Parrhesia, or Christian and Ministerial Freedom of Speech [pp. 312-336]

Parrhesia.
fanatical delusion. That is to say, some men become the enemies of those to whom they speak the truth, because they purposely excite their enmity, or so present the truth that it cannot but excite it. This they do upon the principle that the
truth must be odious to the unregenerate, and that it cannot
therefore be supposed to have made its way into the mind at
all, unless its presence there is proved by the production of this
natural effect. They also justify their course by the example
of our Lord himself, in that peculiar method of instruction
which has been already mentioned, as apparently intended to
shock the prejudices of his hearers. The truth and falsehood
blended in this reasoning may be brought to light by simply
stating, that the course in question would be altogether wise
and right, if he who pursues it were the head, and not an humble member of the Church. The case of one who founds a new
religion, and of one who is appointed to maintain it, or extend
it, must be altogether different. When those who claim to follow Christ's example as to this point, can assert their possession of his power to distinguish between good and evil, they
may safely follow his example rather than his positive command, but not till then. In the meantime, all attempts to
excite the opposition of the human heart, as a desirable object
in itself, or an essential means to some ulterior end, must continue to be branded as fanatical presumption.
Such are some of the ways in which men may, through their
own deficiency or fault, become the enemies of those to whom
they really and faithfully declare the truth. In reference to
all these ways, the course of wisdom and of duty seems to be
a plain one. In the first place, we have evidently no right to
combine with the truth of God which we proclaim to others,
any invention of our own, which tends to make it odious, even
to the unregenerate. The same considerations, which evince
that all additions to the truth must be corruptions, here apply
with tenfold force, because the end we proposed is in itself a
bad one. If we may not do evil that good may come, how
much less that evzl may! If he is accursed who adds any thing
whatever to the word of God, what must await the man who
adds to it what only tends to make it odious, and to close the
hearts of men against it?
332
[APRIL