fent Wants: For to feek them merely for one's felf as felf, that is a Principle more Abject and Brutish. And when we are well stored with good Things, then we may communicate them, without any Refpect to our felves (Nay, we are obliged to do fo, upon that Precept of our Saviour Chrift; Be ye Perfect, as your Fàther which is in Heaven is perfect) but out of there Love to the Creation of God; imitating therein the Divine Goodness, and Mindful of that Other Saying of our Lord, Beatius est dare quàm accipere; because it makes us more like unto God, and argues us more like Him: That is the Meaning

I think of Beatins in that Place.

Your third and laft is a very Pleasant and unexpected Objection, and looks as if you had a special Kindness for the Phrafe Self-love more than for the thing. And in brief, if I mistake not, it is this; That fuppofing God an un-felf-interested Goodnefs, or Benignity, and that he acts according to this Nature of his; and fuppofing Good Men to act out of an un-felf-interested Love; yet both God and they, forasmuch as they delight in fo acting, it is manifest that their alting is refolved into Self-love, or Love of themfelves, because they delight themselves in fo acting. That the real Senfation of un-selfinterested Love (for as for the Notion thereof, it fignifies no more than the Picture of a Rofe, or of a Flame, as to Scent or Warmth) is the most pleafing and delightful Senfation that the Soul of Man can have Expe

rience

rience of, is most certainly true; and the very Flower and Quinteffence of the Delight felt in this Love, is the Freeness and Un-felf-interestedness thereof: But that therefore the delightful Un-felf-interestedness of this Love fhould be refolved into felf-interefted Love, or Self-love, or Love of one's felf as felf, feems to me a perfect Repugnancy And therefore it will still remain true, that there is a Love not bottomed upon, nor refolvible into Self-love. And befides, this Love, though thus transportingly fweet, is not felt fimply as a Delight, but as an eternal and indifpenfable Law of Divine or Moral Congruity to the Soul; and that there is an inviolable Obligation upon her to be fo affected, as being then fo as fhe fhould be; which, methinks, is not according to the Notion of Self-delight, or Self-pleafing. And lastly, it is apparent, that it is not Self-pleafure fhe is taken with (which Selfishness will eafily quit for fear of greater Pain) but with the Divine Congruity of this Law of un-felf-interested Love; because she will endure all Hardships whatsoever, even the Pangs of Death it felf, rather than quit it: Whenas it is hard for the Mercenary Love to reach fo far; The Hireling fees the Wolf, and flies; but the good Shepherd lays down his Life for his Sheep. It was this un-felf-interested Love of Mankind, fimple and free, that carried our Saviour thro' all his Bitter Sufferings; He foreseeing what an Inftrument God would make of

him, and what Advantages he fhould purchafe, for the Good of his Church, by his Death and Sufferings.

From the other Paffage of my Letter, where I fay, There is a Fear of God, and there is a Mercenary Love of God; and thefe indeed are refolvible into Self-love ; in Section the Ninth, you make this Colle&tion: If so, say you, Self-love may be the Principle of our Love to God: Which was all I afferted. But I anfwer, It is the Principle only of our Mercenary Love to God: But all Love to God is not Mercenary; and the other is infinitely more than that, which is, or at least ought to be: And of that which is not Mercenary Love, Self-love is no Principle in any other Senfe than I have intimated upon the Third Section. I grant there is a Mercenary Love of God, which is a-kin to Gratitude, and therefore good and acceptable in its Seafon: But this is not the Highest Perfection we are called to; nor are we to ftick there, but to get into that more Excellent Way. And if this be all that is afferted, That of fome kind of Love to God Self-love is the Principle, no Confiderate Man will ever gain-fay it. But the Error is, when it is afferted, That there is no Love of God but what is refolvible into Selflove; which is a kind of Theological Hobbianifm.

At the Close of your Ninth Section, and in your Tenth, you feem to affirm; That Faith, that is to fay, the Belief of a Reward to come in the Other World, makes us the

Sons

Sons of God. This is a Law-fubtilty I was never yet acquainted withal: I never yet understood, that the Hope of an Inheritance fhould make a Man a Son, though he was never Born of the Party he expects it from. To be the Son of God, is to be born of God, both in Common Senfe, and according to Phrafe of Scripture; as in that of St. John, Chap. 1. The Sons of God are there faid to be born, not of the Will of the Flesh, nor of Man, but of God. Regeneration makes us Sons; not the Belief of an Inheritance: And therefore to act only out of the Hope of an Inheritance, not out of the Divine Nature we partake of by the New-birth, is not to act out of a Filial Spirit, but a mercenary and fervile.

This is the main of thofe Notes that I had writ for you, against your coming to Cambridge; which I leave to your Serious and CandidConfideration,defiring thatGOD may give us a right Understanding in all things: To whofe Guidance and Protection i commit you; and reft, &e.

LET

LETTER VI.

BUT I Shall leave Des-Cartes for the Important prefent, and Propound fome thing new to Queries proYou. Sir, I do really think my felf infinitely pofed to the obliged to you in many Refpects: But if you Doctor, by Pleafe to deliver your Opinion freely and the Right Ho fully in Answer to thofe Enquiries I shall now nourable the make, You will more particularly Engage me Lady Vifthan ever. Upon the Reading of your Poem of the Pre-existence of the Soul, and fe- extracted our Conway ; rious thinking of it, I defir'd to be fatisfied in Four Particulars, which are these.

First, Whether God did create the Matter for the Enjoyment of Souls, fince they fell by it?

Secondly, Whether the Soul could Enjoy the Matter without being Clothed in Corporeity; and if it could not, how it can be the Fall of the Soul that maks it Affume a Body?

Thirdly, Upon Suppofition most of the Souls fell; Why they did not all Aflume Bodies together: And how Adam can be faid to be the first Man, and all Men to Fall in him, fince they Fell before: And how the Souls of Beafts and Plants came into Bodies?

Fourthly, How Man can be Reftor'd, to what he Fell from; And why the Devils that Fell; cannot? Why Chrift's Death should Extend more to One than to the Other?

I take the Boldness, Sir, upon me to request your Refolution to thefe, none being more able than your felf. I defire you would take your own Time in the Anfwering of them, U

that

countess

of one of her Letters.