fall were wholly of herself, through the conjunction of her will, with her desire or "lust," after the forbidden fruit.

Adam's offence, although not through deception, as Eve's was, yet like her's it was through allurement; not indeed merely the allurement of enticing fruit, or the fascination of becoming wise as a god; but more especially by an attraction transcending all others in congeniality to the weakness of peccable man in his probationary condition. "The woman that was given to be with him, she gave him of the tree, and he did eat.” This transgression, so calamitous to him, and to all his posterity, could be effected only by the union of his will with the subordinate affections of his soul; and to which stood opposed the higher powers, and better affections of his nature: For he distinctly understood his duty. His conscience was tenderly alive to right and wrong, and being created in the moral, as well as in the intellectual image of God; he of course loved his infinitely blessed Creator, with the supreme affections of his heart; thus endowed with righteousness and true holiness, had he but watched unto prayer, confiding in divine power and goodness, he might forever have retained his innocency, and his integrity. But he had also an animal nature, with its propensions and passions. He loved creatures, and he loved Eve, above all other creatures; bone of his bone, flesh of his flesh, endued with speech, rational, and social, and beholding her adorned with every external grace, his "soul truly delighted in her. This only possible rival to his Creator in his affections, he

beheld suddenly changed in her relation to himself; raised by superiour knowledge to hold rank with a god, or 'doomed to mortality and death, by the God whom she had offended. A conflict of passions before unknown, now arose within his heart. Angelick and animal nature, flesh and spirit, love to creature and creator, contended for the decision of will on their res pective sides. But so indubitably just were the demands of reason, of conscience, and of the sublimer affections, that hesitancy betokened an undue influence of fond affection. The temptress was listened to. The divine spirit was grieved; and conscience resist· ed, until at length, prefering the creature to the Crea tor, he formed the fatal resolution, with Eve, to soar into regions of forbidden knowledge, or with her to die guilty, rather than innocently to live without her; and therefore, rashly ate of that fruit, which she presented to him.

From these combined views, thus evangelically authorised by the apostle James, of the self perversion, and apostacy of our first parents; we clearly discover the true meaning of the before cited words of Christ, viz. that "A good tree, cannot bring forth evil fruit.” For both Adam and Eve, in exerting those acts of will, by which each, bore evil fruit, they also each respectively, by those very acts of volition, depraved and corrupted their own nature; so that these moral trees, however good before (they brought forth this evil fruit,) were now good no longer, but both trees and fruit were alike evil. And hence, we can account for the fall and corruption of the sinning angels;

3

for the depravity of Adam's posterity, who, by personal transgression, forfeit the innocency and rectitude of infancy. And for the degeneracy of apostate christians, these latter, once branches in the true vine, having become unfruitful, are the "trees, whose fruit withereth,” “ without fruit," "twice dead," (once before, and once after regeneration,) "plucked up by the roots." John xv, 1, 6. Jude 12. And these through self perversion, are now become fit only, for the ax of judgment, and for that fire which is unquenchable.

Secondly. We hence learn the great expediency of urging upon men, to "Make the tree good, that its fruit may be good;" because, as the higher or converting attainments of grace may be fallen from by disobedience; so the lower manifestations thereof, may be frustrated by impenitency and unbelief.

Thirdly. Herefrom we have irrefragable evidence, that mankind are endued with a controling power over their own wills. Adam and Eve possessed and abused it. Their posterity from generation to generation possess and abuse it. Apostates possess and pervert it to their destruction. And to these we may add, the no less powerful, though more pleasing proofs of its existence in humbled penitents, and in faithful believers, when they practice painful self denials, and when with becoming fidelity they take up and bear their daily cross.

Were further proofs requisite we might appeal to that internal consciousness implanted in the minds of all men, by which they feel assured that they themselves do individually possess and exercise a govern

We

ing power over their own choice or refusal. might further substantiate this power, by pressing its existence as being necessarily implied and involved in that constitution of nature, by which man was formed in the image of his Creator. And in addition to all this, we might urge the consequences, of the destitution of such power, as being utterly subversive of every just principle of moral agency and accountability, and as being wholly incompatible with every scriptural and rational idea of an approaching judgment day, and its righteous retributions. But it is unnecessary to crowd further proofs, where an overwhelming body of evidence hath already established a fact; the denial of which constitutes an absurdity no less glaring than the wildest imaginations of the most visionary theorists. And yet it may not be foreign from, or uninteresting to this subject, to close it, by observing, that those persons who deny to mankind, the ability of controling their own acts of will, do, by this very denial, exhibit strong presumptive evidence, of the very thing they wish to overthrow, because their pertinacious dissent, (in despite of such indubitable combined proof,) from the good sense and right reason of the universe, affords much reason to apprehend that their judgment in this particular, is governed, as much by their own self determined wills, as by all other causes whatsoever.

Disinterested benevolence, and other Hopkinsian speculations, cn the essence of love, will be noted in my next.

SIR,

LETTER XIV.

DOUBTLESS you need not to be informed that "disinterested love" is a plant, not indigenous to the clime and soil of New-England, but of exotick origin. It was first discovered at Rome, by Michael de Molinos, a Spanish Priest, who in 1681, there made his discovery publick. Maria Bouviers de la Mothe Guyon, "the female apostle of mysticism,” transplanted it to France, where Francis Salignac de Fenelon, Arch-Bishop of Cambray, nurtured and propagated it with success, in his eloquent and much admired writings. Mosheim defines it to have consisted in "such "a pure and disinterested love of the supreme being "as is exempt from all views of interest, and all hope "of reward." And Maclaine thus comments thereon. "This doctrine of the mystics, has for a foundation, "that the moral perfections of the deity, are in them"selves, intrinsically amiable; therefore, that their "excellence is as much adapted to excite our esteem "and love, as the experience of their beneficent effects "is to inflame our gratitude. Consequently, the er.. rour lay in drawing extravagant conclusions from a "right principle; thereby abstracting and separating 'ideas, intimately connected together, such as felicity "and perfection, &c. Also in their views of deity, they overlooked the relations he bears to us as benefactor and rewarder: Relations which give rise to "noble sentiments and important duties,” Edwards

A a