joices in the good of others." "There is no deduction from the pleasure of giving; but there is a deduction from the pleasure of receiving. The receiver is laid under obligation to the giver; but the giver is laid under no obligation to the receiver." "There is more self denial in giving than in receiving. He that gives, diminishes his interest, but he that receives, increases his property."

In these and other remarks, found in the sermon before us, there is much ingenuity and nov. elty; but it admits of a question, whether, in application to all cases, they are perfectly correct. Admitting the theory of disinterested benevolence, which has a great deal to support it, may not the good man, who receives, partake of the joy of the giver, and not rejoice solely in his own happiness? May he not be glad that he is laid under an obligation? And is it not possible, that in resisting his pride he may manifest as much self denial as the giver, who has to resist his Covetousness? It is very obvious that circumstances may and do occur, in which less virtue is evinced in giving, than in receiv. ing. The position of Dr. E. then can be universally true only in cases, where the act of the benefactor is not sullied by improper motives, and does not proceed from blind habit; and if the same supposition of perfect purity of motive, be applied to the receiver, why should it be thought, that his joy in receiving necessarily and always terminates in himself? In the very pertinent improve

ment of this discourse wealth is represented as a great favor, be

cause it gives the power of doing good; it is declared to be the duty of men of every description to be industrious in gaining the world, that they may abound in deeds of charity; and Christians are taught that beneficence, a constant course of beneficence, is the test of sincerity. Some of the channels pointed out,through which the offerings of the benevolent may and should flow to the poor, the ignorant, and the sinful, are the various kinds of humane societies, the missionary societies, the tract societies, the Bible societies, and the theological societies.

1

This sermon is written in the neat and perspicuous manner, for which Dr. E. is distinguished. It is eminently the product of intelligence rather than of passion. But if it be deficient in what the French call unction; this deficiency is compensated by the insertion at the close of the pamphlet, of two interesting and animated extracts from mission. ary sermons, preached by the Rev. Dr. GRIFFIN, and the Rev. Mr. WORCESTER.

Ou the whole, no person, we think, can rise from a fair perusal of this discourse, without a deep conviction on his mind of the excellency, and importance of the leading truth and the correspondent duty, which it is intended to illustrate and impress. It is creditable to the talents and to the heart of the respected author; it displays the character, and breathes the spirit of chris. tianity; and we cheerfully recommend it, as worthy of an attentive perusal and an extensive

distribution.

much of the political partizan" on the other side, for they are the following ;" another act, in which he proved himself to be less regardful of the public partialities and prejudices, than of what he conceived to be the public good, was the ratification of the British treaty."

Your remark upon the assertion of the probability, that an attempt was made by the British to bribe Mr. Adams, I think is ust. What is quoted from Hutchinson only shows with certainty, that the proffer would have been readily made, if the character of Mr. Adams had not been such, as repressed all hope of success.

In your remarks upon the artiele, Brainerd, there seems to have been some misapprehension. You quote the words, which relate to his confessing himself to have been indiscreet, and consider them as a conclusion from facts, before stated, which conclusion those facts do not justify. But they do not relate to what precedes, but to what follows. It had been said, that before his expulsion he refused to make a Confession. After some general observations it is added, "it was not so strange, that a young man should have been indiscreet, as that he should confess himself to have been so." The very next sentence then speaks of the acknowledgment, which he afterwards made, and it is to this acknowledgment, that the above quoted words refer with respect to Mr. Brainerd's expulsion, which you contend was perfectly just, I myself declared, that it "was perhaps necessary as things existed," though I could not perceive, that the collegial authority was enVOL. II. New Series.

tirely inculpable in bringing af. fairs to that crisis. The conviction still remains with me, that there was a disposition to hunt up offences against Mr. Brainerd. What he said of Mr. Whittlesey, was uttered to two or three of his intimate friends, who were alone with him in the hall. Α freshman overheard the expression, though he heard no name. He informed a woman, and she carried the wonderful story to the rector, that Mr. B. had declared of somebody, "he has no more grace than this chair." The subject was pursued, and the name of Mr. W. was extorted from Mr. B.'s friends. For the above words, uttered in private conversation he was required to make a public confession before the whole college. This proceeding I found it difficult entirely to justify; for though Mr. B. was uncharitable and sinful, and this he afterwards acknowledged, yet surely every uncharitable word is not subject to collegial discipline. Besides, would it not bring all authority into contempt, to require a scholar to divulge the improper expressions, which he has heard in the confidence of social and friendly intercourse with his companions?

Under the article, Tappan, I think there has also been some misapprehension. You had declared, gentlemen, in the first volume of the Panoplist, in relation to this excellent man, that "if in some instances he was too careful to accommodate himself

to opinions, which he disapproved, and to prejudices, which he believed pernicious, it was no greater failing, than has, alas, been found in the best of mortals." This I understood, and I believe 2R

all will understand, as conveying full as much in its meaning, as an affirmation would have conveyed. On your authority I alluded to this trait in the character of Dr. Tappan. In quoting your words I indeed converted the hypothet. ical into an affirmative sentence; though it is still possible, that the expression was softened. Your words are, "if he was too careful to accommodate himself, &c." while the Biographical Dictionary says, "it was thought that his usefulness would have been increased, if he had been less careful to accommodate himself, &c." The idea being precisely the same, it is of little importance to decide which expression partakes in the greater de. gree of mildness. In both there is an apparent severity, which is left in all its force without explanation in the Panoplist. In the Biographical Dictionary however, this accommodation of Dr. T. is attributed in the very next

sentence to his remarkable humil. ity, and meekness, and anxiety to do good; and this sentence was added for the express purpose of explaining and of preventing the perversion of the preceding one. In saying, that the benev. olent spirit, which animated the professor of theology, sometimes received from his keen sensibility and extreme meekness a direction, which would not have been taken by a man of greater hardihood of temper, I could not conceive, that I was bringing against Dr. T. a charge either of questiona. ble truth, or which ought to ex. cite any uneasiness on the part of his friends. Much more would have been added in relation to his excellent character, had it not been for the necessity of abridg ment, which was felt in compil. ing the latter part of the Biographical Dictionary.

I am, Gentlemen,
Yours respectfully,
W. ALLEN.

The Rev. John H. Church

The Rev. Moses Bradford

The Rev. William Rolfe

From the Deerfield Association.

Hopkinton Association.

Haverhill Association, Northern Branch.

Monadnock Association.

Plymouth Association,