least reference in them to any thing which Mr. Fuller had published, that might lead the reader to think I had him in view. He seems to think that it was not very proper in me to animadvert publicly on what he had written only in two private letters. Had I exposed any of his private opinions, communicated to me in confidence, and mentioned his name, I confess it would have been very indelicate; but as neither of these is the case, and as it is Mr. Fuller himself who has informed the public that these notes refer to his sentiments, I see not the least cause of complaint. He observes, that "if such conduct were proper, some people may be tempted to think that it is rather dangerous to correspond with authors."* What danger he may apprehend from corresponding with me I know not, as I am altogether unconscious of having ever attempted to expose or misrepresent him either publicly or privately. Whether Mr. Fuller has been equally cautious on this head with regard to me and my connections, he knows best. He complains that his "sentiments are very partially stated, and things introduced so much out of their connection, that it is impossible for the reader to form any judgment concerning them." I am certain, however, that this complaint is groundless. Every material idea in his letters relating to the subject is, in these two notes, expressed in his own words, and distinguished by inverted commas; and nothing is so introduced out of its connection as in the least degree to obscure or alter the sense. The publication of his letters would clearly evince this; but there is no occasion, for if any will take the trouble of comparing his words, quoted in these two notes, with his Appendix, he will find the sentiment to be the same in both. At my advanced period of life, I could wish to have been excused from entering the field of controversy, and especially with Mr. Fuller, who is much my superior in polemical talents, which he has exercised of late years to good purpose both against Socinians and Deists. But it sometimes happens that men of distinguished abilities do not always know where to stop in their polemical career. Success in some things has urged them on to attempt others, wherein they have done little service to the cause of truth; and such, in my humble opinion, is Mr. Fuller's present attempt. As he seems to consider the simple belief of the gospel to be nothing more than mere speculation, which has no necessary connection with, nor influence upon true holiness of heart, I can easily see how a concern for the interests of vital religion may have led him to make faith the effect of a previous holy disposition, and to include in its nature the exercise of the will and affections; but I cannot so easily account for his misrepresentations of my senti. ments, and the strange conclusions he draws from them. Those who know nothing of my writings but through the medium of his Appendix, must consider them as striking at the root of all true religion, or at best as a mere jumble of inconsistencies. This lays me under the necessity of making some reply, not only to wipe off these misrepresentations, but also, if possible, to throw some further light on the point in debate. The first thing that presents itself is the question which Mr. Fuller prefixes to his Appendix, and which I shall here make. 1 QUESTION I. WHETHER THE EXISTENCE OF A HOLY DISPOSITION OF HEART BE NECESSARY TO BELIEVING? THIS holy disposition he terms a divine principle-the moral state or disposition of the soul-a change of heart— a change of the bias of the heart towards God.* He maintains that this principle must exist prior to, or before believing, and in order to it; and he frequently represents faith as arising out of it, influenced by it, and partaking of it.† I never considered this previous principle to be any part of the difference betwixt Mr. Fuller and me; nor did I observe that he held any such sentiment, my attention being entirely confined to what he says on the nature of faith itself. I might therefore justly excuse myself from entering upon the question which he prefixes to his Appendix, because, although the affirmative were admitted, it will not prove that faith is any thing else than simple belief; and because the question betwixt us does not respect what is previous to faith, but simply what faith itself is. But as Mr. Fuller has brought forward this previous holy disposition of heart, and laid it as the fundamental principle of his * Page 127, 129, 170. + Page 171-176. scheme, it will be proper to examine it a little. After a deal of reasoning, he comes at last to state the question thus: "That there is a divine influence upon the soul which is necessary to spiritual perception and belief, as being the cause of them, those with whom I am now reasoning will admit. The only question is, In what order these things are caused? Whether the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, to discern and believe spiritual things, and thereby render it spiritual; or whether he imparts a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, in consequence of which we discern its glory and embrace it? The latter appears to me to be the truth." But this is a very unfair state of the question, so far as it relates to the opinion of his opponents; for he represents them as maintaining, that the Holy Spirit causes the mind, while carnal, or before it is spiritually illuminated, to discern and believe spiritual things; and then he sets himself to argue against this contradiction of his own framing, as a thing impossible even with God himself, because impossible in its own nature, and that the Holy Spirit declares it to be so, 2. Cor. ii. 14.† Were I to state Mr. Fuller's sentiments thus, "The Holy Spirit imparts to the mind, while carnal, a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth," would he not justly complain that I had misrepresented his view, and that he did not mean that the mind could possess any holy susceptibility or relish for the truth while it was in a carnal state; but only, that the Holy Spirit, by the very act of imparting this holy susceptibility and relish for the truth, removed the carnality of the mind? But then this explanation applies equally to the other side of the question; and surely it appears at least as consistent with the nature of things, and as easy to conceive, that the Holy Spirit should * Page 204, 205. + Page 205, 206. in the first instance, communicate the light of truth to a dark carnal ınind, and thereby render it spiritual, as that he should, prior to that, impart to it a holy susceptibility and relish for the truth. It would, indeed, be highly presumptuous in me to affirm of this last what Mr. Fuller does of the former, viz: that it is impossible with God: but I must be allowed to say, that to me it is altogether inconceivable how the human mind can have a holy relish for the truth before it has any perception of it. A conviction of sin, and a fear of its awful consequences, may indeed dispose a person to listen to, and relish any thing which may give him hope; but till his mind is in some measure enlightened in the knowledge of Christ, this cannot be termed a holy susceptibility, much less a holy relish for the truth, or a change of heart. In such circumstances, it is only the effect of that natural self-love or desire of happiness which is common to all mankind, and which, though it may subserve his relish for the truth as soon as he perceives it, must, till then, lead him to seek relief or ease to his mind from some other quarter. The principle upon which Mr. Fuller establishes this holy disposition previous to faith seems to be this:-That the understanding, or perceptive faculty in man is directed and governed by his will and inclinations. The most of his arguments are evidently founded on this hypothesis. But must it not be owned, that, so far as this is the case, it is an irregular exercise of his faculties, arising from the moral disorder of his lapsed nature, whereby his judgment, reason, and conscience, are weakened, perverted and blinded, so as to be subjected to his will and corrupt inclinations?* * Dr. Owen ascribes this to the disorder introduced into the soul by the fall; his words are, "The rise of this is the disorder that is brought upon all its faculties by sin. God created them all in a perfect harmony and union. The mind and reason were in perfect subjection and subordination to God and his will. The will answered in its |