Posted here in honor of Rev. Michael Spangler, a “troubler of Israel” for the love of Israel and its God in truth. HT: Michael Hunter
From "A Pastoral Letter by the Associate Presbytery of the Carolinas to the People Under Their Care" (1826):
One of those popular sentiments, by which the light of divine truth is obscured, its influence weakened, and its authority set aside, is, That we should not disturb the peace of the church by contending for divine truth and institutions. This sentiment is urged with much vehemence and apparent christian zeal, and followed by a correspondent practice. If, however, the zeal expended for this sentiment, were employed, without its attendant acrimony, in defence of truth, it might be useful.
There is, perhaps, no one error, so fatal in its consequences as this popular principle, because, not only may every error, however gross, be introduced under its shield, but it takes away the church's weapon of defence. The sentiment is plausible, but neither the dictate of divine authority, or of sound reason. To shew that it flatly contradicts the holy scripture, it is sufficient only to ask, Did the prophets, apostles, or our Lord himself act on this principle? or did they teach it? Did not Elijah contend for pure worship, and ordinances? Did not Josiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and others contend for God's truth and law? and were they not under express injunctions to do so? Who can read Ezekiel's instructions, chapter 33, without surprise at the popularity of the sentiment we oppose? Did not our Lord himself warn and reprove? did he not maintain, against opponents, the perfection of the divine law, and the purity of divine worship? for an example, see Mark vii. 1-13. And do not all the apostles warn, and reprove, and enjoin this as a duty on all gospel ministers? Did not Paul reprove Peter himself, and that openly? Did he not forewarn Timothy, that the time would come, when they would not endure sound doctrine, but would with itching ears, heap up to themselves teachers? Was not this his time to warn Timothy not to reprove error, if such silence had been a christian duty indeed? But on the contrary, his solemn charge, was to reprove, rebuke, and exhort; to watch in all things; to endure afflictions; to make full proof of his ministry: II. Tim. iv. 1-5. And again, of what spirit are the last admonitions of Christ to the churches of Asia? But time would fail in noting authorities. The holy scriptures give no instructions to gospel ministers, if injunctions to warn, admonish, and reprove, are not given.
Connected with the above sentiment, it is urged, That an error introduced, or held by a professed believer, should be spared; that charity requires forbearance respecting his mistakes. But error is seldom introduced into the church by any other. It is not generally the professed infidel that makes the innovation. It was not such that introduced and supported errors among the Galatians, and became the objects of Paul's severe reproofs. It is not the professed infidel, that shall, according to prophecy, in the latter days, give heed to seducing spirits: 1 Tim. iv. 1. Nor was it the professed infidel, whom Isaiah had commission to warn and reprove: Isa. lviii. 1. Cry aloud, spare not; lift up thy voice like a trumpet, and shew my people their transgression, and the house of Jacob their sins.
But is it said these were notorious sinners, and under gross apostacy? not more so, than many, who are found at present, pleading for this silence. Give the former their claims, which are as well founded as the latter. Are those whom we reprove, church members? so were the objects of Isaiah's reproof. Do our opponents wear the appearance of piety? so did they. “Yet they seek me daily, and delight to know my ways, as a nation that did righteousness, and forsook not the ordinance of their God: they ask of me the ordinance of justice; they take delight in approaching to God.” Isa. lviii. 2.
Or whom did our Lord, when on earth, reprove with severity? were they not the professors of religion? members of a church of high and ancient privilege? But an end is put to all contention for truth, and such injunctions of holy scripture must be unmeaning, or inapplicable and useless, if the doctrines and institutions of God's word, must not be supported, when they are neglected, or opposed by professors of religion.
Besides, Satan has nothing to do, in order to introduce any error, with which he chooses to subvert the church, but to employ a professor of religion for this purpose. He can thus introduce it with impunity, when it is sheltered from the reproofs of holy scripture by its patron; and with more plausibility and efficiency for the purpose of deception; because it is clothed with the appearance of sanctity, and protected by the name of piety.
Nor is it unworthy of notice, that if all this plea for unconditional peace were well founded, our reforming forefathers were most uncharitable, narrow-minded, and unchristian in their spirit, in contending against Popery, Prelacy, Arminianism, and Socinianism, and we should yet have been enveloped in the darkness of the 15th century. No excuse for their conduct is possible, if the objection, which we oppose be admitted. They opposed a church of the greatest antiquity, and boasting of numerous saints; they continued their opposition, under the severest charges of a spirit of division, of irreligion, and a want of charity. If we only contend for the truth, and against error, charges against us, of illiberality and want of charity, are of the same spirit with those against our forefathers.
