least profess to be Christians; and their object in controversy is to commend their particular views of Christianity to the belief of others. Self-consistency, therefore, as well as other considerations, demand of them a sacred regard for the Christian law of controversy. The conviction that our opponent is a heretic, and an enemy of Christ, is no excuse for unchristian feelings toward him. Knowing what his views are-knowing, also, that they fail in his case to produce good fruit-we may have no confidence in his professions. Still this will not justify us in conVOL. VI.

68

ducting the controversy with him in an unchristian spirit. It is rather in such a case the more necessary, for the honor of our own better faith, that we should avoid giving just cause of prejudice by any breach of the Christian law of controversy.

The law of Christ, in respect to controversy, may be learned from his own example, and from the precepts of his word. His example is a safe guide. He was often, during his ministry, in controversy with the most unreasonable men. But in no instance do we find him resort to sophistry in defense and advocacy of the truth. He never seeks to silence an adversary by appeals to popular hatred. He never indulges in ridicule. He never misrepre sents the opinions of others; never puts a false construction on their conduct; is never guilty of deceit. Though he could not be deterred by fear from uttering the truth, he could not even speak the truth for the pleasure of inflicting pain by it. He came into the world on an errand of love, not to the righteous, but to the wicked; not to friends, but to enemies; and their opposition to him, even to the shedding of his blood, never damped in the least the ardor of his charity. In this spirit only-the spirit of love-is it law. ful for us to assume in the church the work of controversy. In this spirit of Christ we should imitate the example of Christ. We should hesitate to employ, in defense of his cause, any weapon which he, in his integrity or wisdom, refrained from using. So far as his example has force as a law to us, the path of duty is plain. But he has made it still plainer in his word. He tells us, by his Apostle, 2 Tim. 2: 24-26, that "The servant of the Lord must not strive, but be gentle to all men ; apt to teach; patient; in meekness instructing them that oppose themselves, if God will peradventure give them repentance to the acknow. ledging of the truth." What a dif

ferent spectacle from this do most theological combatants present to the gaze of the world! One would judge from their pages, that meekness is the last grace to be exercised in controversy; and patience next to the last. Victory seems to be their sole aim, and any means, how ever dishonorable, of accomplishing so good an end, they appear to think quite pardonable. Were we to accept the account which they give of each other as correct, we must consider both parties destitute, not only of Christian principle, but of common honesty. We have known intentional misrepresentation abundantly charged, and, in some cases, proved upon men, who, in any office but that of defenders of the faith, would be esteemed worthy of all credit. Were we to suppress this fact, especially were we to deny it, lest it should reflect some dishonor upon religion, we should be guilty of the very crime which we condemn. The history of the Christian Church, if written as it has actually passed under the eye of Omniscience, would probably reveal moral obliquities in good men, that would overwhelm us with astonishment and shame; yet it should be added to the honor of Christianity, that she extends no countenance to this wickedness of her professors. It is the dishonor of human nature, not of religion, that even the renewing grace of God does not at once raise mankind to a state of immaculate purity. We know of no other way of accounting for the particular obliquity of which we speak, but to suppose there is still lurking in the Protestant church that most corrupt principle, that the end sanctifies the means. This we have been accustomed to regard as the peculiar corruption of the church of Rome; yet Protest ants are certainly sadly infected by it. Nor is it very difficult to account for the fact. Good men are easily drawn, by a desire to do good, into approbation of what seems to them

A meas

the most efficient means. ure of seeming utility, though unlawful, is seldom regarded with unmingled disapprobation. It was, we may charitably suppose, under this blinding influence, that good men in the early age of Christianity, fabri cated epistles and memoirs in the names of apostles and saints, and published them to the world as genuine works. Their object was to check the spread of heresy; and to do so great a good by what appeared to them to be a harmless artifice, occasioned them, probably, no very painful compunctions.

The same perversion of the mor al sense has left its mark upon most of the controversial writings of the church. We do not, it is true, seek to carry our points by the forgery of books, for this in our day is impracticable; but we have not discarded all artifice, all misrepresen⚫ tation, all false issues, all dishonest argumentation. Nor are we entirely above the use of ridicule, and even of vituperation, for the better accomplishment of our good work. What a severe reproof do these the ological wars deserve! What a different manner of controversy is inculcated in the Scriptures! The passage just cited, it is true, can be applied only in the way of accommodation to the controversies of which we are treating. It has pri mary reference to the manner in which Timothy was to meet the opposition of unbelievers; but there is the same reason, and even a stronger reason why this conciliatory manner should be observed in the controversies of the church. The work to be done-the giving of instruction -is the same in both cases. The end to be accomplished, so far as the opposer himself is concerned, is the same; but in religious controversy there is this further object to be gained, which indeed is the paramount object, the conviction of the community before which the discussion is brought. That manner of

controversy which is best fitted to effect a change in the views of our immediate antagonist, and secure a recantation of his errors, is the most likely to make a favorable impression on other minds. We are aware that the conversion of a controversial writer is not ordinarily to be expected; certainly not his public recantation. When this can be effected, it is the highest possible testimony to the force of truth; and it insures the completest success to the victorious party. And this achievment would not be so rare if the controversies of the church were conducted in the spirit of the apostolic injunction: "In meekness in structing." To instruct is to set the truth before the mind undiminished, unexaggerated, undistorted, uncolored; and to do this patiently, gently, in words that appease wrath, disarm prejudice and win regard, is to instruct with meekness. The manner of the controvertist, the Apostle insists, should be entirely respectful toward his opponents; not arrogant, not overbearing, not acrimonious, but calm, gentle and courteous; free from every thing calculated to irritate, and rich in whatever is fitted to disarm prejudice and attract approbation. He should endeavor to make his argument strong, that it may be convincing; and conviction can not fail to give pain wherever it is unwelcome. For this he is not responsible. It is the wanton wounding of his opponent's sensibilities by bad manners, or offending his sense of justice by misrepresentation, which the law of Christ forbids.

But this law has a deeper application. Like all other divine laws, it lays its hand on the heart; it requires the controvertist to answer in character to the outward conduct which is demanded of him. The evils of controversy spring for the most part out of the spirit of the controvertist. The radical fault is that he enters on his work, not as a Christian, with tru

ly Christian affections, motives and purposes; not impelled by a simple love of truth, but by pride, envy, and malice; not overflowing with compassion for errorists, but burning with wrath against them. This is the common spirit of controversy, even if it is often begun and conducted in a better temper. The polemic leaves his Christian character behind him when he enters the lists; and it is with difficulty he finds it when he comes out of the conflict. He fights the whole battle in an implacable, unmerciful spirit; rejoicing in the wounds which he inflicts; and caring more for his own reputation as a combatant, than for the cause of truth. Inflamed with such passions, it is not wonderful that he meets resistance. The wrath which burns in his own bosom, he excites in the breast of his antagonist. Restrained, it may be, by the laws of good breeding from vulgar abuse, he still betrays the bitter enmity of his heart; the repellency of which drives him and his antagonist farther asunder, and more hopelessly, with every blow that is struck. The parties may be unable to convict each other of intentional misrepresentation, but they can not mistake each other's spirit; and so lose their confidence in each other's Christian character. And with this spirit, the tendency to unfair argumentation and to incivilities of Protean shape, is generally too strong to be resisted. How contrary all this is to the law of Christ, is manifest from the words of the Apostle, as well as from the example of the Master himself. "The servant of the Lord," he tells us," must not strive, but be gentle to all men, apt to teach, patient; in meekness instructing." Gentleness, patience, and meekness, are qualities of a true Christian mind, never found conjoined at the same time, with pride, bitterness and wrath.

What the Bible thus teaches us is the law of controversy, requiring

of the disputant the spirit of love that reigned in his divine Master, and a manner corresponding with it, may also be learned from its manifest adaptation to the end to be attained. The controvertist seeks to convince his opponent, or at least to refute his errors to the conviction of those who witness the debate. He considers himself to be on the side of truth, and he wishes to produce the same conviction in the minds of others. The prejudices of his antagonist he may possibly despair of overcoming; but he is especially anxious to carry the more important point of convincing the community. These objects can be gain ed only by appropriate means; by argument and ornament adapted to convince and conciliate. Calumny and misrepresentation tend rather to confirm the previous impressions of an opponent, than to convince him of his errors; and the effect upon others is no better. We begin at once to suspect the goodness of a cause which we discover to be defended by unfair and dishonorable arts. He is an enemy of the truth who attempts to promote it by bad manners; he is its worst enemy who would defend it by deceit. The best policy is to aim directly at the conviction of our readers, not at the confusion of our antagonist; and while we demonstrate the folly of his opinions, we should endeavor to conciliate the good will of himself and his friends, and to relieve them from the embarrassment of defeat by our courteous bearing. Gener osity to a conquered enemy always inspires respect for the conqueror. We need not therefore fear that the cause of truth will be made to suffer by civility to the errorist. If we would disarm him and accomplish the easiest victory, we must spare him the mortification, and our. selves the degradation, of an insult. Our strength lies in the weight of our arguments in the force of reason-not in our power of satire; not

in the vivacity and keenness of our wit. To hold our adversary up to the public gaze in any false light, awak. ens in him and his supporters a sense of injustice; to make him smart under the lash of sarcasm, provokes a spirit of retaliation in him, and awakens sympathy for him in the community. Whoever resorts to such devices to gain the victory, is sure to suffer with a discerning public. Not only will he fail to gain a brother in the person of his antagonist, he will be likely, instead of refuting his errors to the satisfaction of all, to raise up a party to support him. It is a pity if he is set for the defense of the truth, for it will surely suffer in his hands. These words of the Apostle, "ia meekness instructing them that oppose themselves, if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth”—are an inspired testimony to the preeminent adaptation of a generous and urbane manner to accomplish the true ends of controversy.

These ends are lost sight of by many controversial writers. They seem to regard their opponents, not as rational beings involved in error from which it is a virtue to recover them, but as criminals who deserve to be publicly immolated as a warning to other errorists. They wage a war of extermination against ev ery dissentient from the received faith, pursuing him as an outlaw whom it would be a crime to spare; hoping, if they can not crush him into conformity, at least to intimi date others by the violence of their assault. They design to suppress error by intimidation; and in effect warn every one who has a new thought struggling for utterance, to bury it in his own bosom, on pain of being held up to public reprobation as a pestilent heretic. This attempt to stifle free inquiry, by establishing a reign of terror over the mind, ef fectually prevents many men of acute sensibilities from publishing