ESSAY

ON THE

CAUSES OF UNCHARITABLENESS.

FROM DR WATTS' ORTHODOXY AND CHARITY UNITED.

AN uncharitable humour springs generally from some of these following causes.

I. First, From a malicious constitution of nature, an acrimonious or a choleric temper of blood. There are some animal engines of human flesh, that have their juices all soured in their very formation; and there is an ill ferment raised in such persons at the perception of every object, that is not just suited to their present fancy and inclination. And by the hard laws of union between soul and body in this our fallen state, the spirit too often complies with the fretful distempers of the flesh. There are but few that attempt to suppress the ferment, and to resist the angry motions of the animal; and of those few that attempt it, scarce one in ten is very successful. For it is a work of toil, and difficulty, perpetual watchfulness and unceasing prayer.

fraternity. Hermes reads the controversies as they are described only by one party, and disputes them over only in the books that are written on one side. He finds a great appearance of argument and Scripture there, and then proclaims it impossible, that the adverse party should shew equal reason or revelation; and thus he proceeds to censure them as men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, and twisting the Scriptures to their own damnation. Cicero in his treatise, De natura Deorum, marks this humour, and brands it, Vestra solum legitis, vestra amatis, cæteros causa incognita condemnatis.*

But let you and I, my friend, who delight in charity, let us converse a little with authors that differ from our present opinions, and we shall see their sentiments drest up so plausibly, and set in so fair a light, that might easily persuade men of sincere consciences to embrace them; and this will prevent us from censorious thoughts concerning our candid adversaries, and their disciples. There is scarce anything that enlarges the mind more, and more disengages it from narrow and selfish principles, than a free converse with the virtuous and ingenious of all parties.

There is a memorable story to this purpose, concerning two neighbours in an unsociable town, who were always quarrelling about the private meeting and the

*You read only your own books, you love only your own, and you condemn others before you know any sufficient reason, for want of knowing their opinions.

parish church. Both places of worship in that town were well supplied with preachers of good sense and serious religion; but each of them was the subject of unmerciful reproach between these two neighbours, whensoever they met, and their different methods of worship were mutually reviled; the one as formal and spiritless, the other as enthusiastical and indecent. At last Pacifico, their common friend, persuaded them to hear each other's minister, and accompanied them both one day to their different assemblies; and they were both surprised to hear the Gospel preached with a due degree of decency and fervour, both at meeting and at church. And though they continued still to adhere to their own party, as judging it, in some respects, suited best to their edification; yet they maintained hearty friendship with each other, and delightful society in religious conference. Thus the quarrelsome mistake was rectified by better acquaintance. They lived many years together in peace; they composed the animosities of different parties, that dwelt in the town; they died in perfect charity, and left a sweet influence behind them, and an honourable example.

IV. A fourth spring of uncharitableness is, our reading the word of God with a whole set of notions established beforehand. And yet how common a method, and how constant is this? Diacion has long ago determined, that bishops must be superior to presbyters; he has received ordination from Episcopal hands; and hopes one day himself to be capable of ordaining others.

Thus while he is growing up towards the mitre, he reads the Scriptures only to confirm his own determined opinions. He stretches and torments many an unwilling text, to make it speak the language of his own thoughts. He neglects the passages that favour other forms of government and methods of ministration; or else he constrains them to mean Episcopacy too. Every word that he reads, hath a Diocesan aspect; and the first verse of Genesis can prove prelacy, for aught I know, as it has been able heretofore to demonstrate papacy, when in principio creavit Deus cœlum et terram, decided the controversy, and set the pope above the emperor. For God made all things from one beginning and not from two.

Synodias reads the Bible with a Presbyterian glass, and Fratrio with a Congregational optic. They can find nothing there but their own opinions, and both of them wonder that Diæcion should not see them too. Fratrio turns over the Scriptures with great diligence and meditation, and as often as he finds the word church there, he thinks of nothing but a congregation of faithful men; as the church of Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch are so many single congregations. When Synodias meets the same word in his Bible, he is often in the midst of an assembly of divines; and especially when any power is attributed to the church, he is sure it must intend a classis of presbyters, or consistory of elders. When the same word falls under the eye of Diæcion, in his course of reading the New Testament,