days, and of Calvin, in modern times, have necessarily occupied the ground of Origen, and the Fathers of his age. Augustine himself took this ground, in his attempt to refute the tenets of the Manichæans, though, in opposing the doctrines of Pelagius, he was compelled to change it. In fact, the views of human ability, or rather inability, as taught in the schools of the African bishop, of Calvin, and the Orthodox generally of modern times, amount, in substance, to Manichæism, and differ from it only as to the source of the inability; the Manichæans attributing it to a prior necessity, growing out of the 'nature of matter, and the Calvinists to a necessity superinduced by the fall of Adam. To all practical purposes, the two systems are the same.*

ART. III. Causes and Evils of Contentions unveiled in Letters to Christians. By NOAH WORCESTER.

Gray & Bowen.

1831. 12mo. pp. 120.

Boston.

THERE is no man living, from whom Christians, of all denominations, should receive rebuke with so much meekness, as from the venerable author of these Letters, the Apostle of Peace. He is, himself, an illustration of the possibility of uniting freedom of inquiry, and great distinctness and earnestness in the exposure of what he conceives to be prevalent errors, with a candor and simplicity so beautiful and touching, that those who read his writings, if they are not convinced, can hardly fail of being softened and conciliated. It is not his object, in the little volume before us, to condemn or discourage controversy, but merely to unveil the causes

*

Augustine, it should be remembered, was a Manichæan before his conversion to the orthodox faith. How far he retained the spirit of Manichæism, after his formal rejection of its leading dogma relating to the origin of evil, — in other words, to what extent his sentiments, after his conversion, continued to be modified by his earlier belief, and what portion of Manichæism became, therefore, infused into the popular theology, forms a curious question in the history of human opinions. Is Calvinism, after all, only a ramification of the old Oriental heresy, so detested by the Fathers?

and evils of that exclusive and contentious spirit, with which controversy is sometimes conducted. He does not write as a sectarian, nor evince a wish, in any part of his work, to cast the blame of our contentions on Christians of one denomination, rather than on those of another. His last words are these;

'Let it then be observed, that I have written the letters in the belief that there are errors both of opinion and practice, in all the denominations of Christians with which I am acquainted; and in the hope that there are good people in each sect, who will deplore the existing evils, and exert their influence to effect a reformation.' - p. 120.

He says, also, in another place;

'To some persons, it may be gratifying to know, that the views I have expressed, in this series of letters, on the evil and danger of ascribing error of opinion to wickedness of heart, are not the effect of recent changes in my own mind. When I was

a Trinitarian, and nearly forty years ago, I published similar views of that principle in what I then wrote to the late Dr. Baldwin, on the subject of "Close Communion." Very soon after I entered on the work of the ministry, I became dissatisfied with the practice of referring all error of opinion, on religious subjects, to a criminal source; and also with the practice of reproaching whole sects of Christians as destitute of piety, on the ground of their alleged erroneous opinions. The more I have reflected on the subject since that period, the more I have been convinced of the injustice and the danger of such practices. The more, too, I have been convinced that such practices imply a deplorable want of humility in those who adopt them, and an astonishing degree of blindness in regard to their own liability to err.' - p. 116.

Dr. Worcester holds that a primary ground of alienation, among Christians, is to be found in the assumption, 'that error of opinion, on religious subjects, proceeds from wickedness of heart.' We suspect, however, that even where this is the ostensible ground of alienation, we are still, in most cases, to look deeper for the real grounds. These, nine times out of ten, are some, or all, of the following; pride of opinion, desire of influence, love of notoriety, party policy or zeal, private interest or pique. Unhappily, not a few of the leaders of the exclusive sects know, that they owe most of their consequence and influence to existing differences and contentions, and would sink personally into comparative in

significance, in the event of a better understanding among Christians. So long as this is the case, we may expect that of considerable ability, as disorganizers, will every persons where be found, whose object it will be, under various pretexts, to foment and perpetuate divisions in the Church, rather than to heal them. Here we detect a real, deep-seated, and, as it seems to us, in a community like ours, almost the only obstacle to the prevalence of more liberal and comprehensive principles. It did not fall within Dr. Worcester's plan, and would not, perhaps, have suited his temper, to deal severely with this vice; but he has deprived it of all show of justification or apology, by exposing the fallacy of the assumption on which it proceeds.

In the Fourth Letter, the following important question is met, and answered.

'It being granted that our Lord imputed the error of the unbelieving Jews respecting himself, to a disobedient heart, why may not ministers of the Gospel of the present age, impute all supposed errors on important doctrines to the same source?' pp. 22, 23.

Because, as Dr. Worcester justly argues, it would be to suppose them clothed with the same infallibility, of but one opinion, and liable to no disturbing prejudices.

'Besides,' says he, 'in civil cases, an interested person is deemed unqualified to act as a judge or a juror. So also is the man who is known to be prejudiced against a person or party whose cause is to be decided. How imminent, then, must be the danger, when, after long controversy and excitement, a minister of one sect ventures to assume the office of a judge in respect to the hearts of those who dissent from his creed! Under such circumstances, what reflecting man would dare, unauthorized, to assume such responsibility? How little confidence is to be placed in the censorious opinions mutually expressed of each other by political partizans, in a time of great excitement? Quite as little, I suspect, is to be placed in the opinions of religious partizans under similar circumstances.'

- p. 24.

At the same time, he finds no difficulty in accounting for the different opinions which have prevailed in the Church, without referring them, universally or generally, to a corrupt source. The following extract alone would settle the question.

'When children are brought up under the influence of pious parents, who happen to entertain erroneous doctrines, they are

under a kind of necessity of imbibing erroneous opinions. For a child to be thus situated may be a calamity, but not a crime; and it is rather an evidence of an obedient than a disobedient heart, that he imbibes the erroneous opinions of his parents. For he is required to honor father and mother, and a disposition to obey this command, will naturally incline him to listen to parental instruction, and to receive as truth what his parents inculcate as the doctrines of the Gospel. It is as unreasonable as it is cruel, for a Protestant to impute it to wickedness of heart, that the children of Papists grow up strongly attached to the doctrines of the Catholic church. We may as rationally blame a child for not having been born omniscient, or for possessing the spirit of filial love and reverence, as to blame him for receiving, as truth, the erroneous opinions which were inculcated on him by his parents, while it was impossible for him to know that they were incorrect. Let any censorious minister ask himself, what would be his views of others, who should impute it to wickedness of heart, that his children hearken to his instructions, and grow up in the belief of his religious opinions? To whatever denomination a child may belong, the more pious and humble he is, the more likely he is to imbibe the religious opinions of his parents, whether they be correct or erroneous.' - pp. 27, 28.

Again he says;

The disputes which have divided Christians into sects, have originated in differences of opinion about the meaning of particular passages of Scripture, which were acknowledged to be genuine by each party, and to be true in the sense intended by the inspired writers. To express the supposed sense of the passages more definitely, has been an object of those who have formed creeds or confessions of faith. Propositions which men have thus formed, have been set up as standards of faith, and as tests of Christian character; and to these, others must give their assent, or be denied Christian privileges. These propositions, of human manufacture, are what their advocates denominate the truth as it is in Jesus. Those who refuse their assent to these dogmas, are reproached as enemies to the truth, while they freely admit, as the truth, the very texts of Scripture, on which these articles are supposed to be founded. It seems to have been thought not sufficient for a man to believe the doctrines of the Gospel, as given by the wisdom of God, but he must assent to an edition of these doctrines as revised and amended, by the wisdom of self-sufficient men. The "bones of

contention" have not been the words of God's wisdom, but the words of man's wisdom; and these words of man's wisdom have

been preferred to the words of God, as standards of truth and tests of character. I think I do not go too far, in saying that these human compositions have been preferred to the Bible, for the purposes I have mentioned. If they are not PREFERRED, why are they urged, and substituted, as if the Bible were insufficient? I am aware, that those who adopt this course, profess great respect for the Bible, and are not commonly backward to accuse dissenters from their creed of disrespect for the oracles of God. But it seems to me an extraordinary mode of evincing a regard for the Bible, to substitute for it, as a rule of faith, the compositions of fallible and uninspired men.' - pp. 28, 29.

ment.

The error here condemned, he illustrates in the next Letter, by two examples, the first drawn from the doctrine of transubstantiation, and the other, from that of vicarious atoneBoth of these doctrines have been accounted essential to Christianity, and a belief in both has been made a test of character, and a condition of salvation. Of those, however, who reject these doctrines, the latter as well as the former, we may suppose that many, as Dr. Worcester shows, have not been influenced by a hatred of the truth, nor by disrespect for Scripture, nor by a denial of the particular texts, in which these doctrines are thought by some to be inculcated or implied; but solely by a different construction honestly put on these texts. He adds, in confirmation of this position;

'Now let it be observed, that in both examples, the words relied on are ambiguous; for there is more than one sense in which they are capable of being understood. As a portrait, or image, is called by the name of the person represented, so the bread and wine may be called the body and blood of Christ, which are represented by them; and it is well known, that there are several senses in which one person may die for another, or for many others.

'Let it also be observed, that in the first example, Christ did not say, This bread is changed into my body nor, This wine is changed into my blood. Not a syllable was said by him about any change, or transubstantiation. This idea was added to the words of Christ by the framers of the doctrine. So in the second example, Christ did not say, I lay down my life as a vicarious punishment for my sheep. Nor did his Apostles in any instance say, that Christ endured for us the wrath of God," or the penalty of the divine law due to our offences. This idea was added by the framers of the doctrine of vicarious punish