forward as any to say, I matical assertions, and censori know. Now, sir, as your character, as a divine, stands on elevated ground, is it not probable that enthusiasts of various sects, will avail themselves of what you have written to justify their dangerous self-confidence, dog ous exclamations? It is, in my "Where men of judgement creep and feel their way, Without the means of knowing right from wrong, LETTER VII. Remarks on the fourth inference. I NOW come to your fourth and last inference, which is this," If there be a propriety in God's requiring Christians to be united in the belief of the truth, then there is no propriety in attempting to unite them in affection, without uniting them in sentiment." In illustrating the inference you have some observations to which I have no objection, and others which appear exceptionable. You say, "The brotherly love which the gospel requires is very different from general benevolence!" To this I have no great objection; I would only remark, that, I conceive, you will not affirm that brotherly love and general benevolence are very different as to their general nature. Brotherly love, as I under stand the term, is benevolence exercised in complacency towards such as give evidence, that they profess the same temper. I would here remark that this evidence may be given mutually between two persons, while they differ in some important respects as to their articles of faith. You also observe, "Unity of faith is the only proper basis of unity of spirit. Christians may and must be united in affection, so far as they are united in sentiment but so far as they are disunited in sentiment, they are and must be disunited in affection." In applying this doctrine you add, "We find that those, who agree in their speculations upon any art or science, commonly feel a mutual attachment, arising from their concurrence in. opinion. And a unity of faith never fails to produce a mutual esteem and affection among Christians. Mutual affection will naturally flow from mutual agreement in sentiment. Let Christians be of one mind and they will be of one heart." I have supposed that in the passages here quoted, by the term Christians you meant professors of the christian religion. But I conceive that your account of the effect of unity of sentiment, will better apply to what is found among false professors, than among persons of true humility and solid piety. That mutual affection which is the effect or result of mere concurrence in sentiment, is, in my view, party affection, and as distinct from the brotherly love, which the gospel enjoins, as selfishness is from benevolence. More or less of it is to be found among all denominations of Christians; and in as great a degree among the most erroneous as the most orthodox. it is natural for persons to be pleased with their own sentiments, whether right or wrong, so it is natural for them to be pleased when others concur with them in opinion-whether the question relate to divinity, to arts or sciences, or to politics. But will you, sir, affirm, that the affection which appears in violent partizans in politics, towards such as agree with them in sentiment, is that brotherly love which the gospel requires ? 66 As as So far," you say, Christians are united in sentiment, so far they are and must be united in affection; but so far as they are disunited in sentiment, so far they are and must be disunited in affection." Did you, my brother, examine this sentence before it was published? It appears to have been too hasty and incorrect for Dr. Emmons. Do you feel brotherly love, or complacency towards the moral character of every professor of religion in proportion as he agrees with you in sentiment? Your answer must, I think, be in the negative. Infernal spirits may be orthodox and agree with each other in sentiment; will they, of course, exercise that brotherly love which the gospel requires? They may agree with us in sentiment; shall we on that ground own them as brethren in the Lord ? If "Christians may and must be united in affection so far as they are united in sentiment," the principle will doubtless apply to all intelligent beings; especially, if "mutual affection will naturally flow from mutual agreement in sentiment." Now there are two important points in divinity, to say the least, in which we are assured that Satan agrees with us in sentiment. He believes that "there is one God," and that Jesus Christ is the "holy one of God," and we believe the same. Must there not then, according to your hypothesis, he some degree of brotherly love between us and the accuser of the brethren ? If your theory should be generally adopted, and the sentiments of Satan should become generally known, I suspect he would become a character of considerable respectability in the christian world; and most so with those whose sentiments are most consonant to scripture: For it is highly probable that he is more correct in sentiment, than the generality of professed Christians. But, sir, notwithstanding all his orthodoxy, he is still a devil. Nor is it very uncommon for some of the vilest of men, to agree in sentiment with some of the best Christians on many important articles of faith. Moreover, is there not reason to believe, that at the general judgement, both saints and sinners, good angels and evil beings, will all be united in their speculative opinions? Will they not then, according to your principle, be united in affection, and all dwell together with the Lord? If, therefore, your theory can be supported, will it not afford a new and firm foundation for the support of the universalian scheme, in its most extensive latitude ? Among all the observations in your discourse, there is not one, which is, in my view, more exceptionable than this, viz: "Unity of faith is the only proper basis of unity of spirit." By unity of faith I presume you mean the same as agreement in sentiment, and by unity of spirit the same as unity of affection. Let us then examine the principle. If unity of sentiment is the only proper basis of unity of affection, then the mutual love hetween God and his saints is founded on agreement in opinion: And, so far as they are united in sentiment, so far they are and must be united in affection; and so far as they are disunited in sentiment, so far they are and must be disunited in affection." Admitting that unity of sentiment is the only proper basis for unity of affection, yet doubtless the unity of sentiment must be perceived in order that the unity of affection may take place. Is it then, sir, by perceiving that God's thoughts are as their thoughts, or that he agrees with them in sentiment, that the affections of saints are drawn forth towards Him? Is there no other basis for our affection towards God, or complacency in his character, than his agreeing with us in our opinions? If there may be some other proper basis of our affections towards him, there may be some other basis of his affection towards us; and, consequently, there may be some other basis for unity of affection, or brotherly love among saints, than agreement in sentiment. Let us examine respecting the consequences of admitting your hypothesis. If unity of sentiment be the only proper basis for unity of affection; if Christians are and must be united in affection so far as they are united in sentiment, will it not follow, that a mere speculative belief of the truth is all which is necessary to bring a person into union with the Lord that a person is holy just in proportion as his opinions accord with the bible? that he who believes one religious truth has one degree of holiness? that he who is the most correct in his opinions is the most holy person, and most united in affection to God? And, on the whole, that Godwin's scheme of illuminism is founded in truth? He supposes that vice is merely error in judgement, and that all that is necessary to make any man virtuous, is to give him correct information. I have not mentioned illuminism, nor universalism, with a view to attach reproach to your character. I believe you are in heart and in sentiment, as much opposed to these schemes as I am. I have mentioned them in this connexion only to show to what lengths your theory leads, that you and others may feel the importance of abandoning this ground, and of learning to judge of the characters of men by their practical conformity or non-conformity to the moral precepts of the gospel, rather than by their agreeinent or disagreement with you in relation to the disputed questions in theology. my I have now, sir, finished remarks on your sermon. I have used freedom in attempting to detect what I regard as a great error in your opinions; but I have indulged no desire to injure your reputation. My theory permits me to think favourably of your character and THE TENDENCY OF HOMER'S ILIAD. "HOMER, you know, is the favourite of the whole civilized world. The object of inquiry is, what kind of predisposition will be formed toward Christianity in a young and animated spirit, that learns to glow with enthusiasm at the scenes created by Homer, and to indulge an ardent wish,-which that enthusiasm will probably awaken, for the possibility of emulating some of the principal characters. Let this suscepti ble youth, after having mingled and burned in imagination among heroes, whose valour and anger flamed like Vesuvius, who wade in blood, trample on dying foes and hurl defiance a gainst earth and heaven; let him be led into the company of Jesus Christ and his disciples, as displayed by the evangelists, with whose narrative I will suppose he is but slightly acquainted before. What must he, what can he do with his feelings in this transition? He will find himself flung as far as from the centre to the utmost pole ;' and one of these two opposite exhibitions of character will inevitably excite his aversion." "Or if you will suppose a person to become profoundly interested by the New Testament, and to have acquired the spirit of the Saviour of the world,— with what sentiments will he come forth from conversing with heavenly mildness, weeping benevolence, sacred purity, and the eloquence of divine wisdom, to enter into a scene of such actions and characters, and to hear such maxims of merit and glory as those of Homer? He would find the mightiest strain of poetry employed to represent ferocious courage as the greatest of virtues, and those who do not possess it, as worthy of their fate, to be trodden in the dust. He will be taught at least it will not be the fault of the poet if he is not taught to forgive a heroic spirit for finding the sweetest luxury in insulting dy ing pangs, and imagining the tears and despair of distant parents or wives. He will be instantly called upon to worship revenge, the real divinity of the Iliad. He will be taught that the most glorious and enviable life is that to which the greatest number of other lives are made a sacrifice; and that it is noble in a hero to prefer even a short life, attended by this felicity, to a long one which should permit a longer life also to others." Whatever is the chief and grand impression made by the whole work on the ardent minds which are most susceptible of the influence of poetry, that is the real moral; and, Alexander, and, by reflection from him, Charles XII. correctly received the genuine inspiration. "I wish I may be pardoned for making another strange and indeed, a most monstrous supposition, namely that Achilles, Diomede, Ulysses and Ajax had been real persons, living in the time of our Lord, and had become his disciples; and yet excepting the mere exchange of the notions of mythology for christian opinions-had retained entire the state of mind with which their poet has exhibited them. It is instantly perceived that Satan, Beelzebub and Moloch, might as consistently have been retained in heaven." "Yet the work of Homer is, notwithstanding, the book which Christian poets have translated; which christian divines have edited and commented on with pride, at which christian ladies have been delighted to see their sons kindle into rapture, and which forms an essential part of the course of a liberal education, over all those countries on which the gospel shines! "If such works do really impart their own genuine spirit to the mind of an admiring reader, in proportion to the degree in which he admires, and if this spirit is totally hostile to that of Christianity, and if Christianity ought really and in good faith to be the supreme regent of all moral feelings;-then it is evident that the Iliad, and all books which combine the same tendency with great poetical excellence, are among the most mischievous things on earth." "With or without classical ideas, men and nations will continue to commit offences against one another, and to avenge them; to assume an arrogant precedence and account it noble spirit; to celebrate their deeds of destruction, and call them glory; to idolize the men who profess and can infuse the greatest share of an infernal fire; to set at nought all principles of virtue and religion in favour of a thoughtless vicious mortal, |