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

.Freedom of Speech.
The same fanatical delusion that betrays men into voluntary
efforts to excite men's enmity against the truth which they
dispense themselves, prepares them to assume, with very little
provocation, an inimical relation to the unpalatable truth disl
pensed by others, whether positively or in opposition to their
own false doctrines. In reference to such, and indeed to all
who count the tellers of the truth as enemies, not on account of
any error or defect in the mode of presentation, but because
they hate the truth itself-if not in general, yet in some specific
case-we need some further rule for our direction.
Such a rule obviously is, that we have no right to suppress
the truth, or to withhold the counsel of God from those who
ought to be acquainted with it. As to the time, place, and
manner of declaring it, we are not only authorized, but bound,
as we have seen, to exercise a sound discretion. B]utif in spite
of all precaution, as to circumstances, manner, tone, and temper,
men continue to revolt from what we cannot but regard as
truth, and as such consider ourselves bound to utter, this residuary opposition must not be considered as affording any pretext or authority for holding back the truth, because it is unpalatable, either to the irreligious world, or to any party, sect,
or faction in the church itself. And lastly, the same principle
must be applied to any modification or disguise of truth, intended to conciliate opposition, whether practical or speculative,
theological or moral, the undissembled spite of the philosopher,
or the sanctimonious malice of the pharisee. Not a jot, not a
tittle of divine truth must be sacrificed, in order to avoid the
disagreeable necessity of saying, either to philosophers or pharisees: "Am I become your enemy, because I tell you the
truth?"
How then is the teller of the truth to deal with this residuary
enmity, which no precautions can evade, no. gentleness conciliate? The answer is a brief one. Let him bear it! In
one view of the matter, we might safely say, defy it! But
this form of expression would be liable to misconstruction, and
might be maliciously or ignorantly construed into something
inconsistent with the spirit of the gospel. Another reason for
preferring the first answer is, that bearing is, in such a case,
the best mode of defiance, nay the only one effectual. All
'1852.]
835