lation to this matter, took place between the President and myself. I publish it entire, and leave the reader to judge for himself, whether Mr. Worcester's evasive answer to my inquiry, In what way shall I tell my offending brother’s fault to the Church? or rather, his advice to me, not to tell it to the Church at all, evinces a real belief on the part of the President of the Convention, in the binding authority of this text, (Matt, xviii. 17,) according to its literal sense, and the President's own profession. Mr. Worcester has always insisted strenuously upon the obligation of brethren in the New Church to observe this precept in the 18th chapter of Matthew, in its literal sense; and his advice to me in Portland, to go and see Mr. Wilks, first, between him and me alone, was based professedly upon his belief of the literal teaching of this portion of the Word. Yet, after I had conformed to the literal requirements of verses 15 and 16, but without being heard, and ask Mr. Worcester in what way I shall proceed to obey the command in verse 17th, "And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the Church." he tells me to stop where I am—not to think of obeying this part of the Lord's command at all. I submit whether we are not just as much bound to obey verse 17th in its literal sense in a case like the one now before us, as we are to obey the two preceding verses in that sense; and whether Mr. Worcester’s advice in this instance is not proof, either that he does not, after all, really consider this precept binding in its literal sense, or if so, that he feels himself at liberty to advise the utter disregard and neglect of it, whenever his own wisdom shall suggest this course as most expedient. I am at a loss to understand, how that which is held as a principle of action, or which is regarded as a divine command, can be so easily set aside at the suggestion of expediency. Why may not expediency, or our own view of what is best under the circumstances, be taken as our rule of action always, if, in view of it, we may set aside, in a single instance, what we acknowledge to be a command of God? And if this be admitted, what shall hinder man’s wisdom from soon rendering all the commandments of God of none effect? But let this correspondence speak for itself.
(No. X.)
Brooklyn, July 2, 1855.
Rev. Thomas Worcester,
My Dear Brother:—I am informed by Mr. Beswick that Mr. Wilks was admitted a member of the General Convention last week, and that neither my letters to you, nor Mr. Miller’s letters, of which I sent you copies, were read before the Convention.
My next and final step in regard to Mr. Wilks’ great wrong, of which I have complained, is, I suppose, to "tell it to the Church." And I would thank