ment, just as the idea of change was added by the framers of the doctrine of transubstantiation. I have no doubt, that in each case, the framers thought the idea they added, to be implied in the words of Scripture; but this is no proof that it was implied, nor that any man had a right to insert it, as the word of God. It is, however, by thus adding to the words of Scripture what men have supposed to be implied, that numerous propositions have been formed as essential articles of faith. Nor has the mischief of this creed-making policy stopped here. Each sect, after having thus formed its essential articles, have called them the truth. Hence, with them, to love the truth, is to love the articles of their creed, formed in the words of man's wisdom; and any one who dissents from these articles, is supposed to be a despiser of the truth, an opposer of the truth, an enemy to the God of truth. Of course, the opposition to these supposed truths, is imputed to depravity of heart. Hence persecution, in various forms, has been practised by one sect of Christians against another. What an awful responsibility does a fallible, uninspired man, take on himself, when he ventures to substitute his own opinion of an ambiguous passage of Scripture for the word of God, and to make that opinion a test by which he may judge the hearts of others!'- pp. 35, 36, 37.

In the Eighth Letter, he returns to one of the same illustrations, in discussing the propriety of applying the language of Paul respecting the 'natural man,' to those who differ from us in opinion on religious subjects. His words are remarkable, not only as indicating a serious error, but the character of the men most likely to commit it.

'Two persons are disputing on the words of Christ, "I lay down my life for the sheep." One supposes the words to mean, that he would suffer a vicarious punishment for mankind. The other believes that he died for us, but not in that sense of the words, yet in a sense which he thinks far more to the honor of God. These men happen to be of different characters, as well as of different opinions. One of them is meek and humble; the other self-sufficient he trusts in himself that he is righteous, and despises others. Now which of these men will be the more likely to account for the difference of opinion, by insinuating that the other is a natural man? In this case, no candid and intelligent person can hesitate for a moment. On which side soever the self-sufficient person may be, as to the meaning of the text, he will be the one to reproach his brother as a “natural man." Candor, however, requires me to admit, that there may have been instances in which good men, in other respects, have

VOL. XI.-N. S. VOL. VI. NO. 1.

9

been so bewildered by custom, theory, or party feelings, as to adopt such an unchristian mode of proceeding. But I believe it to be a truth, that such a course is much more frequently resorted to by self-righteous hypocrites, than by men of truly Christian feelings; and that it behooves those who are in the habit of thus accounting for a dissent from their opinions, seriously to inquire how their conduct can be reconciled with gospel love and humility, and whether they are not, in fact, in that deplorable state, which they are so forward to impute to others.' pp. 54, 55.

Two other striking passages occur in the same Letter, which may be said to put at rest the question he is considering.

'Besides, if the natural man has no perception of the truth, how can he be said to hate the truth? Can he hate that which he does not perceive? Should it be said, that it is not the true meaning of Scripture that he hates, but a false meaning which he gives to the words; what is this but saying, in other words, that it is falsehood, and not truth, that the sinner hates?' p. 56.

Again;

'In both the Old Testament and the New, the conversion of sinners is represented as the effect of divine truth on their minds. "The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. The testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the simple." Psalm xix. 7. Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God, which liveth and abideth for ever. 1 Pet. i. 23. Now if the unconverted, as such, are incapable of perceiving the true meaning of Scripture language, and consequently misunderstand it; then it must be by a false meaning of the word that they are converted. Of course, conversion must be the effect of falsehood, and not of truth. For they are in an unconverted state till the change occurs; and it is by such views of the word as they have in an unconverted state that they are regenerated, or that the work of regeneration is commenced.' - pp. 59, 60.

their

Custom, false standards in morals, mistaken notions of duty, and the frequency with which we see the sin, complained of by Dr. Worcester, committed by men of reputed sanctity, have led most persons to form much too low an estimate of its turpitude. He observes, very justly, that,

'It would be in vain to search the Scriptures for more clear prohibitions and expostulations against murder, than we have

against reviling and censorious judging, on account of differences of opinion; and is it not a lamentable truth, that in each of the cases, Christians have too commonly regarded custom as of higher authority than the prohibitions of God? The sixth commandment is, "Thou shalt do no murder "; but as soon as the rulers of two nations have declared war against each other, murder is regarded as not only lawful, but laudable. So, as soon as the ministers of one sect of Christians have ventured to denounce the people of another sect as heretics, the commands, " Judge not,' Condemn not," "Speak not evil one of another," are treated with as little regard as the sixth commandment is in time of war. As, in time of national hostilities, killing men is deemed a duty, and not a crime, so it is with censorious judging in time of sectarian hostilities; and, in both cases, the most glaring violations of the divine commands are vindicated, on the principles of necessity and self-preservation.' - pp. 75, 76.

In a characteristic Letter, the Sixteenth, Dr. Worcester compares the vice of party-spirit, in religion, with that of intemperance in the use of ardent spirits, and concludes by recommending, in both cases, the total-abstinence principle,' as the only effectual remedy.

"The inquiry naturally occurs, Is there no remedy for party intemperance? Must the Christian religion be for ever thus disgraced by its professed admirers and votaries. For a time, it seemed a hopeless enterprise to attempt a suppression of the other species of intemperance. Soon, however, a hope was excited, that by due exertions many moderate drinkers might be induced to give up their habit before they should pass the bounds of temperance; and that many might be saved from forming the habit of moderate drinking. It was hardly expected that men might be reclaimed who had advanced far in the road of intoxication. Their case was deemed nearly hopeless. It was, however, found, that the moderate use of ardent spirits, at stated periods, exposed men to become drunkards; that, by daily indulgence, a thirst was excited which endangered both body and soul, and that entire abstinence from the use of ardent spirits was the path of safety. Many thousands have become convinced of this, and have adopted the policy, among whom are an unexpected number of those who were supposed to be past recovery, and bound over by intemperate habits to perish as drunkards. What happy results of a few years' exertion!

'When all the evils of party intemperance shall have been disclosed, they may be found not less terrific and portentous than the evils of intemperate drinking. Why then shall not

Christians of all denominations unite and adopt the same saving policy for both species of intemperance and resolve on total abstinence from party-spirit as well as from liquid fire?' pp. 102, 103.

-

It is beyond a question, that comparatively but a small number of persons, and they mostly from other States, are alone responsible for the existence, among us, of what Dr. Codman calls polemic war.' The great body of the people would take no part, and feel no interest in these struggles, if they were not set on by their religious guides. It would be sure, in a little time, to restore amity and a good understanding, if ministers and periodical journals, on all sides, would give heed to the judicious counsels offered in these Letters. Speaking of the former, Dr. Worcester says;

'In a time of great excitement and party strife, a minister sits down to write a sermon in vindication of some disputed doctrine, which he believes to be of great importance. But having failed to call humility to his aid, he writes under the influence of party passions. As he proceeds, he grows warmer and warmer, with feelings of contempt or resentment towards all who have opposed his doctrine. He is not contented with producing arguments in its favor; he must give vent to his passions against dissenters. He boldly accuses them of gross errors in their interpretations of the Scriptures; and imputes these errors to the wickedness of their hearts; and fails not to reproach them either as heretics or as bigots. Thus, while he wantonly calumniates others as destitute of the gospel temper, he evinces a deplorable defect in his own heart. But prior to the time for delivering his discourse, some affecting event of Providence occurs that calls him to deep reflection, occasions a favorable change of feeling, gives humility leave to rise and speak for herself. Hence occurs the following soliloquy :

""What have I written for a sermon to be delivered by myself, as the ambassador of Him who was 'meek and lowly of heart'? HE exercised forbearance towards his erring Apostles, during the whole course of his ministry, though he knew them to be in gross errors of opinion; yet I have reproached hundreds of his professed disciples as his enemies; and have said much to excite against them the contempt of others. But why all this rashness? They indeed differ from me in their interpretations of some passages of Scripture; but if this be a good reason for me to be offended with them, why may not they as justly be offended with me? Are not some of them at least possessed of

as good talents as myself? May they not have had as good advantages for acquiring knowledge? and how do I know that they have been less honest and impartial in their inquiries than I have been in mine? How has it happened that I have been so forward to accuse them, and yet so backward in regard to suspecting myself? Could this be the work of humility or benevolence? Have I done to others as I would that they should do to me? Even taking it for granted that they are bad men, is my sermon adapted to do them or any body else any good? Will it not give far more proof of wrong in me than of wrong in them? I indeed have accused them; but I have done it with a temper which is the reverse of what is required in the gospel of every disciple of Christ. I will therefore revise the sermon, and erase every word which shall appear to me inconsistent with that love which worketh no evil to its neighbour.' pp. 110-112.

Our limits will permit us to give but one more extract, which is in the same strain.

'In extempore speaking, men have not always sufficient time for premeditation, and in the heat of their zeal, they are very liable to utter things which will not bear an impartial review, and which are unjustly reproachful to others. But in writing for the pulpit or the press, I think it would be a good rule, after having written, seriously to examine the copy and inquire, whether nothing has been penned which is contrary to the New Commandment, or the Golden Rule, nothing which evinces the disposition to take the highest place, or that must excite the idea that the writer is one of those who "trust in themselves that they are righteous, and despise others." In such a review of what has been written, it might be useful for the writer to inquire, how the language and tone he has used would be likely to appear to him, if adopted by a person of another denomination against himself; and then erase whatever he would deem antichristian and unkind, if used by another in an exchange of circumstances. Should the parable of our Lord be duly regarded in future, in conducting religious Newspapers and other Periodicals, the effects may be happy in relation to the progress of religion, and the peace of the Christian world.'

P. 90.

An interesting question arises here, respecting what may be called the rights of self-defence in controversy. Coarse language, misrepresentation, and malice, are alike inexcusable in the assailants, and in the assailed; but perhaps it is a little too much to expect from the latter, if their religious rights