their intrinsic merits; and that the obtrusion of other considerations, addressed to the feelings and imagination, is apt to be productive of bad effects. But must we be necessarily blind to the merits or defects of a literary work, because we dislike or esteem the author? Will our feelings towards the man put it out of our power to perceive that his performance manifests ingenuity or dulness, learning or ignorance, a correct or a false taste, sound and elevated, or low and pernicious sentiments? I believe not. It will not be pretended, that a knowledge of an author's character necessarily perverts our judgment, or depraves our principles and feelings; that it is incompatible with a discernment of the real merits of his writings, or with a just appreciation of his sentiments; and, therefore, it cannot be incumbent on us to shut our eyes to his good or bad qualities, or our hearts to the impressions they are suited to excite. But is it possible for us to read with equal satisfaction and improvement the writings of one whom we abhor, and of one whom we love and venerate? Certainly not. The law of association forbids it. Agreeable or disagreeable recollections of the author's character will accompany, in a greater or less degree, the perusal of his works; and the effect upon us will be salutary or otherwise, according to the nature of those recollections. Whatever power we have over our thoughts, (and no doubt we have sufficient for every valuable purpose,) it may be safely asserted, that in this respect we are far from being free. Now, if such is the influence of association, (and every one's experience must convince him that it is;) if we are more delighted and edified by a sermon, a hymn, a prayer, of a virtuous and exemplary christian, than of an avowed and graceless infidel; it surely cannot be wrong to prefer the devout effusions of the one, to the spiritual coinage of the other, even supposing that, by a happy effort of art, there were nothing in the two cases to occasion different emotions, but the difference of the two characters. To allege that it would be, were, I think, to charge nature with folly,-to condemn the very frame and constitution of our minds.

But is not the forming of such associations very much in our power? Unquestionably it is, as well as of all our habits. It is hardly possible, however, to exclude from our minds all impressions concerning the characters of authors. We shall often, in conversation and in books, meet with anecdotes and observations about them, even if we read no particular accounts of their lives; if some do not, many will; and the ideas thus formed of the men will connect themselves with their writings, more or less forcibly according to the strength of memory, natural temperament, the frequency of repetition, and other circumstances.

A Writer's Character as affecting his works.

267

Hence arises an objection to using certain hymns, otherwise unexceptionable, in our meetings for public worship. The uncommon excellence of some of them, however, would render their exclusion hardly desirable, or even justifiable; and, in truth, their beauties, by absorbing the attention and the feelings, render the objection in such instances of less importance. Hence an advantage enjoyed by the sacred compositions of Addison, Watts, Doddridge, Cowper. Hence an unspeakable addition to the effect of our Saviour's discourses. Imagine, for a moment, if you can, what would be your feelings in reading them, if you were, in idea, to divest the sublime preacher of his pure and holy character. Admirable and perfect as they are, you would read them with comparative indifference, if not with aversion. How different this from the feelings, which we actually experience! The character of our great Teacher communicates to his precepts and exhortations a divine unction, which renders them indescribably impressive and interesting; we attend to them with a constant impression, that they are the effusions of unmingled, celestial goodness; and it is our own fault, if their benign influence upon our hearts and lives is not complete.

Though it is inconceivable, that we should be without all associations of the kind in question, yet, from negligence, perversity, or some other cause, they are often very different from what they should be. We are, in this as in other respects, much more subject than is necessary to the power of chance and accident; we adopt too readily the representations of partiality, of prejudice, of illiberality, of wantonness; we listen to the suggestions of jealousy and ill-humour; we permit the faults of a character to occupy too much of our attention, to swell and multiply in our imagination, and to render us blind to all its excellencies, however great and numerous; we are, in one word, deficient in candour and charity, and are constantly offending against the precept, "judge not, that ye be not judged."

Associations, resulting from the indulgence of our evil propensities, are all wrong. They are particularly unjustifiable, when the object of them is a teacher of morality and religion; for they oppose and frustrate his pastoral ministrations, the success of which depends essentially on the light in which he is regarded, or, in other words, on the character he sustains. If reputation is valuable to all, it is indispensable to a minister of the gospel. It is inseparably connected with his usefulness. Strip him of his fair fame, and you divest him of the power of promoting the improvement of his people. His supposed badness as a man would spoil his goodness as a preacher. What inducements, then, have the members of a society to guard the reputation of their minis

Of

ter! They must be miserably wanting to themselves, if, when calumny and detraction are at work upon it, they should look on with calm indifference; for it is less his property, than their own, which is assailed by the enemy. They might as well be without a minister, as with one whose character is gone. He can no more retain his power of edifying them by his prayers and teachings, than Samson did his strength, when shorn of his locks. this truth, no person, I presume, can be wholly insensible. But there are many who give reason to suspect, that, if they leave the character of their pastor for integrity and common honesty untouched, they esteem it of little importance what they think and say of him in other respects. Such persons need to be told, that they lie under a great mistake; for no impressions concerning him are entirely indifferent; favourable ones, of whatever kind, will aid his spiritual labours; unfavourable ones will obstruct them. If there be any thing observed or imagined in a minister, that is calculated to excite unpleasant emotions; if he be thought by his people to be tinctured with pride, ambition, or avarice; to be irritable and morose; to be cold, unsocial and reserved; to attend more than is proper to subjects not immediately connected with his clerical functions; to be deficient in attention to the members of his flock generally; to neglect the children of the society, whose affections and respect it is of so much importance to them that he should obtain; to display levity in his manners and conversation; to have, in short, any habit that is inconsistent with his sacred office;-their respect for him, and consequently his usefulness to them, are proportionably di minished. It is obvious, then, that such impressions should not be lightly and hastily adopted; and they will never be harboured without reason, or without many allowances for the imperfections of human nature, by a people, who duly consider of how much importance it is to them, that their minister should be a christian without reproach; that he should be esteemed for the propriety of his deportment, loved for his kindness and benignity, and venerated for his virtue, piety, and devotedness to his profession.

LAICUS.

TO THE EDITOR OF THE CHRISTIAN DISCIPLE.

SIR,

THE discussion of important questions in theology is not confined to your much abused vicinity, but is carried on with great

interest in places at a distance from you. The number of serious religious inquirers is increasing, and the consequences of serious free inquiry are such as might be expected. Instances are not few of conversion from the orthodox to a more liberal faith, and of the surrender of the trinitarian for the unitarian belief. By the blessing of God the fair light of truth is spreading, believers are multiplying, and the best sort of engagedness in religion is manifesting itself.

As a specimen of the interest which, in various ways, displays itself in various parts of the country, I would mention a little pamphlet lately published at Greenfield, entitled, "A Reply to a Letter from a Trinitarian to a Unitarian, signed J. L.-By K. M." It contains but twenty duodecimo pages, written in a style of great conciseness and simplicity, and confined entirely to the argument; which is strongly stated with moderation and can dour, and with no fault, I believe, except occasionally a too great compression, which renders it less clear than it might otherwise have been. Permit me to copy for your readers one or two passages, as specimens of this unpretending, but meritorious little work. The first is intended to prove the unsoundness of many trinitarian arguments, by showing, that they are equally applica ble to other cases, where all acknowledge them to be absurd.

"According to the Trinitarian mode of reasoning, it would not be difficult to prove that some men are God. The impossibility of conceiving how it can be, and the apparent absurdities, which it involves, are, on this scheme, no objections. It is admitted to be a mystery. We read of some, who had authority to remit sins, and to retain them. None but God can pardon sin.' Therefore those men were God. We are informed of some who knew all things. None but God knoweth all things.' The conclusion is undeniable. It is to no purpose to urge, that those persons were ignorant of many things. It is admitted that they were, in their human nature. The passage in question proves, that they had another nature infinitely superiour. But is it true, that they knew all things. I believe so, because the scriptures so testify.' We are told of some, that they are filled with all the fulness of God;' and that they are 'partakers of the divine nature.' The divine nature is doubtless that, which constitutes any being God; and whoever possesses this nature must be God. You may indeed prove, that they possess a very different nature. This is granted. We contend that they have two natures; and the passage under consideration, proves that they have the nature of God; in other words, that they are God. The apostle speaks of some, who will judge the world,' and even angels. But the judge of all is God.' And none can be

qualified for this work without divine attributes. We are also informed of some, who will sit on the throne with Christ, as he sits on the throne with the Father. But no mere creature can be exalted to this dignity and power. The Bible also expressly calls certain men gods. Is it not written in your law, I said ye are gods.' This name is as sacred as any other; and the Bible doubtless calls beings by their right names; it calls them just what they are. Though this name is plural in the foregoing passage, it denotes only, the different persons in the godhead.

"You may object that the preceding expressions in proof of the divinity of men are found only once. True; but we are told, that the sacred writers 'doubtless expected to be believed, when they had once plainly asserted any thing.'

"You may also object, that the scriptures teach in other passages, that those men had not the attributes of God. But we answer, that all such passages relate to their human nature; and of course cannot prove, that they did not possess a divine nature. All that is said of their inferiority to God, does not disprove what evidently implies that they are God. You may further object, that the foregoing doctrine cannot be true. But this is making reason the judge in a case confessedly mysterious; and undertaking to determine what revelation must, or must not contain. "Such appears to me to be the mode of reasoning, which Trinitarians adopt to support their theory."

The other passage is from the concluding paragraph.

"You observe, Unless God has knowingly falsified the truth, every part of his testimony must be perfectly true. If you doubt any part of it, you do not receive it. And if you do not receive it, you make God a liar, and yourself guilty of the sin of unbe lief.' (pp. 14, 15.) Give me leave to say, that the Unitarian admits the testimony of God, as fully and as cheerfully, as the Trinitarian. There is no dispute respecting the truth of what God has said, but only respecting the meaning of it. The Unitarian understands his language in one sense; the Trinitarian, in another. Both cannot be right; but there seems to be no occasion to charge either with unbelief. To mistake a testimony is not to disbelieve it. To misunderstand the language of a witness is not to make him a liar. Insinuations of the vast importance of the Trinitarian scheme, and of the danger, attending the belief of the Unitarian doctrines, are very common. But, where let me ask, does the Bible intimate the importance of believing the former; or the danger of receiving the latter? Let a single passage be produced, which relates to this point, and I assure you, Unitarians will not disbelieve it. Cannot the Trinitarian system be supported, and sufficiently propagated, without the aid