_Nov. 1._--I have been reading with considerable attention the remarks, or rather reflections, of Jonathan Edwards, on the Life of Brainerd, wherein he endeavours to recommend to the Church of God, the _disinterested_ and _unmercenary_ love of God, by which he means the love of him for his abstract perfections apart from the consideration of any personal interest or happiness arising out of his especial love to his chosen. This is all very fine and very philosophical, but in my humble apprehension, most unscriptural. Does God any where in Scripture, when appealing to his chosen, or expostulating with them, argue on the ground of his abstract perfections, or of his especial love and distinguishing grace towards them? Throughout the Old Testament this is the controversy, not that they slighted his abstract perfections, but disregarded his especial favour. All the invitations to return, appeal to what Edwards would call the selfish and mercenary feelings. What! had not Moses respect unto the recompense of reward; and in all the 11th of the Hebrews, where is this abstraction held up? When our dear and blessed Lord exhorts to faithfulness, watchfulness, devotion, does he represent an abstraction as a motive, or without our own everlasting participation with him with whom there is fulness of joy for evermore. Paul thought it not mercenary to think on his crown, or to encourage his converts by the consideration, that present sorrow for the Lord, works for them a far more exceeding and eternal weight of glory. Again, eye hath not seen nor ear heard the things which God hath prepared for them that love him. Our blessed Lord makes promises to whoever leaves father or mother for his sake,[42] and John encourages his disciples, by telling them that they were made sons of God, and that they were to be made like their Lord; he saw nothing debasing in this contemplation, but instantly adds, "he that hath this hope purifieth himself even as he is pure." This is the promise he hath promised even eternal life. In fact, the doctrine of rewards, as an incentive to the saints, prevails from one end to the other of the sacred volume. The notion that a love which springs from a sense of being beloved, must be selfish and mercenary, is the greatest delusion imaginable. It may be, and in proportion as its power is really known and felt, is the most holy, self-denying, pure, and devoted of all affections, an affection that seeketh not her own, but the glory of the object beloved. If Edwards would set up dear D. Brainerd and his Indians in favour of the abstract system, we may set up the Moravians and their Esquimaux in favour of the other. But why set up one set of worms and their conduct against another set of worms and theirs, when we have the record of God in our hands? Let us see how our Heavenly Father proposes himself to our love, confidence, and affections, and what incentives he proposes as inducements to the