Edwards held that all love arises from self-love. He goes on to argue thus: "for if nothing could be pleasing or displeas ing, agreeable or disagreeable, to a man, then he could incline to nothing, and will nothing. But if he is capable of having inclination, will and choice, then what he inclines to, and chooses, is grateful to him, whatever that be; whether it be his own private good, the good of his neighbors, or the glory of God. And so far as it is grateful or pleasing to him, so far it is a part of his pleasure, good, or happiness."

Some have thought that Edwards teaches a doctrine inconsistent with this in his "Treatise concerning Religious Affections," Part 3, Sec. 2; where he carefully distinguishes between holy love to God and its selfish counterfeits. But if these two parts of his works are carefully compared, and interpreted in the light of his fundamental doctrine of the will which underlies his reasonings everywhere, they will be seen to be entirely consistent. He there teaches that the man who has holy love to God delights in God-delights in him indeed for what he is in himself, his infinite excellence and glory, yet really delights in him-finds joy in God. He says of "the love of the saints," that it "primarily consists in the sweet entertainment their minds have in the contemplation of the divine and holy beauty of these (divine) things, as they are in themselves." "The hypocrite," he says, "rejoices in himself;" "the true saint rejoices in God." Nor does it make any difference, as it respects this point, that Edwards taught that this true love to God, which delights in him, is in consequence of a spiritual sense or relish for divine things imparted by the renewing agency of the Holy Spirit, by which spiritual sense or relish the soul appreciates and delights in God and divine things.

The only charge of misrepresenting Dr. Taylor, which Dr. Cleaveland undertakes to answer, is that which complained of his virtual declaration that the "doctrine that we are to love. God for what he is in himself, and not merely for what he does in our behalf," was regarded by Dr. Taylor as "an exploded error." He insists that this is no misrepresentation,—that Dr.

Taylor did hold that we are to love God not for his own sake, but merely for what he does in our behalf. He says,

"The published writings of Dr. Taylor fully sustain me. Suffice it now to quote two sentences from his review of Dr. Spring on the means of regeneration, published in the Christian Spectator for 1829, pages 21 and 24: This self-love, or desire of happiness, is the primary cause or reason of all acts of preference, or choice which fix supremely on any object.' Again: 'Of all specific voluntary action, the happiness of the agent, in some form, is the ultimate end.' Now if the desire for our own happiness is the primary reason and ultimate end of all our preferences and choices, then when we choose God for our portion, it must be not for the purpose of glorifying him, but simply as a means to our own happiness. In other words, on this scheme, we do not love God for his own sake, but for our sake, not for what he is in himself, but for what he does in our behalf."" -pp. 6, 7.

Dr. Taylor held that we should love God not for his own sake, but for our sake,-not for what he is in himself, but for what he does in our behalf! If Dr. Cleaveland had said that to the living Dr. Taylor, he would have met the flash and thunder of indignant rebuke. His words would have been instantly repelled as a grievous misrepresentation and abuse.

But we will examine, as coolly as we can, this paragraph which contains the substance of Dr. Cleaveland's defense on this point. In the first place he violates a cardinal rule of fair and honorable controversy, viz: never to charge an opponent with holding an inference from his opinion, unless that inference is confessed by him, certainly not it is disowned by him; or as Dr. John M. Mason expresses it in his rules for conducting controversy, "No consequence of an opinion should be attributed to those by whom it is disowned." Dr. Cleaveland does not pretend that Dr. Taylor ever said that "we are to love God, not for his own sake, but for our sake,not for what he is in himself, but for what he does in our behalf." But he constructs an argument to show that other language of his logically teaches this-he infers it from something else which Dr. Taylor has said, and charges it upon him. Now if this argument and this inference were correct, -as they are not, which we shall presently show, if they were perfectly logical and conclusive to Dr. Cleaveland's mind, and all other minds in the world except Dr. Taylor's, he would have no right to say that Dr. Taylor held the opinion

inferred, so long as Dr. Taylor did not acknowledge it, and especially so long as he disowned it. That he did disown and repudiate it, is well known by all his students, by all who have heard him preach, and by those who have read his published works, even that controversy in the Christian Spectator from which Dr. Cleaveland quotes. How often has he been heard by his students to assent to that answer to the first question in the Westminster Catechism, "Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him forever?" How often has he said to his students, in one of his lectures on Self-love, after referring to this language of opponents, "Man in becoming virtuous chooses the highest happiness of the universe for its own sake," and "making a virtuous choice, does so for virtue's own sake "how often has he said in his own impressive way, "I remark here that they have no exclusive claim to this language. We employ it, and attach much importance to it"! How often in his sermons did he dwell on the grand objective truths respecting God, setting him before his hearers in his glorious attributes, as infinitely worthy in and of himself of their love, confidence, and obedience, and making the essence of sin to consist in selfishness! God not to be loved for what he is in himself, but only for what he does in our behalf! How any one who ever heard these sermons, or ever read them, for some of them are now published, could have made such a shocking misrepresentation of their author, surpasses our comprehension. In that very controversy about the means of regeneration in the Christian Spectator from which Dr. Cleaveland quotes, he says of God, "His perfect blessedness—comprising as he does within himself the greatest portion of being and capacity of happiness-deserves the supreme love of all moral agents." And then he adds, "On this love of benevolence is founded the love of complacency. If we love the happiness of others, we shall love those who delight in promoting it. Above all, we shall love God, whose benevolence is infinite." If Dr. Cleaveland had heard, or hearing had remembered Dr. Taylor's lectures, he would have known that he used to analyze gratitude into "love of a benefactor and love of his gifts"-of course gratitude to God into love of God and love of his gifts. And then, opening the recently published

volume of his sermons, he would have seen, in full accordance with his philosophy, appeals to men to love God both for what he is in himself, and also for what he does in our behalf.

"It is this God who commands us to repent. Now, we require a fair estimate of his claims. Has he, as our almighty Sovereign, a right to govern-has he this right inalienable-ought we to obey; and do the blessings heaped upon us add nothing to our obligation? When he asks the affections of that alienated heart, which receives its every beat from the impulse of his power-when he asks the devotedness of that life, which owes its every hour, and every moment, to his sustaining right hand—when he draws around us such a circle of enjoyments -when he still multiplies his gifts of nature and providence, and when his gifts steal away our hearts from the Giver, still keeps open the way, through the blood of his Son, for our return, and still invites and welcomes us back to his love, is there no weight added to our obligations? Has this all-providing God no claim on us by his mercies?" pp. 229, 230.

"This tendency is seen

"III. As it discovers to us the true character of God.

"God is love, and all the expressions of his kindness to us are only a manifestation, bringing that character before us in the nearest and most impressive manner. We may contemplate moral excellence in another, and admire and love it, while the being who shall possess it, may never have been called to show kindness to us. But let us become the objects of that kindness-let it fix its care and tenderness on us, and lavish its blessings on us; and we find a new and stronger emotion rising in our hearts, and fixing our strongest affection on the object of so much excellence." p. 232.

"He constrains us to feel all the attractions of his Godhead, in our own experience of his love. He obliges us, if we will persist in our alienation from him, to sunder these cords and break away from that which binds heaven itself to his throne. We must shut our eyes and harden our hearts against that assemblage of attributes, which wakes the songs that echo through heaven's eternal arches, and makes all its pillars tremble-against that God, who longs to show his capacity to bless, in blessing us." p. 233.

“More particularly, let a man supremely delight in God-let it be his governing aim to please him, and he will not only frequently contemplate the character of God, but every contemplation of him, whose attributes are infinitely glorious, will awaken love in the soul. The same state of mind must produce gratitude to God; for while it delights in his perfections, it must especially delight in the display of those perfections in acts of personal kindness." p. 150.

We can hardly open anywhere in this volume of sermons, without finding eloquent denials, direct or indirect, of the misrepresentation that we are to love God not for what he is in himself. We will quote once more, from the sermon entitled "The Terror of the Lord Persuasive."

"4. The divine threatenings reveal the character of God in its glory and excellence.

*

"This they do as they reveal his disapprobation-the full measure of his abhorrence of sin. This is God's holiness, and his holiness is preeminently his glory. Nor is it conceivable, that the greatest, most enrapturing of all truths in the universe of truth, THAT GOD IS LOVE, that God is a being who, more than all things else, loves the holiness, and thus the happiness of his creatures, should be so impressively presented to human apprehension-that the glory of God should be so poured upon human thought and human sensibility, in such full-orbed splendor, as through the divine threatenings. Here God's love for the happiness of his creatures may be seen in his intense abhorrence of sin, which destroys that happiness. There is no other mode conceivable, in which God can be seen as he is, and as all that he is-loved as he is, and all that he is, as through this manifestation.

66 Some suppose that for a man to be moved by the divine threatenings, is to be moved by a mercenary influence; and to act under it, is, of necessity, to act in a selfish manner. Oh, how little such men know of God and God's government! Let the sinner look at that highest glory of God, in view of which heaven's song makes heaven's pillars tremble, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty;' let him thus look and love, and can his love be mercenary, or mean, or selfish? In kind, you see it will, it must be the same which the effulgence of the Deity awakens in the seraph's heart.

་

"5. The divine threatenings unfold the claims of God for the sinner's obedience in all their pressure of obligation.

66 'By these it is that the sinner is made to see, if he see at all, who and what that God is with whom he has to do. God comes out to the sinner with his claims, he unfolds his obligations to obedienee, as these result from his own infinite perfections, from his high and rightful supremacy over the creatures of his power, from the purity and excellence of his law, and from the great designs of his moral government; and now, for the single purpose of securing the ascendency of these claims and these obligations in the heart of man, he makes known the tremendous alternative of submission or death. Here are none of the decrees and threats of self-willed despotism, fixed upon its own selfish ends, at the sacrifice of all good to those whom it has power to torment. The denunciations of God, properly understood, bring no such thought to the mind of the sinner. They are simply the enforcement of the obligations of eternal righteousness. Their language to the sinner, under a full discovery of the claims of the Most High, is, 'Submit to these righteous claims of a perfect God, or die.' It is the direct tendency of these threatenings, not merely to make the sinner tremble, but at the very moment of excited fears of the curse, to array before him his duty, and to bring before him all its obligations and all its motives. They turn his eye downward upon the pit and its fires, and at the same instant raise and fix it upon God in all the authority of his supremacy, and in all the immutability and equity of his claims. He is made to see how perfect, how holy, how just, how unchangeable are the claims which a righteous God enforces by such awful sanctions. God, in all his majesty and perfection, is brought into nearer contact with the sinner than it is possible to conceive he should be by any other means,