LETTERS ADDRESSED TO A FRIEND on the FOLLOWING SUBJECTS; I. Is God the author of u si ? \[ II. On disinterested be- : nevolence. III. Is it a part of chris- ii tian character to be willing to be treate®^" as we deserve? IV. Does disinterested benevolence in the heart make the subject thereof regard the in¬ terest of thousands a- bove his own ? " Wherefore doth a living man complain ; a man for the punish¬ ment of his sins?"....jeremiah. " Look not every man on his own things ; but every man also ctn the things of others."....paul. The profits arising from the sale of these letters are to go to the east tennessee bible society. printed for john strain, esq. and others. KNOX VILLE; printed by HEISKELL & BROWN. 1817. LETTER I TO. J. S. Esa. HEAR SIR, I HAVE received from your pen a friendlyjudiciousletter, written, as I believe, in the true spirit of disinterested benevolence. You say, you are a friend to what you call the new system of divinity in general; but that there are several modes of expres¬ sion peculiar to it, to which you cannot be reconciled; namely, " that God is the author of sin; disinterested benevolence ; and that we ought to love God to such a degree as to be willing to be damned for the sake of his glory." It does not appear from the face of your letter, that you expected an answer; but as you have taken it for granted, that I, and those whom you are pleased to stile my brethren, are advocates for these m:;des of expression, it is desirable, that you should know exactly, what are our views. Perhaps others may labor under the same difficulties, of which you complain ; if so, an answer may possibly relieve them as well as jmurself. I am not willing to allow, that the sentiments to which yoit refer are new. They are demonstrably as old as the Bible. But every theologian will say the same thing of his own sentiments, be they what they may. Not to insist therefore on this point, I am confident the system is essentially or radically the same with the doctrines of the reformation, as taught, particularly by Calvin, and adopted by our church in its confession. There is, indeed, some improvement in the clearness of scriptural demonstration, and in shewing the connexion and consistency of the doctrines 4 of divine revelation. Those, who receive Dr. Hop¬ kins' explanation of the doctrines, which are contained in the bible and in our confession and catechisms, are called Hopkinsians, in opposition to those who receive the Light and Motive scheme ; or those who adopt a system of Calvinism moderated or qualified by Anninianism; or finalljr, to those, who choose hot to follow pure Calvinistic first principles to their legiti¬ mate issue. But it is not my design to spend time to shew that the system is one with the doctrines of the reforma¬ tion ; every wrell read divine, acquainted with the system, knows this is the fact. Y ou have candidly confessed, if there be any novelty, it consists in the modes of expression. I will venture to say, the same candor will lead you to acknowledge that no writers have more accurately, and perspicu¬ ously defined the terms which they use. I will now consider the objections of your letter. Is God the author of sin ? I answer no. By author, I choose to understand an agent, whose agency directly and immediately produces an effect or event of any kind, the nature of which he approves. Y ou are the author of the letter which I am answering : your thoughts, your will were employed in producing it; and, perhaps your pen too. If you employed an amanuensis, he was the author of the shape of the. letters, that compose the words ; but you were the author of the thoughts, or ideas and words. Then God is properly the author of that 'which is produced or brought about by his direct or immediate agency, the nature of which he approves, without any free agency coming between his agency. and the event so as to produce it; and no other being is the author of that thing. Sin is in the exercises, volitions or tempers of the heart. Hence, it is evident, that there can be no agency between the exercise of the human heart and gin, to produce sin. Then sin belongs to the sinner xJ entirely ; it is his own act and deed; and no other being's in the universe. But at the bottom of this sentiment there is no belief with m£, as with many erroneously called Calvinists, that man has a self determining power of will. Or, that his thinking and willing rest on a subtle undefinable substratum, as the Indian philoso¬ pher had the world to rest on the back of a deer, and the deer to stand on the back of a tortoise. The earth hangs balanced well on God's firm decrees ; so does the existence of every creature. We have no principle of self-existence, or self-action " the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord ; he turneth it whithersoever he will." " Not that we are sufficient of ourselves to think any thing as of ourselves ; but our sufficiency is of God." " In God we live, move, and have our being." According to Solomon, the heart of the King is in the hand of the Lord, and lie turns it as he pleases. But, if the King's heart is in the hands of the Lord, from analogy, the hearts of all intelligent beings from Gabriel down, are also, in the hand of the Lord, and he turneth them as he pleases ; yet sin is in the exercises of the heart, and belongs exclusively to the heart. According to Paul, our sufficiency even to think a thought is of God ; and we have our being with all its movement^ in him. Paul, it seems, had not adopt¬ ed the modern philosophy, falsely so called ; namely, that, when God made all things, lie imparted to them principles of action and self-motion, and retired, leaving them to work their own way.. Both Solo¬ mon and Paul have spoken according to sound philo¬ sophy. Every thing, existence and event may be arranged under the two grand genera, cause and effect. The mind of man cannot conceive a thing that does not belong to one or other of. these. Then thinking and willing are either cause, or effect. If they can with truth he ranged under cause, then they are uncaused. But whatever is uncaused is self-existent, eternal, hide- (j pendent, and every where present. Then thinking and willing wherever found, are self-existent, eternal, &c. But these words express exclusively the attributes of Deity ; then, thinking and willing, wherever they exist, are really and truly God. Who does not see at first blush the absurdity and folly of such a conclusion. Then thinking, and willing in creatures are effects. Effects of what ? Of the providential agency of God. Adam had a first perception, and a first volition, with which his mental existence commenced. It will be admitted that God directly and immediately created his spirit; that is, his divine creative agency produced a thinking, willing existence. The first perception could not produce a second, without as- signing to it creative power; nor, indeed, could any thing el$,e, except the almighty energy of Jehovah, Our sufficiencytp think a thought is of God. « There is a spirit in man: and the inspiration ofthe Almighty giveth understanding." Job 32, 8. It may be satisfactory here to introduce and es¬ tablish a distinction of some importance; namely, that volition as existence or being is distinct from its sinfulness or holiness. The one is real being or entity, the others are the qualities of being, or predi¬ cates necessarily belonging to an existence of a particular kind under particular circumstances. If the distinction just made be not admitted, no reasonable doctrine of mental identity can be main¬ tained. A being consisting of several constituents is the same. But if one of the constituents be taken away, it destroys the sameness of the being; or if one be taken away and another substituted directly oppo¬ site in its nature, the sameness is destroyed. If the limb of a tree be cut off, and another grafted in from a different tree, this would not destroy the identity of the tree ; because it would be a tree without the limb. But if the removal of the limb would have destroyed the being or species ofthe tree, a limb from another would not restore eithev of them. 7 1. Yolition is an exercise or act of the will which has its whole existence in successive volitions. But each volition has the same entity or essential being that the •will has; and if sinfulness be the very being of the volition; holiness being an existence the very opposite Of sinfulness, when the volitions of the sinner become holy, there would be a total change of the being, ana these opposite existences cannot constitute the same individual will. 2. If there be no distinction between volition as being or entity ; and sinfulness or holiness; then sin¬ fulness is the proper object of good will; and it would be contrary to every dictate of benevolence to wish its destruction in any case. 3. If the distinction be rejected, the difference be¬ tween natural and moral ability and inability falls to the ground. If sin be the very being of volition, then sin is as much- a natural existence, as any other existence ; of course it would be naturally impossible for a will, that consisted of sinfulness to be an exis¬ tence, that consisted of holiness ; for the last would be the destruction of the first; or rather they would be two distinct beings, that could no more constitute the same individual will, than Satan and Gabriel can be the same individual at different times. It will be necessary, however, to guard against inferring from this distinction, that volition may exist without sinfulness or holiness. Volition is a necessa¬ ry existence. Let any man try to stop thinking and willing,, lie will soon find how vain the effort. The very trial would be a volition. He could as easily cease to be, as cease to will. Volition is not only necessary, but it is also necessarily sinful or holy, because they all take place under moral law and can no more exist without one or the other, than matter can exist without some shape or figure. But one figure rather than another is not necessary to the being of matter, nor is its particular figurability a constituent of its being. So sinfulness or holiness belongsnecessa- 8 rily to volition; but there is no necessity, that it should be one rather than the other, arising out of the nature of its being. God may create matter and determine under what figure it shall exist; but he cannot create matter existing under no shape. . He may likewise produce volitions and determine whether they shall be sinful or holy ; but a rational creature cannot have volitions that are neither sinful nor holy. In the case of matter the existence is wholly inert; but in the other case the existence is voluntary exercise preceded by perception. And every man has the evidence of his own consciousness, that when two objects are presented,he may choose either of them; and that he is under no natural necessity of choosing malevolently, rather than benevolently. Perhaps these arguments may be too much com¬ pressed for the plain man, unacquainted with meta¬ physics, to understand ; but the logician and philoso¬ pher know, that it would be worth their characters to oppose them. And the plain man can easily see, that they are in their conclusions, at agreement with the express language of holy writ. Then, according to scripture and sound philosophy, to God alone belongs causation, and he alone is uncaused. While he is the holy efficient cause of all our thoughts and volitions. There is no agent between him and these effects, causing them, and producing them. But before God could be the author of sin, his agency and causation must include an approbation of sin and so be sinful; to suppose which would be blasphemy. If a man should tell me, he meant no more by the expression, u author of sin" than what is fairly implied in the above scriptures ; I would tell him, his ideas, then, were right; but that h& offended against propri¬ ety of language by the use of the phrase. And, if he were a public speaker, I would importune him to drop it, and use more appropriate language. Before I quit this point, I must take the liberty of shewing the agreement between my views and our u excellent confession of faith on this point. I have always felt that this would be an easy task, not only on this subject, but on every subject in that excellent book. Sometimes it has appeared, as if an opportuni¬ ty to do this would be a privilege. And once I had a thought of doing it in an answer to Ely's Contrast. But it is more than probable I shall decline it, for reasons that may appear in this answer. But to return. The Confession says, chap. 5, sec. 4. The almighty power, " unsearchable wisdom, and infinite goodness of God, so far manifest themselves in his providence, that it extendeth itself to the first fall, and" all other sins of angels and men, and that riot by a bare permission ; but such as hath joined with it a most wise and powerful bounding, and otherwise ordering and governing of them in a manifold dispen¬ sation, to his own holy ends ; yet so, as the sinfulness thereof proceedeth only from the creature, and not from God; who being most holy and righteous, neither is, nor can be the author or approver of sin." They refer to the following texts. Bom. 11, 32 33, 2d Saml. 24, 1, with 1st Chron. 21,1,1st Chron. 10, 4 ; 13, 14, 2nd Saml. 16, 10, Acts, 4, 27, 28, Psalms, 76, fO, 2nd Kings, 19, 28, Gen. 50, 20, Isai. 10, 6, 7, 12,1st John, 2, 16, Psalms, 50,21, Jas. 1, 13, 14, 17. " God, the great creator of all things, doth uphold, direct, dispose and govern all creatures, actions and things from the greatest to the least." " God from all eternity, did by the most wise and holy counsel of his own will, freely and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass ; yet so as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offer¬ ed to the will of his creatures, nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away but rather established." Chapt. 3, sec. 1. My sentiments, and the sentiments of those whom you call my brethren, could not, I believe, be better expressed, than they are by the above quotations. We have no desire to explain away these articles of B 10 our confession, or mitigate, and qualify them fey the sophistry hatched in the school of James Arminius. I believe they express the sentiments of both your head and your heart as fully as ours. I wish I had good, reason to believe the same thing of all who call themselves Calvinists and Prdkbyterians. I find that each of the points, you have given me to discuss will occupy a letter, if it be confined to any reasonable length. I therefore close this one by subscribing myself, yours affectionately. ISAAC ANDERSON. Maryvillef Oct 21,181G. LETTER II TO THE SAME. Beak SIR,, I PROPOSE to consider the second point to which you object in your letter; namely, the Use of the phrase, disinterested benevolence. You seem to think these words are very unsuitable to express that holy, heavenly frame of heart, which characterises a saint in the sight of God. I must candidly, acknowledge, that I think our language does not furnish us with better. But let us appeal from our own private judgement to the standards of the English language ; for people will understand words as their dictionary explains them. In the second place, we will examine how goodwriters apply them. And lastly consider, whether they can be defended in their application to discriminate christian character. 1st. How are these words explained by the stand¬ ards of the English language ? Disinterested ; Superior to regard of private advan¬ tage, not influenced by private profit, without any concern in an affair....Walker. Uninterested ; Not having interest....IsiD. Interested ; Concern, advantage, good, influence over others, share, participation, regard to private profit. ....Ibid. Johnson and Sheridan define these words in the very same way ; as also does Jones. Disinterested ; Void of self interest, impartial, unbi assed....BAiLY. 12 Interest; Advantage, concernment, benefit, credit, power, right....Is. Benevolent-ence ; Disposition to do good, kindness, kind, having good will....Walker. Benevolent-ence ; Good will, that sort of love which disposes .one man to confer kindness on another ; bearing good will, favourable, fr iendly, affectionate, kind....BAiLY. Selfishness ; Attention to one's own interest without any regard to others; selflove.... Sheridan. Johnson and Walker give the same, definition. Selfish ; Minding chiefly his own interest....Baily. Selfish ; Void of regard for others....Jones. Permit me to close the rear in the words of St. Paul. " Men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, &c." Such are the definitions, given by the standards of the English language, of the words that are intimately concerned in the discussion of this subject. Agr eea¬ bly to these definitions, interested and uninterested are opposing words ; and disinterested is properly opposed only to selfishness. Nothing can be more easy and natural, than to distinguish between the interest, profit or advantage a person has in an object, transaction or event, and the regard or feelings of his heart towards that object, transaction or event. Interested or uninterested is applied to the first, and disinterested or selfish to the last, or the exercises of the heart. To illustrate this plain distinction ; General Washington had a great inte¬ rest in common with the rest of his countrymen in the issue of our struggle for independence; however, he was not influenced by interested, selfish or mercenary motives; but was disinterested or impartial in his motives; superior to regard of private advantage. This eminent man was so far from being void of regard for others, that he excelled in public affection. Sometimes, these words are used in rather a meta¬ phorical sense, gnd applied to the motives and regards, 13 of the heart toward an object, such a man's heart is interested in an affair ; that is, his heart, affections, or passions are excited, roused and engaged about the matter; without meaning to express whether his heart is engaged selfishly, or benevolently. Another is actuated by interested motives; that is, he is selfish or mercenary in his feelings. Again ; we say, such a man is uninterested in his feelings. We mean, he feels a coldness, apathy and indifference toward the object, whether it is the glory of God, religious principles, or public or private happiness. Disinterested is sometimes used to express a per¬ son's having no concern or profit in an affair. But it is always in cases where the strong presumption is, that the motives and regard of the heart are involved. A disinterested witness is one, who has no profit in the decision that may be given in a law-suit. But if it could be proved, that he was the subject of the same motives, that a depraved man would be, had he as a witness, a special interest in the trial, he would hot be called a disinterested witness. On the other hand, had a witness a special interest in the trial; but it could be proved satisfactorily, that he felt as a good man would do, who was a witness, but had no inte¬ rest in the affair, he would be properly called a disinte¬ rested witness. So that the interest, or the contrary, in the trial, is the presumptive proof, that the man's heart is selfish or disinterested. But I believe these words are never used, except when the motives of the heart about an affair are directly or indirectly intended to be expressed. But suppose the words interested and uninterested, in general usage, and according to the dictionaries, did not exclusively relate to the connection between a person and an object or transaction, extra of himself and his improper attachments ; and that disinterested, did not apply exclusively to the right exercises of the heart toward that object or transaction, which is a supposition contrary to fact; yet, if theological writers 14 tell us that they use the first to express the advantage or disadvantage we receive from something out of ourselves, and our selfish feelings to it; and the latter to express righteous feelings toward that something, this ought to be sufficient. ,2nd. We will shew how different writers use these words. " Selfrlove or selfishness consists in a moral agent's placing his happiness in what he views as his own private personal interest, and in nothing else, in distinc¬ tion from the interest or happiness of any other being, and in contradiction to it. Self-love regards nothing but self, as such,- and subordinates every being and every thing to this, and opposes every thing which in the view of the selfish person opposes him, and his selfish interest." ....Hopkins. Vol. 1st, 348 546 How well does this agree with the definitions given by the dictionaries of the words selfish and interested. " Disinterested benevolence is pleased with the public interest, and the greatest good and happiness of the whole. This is the highest good to the benevo¬ lent person. In this he places his happiness, and not, in the interest and happiness of any individual or of himself, any farther than it is consistent with the great¬ est interest and happiness of the whole, and really included in it, and serves to promote it." - The next venerable name I will take is Scott, on James 1, 27. " Pure religion ; essentially consisted in disinterest¬ ed, humble, self denying love to men for the Lord's sake and from love to him ; without some measure of this holy love ; no doctrines, forms, confidence, high affections, real, or apparent devotion can prove a man an accepted worshipper of God." Let us hear next the celebrated Dr. Witherspoon. "*Our affection to God seems to be capable of the same division as our affection to our fellow-creatures, benevolent, and selfish. I think it undeniable, that 15 there is a disinterested loye to' God, which terminates directly upon himself without any immediate view to* our own happiness ; as well as a discovery of our great interest in his favor." Lecture 7, 011 Moral Philosophy. John Newton, whose p'raise is in all the churches, comes next. In the first of eight letters addressed to the Rev. Mr. S. he says" A disinterested desire of knowing the truth, with a willingness to follow it, is ^preparation of the heart which only God can give." In the same letter he says, " By nature self rules in the heart, when this idol is brought low, and we are truly willing to be the Lord's—the good work is begun " Take a quotation from Dugald Stewart, whose literary fame is in all the world. Life of Robertson. " The trade of authorship was unknown in Scotland ; and the rank which that country had acquired among the learned nations of Europe, had been sustained by a small number of eminent men, who distinguished themselves by an honorable and disinterested zeal in the ungainful walks of abstract science." If Dodridge may be heard, when he is in opposition to such imposing authority as Ezra S. Ely, hear him. Introduction to Paul's epistle to the Philippi- ans. " This epistle breathes, the warmest gratitude and most disinterested affection." If the Spectator be authority for the use of lan¬ guage, we have all the right of his authority for the, use of disinterested; and I know of no authority before which he must bend and bow, except E. S. Ely's, Number 423, page 125, Vol. 6. " This seeming unconcern gives his behaviour the advantage of sincerity, and insensibly obtains your good opinion by appearing disinter eked in the pur¬ chase of it" la No. 467 page 312, Yol. 6. u We have still extant two orations of Tully and Pliny, spoken to the greatsetandj bes p mces of all the Roman Emperors, who no doubt heard with thegreatest satisfaction, what even the most disinterested persons, cannot read without admiration." Number 588, page 122, Vol. 8. " The pity which arises on sight of persons in distress, and the satisfaction of mind which is the consequence of having removed them into a happier state, are instead of a thousand arguments to prove such a thing as disinterested benevolence Suffer me to quote Scott again. Chftp. 2, 17, Nothing can exceed the genuine magnanimity and disinterested love expressed in this most beautiful passage." See the same on Phil. 4, 10, 13. Let me give you a quotation from the celebrated Harvey, Descant on creation. " He who tinctures the metallic dust, and consolidates the lucid drop ; he, when sojourning on earth, had no riches; but the riches o; disinterested benevolence, had no orna¬ ment, but the ornament of unspotted purity." In connection with the sentiment of this devout writer take the words of Paul. " Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus," Phil. 2, 5. Blair says " The moral and sentimental sublime, implies a contempt of selfish interest." Dr. Brown's life by his son, page 112. "In acts of disinterested generosity, he had sustained losses to the amount of—&c," Page 143, " A cause that had induced the most honorable, and the bravest chieftains in Scotland disinterestedly to draw their sword, and Sacrifice their property and lives in its defence." Washington, the father of American liberty, letter to Gen. Lee. "No interested motives have influen* Ced my conduct." Every American will subscribe to the following character of Washington, givep by a certain historian,. 17 page 356. " Whose actions afford so many and such illustrious instances of wisdom and disinterested•> ness, and devotion to his country's service." The same, page, 357. " Disinterestedness always made him prefer the advantage of his country to his own glory." The British and Foreign Bible Society is justly the admiration of Christendom ; the enlightened men, who give its annual reports to the world are not likely to make use of vain words. Twelfth report. " The Calcutta Auxiliary Bible Society have presented a donation of5,000 rupees; an act munificent in itself, and rendered still more valuable by the indication it affords of a disinterested friendship on the part of the elder Asiatic auxiliary." Same report. " In this pure disinterested benevo^ leace which can arise, it is presumed, from no other source than love to God and Man, and which has no other object than to promote his glory, and the temporal and eternal good of his creatures." Letter from Rev, J. Bead, written after his return from Oaitraria, dated, Bethelsdorp, May 31, 1816. " The labours of our late brother Yanderkemp,did not then appear to be very useful; but he has ma,de the name of a missionary so valuable by his disiitte* rested behaviour, that a missionary is safer there, than, perhaps, he would be in many parts of England." The Sunday school teachers' guide, by the Rev. J. A. Jones. " Did the Son of God labour through a life of poverty, agonize in a death of torture for immortal souls ; and will you cast from you their interests ; because a little sacrifice of time and ease is required on the Sabbath? Can you pretend to fellowship with Christ ? If selfishness has not chilled your blood at its fountain, let it rise into your cheek with the blush of holy shame, and be the signal from this hour, for ^allying your retreating benevolence." Page 94-5, 18 The same. " Prayer keeps down the growth and influence of our natural selfishness." I must now give you some extracts from the Baron¬ ess Stael Holstein's admirable review of German, French, and English philosophy. Vol. 1, page 3. " At an epoch when selfishness is the prevailing evil." Vol. 2,page 133. " I shall endeavor to show ; that the moral system which is built on interest, so strenu¬ ously preached up by the French writers* of the last age, has an intimate connection with that species of metaphysics which attributes all our ideas to our sensations, and that the consequences of the one are as bad in practice, as those of the other in theory." Page 138, "We shall examine the arguments of Kant against morality as founded on self interest, and the sublime theory which he substituted in the place of this hypocritical sophism or perverse doc¬ trine." Page 163. " The philosophy of materialism has stuck its roots so deeply into the mind, so much irreligion has been the result of it, that those men ought to be regarded as benefactors to their country, who have combated a system so pernicious." Page 188. " It is not from a want of understand¬ ing the moral value of what is useful, that Kant has separated it from the beautiful ; it is to ground admi¬ ration of every kind on absolute disinterestedness." Page 210. • " The systems of metaphysical materi¬ alism and selfish morality are atheism with a God." Page 213. " Guilt has more grandeur when it arises from the disorder of inflamed passions, than when personal interest is its object; how then allege that to be a principle of virtue which would dishonor vice itself." Page 227. " The sentiment which makes us aspire ——*Namely, Infidels, Illuminecs, and Atheists, who likes, may glory in being with them, 19 to immortality is as disinterested, as that which makes us find our happiness in devoting ourselves to the happiness of others." Note. While you are in the midst of quotations from such a list of worthies, I wish you to stop so long as to determine, whether Mr. Ely's dissertation on the word disinterested is as learned and wise as we had a right to expect from such a book-making man or so modest as we might expect from a young minis¬ ter. The implication is; surely had Doddridge, Harvey, Scott, Stuart, Newton and all the rest been as critically wise as Mr. Ely, they would not have committed such unpardonable blunders, as they have done in the use of the word disinterested. Is it not passing strange ! that it has been left to Mr. Ely to discover in the 19th century, the true meaning cf that phrase, which so many of the wise and learned have mistaken? Noble discovery! O the virtue of critical Greek learning ! Who kfiows but some pupil of his. school will find out that disbelief means twice-belief; that is, a belief of double the conviction and ardor of mere belief without the dis at it. How would deists, infidels and atheists rejoice to have their guilt, scandal, and exposure to ruin swept ail away by one such fortunate discovery. The 22nd report of the .general meeting of the London missionary society; composed by men distinguished for piety and talents ; " Mr. Janz was a man of an excellent spirit, eminent for faith, self denial and holy zeal for God, an active, faithful, disin¬ terested missionary." The Rev. Thomas Passlar of Liverpool, speaking of the immortal Morrison, says, "I pronounce his name with greater reverence, than that with which my father taught me to pronounce the name of Howard ; what the learned for ages deemed impracticable, Morrison has. achieved alone, and by making that achievement in the translation of the scriptures (if to the Chinese language,) he has secured for his nanle a go renown which time shall respect, and the decisions of the judgment day shall fix, and the ages of eternity perpetuate ; holy disinterested man. An anonymous writer on the L ord's supper. " The only proper motives which can induce us to celebrate the Lords"s supper, must flow from a heart disinterest¬ edly attached to the character and laws and kingdom Of Christ." The Rev. Mr. Larey, of Serampore. " Sure I am that it is entirely contrary to the spirit of the gospelj for its ministers to be actuated by interested motives" Home on missions. "We first baptize our secu¬ lar interests and evil tempers into the name of the disinterested and lowly Jesus ; and then contend for them, with as much warmth and pertinacity, as though they involved our salvation." Page 18. " From the mercenaries of the christian church my soul turns with loathing. * Though 1 could move mountains, they would remain immoveable ; but, you who were indeed moved to engage in the minis¬ try by the Holy Ghost; you are the disinterested benefactors of mankind." Page 25. "We require in our missionaries a disinterested generous way of thinking." Page 92. " When so many are calling you into the field of political or polemic discussion, certainly I may be bold in provoking you to love of the most disinte¬ rested kind." Page 176. I must add one more quotation from Scott. " If they were not disposed to accompany her out of disinterested love to God, and to the people of Israel, she could hold out no other inducement." On Ruth 1, 11,14. The authorities we have now produced ought to be amply sufficient to settle a dispute about a word. To these I could add a host more, were it necessary. Wherever the English language is spoken, in Asia, Europe or America ; and by whatever denomination, Churchman, Methodist, Baptist, or Presbyterian, or whether, by an individual, or society, historian, philo¬ sopher or divine, or lawyer, if holy, impartial love, motives, or exercises of heart are to be expressed, they spontaneously say disinterested benevolence; lore, motives or affections ; nor do I know an unexcep¬ tionable writer who uses these words in a different Sense.* It is a question worthy of an answer, how the ex¬ pression, disinterested benevolence came to be taken by some men, and in a few neighbourhoods, for indifference to all religious principles, and to all happiness or interest public or private ? for neither English dictionaries, nor classical writers,; justify or even excuse such a mistake.t Some take up this unfounded opinion for one reason, and some for ano¬ ther ; and many are comparatively innocent in this mistake. But I believe it originated in known wilful opposition to the doctrine, that God is to be loved supremely, for his own sake, and his glory to be * I do not consider a book lately published by a Mr. Ezra S. Ely, called the Contrast, an exception to this assertion. That production is puerile, uncandid, and in every sense un¬ worthy an answer. And this is the true reason why it has not been answered long since. The men, whose sentiments he has traduced and misrepresented, are men of honorable feel¬ ings ; and such men are as particular in their choice of an anta¬ gonist, as they are in their choice of a bosom friend , and would feel as much above having it said, they have entered the lists with an unworthy opponent, as that they associated with im¬ proper characters. I know of more than one answer in manu¬ script to his contrast. One of which I hope will be published, merely for the sake of the good people of this country, who have no opportunity of detecting his book: and not with a view of contending with a very child. You may see a specimen of his fairness by comparing notes on pages 70, 72, 131, with Hop. Vol. 1, pages 309, 420, 596-7. Nor is the Rev. W C. Davis' gospel plan an exception. Al¬ though a man of real talents ; he is yet very hei*etical; as the judicatures of the churchhave declared. fThis would be the meaning of uninterested, when appli-r ed to.tha feelings or state of the heart. 22 sought as the ultimate object. Some who oppose this great doctrine are men of address and talents, and they employ all their art to make their opposition to truth pass for zeal for it. They pun upon words, confound distinctions, and address the passions of the people ; all to make proselytes. Others are opposed to it for want of examination, taking it for granted, those who ought to know, have examined, and have taught them correctly. Others from an over fond¬ ness for their powers of criticism. They have seen in the spelling book that the addition of dis to a word, often changes its meaning ; as approve, disapprove ; hence they infer, without the apprehension of a mis¬ take, that- disinterested is diametrically opposite to . interested. * Hence they are also ready to suppose it •was for want of this happy mode of criticising, that dictionaries have been unfortunate in their definitions, and authors unfortunate in the use of the words. - Others are purely selfish in their opposition. It is their interest to prevent some men, and some things and places from being popular; and mere circumstan¬ ces have made this the proper string to harp upon. I must believe you are as innocent in your opposi¬ tion, as it is possible to be, for you say, " we know there is a supreme love we owe to God above all things, our own interest not excepted." This you caH interested love. But I am persuaded from your known candor, you will acknowledge by this time, this is an offence against appropriate language as established by use. You will not say that I am supporting a doctrine by dictionaries and uninspired writers.- No sir, it is only what is the appropriate use of a word ? We do not differ in ideas and sentiments on this subject7; only about proper words to express our ideas. 3d. Is there any good reason for discriminating christian affection by disinterested, love, benevolence, motive, and affection ; for these all mean the same thing ? 23 Love is a word that applies to several distinct sub¬ jects. Its applications will be best understood by first considering the nature of man. Man is com¬ pounded of an animal and mental existence. To our animal nature belongs exclusively a number of affections, that get the same name with a number of affections that belong exclusively to the soul. The affection between husband and wife, between the sexes, between parents and their offspring, are animal aftections ; and are called by the common name love. The mind perceives the existence of these affections, and wills about them ; but the perceptions and exer¬ cises of the mind are not these animal affections them¬ selves ; nor does the will change them; but may direct and restrain them. We are also the subjects of pity, sympathy, gratitude, and various local attach¬ ments, which are denominated affections. The love and affections now considered, are in themselves nei¬ ther sinful nor holy ; they belong essentially to our very nature ; the believer and unbeliever are equally possessed of them. And that change which converts a sinner into a saint does neither eradicate them nor alter their nature; grace may, and indeed does restrain and improve them. We discover the same affections in mere animal creation. We are also the subjects of a love, that belongs exclusively to the soul, which may be thus represent¬ ed. The understanding has an object presented to it, and has a distinct perception of its properties; the will acts towards it, in exercises called good will, choice, approbation and delight. These exercises of the will are called love. This love is purely mental: and there is a plain distinction or two, that belongs to it. 1 st. T'here may be an approbation, choice, or de¬ light in the will in the view of the object, solely, because the person thinks it is connected with his private, separate interest and advantage : this is self¬ ishness. Bnd. The will may choose, approve, and delight in the object, solely on account of the qualities and properties of which the object is possessed; this is the jove of complacency. 3d. The object may be capable of happiness and misery, and the will may exercise strong desires, and wishes for its well being: this is called the love of good will. The two last are called disinterested benevolence. Aside from all names of distinction, the will is plainly the subject of these three exercises. It is cer¬ tainly important to know, when we speak of ore or of the other; and the words, that have been used for this purpose, are plain and easy. Again ; benevolence, is used to express a holy, up¬ right state of heart; but not exclusively in this sense. The sympathies and affections which we have from our very constitution and creation, when acted out, get the name of benevolent affections ; as, for example, pity, and compassion ; when they lead us to supply the poor, or relieve the distressed. But the unregene- rate have these affections, as well as the regenerate. It is certainly not safe to use such language as may lead people to think that these original affections of our nature constitute true religion in whole or in part. Nothing is more common, than to say of a kind, humane and compassionate man, he is a benevolent man. Are we not to make the necessary distinctions? Most certainly. Then, as disinterested applies to the exercises and motives of the heart exclusively, and marks out the moral quality of the motives; what word more suitable ? If we merely speak of benevo¬ lence, it may be asked, what kind of benevolence ? Is it the tenderness and kindnesss of unregenerate men, that is meant, or genuine holiness ? But, if we say disinterested benevolence ; no other question can be asked, if the words are understood ; for they mean in their plain and obvious import impartial good will to God and man. Then the alliance of the adjective 23 disinterested, with love, benevolence, motive, and affection, is natural and appropriate, and is according to the nature and reason of things. And it is a word easy to the organs of speech. But let us look at the union of interested with benevolence or love. Inte¬ rested means regard to private advantage : then inte¬ rested love means a love that regards no interest or concern, but my own private, separate advantage. This is the import of the words as established by use. But your letter condemns a religion of this kind ; and every real christian abhors it. When interested is applied to the motives of the heart, it means the- same thing as selfish. I would now go on to show that the Bible is full of that religion I call disinterested. " Charity seeketh not her own."* But this you do not desire, for your letter is filled with it. However, take the case of Job ; satan accuses him of having no sort of religion but interested or selfish, Job 1, 9, 10. The Lord gave him permission to take from Job all, for which, he considered, Job served God. It is done. Job sticks to his integrity. Satan then says, I did not take in enough in the reward when I first accused ; " skin for skin, all that a man hath will he give for his life." Go, says God, and make his life a curse to him. It is done. And Job's wife reproaches him for retaining his integrity, and bids him curse' God and die. Ilis disinterested heart replied," Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What ? shall we re¬ ceive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil ?" I have not heard of satan's advocating selfish or interested religion since. Shall we be lest; orthodox than satan ? But this letter has swollen to an immoderate length. I must come to a close by making two remarks. 1st. We are, without regeneration, the subjects of *See Rom. 15, 1, 3. 1st Cor. 13,5. 2nd Cor. 5, 15. Phil. 2, 21. 2nd Tim. 3, 2, and the first chapters of Job, where the question is debated and settled. D 26 ell the lore, and benevolence of which we are capable, except the two last, which I noticed in explaining the exercises of the will. The love there described, to¬ wards God, his law and kingdom, is only produced by the spirit of God. 2nd. We may have disinterested love to an object in which we have the highest interest. Hence we see why it is,God addresses our fears, hopes, and love for happiness, to persuade us to love and serve him with disinterested affection. I am, &c. I. ANDERSON. Maryville, Oct. 23, 1816. LETTER III. TO THE SAME Bear SIR, 1 HE last thing objected to in yourletter, is a particular mode of expressing the doctrine of unconditional submission. The mode of expression of which you complain is this ; genuine submission or humility implies a willingness to be damned, if the glory of God should require it. I do not propose answering you any otherwise than by exhibiting, what I believe the truth on this subject. You will admit there is a distinction between the precepts and penalty of the divine law. And also between the transgression oflaw, and the suffering of the penalty of law, Without these distinctions we should be subject to the greatest confusion in our conceptions of many divine subjects, and would run into gross absurdities. To mention but one ; most christians believe Christ suffered the curse of the law in the room of sinners ; then,if the above distinctions are not admitted, Christ transgressed the law, which is contrary to the whole word of God. Some un¬ derstand the word damnation as embracing in its proper meaning, both the malignant temper of the heart, which is the transgression of the law, and the sufferings inflicted by the government of God on the transgressor for his crimes ; this, to me, is .to confound all distinction between precept and penalty ; sin, and suffering for sin. Neither the English word dam- » O # nation, nor the words in the original (krima, knsis) ^f which it is the translation, properly mean both 28 these things ; bat only that punishment to which a sinner is righteously condemned by his judge for his transgression of law. JBut I admit that people gene- rally understand it as including both, and the mistake is not a dangerous one ; for, in the perfect moral government of God, none will be damned but sinners; and no impenitent sinner will finally escape damna¬ tion. But still, sin and its punishment are distinct. I am willing, also, to admit, that the expression, wil¬ ling to be damned, conveys a wrong sentiment to ninety nine hearers out of an hundred ; therefore I do not use it; nor approve of others' using it. But now I have conceded all you are to expect. I am now ready to state, what I do and must de¬ fend, as I must answer for it at the bar of God ; namely, that it is in the very nature of true religion, to make us willing to be treated as we deserve. This very temper is that with which .religion commences in the heart of a sinner, and is among the brightest, and most glorious features of true religion through life and through eternity. On this subject I could dilate with pleasure ; but the brevity of a letter forbids it. The sentiment is supported by the following arguments. 1st. " I love them that love me." Proverbs 8, 17. God has no love for sinners, but the love of good will; such a love as a good man may have for a fel¬ low man whose character he hates. The Lord is angry with sinners every day, Psalms 7,11,12, &c. Mai. 1, 3, Rom. 9,13, and he repeatedly declares he has no complacency in them. Rom. 1, 18, Deut, 32, 18, 19, 26,40,42, and as repeatedly declares, that he only loves them who love him. John 14, 21, 24j John 16,27.* And indeed it is morally impossible that God should love sinners, (except with the love of good will ; John 3, 16, Eph. 2, 4,5, 1 John 4,9, 10, Rom. ♦Do take jour Bible and examine those texts. 20 5, 8,) for they are unlovely, their hearts are opposed to all that is good ; and to love and be pleased with a sinner, would be to be sinful ; Psalms 50, 18. Then, if there ever be any complacential love between God and the sinner, the sinner must first begin to love God. And there is always good ground on which the sinner may begin to love God; for God is always the same, and infinitely lovely. And as soon as the creature begins to love God, then he has something in him which God can love. But before the creature begins to love God, his justice, holiness, and truth, are all opposed to him as a sinner, and stand in dread¬ ful array for his destruction. Then with just such views of God the sinner must submit to him and begin to love him ; for he cannot know, that God will have mercy on him, until the spirit bears witness with his spirit, that love to a holy and sin-avenging God is in him ; and, sir, this is an argument that all the sophistry on earth cannot refute, or gracefully gainsay. Lev. 26, 41, 42 ; " If their uncircumcised hearts be humbled, and they then accept the punish¬ ment of their iniquity ; then will I remember my covenant." I once heard of a preacher who solemnly told the people from the pulpit, that this punishment meant temporal punishment. God preserve me from such comments on his word ! " I will appoint over yoh terror, consumption, and the burning ague ; ye shall be slain by your enemies ; and if ye will not be reformed by me by these things ; I will bring seven times more plagues upon you according to your sins ; I will send the pestilence on you ; ye shall eat the flesh of your sons, and the flesh of your daughters; I will cast your carcases upon the carcases of your idols; I will make yOur cities waste ; I will bring the land into desola¬ tion ; ye shall perish among the heathen, and the land of your enemies 6hall cat you up ; they that are left shall pine ana ay in their iniquity." This is the con¬ nection of the passage. How, sir, suppose such a so punishment brought on this land, how soon would those who fell under it, survive it ? The endless ages of eternity alone would measure their misery. And do such evils involve temporal punishment only ? What then would imply eternal miser}7 ? 2nd. If we consider what sin deserves, we shall soon be convinced that eternal misery alone is the just desert of sin. Against whom is sin committed ? against an infinitely holy God, and in violation of a perfect law; then it deserves eternal death. What evil would the uncontrolled tendency of sin produce ? Infinite mischief to God and his kingdom : then the sinner deserves to feel as much evil as his sins have a tendency to produce ; Deut. 19, 19." Sin deserves God's wrath and curse both in this life and the life that is to come," Gal. 3, 10. 3d. What is humility ? It is not a painful envious sense of another's superiority. Nor is it the submission that an inferior owes to a superior. Nor is it the con¬ descension of a superior to an inferior. Nor is it involuntary abasement. What then ? It consists in self-abasement. Being willing to lie as low as our sins deserve ; Luke 15, 19, Job 42, 6, Gen. 32, 10. The humble sinner approves the justice that condemns - him, and is willing to bear the punishment he deserves. This was the temper of Eli: 1 Saml. 15, 25, 26. This was the temper of David, when he saw thou¬ sands falling under the avenging sword of the destroy¬ ing Angel. " Even I it is, that have sinned, and done evil indeed, but as for these sheep what have they done ? Let thine hand, I pray thee, O Lord, my God, be on me, &c." 1 Chron. 21,17. 4th. " Accept the punishment," &c. Can any humble disciple of the meek and disinterested Jesus thus complain ? My heart revolts at the thought of being in the hands of a righteous and holy God so completely and absolutely as this. Is not God to be trusted without limitations and conditions ? If not, who will impose them on him? Or can God be to© 31 much exalted in the hearts of his creatures? Or can a sinner feel too much self abasement ? Do you admit that sin deserves God's wrath and curse both in this life and that which is to come ? Do you admit, that it would be righteous in God to inflict this deserved punishment ? Must you approve, or disapprove of God's justice in order to be a christian ? Did a man ever approve of that which he was not willing to accept ? Consult your own heart for the answers. It must reply, it cannot help it; acceptance and appro¬ bation of an object of choice, are the very same thing. Your heart, your conscience, your Bible, all tell you, that heart-felt religion approves of the law in precept and penalty ; approves of the truth, justice and holi¬ ness of God, which incline him to execute the sentence of the law ^>n all sinners. And can your conscience and Bible! also tell you, that it is not right to have a heart-felt acceptance of the punishment of your inh quity? Impossible. Can you distinguish between the exercise of approving of Christ as he is exhibited in the gospel, and accepting him as a Saviour? Just as easily as you Can distinguish between sin and a transgression of the law. The hearts' approving of an object is the hearts' acceptance of that object. 5th. Let us look at the reasonableness of this senti¬ ment. The government and law of God are holy, just and good. It is righteous in God to carry into execution his law; and the heart that does not feel so, must be in a state of rebellion ; but God cannot re¬ ceive one in such a state. Again, sinners are not prepared to accept mercy who are not willing to sink as low as divine justice can sink them ; or who do not see and approve God's justice, and freely resign themselves into his hand. Let me illustrate this. A son has offended in so high a degree, that it becomes a duty in the father to chastise him ; the son at¬ tempts to escape ; the father commands him to come back ; the son replies, I will come to you, if you will not chastise me ; if the father agrees to this 32 condition, then the son has a claim on the father to go free from punishment, and does not feel that it is an exercise of mercy to let him escape. But, if the fa¬ ther tells him plainly he must come back without any condition ; and the son returns feeling, he deserves punishment, willing to accept it, and approving of that trait of character in his father which inclines him to chastise an offending son; he not only shews a right temper towards his father and justice, but is prepared to feel, if his father forgive him, that it is mere mercy, an unmerited favour. And if he sees, that it becomes consistent with family government, for the father to pardon him through the merit of another brother, how will it endear that brother to •his heart ? Through this medium he will accept his father's favour. But this will not destroy the willing¬ ness in him to be treated as he deserves ; and this willingness is so far from destroying his hope or "assurance of his father's favour, that it is the experi¬ mental ground on which he is sure of enjoying that favour ; for he knows his father looks on this temper in him and is pleased. Let me ask wiiat would be the feelings of good citizens, who had been present at the trial of a mur¬ derer, and heard his guilt proved plainly, when they saw him executed, wrould they not all approve ? Will not the righteous all approve of the condemnation of the wicked at last ? Suppose the murderer just before his execution became a good man ; wh&t would his feelings be ? Would his goodness of heart be the very opposite of goodnes of heart in others ? Or would he not join with them in approving his condemnation and. execution ? Surely. Would it not be very in¬ congruous for the saints in the judgement day, to join in the sentence of the condemnation of the wicked, seeing they deserved the same condemnation, if they were not willing to accept of it ? Would this be do¬ ing to others, as we would that others should do to us ? 33 Some, to avoid the conclusion of these arguments, ungenerously confound the willingness, of which I have been speaking, with desire. Let us try to what this confusion will lead. Our catechism tells us that the tenth commandment requires a full contentment with our own condition. And it refers us to Heb. 13, 5, and 1 Cor. 10, 10. The first is, u Be content with such things as' ye have." The latter," Neither murmur ye, as some of them also murmured." Let me suppose a condition. A man is cast into a dun¬ geon, his wife and daughters are prostituted before his eyes, and 'then his whole family sold for slaves to cruel task masters. He is to be fully content, willing to submit; yet he may honestly desire to change this condition ; but this desire must be under such government, as that the man would not willingly do wrong to change his state. Would it not be uncan- did to say, that the catechism or the Bible requires him to desire such a condition, because they require him willingly to submit to the providence of God; and thus bear his state without murmuring ? " Wherefore doth a living man complain ; a man for the punishment of his sins ?" Sam. 3, 39. Again, Paul tells us " If I be an offender or have committed any thing worthy of death, I refuse not to die." Acts 25,11. Paul was willing to die, if he deserved to die ; but it would be ridiculous to say, that he desired to die the death of a criminal. Many christians are willing to bear poverty, perse¬ cution and even death for the sake of Christ and his kingdom ; yet no man in his senses desires and wishes for these evils. I have now given you my views on what you deemed exceptional things in what you style the new divinity. I believe, my brethren agree with me. If your difficulties, or rather objections, are removed, I shall be amply compensated. I feel that your letter is answered. If you should feel so too, then others may have relief by seeing this answer. You are at 34 liberty to let them have the opportunity, in any mode you think best. I have not taken your letter, para¬ graph by paragraph and answered it; this, I did not think the most advisable method. But, if these letters are correct, yours is answered ; and the plan I have adopted is the most concise. I fear this letter may be too concise ; I hope not. May the Lord direct us all in our inquiries after truth, and bring us at last to his heavenly kingdom. I am yours, affectionately, ' I. ANDERSON. Mary mile, Oct. 25,1816. In support of the doctrines advocated in this letter, you may consult Math. 23,11,12, and 16, 25 ; Mark 3, 35; Luke 9,*24; and 17,33 ; 1st. Peter 5,6. letter IV: TO THE SAME. Dear Sir, There is one other subject for the defence of which the poor Hopkinsians have had to bear the keenest reproaches of selfishness ; namely, disinterested benevolence in the heart makes the sub¬ ject thereof regard the interest and welfare of thou¬ sands, above his own interest; or makes him willing to lose his own interest to secure an equal good to each -•individual of a whole nation or the world. Hopkinsians do not advocate this sentiment from having made a low estimate of the value of their own souls ; or from feeling an indifference to their eternal welfare. They have estimated the unspeakable value of their souls by the infinite ransom given for their redemption, the blood of the son of God ; also by the endless duration of their existence. They have been taught, that the soul is made for endless progression in capacity and energy ; that the time will come when one soul will have more capacity and power of action than the whole sum of capacity and energy now possessed by the whole creation. They know that this amazing capacity shall he filled with all the bliss- giving plenitude of a (*od; or with the burning floods of his wrath throughout eternity. What then is the value of one soul ? They feel, that should creation be more than taught by astronomy <■' worlds on world, redouble that amaze, ten thousand add, add twice ten thousand more, and weigh the whole, one soul outweighs them all" But with all this value, 36 the soul of a Hopkinsian is not worth more than the soul of his neighbour; and that religion which recti¬ fies the disordered mental vision, has taught him to ^ee things as they are; and grace has taught his heart to regard them according to their value. There are some first principles, which scarcely any mind ever seriously doubted. When a doctrine stands fairly on such principles, it requires a degree of hardihood to oppose it, that I wish not to possess. The following will be admitted as belonging to these . self-evident truths ; namely, that the value of a soul, as an object of benevolence, should be estimated ac¬ cording to its capacity to do and receive good ; and that equal portions of such capacity, are of as much intrinsic, value in one soul as in another. It is ad¬ mitted that one soul may have more capacity than another ; and of course more intrinsic value. But the portion of capacity in the least capacious, is worth as much as an equal portion of capacity in the most capacious. It is also admitted, that of two souls of equal capacity, one may be so connected with society, as to have more influence than the other, and greater opportunities of doing good ; but this difference does not arise out of their capacities, nor affect their intrinsic value. A second self evident truth which none can serious¬ ly dispute, is, that things should be viewed and re¬ garded as they are in fact. Deny either the one or the other of the above principles and it is impossible to shew the reasona¬ bleness or justice of the divine law. " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self that is, with the same kind of love, the degrees of which are to be regulated by the evidence, the mind has, of our respective capa¬ cities to do and receive good. But I am not to love my neighbour with a love of good will, equal to the love I have for myself if I have as much capacity as a score of such neighbours ; yet I am to love him with the same kind of love, and the degree is to have 91 the same proportion to the degree of the love I have for myself, that his capacity bears to my capacity. On the other hand, if I am convinced that my neigh¬ bour has twenty * times the capacity I have, I am to have the same kind of good will for him, that I have for myself; but twenty times as great. Again ; the precept" as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise," grows out of the divine law. But surely there can be no propri¬ ety in such a precept, if the existences be not of a kind, and the quantity of capacity in one man be not intrinsically as valuable, as the same quantity in ano¬ ther man. Whoever is fond of the task may deny the above principles, and then undertake to justify the second table of the moral law, and this golden gospel rule. For my part I should feel as awkward, as if I should undertake before mathematicians to refute a theorem built on the axiom, the