advantage is of necessity interwoven with those views of Calvinism which connect the doctrine of election with the application of the atonement; and which hold particular redemption as a branch of that doctrine. Mr. Taylor retired from the combat unable to force upon his antagonist the Arminian notion of universal provision, or to shew that the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus Christ, was incompatible with a limitation of design in his death. Mr. Fuller has stated, with considerable effect, the agreement of these sentiments with each other, and, the superiority of the system which he defended, over that of his adversary.

The provision made by the death of Christ is of two kinds,-2 provision of pardon and acceptance for all believers-and a provision of grace to enable a sinner to believe. The first affords a motive for returning to God in Christ's name; the last excites to a compliance with that motive. Now in which of these has the scheme of Mr. T. any advantage of that which he opposes? Not in the first: we suppose the provisions of Christ's death altogether sufficient for the fulfilment of his promises, be they as extensive as they may-that full and free pardon is provided for all that believe in him-and that if all the inhabitants of the globe could be persuaded to return to God in Christ's name, they would undoubtedly be accepted of him. Does the opposite scheme propose any more? No; it pretends to no such thing as a provision for unbelievers being forgiven and accepted. Thus far at least, therefore, we stand upon equal ground."

'But has the scheme of our opponent the advantage in the last particular? Does it not boast of a universal provision of grace, sufficient to enable every man to comply with the Gospel? It does; but what it amounts to, is difficult to say. Does it effectually produce in mankind in general any thing of a right spirit, any thing of a true desire to come to Christ for the salvation of their souls? No such thing is pretended. At most it only amounts to this, that God is ready to help them out of their condition, if they will but ask him; and to give them every assistance in the good work, if they will but be in earnest and set about it. Well, if this is the whole of which our opponent can boast, I see nothing superior in this neither, to the sentiment which he opposes. We consider the least degree of a right spirit as plentifully encouraged in the word of God. If a person do but truly desire to come to Christ, or desire the influence of the Holy Spirit to that end, we doubt not but grace is provided for his assistance. God will surely give his Holy Spirit to them that ask him.' Where then is the superiority of Mr. Taylor's system? It makes no effectual provision for begetting a right disposition in those who are so utterly destitute of it that they will not seek after it. It only encourages the well-disposed.' pp. 285, 286.

Mr. Archibald M'Lean, although in chronological order the last of Mr. Fuller's opponents, enjoyed in acumen and knowledge of the subject, an unquestioned superiority over all the Jealous for the honour of justification by faith alone, and

rest.

devoted to those notions of simple belief which have prevailed so extensively in the northern part of our Island, he undertook to controvert, on the ground of its comprehensiveness, Mr. Fuller's definition of Faith. Not perceiving that whatever of holiness Mr. F. attributed to Faith, it formed in his view no part of that for the sake of which we are justified, Mr. M'Lean persisted in maintaining, that Faith is an exercise of the understanding only, and of course that it sustains only an intellectual and not a moral character. At the same time, with wonderful inconsistency, as it seems to us, he maintained that it is the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus Christ.

Mr. Fuller, on the contrary, insisted on the holy nature of Faith, and assigned to it in justification a connexion of order and of wisdom. The union formed by Faith between believing sinners and Jesus Christ, was, in his view, an adequate ground for their justification by his righteousness, or the reckoning of his merits to their account: but he disclaimed utterly and uniformly the intention of ascribing any meritorious influence to Faith in justification. On the supposition that Faith sustained a holy character, he saw a fitness and beauty in its being accounted a duty; but as it could not, in Mr. M'Lean's view of it, contain any exercise of the heart, and therefore not any obedience, Mr. Fuller could not see the reasonableness or the advantage of maintaining it to be a duty.

This has always struck us as an argument of great cogency against the view of Faith entertained by Mr. M'Lean. The two propositions-Faith is an exercise of mere intellect, yet Faith is a duty-are incongruous and irreconcileable. For if Faith be an exercise of mere intellect, and fall in no respect under the influence of the will and affections, it must be devoid of any moral character, and cannot therefore be a legitimate object of command, of praise, or of blame. Involuntary actions, or actions in which the will has no concern, have no moral character, and that because they lie without the sphere of its influence, and are involuntary. If all obedience consists in the heart, or in the genuine expressions of it, there seems to be a strange inconsistency in first excluding from the nature of Faith every exercise of the heart, and then maintaining it to be the duty of sinners to believe in Jesus Christ. There seems to us to be no consistent medium between the admission and the rejection of both the principles upon which Mr. F.'s reasonings on this article are built. If Faith be in its nature holy, it is properly an object of command; but if it be an exercise of intellect only, it is far otherwise, for where the influence of the will is excluded, obedience is impossible; unless the absurd notion of involuntary obedience be maintained.

On this view of Faith, and others collateral to it, Mr. F. had

an evident advantage over his shrewd and powerful antagonist. The discussion elicited much acute observation, from which posterity, we have no doubt, will reap signal advantage.

There was a second capital point in litigation between these able disputants. It was obviously implied in the arguments employed in "The Gospel worthy of all Acceptation," that the existence of a holy disposition of heart is necessary in order to believing in Christ. This Mr. M'Lean denied. Controversy apart, it has appeared to us, that the volitions and moral exercises of an accountable agent, will always correspond to the disposition of the agent by whom they are put forth. Now, that the embracing of a holy Saviour, is itself a holy exercise, will not, we imagine, be doubted by any who are not admirers of Mr. M'Lean's system. But the holiness of the exercise implies the holiness of the principle in which it originates; and as the principle must in the order of nature at least precede the exercise or action of it, the arguments of Mr. F. in defence of his position, are, we think, more than plausible. These were strengthened and elucidated in his Letters on Sandemanianism, published several years after this controversy had closed.

We have room only for a few detached remarks upon the controversy by which, in all probability, Mr. F. will be best known to posterity. It will not, we presume, be imputed to us as arrogance, if we claim for the Author of the "Systems Com"pared," a complete triumph over his opponents. We are not insensible of the advantages which that performance might have derived in some subordinate instances, from a better acquaintance with Biblical criticism; but to the justness of the principle of the argument, and the completeness with which that principle is established, we pay profound and grateful homage. We are fortified in the belief of its high excellence, by one fact, that although more than twenty years have elapsed since its first publication, no answer to it has been produced by the party against which it was directed. In making this statement, we do not forget the names of Toulmin and Kentish; but their pamphlets totally change the ground of the debate, and can in no just sense be entitled to the reputation of answers to Mr. F.'s performance. The ground of his argument is a comparison of the adverse systems, as to their moral tendency. The ground of argument adopted by his opponents, is the comparative evidence by which the adverse systems are supported. Had Mr. Fuller compared the evidence of the systems in question, and thence inferred the superior moral tendency of his own, the principle on which his opponents constructed their defence, would have been most nearly in point. But the fact is, that the principle of Mr. Fuller's argument says nothing

directly as to the evidence for the truth of Calvinism. Its truth is, with him, an inference from its superior moral tendency, To demolish this inference, it was necessary to have shewn that Calvinism has not the high moral tendency which this advocate attributes to it. To attempt a demonstration of the inferiority of the evidence on which it rests, is not meeting the principle of his argument, but introducing a test of the value of religious opinions, which he did not professedly examine.

It has been insinuated, that the argument of Mr Fuller's book, arrogates to Calvinists, what the corrupt Jews arrogated to themselves,—a superior sanctity ;-that its language is in effect, "Stand by yourselves, for we are holier than ye." But the fact is, if Mr. Fuller's argument arrogates any thing, it is not to Calvinists, but to the Calvinistic system. The positive and actual influence of Calvinistic principles upon the characters of those who admit their truth, corroborates his argument, but does not constitute its principle. The simple question is, whether that system of religious doctrine, which insists upon the evil of sin, the equity and goodness of the Divine law, and faith in Jesus Christ, has a greater tendency to produce "re66 pentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus "Christ," than that system which represents sin as a mere venial offence, which denies the equity and goodness of the Divine law, and which excludes all trust or confidence in Christ. the legitimate tendency of these views, there can, we think, be no doubt; and whether that tendency be exemplified in the actual character and deportment of the professors of the respective systems, is incidental to the argument, but is no part of its vital strength. It is very possible that a believer in the truth and importance of Calvinistic sentiments, may fail to exhibit their legitimate tendency in his personal character and deportment. In this case, the Calvinistic system would be deprived of the collateral advantage derived from the holy consistency of this its avowed friend; but the tendency of the sentiments which compose that system, would remain unaltered. In short, though Mr. Fuller takes occasion to notice in the course of the debate, the moral conduct both of Socinians and Calvinists, his object was to ascertain the tendency of their respective systems, and not the consistency of the reputed or real adherents of those systems. We are not inclined, however, through mere wantonness, to throw away the advantages derived to the Calvinistic system from the actual character and deportment of its advocates and professors; for, without vaunting of our superior sanctity, we think in point of fact the integrity, holiness, and zeal of Calvinists, need not shrink from a comparison with the virtues of their opponents.

The character of Mr. Fuller will be variously estimated ac

cording to the opinions and feelings of those who undertake its delineation. For our own parts, we are happy to express and testify the high sentiments which we cherish of his worth, by an extract that all our readers have perused, but which we shall be readily pardoned for transferring to our pages. Having been led to mention this affecting circumstance,' (the death of Mr. Fuller,) I cannot refrain from expressing, in a few words, the • sentiments of affectionate veneration with which I always re'garded that excellent person while living, and cherish his me"mory now that he is no more; a man, whose sagacity enabled 'him to penetrate to the depths of every subject he explored, whose conceptions were so powerful and luminous, that what ' was doubtful and original appeared familiar; what was intricate, easy and perspicuous in his hands; equally successful in enforcing the practical, stating the theoretical, and discussing the 'polemical branches of theology; without the advantage of early education, he rose to high distinction among the religious 'writers of his day, and in the midst of a most active and laborious life left monuments of his piety and genius, which will survive to distant posterity. Were I making his eulogium, I 'should necessarily dwell on the spotless integrity of his private life, his fidelity in friendship, his neglect of self interest, his * ardent attachment to truth, and especially the series of unceasing labours and exertions, in superintending the mission to 6 India, to which he most probably fell a victim. He had nothing feeble or undecisive in his character, but to every undertaking in which he was engaged, he brought all the powers of his un'derstanding, all the energies of his heart; and if he were less 'distinguished by the comprehension, than the acumen and solidity of his thoughts; less eminent for the gentler graces, than 'for stern integrity and native grandeur of mind, we have only to remember the necessary limitations of human excellencé.'* Every one who was so happy as to know the original, will trace in the following sketch of Mr. Fuller's ministerial talents, one of the most pleasing efforts of Mr. Morris's pen.

As a preacher he soon became popular, without any of the com mon aids of popularity. He had none of that easy elocution, none of that graceful fluency, which melts upon the ear, and captivates the attention of an auditor. His enunciation was laborious and slow; his voice strong and heavy; occasionally plaintive, and capable of an agreeable modulation. He had none of that eloquence which consists in a felicitous selection of terms, or in the harmonious construction of periods; he had a boldness in his manner, a masculine delivery, and great force of expression. His style was often much deformed by colloquialisms, and coarse provincials; but in the roughest of his com positions, "the bones of a giant might be seen." "

* Terms of Communion, by R. Hall, M. A. Preface, pp. 6, 7.