love and great favour to them. On the contrary the hypocrite lays himself as the first foundation, and lays on God as the superstructure and even his acknowledgment of God's glory itself depends on his regard to his private interest. True gratitude, says the President, to God for his kindness to us, arises from a foundation laid before, of love to God, for what he is in himself. The gracious stirrings of grateful affection to God for kindness received, always are from a stock of love already in the heart established in the first place on God's own excellency. The saint who exercises gracious thankfulness for free grace, sees it to be glorious, whether it were exercise ed towards us or not, and delights in it as such, though his concern in it serves the more to engage his mind. And, self-love here assists as an handmaid, being subservient to higher principles to fix the attention and heighten the joy and love. God's goodness to saints is a glass that he sets before them, wherein to behold the beauty of his goodness. The exercises and displays of this attribute by this means are brought near to them, and set right before them. So that in a holy thankfulness to God the concern our interest has in his goodness is not the first foundation of our being affected with it, that was laid in the heart before in that stock of love which was to God for his excellency in himself, that makes the heart susceptive of such impressions of his goodness to us. Saints first rejoice in God as glorious and excellent in: himself, and then secondarily rejoice in that so

glorious a God is theirs. They first have their hearts filled with sweetness from the view of Christ's excellency, and then they have secondary joy that so excellent a Saviour is theirs." This is the President's view of the secondary, consequential love of saints: and, it is no more to Mr. T.'s purpose, asking his pardon, than the primary love of saints. For it flows from it, and is of the same nature. This se

condary love under consideration is not that self-love which Edwards says in the same cɔnnexion: "Is a principle entirely natural, and as much in the hearts of devils as angels; but it is gracious love. It is the consequence or fruit of loving God for his own sake because he is infinitely excellent. Accordingly he says, (page 196) "True gratitude to God for his kindness to us arises from a foundation laid before, of love to God for what he is in himself. The hypocrite rejoices in himself: self is the first foundation of his joy. The saint rejoices in God, God is the joy of his joy."

In a word, it is evident that Mr. T. mistook this great and good man. For the secondary love of which the President treats, is the holy, grateful love of saints, and not the self-love of sinners. I therefore hope Mr. T. will understand the President before he refers to him any farther; or that he will generously quote him that he may be understood by others. For, every philosopher knows, that if the President's first principles, relative to human depravity and the nature of true virtue be correct that Mr. T.'s theory is totally incorrect.

In answering this plain question, “Is there any text of scripture which proves that sinners are the subjects of that self-love which is not hostile to the divine glory?" He says, "It is easy to reply, that the Bible frequently supposes, and no where denies the existence and innocence of this natural self-love." Answer. If this be a reply, it is easy enough to make one: but, he must remember that it is equally easy to conclude, since he tamely drops the matter here, that the bible refuses to grant him any relief.

Farther, he was pressed with this question : "What is the moral difference between the love of the Jews when they were engaged to put a temporal crown upon Christ's head, and their hatred when they crowned him with thorns?" This is his only answer: " Their love might arise from a conviction excited by his doctrines and miracles." But this is nothing to the purpose. For I did not ask him what was the cause of their love and hatred: But, what is the difference between them? I therefore put the question again: "What is the moral difference between the desire of the Jews to make Christ King, and their desire to destroy him because he was the King?"

Another notable part of his defence now falls under examination. The impossibilty of there being any such exercise as selfishness was urged upon his principles of depravity. For, he contends that depravity strictly and radically consists in the privation of holiness. And if this be true that the privation of holiness be depravity, it is impossible to account for selfish-ness. For the privation of holiness will not

constitute selfishness, because privation is nothing. Nor will the innocent principles of human nature originate selfishness or account for it. But he replies as follows: "Both together sufficiently account for it: for criminal selfishness is nothing, but natural self-love unconnected with and unsubordinate to a principle of holy benevolence." Here he wholly supplants himself. For, 1. If selfishness be nothing but self-love disconnected with holiness, it follows that sinners are totally selfish. For, he grants that they have no holiness to regulate their self-love. Their self-love, according to him, is therefore nothing but criminal selfishness. For, he says, criminal selfishness is nothing but self-love unconnected with holiness. 2. It is also evident from his own concession that the moral goodness of sinners, for which he so vigorously pleads, is no better than criminal selfishness. For, it is nothing but the natural goodness of sinners, which is not regulated by holiness. We have not misunderstood him. For he says again. (page 83) "The innocent principle of self-love, joined with the want of a governing principle of holiness will account for criminal selfishness, with all its evil exercises and fruits." What, I say, can be more obvious than that sinners are totally selfish, even according to his own concession, while he is pleading that they are the subjects of laudable self-love? For, they have no holiness to regulate their innocent principles. Their innocent principles, as he expresses it, are joined with the want of a governing principle of holiness. Their innocent principles,

therefore, are totally selfish, which was to be proved. But the lasting honour of the demonstration belongs to the gentleman who says, "That criminal selfishness is nothing but natural self-love unconnected with holy benevolence, and that the innocent principle of self-love, joined with the want of a governing principle of holiness, will account for criminal selfishness."

IV. It was objected "The bible makes it the immediate duty of sinners to repent and believe but Mr. T.'s theory makes something else their immediate duty, and furnishes the sinner with an excuse to delay." This objec tion to his theory has evidently proved a most gravelling one. But though in his first publication he laboured hard to invalidate it, he has in his last publication granted the full force of it. For, 1. He says (page 88) that sinners "Attending means while impenitent implies a present want or delay of the end." 2. He adds (page 93) "I grant they cannot in the same moment possess s the end and barely use means to obtain it." I have only to observe, that more than, this I do not wish him to grant: because more than this I do not assert. For, this is my obr jection, that using means to repent, before repentance, necessarily delays repentance as long as means are used impenitently: and, since he grants that "Attending means while impenitent. implies a present want or delay of the end, and that sinners cannot the same moment possess the end and barely use means to obtain it," it is evident that he grants the full force of the ob jection. Only turn the tables and the objection and the grant are completely reversed. For,