What Mr. B. says, (p. 106,) I think, if it has any meaning, asserts that sanctification is not that by which Christians obtain evidence of their justification, and is as absurd as any position of or of any Antinomian.

What is said of the thief on the cross, (pp. 135, 136,) though taken alone it be true, yet viewed in connection with his scheme, appears to me to be a loose, unmeaning, selfcontradictory harangue.

Mr. Booth's assertions (pp. 171, 172) are inconsistent with an unholy, unregenerate sinner's believing the gospel, and with desiring and receiving the blessings of it; for how can that be the object of faith which is not seen or willingly received, which is not desired or relished? But I am tired of attending to the inconsistencies and absurdities of this author. And perhaps I have said too much. Let them who do not see the errors and inconsistence avail themselves of the advantage of all the good things to be found in his "Reign of Grace."

I have read Mr. Scott, and think him orthodox, so far as he goes, in his notion of the warrant and nature of faith in Christ. But he says some things which seem to be a little inconsistent, or at least want to be more fully explained. Perhaps Mr. B. will take no public notice of him, since he has opposed him so tacitly, without mentioning his name, or expressly quoting him. I believe it will be wise in Mr. B. to be silent.

I am not satisfied that Mr. Scott clearly distinguishes between selfish affections and disinterested exercises of religion, and think there is reason to believe he does not, both from his making no remarks on this head upon what Mr. B. advances in his "Glad Tidings," and especially from what he says respecting American divines: "That sometimes they seem to intimate that an almost total disregard to our own happiness is essential to true grace. They do not clearly distinguish that wise and holy self-love, which God originally planted in our nature, from that carnal, apostate, and foolish self-love, which is the consequence of the fall." (pp. 3, 4.) If by holy self-love he means any thing distinct from disinterested benevolence, and which is not necessarily included in it, as it seems he does, he must mean that which is in the nature of it sin; and consequently does not properly distinguish selfish religion from that which consists in disinterested affection, or between true and false religion. It is presumed that his neglect to make proper distinctions on this head has led him to censure some American divines as "making many unscriptural distinctions, and advancing positions which obscure the glory of the gospel." Of this, however, we and the public might have been better able

lators of any state have right to make laws to restrain their subjects from the practice of piracy, in any place whatever, and to punish men, when convicted of this crime, though committed in places, in other respects, out of their jurisdiction. But it is to be hoped there are but few, very few, citizens in this state who now think the slave trade is, in itself, innocent and lawful. Are not all who have acquainted themselves with the nature, circumstances, and manner of this trade, and are willing to consider it impartially, fully convinced that it is one of the most flagrant instances of open violation of all the rights of mankind-of inhumanity, cruelty, and murder-that have ever been perpetrated by any civilized nation? It would fill volumes fully to display the unrighteousness, the horrible cruelty, and bloodshed which have been the attendants and consequences of this inhuman traffic, by which millions of our fellow-men have been, contrary to all right, and in the most cruel manner, forced from their native country and all dear connections, and sold into most ignominious, abject slavery, there to wear out a wretched life, and leave their children in the same miserable state. And many thousands of them have been murdered by the barbarous treatment of them on board the ships, or after they have been sold. This, therefore, will not be attempted here; but the reader is referred to what has been written on the subject in a number of late publications.

It is well known that the inhabitants of this state have had a greater hand in the slave trade than any other on this continent, and, therefore, must have incurred the greatest share of the guilt. And what can we do less than say, "We will do so no more"? Is not this the only hopeful way to escape the vengeance that now hangs over our heads? This trade has been carried on many years by the connivance, at least, if not the encouragement, of the legislature. How proper, how important is it, then, that they should now arise and bear testimony against it, and do all in their power to abolish it forever -that they should be the first in setting the good example, and show their approbation of the wise and noble resolution of congress in the beginning of our struggle for liberty! sit still now, and be silent, is to neglect the best opportunity to wash our hands, as far as possible, from the blood that otherwise must be found in them, and prevent impending wrath bursting on our heads.

То

Let us, then, with one voice, say to our fathers who shall convene in the next general assembly, "Arise, for this work belongeth unto you. We will be with you. Deal courageously, and do it, and the Lord shall be with the good."

II. It was urged, that it is improper for this state to take up the matter, and prohibit the slave trade, since it has been laid before congress by a petition from the general meeting of Friends in Philadelphia, desiring that, in their wisdom, they would enter upon some measures to put a stop to it; and that honorable body have it now under their consideration. This appears so far from an objection, that it is rather a strong argument for making such a law without delay. For this is so far from dictating to congress, or taking it out of their hands, that it would be the most express and proper approbation of their resolve just mentioned, and will tend to strengthen their hands in so good a work, if they be disposed to do all they can to prevent the revival of that pernicious trade, of which we must not entertain the least doubt.

The legislature are to be honored and applauded for the measure they have taken gradually to abolish slavery in this state. There have been strong objections, however, against the law lately made for that end, particularly that clause of it which obliges the towns, where the blacks who are to be free shall be born, to be at the charge of their education till they be of age, or can maintain themselves. It is said, this lays an unreasonable burden on the few towns where most of the slaves are, while the greater part of the state will be at little or no charge; whereas it ought to be laid equally on the whole state, as it is by the connivance or neglect of the state that the slavery of the Africans has been introduced and continued among us.

If this objection be well founded, the honorable general assembly may, and doubtless will, make such amendment in that particular as wholly to remove the complaint. But let it be remembered, that since this evil practice has been so long continued, and got such deep root among us, it cannot be expected it may be eradicated and abolished without great difficulty, and so that no one shall suffer by it more than another. And as it is so important and necessary in order to do justice to the injured Africans, and promote the public good, and our acting a consistent part, who have been such mighty advocates for our own liberty-that liberty should be restored to them, ought we to think much of a little expense, or of doing more than we think is our equal part, in order to answer such important ends? Besides, it will be said, with some appearance of justice, at least, that the towns where there are the most slaves ought to be at most of the expense necessary for the removal of this evil, as they have the greatest share of guilt, and have had the most advantage by it, if slavery be, indeed, any advantage; but if it be not, let the masters free

to judge, had he condescended to tell what were those mischievous positions and distinctions. In the mean time, it is thought that his publicly naming a particular minister as guilty of all this, without informing him or the public what his crime is, by particularly stating the positions and distinctions he has advanced, is rather magisterial, ungenerous, and inju rious. But we must allow good English divines to have a spice of what we, on this side of the water, call British pride.

He cannot reasonably impute the question which he mentions, with a degree of horror, as found in the Theological Magazine, to Hopkins, or to any American divine. But if he could, what harm is there in asking the question? He has not told us. Had he looked into the next number of that Magazine, he would have seen the question answered, and might have informed the public whether it be answered right or wrong. My system has been more generally read and approved in America than was expected; and but little public opposition has been made to it.

You have my hearty wishes and prayers, dear sir, that you may be greatly blessed and useful in the important station in which you are placed, and be enabled to maintain and propa gate the truths of Christianity, in the midst of the opposition with which you may be surrounded.

I shall be gratified by your writing me, whenever your more important business shall permit.

I am, with much esteem and cordial affection, your much obliged friend and servant,

REV. DR. RYLAND.

S. HOPKINS.

LETTER TO DR. RYLAND,

Of Northampton, England, in Reply to Dr. Ryland's Theological Queries, and sent Seventeen Days before Dr. Hopkins's Death.

NEWPORT, September, 1803. DEAR SIR: Last May I received yours of February 21st., with a MS. copy of Mr. Marsham's journal, and a number of valuable pamphlets, for which I am much obliged to you; particularly for plainly stating some difficulties and objections in your mind respecting several doctrines advanced on this side the water.

When your letter came to hand, I was not able to write or read, being brought very low by sickness, from which I did not recover for a considerable time. In the mean time, I received a letter from Mr. Fuller in answer to my objections which you sent to him, as made by me, to a position of his in his Bedford sermon, in my letter to you; to which I have replied, and enclose it to you unsealed; which, when you have read, you will please to seal and send to him.

You object to what I and my brethren in America hold with respect to the operation of the law on the renewed mind and the exercises respecting it, antecedent to a particular attention to the gospel, and understanding and embracing it; at least, of hoping to be saved by it, since they, antecedent to regeneration, and when regenerated, have had as much opportunity to think of and understand the gospel as the law. What of our writings you refer to, I cannot say, so cannot undertake a particular vindication of any of them, but take leave to make the following observations on the subject:

The law of God must be understood, and approved or loved as perfectly right, good, and excellent, before the gospel can be embraced, liked, or even understood. There must be such an operation of the law on the renewed mind as to slay the person, or cause him, in some sense, to die the death which it denounces, before he can have any sensible relief from the gospel, or understand it. And how long the regenerate person shall continue in this hopeless state, under the operation of the law, till it shall have done its proper and necessary work, and before the gospel is particularly attended to and embraced, none can tell. In some, the whole may take place in a minute, or less, so that the person may not make any distinction, or perceive which is first or last; but, if really connected, the operation of law must be first, whether perceived or not, and that connection may be more evident and satisfactory when the work of the law appears to be most sensible, and distinct, and thorough. And, that it may be so, the renewed person may be held some time- an hour, a day, or longer in attention to his state, according to law, and his mind be so intent upon the glory of God, and his law, as to admit of no particular view or thought of the gospel. And this may be wisely and kindly ordered by God, and the renewed mind be holden from attending to the gospel, till the law has effectually, and in the best manner, wrought death in him. And God, who has the total and most perfect government of the mind, and of every thought, orders the length of time the renewed mind shall continue wholly attentive to this glorious law, and what it implies, without particular attention