of tremendous confusion." The faith of Fletcher or Mrs. Rogers would have totally changed the aspect of Foster's whole field of vision. But we must pass.

As a preacher, Mr. Foster fell far below the grade which the world had reason to expect and demand of one of his talents. We should judge, from all we can gather, that his thoughts were too profound, his style too massive, and his discourses, in general, not sufficiently hortatory and evangelical for the wants of the age. "Methodism"-a thing which he castigates and caricatures so dreadfully in his letters to his friend, Mr. Hill-had made too deep and wide an impression about Bristol for the popularity of such dry, hard essays as Foster dealt out to his congregations.

It will have been noticed in the sketch which we have given of his life, that he never remained long in connection with any one congregation. And in some instances he was so conscious of a total failure, that he resigned his place after an experiment of a few months only. The whole history of his ministry seems to exhibit the absence of a conviction of being "moved by the Holy Ghost" to take upon him the sacred office. In one of his letters he says, "While in Dublin I preached not once during the whole year." He discarded the Scriptural authority of "ordination," and held that ministers ought to have " some other sources of emolument than the precarious one of their ministerial employment." This was the result of his experience. And, doubtless, if he had not had "some other sources of emolument than the precarious one of his ministerial employment," with all his transcendent endowments, he must have starved. But Foster might have been asked what other "source of emolument" Robert Hall wanted besides that which arose from his "ministerial employment." It will not always do for a man to measure others by himself. Foster's sermons, doubtless, had extraordinary merit, but they were over the heads of the great mass of the people. A man might as well talk Greek to the people, as to talk English that they do not understand, or that they cannot feel.

As a pastor, we scarcely know what Mr. Foster did. But we have too much evidence as to what he did not do. Though he was a Baptist he never administered the ordinances. His views of "church institutions" were exceedingly radical and most dangerous, as will be seen from the following:

"The wish he avowed to have a chapel of his own, without even the existence of what is called a church,' was not a transitory ebullition of juvenile sentiment. At a much later period, on the occasion of a violent dissension between two religious societies, which came under

his immediate notice, he speaks of obtaining plenty of confirmation, if he had needed it, of his old opinion, that churches are useless and mischievous institutions, and the sooner they are dissolved the better." -Vol. i, p. 41.

To this, his friend Mr. Hughes very pertinently replied :

"I think your conclusion strange. To be sure, if there were no churches, there would be no ecclesiastical squabbles; and, it may be added, if there were no states, there would be no civil broils; and if there were no vegetable productions, there would be no deadly nightshade; and if there were no water, no one would be drowned; and if there were no fire, no one would be consumed; and if there were no victuals, no one would be choked. Church-framers may egregiously err; but when you scout the whole tribe, and all their works, tell us how we ought to proceed; make out a strong case, and say at least that the way you would substitute would be free from the objections that cling to the old ways, and would secure greater advantages.”— Ib. i, pp. 41, 42.

As a theologian, Mr. Foster was still more faulty than in any other respect. He early expressed a desire to become "a preacher in an Arian congregation;" but subsequently declared, that, "as to the doctrine of the divinity of Christ, I do not deny that I had once some degree of doubt, but not such a degree even as to carry me anything near the adoption of an opposite or different opinion." In the year 1800 he says:

"My opinions are in substance decisively Calvinistic. I am firmly convinced, for instance, of the doctrines of original sin, predestination, imputed righteousness, the necessity of the Holy Spirit's operation to convert the mind, final perseverance, &c."--Vol. i, p. 84.

How far he carried his notions of "predestination" will be seen in the following statement of them :

"My melancholy musings on the state of the world have been much consoled by the famous maxim, 'Whatever is, is right.' Yes, I believe that the whole system taken together is the best possible-is absolutely good and that all the evil that ever has taken place, or that now prevails, was strictly necessary to that ultimate good which the Father of all intends. Believing that he has in view an end infinitely and perfectly good, I must believe that all things which take place among his creatures are means, proceeding in an undeviating line toward that end, and that, in decreeing the end, he decreed also the means. As nothing can take place beyond the sphere of his power, nothing can take place against his will: therefore the evils, the wickedness of mankind, are not against his sovereign will.”—Vol. i, p. 62.

It is no wonder that with such views of predestination, Foster embraced the fatal error of Universalism. Early in life he de

clared that he had "discarded the doctrine of eternal punishments," asserting at the same time that he could "avow no opinion on the peculiar points of Calvinism." We have long believed that the strong views of predestination maintained by Calvin and Edwards naturally run into Universalism. But it would seem from all we can find, that Foster became settled in the doctrine of universal salvation before he had become fully established in the doctrines of Calvinism. His course of progression is the reverse of that which is the ordinary one. Instead of first making his stand-point the position that God has foreordained, and brings to pass, all events, and the legitimate result that "whatever is, is right;"—and from this position inferring that God cannot, consistently with his attributes, eternally punish any of his rational creatures for doing "his sovereign will;"he first "discarded the doctrine of eternal punishments," and then proceeded to settle the basis of his skepticism. It matters not whether the mind begin with the premises and go on to the conclusion, or, vice versa, commence with the conclusion and work back to the premises; since it is the relation of the two which constitutes the important point. It was by the latter process that the two dogmas, of universal divine decrees and efficiency, and of universal salvation, met in the irregular but powerful mind of Foster. In his "Letter to a Young Minister," dated "Sept. 24, 1841," he urges his views on this point, for this reason among others, that "no man can become good in the Christian sense, can become fit for a holy and happy place hereafter, but by this operation [special operation of grace] ab extra"-and that "this is arbitrary and discriminative on the part of the sovereign Agent, and independent of the will of man." Again, in his letter to Dr. Harris, he says,―

"How self-evident the proposition, that if the sovereign Arbiter had intended the salvation of the race, it must have been accomplished!" -Vol. ii, p. 291.

Mr. Foster fell into these vagaries by reversing the natural order of things. Instead of going to the Bible for his theology, and then making his philosophy bow to divine authority, his philosophy takes the lead. He makes out by "moral reasoning" what is truth, and then concludes that it must be in some way consistent with what God has revealed, but leaves that matter to those who are willing to endure the toil of a philological investigation of the language of the Bible. He says,―

"I acknowledge myself not convinced of the orthodox doctrine. If asked why not? I should have little to say in the way of criticism,

of implications found or sought in what may be called incidental expressions of Scripture, or of the passages dubiously cited in favor of final, universal restitution. It is the moral argument, as it may be named, that presses irresistibly on my mind-that which comes in the stupendous idea of eternity."-Vol. ii, p. 263.

Was ever a great mind so palpably at fault in its processes? He does not ask "what saith the Scriptures," but what is the result of "the moral argument."

We should exceedingly like to examine at length this "moral argument," but our space will not allow. We also intended to present many fine specimens of elevated thought and sentiment, which we had marked for the purpose; but for the same reason we must omit them. In conclusion, we must say we have seldom read a book with such mingled emotions of pleasure and pain. Of course the reader will by this time conclude that we are prepared to recommend the work with reserve. This is true. It is a pot of most excellent "ointment," but the "dead flies" in it well nigh give the whole an offensive odor.

ART. VIII.-CRITICAL NOTICES.

1. Witness of the Spirit: a Treatise on the Evidence of the Believer's Adoption. By DANIEL WALTON. 18mo., pp. 228. New-York: Lane & Tippett.

THE author of this work is a distinguished minister of the Wesleyan connection. The subject is one of great importance, and yet one upon which evangelical Christians still differ in opinion. The author brings to his aid, in its discussion, candor, ingenuousness, acuteness, and learning. He rests his argument upon the word of God; but in its illustration he draws upon the experience and observations of wise and pious men. We see in a contemporary Review, a work upon this subject noticed, which professes to show that the doctrine, "as taught by the Rev. John Wesley," is "unscriptural, false, fanatical, and of mischievous tendency." And the reviewer thinks this work is wanted to correct "a very mischievous error, and to open the eyes of the Christian public to the leaven of fanaticism which entered into the original composition of Methodism, and which," he seriously thinks, “it is to be feared is by no means purged out."

We will send a copy of Mr. Walton's work to our brother; and we hope he will look a little further into the subject before he gives up the Methodists as incurable fanatics. The doctrine has been maintained by many learned and pious Calvinists, as all who are read in the theology of the Puritans, of Old and New England, very well know. Every Methodist family especially should have this little book.

2. Resurrection of the Dead: a Vindication of the literal Resurrection of the human Body; in Opposition to the Work of Professor Bush. By CALVIN KINGSLEY. 18mo., pp. 159. New-York: Lane & Tippett.

THE doctrine of the resurrection from the dead has ever been regarded, by orthodox Christians, as a doctrine of the Bible, and as vital to Christianity. Infidels and semi-infidels have always denied it as wholly "incredible." Some, who repudiate both the above characters, have fallen into their modes of reasoning upon the subject with much apparent honesty. Among these Professor Bush has lately be come enrolled. His book upon the subject has done much harm, and is likely to

do much more. The answer by Professor Kingsley, of Allegany College, is an admirable specimen of fair, manly argument; and, we hesitate not to say, a complete refutation of the learned effort which Professor Bush has put forth to bring into doubt and discredit a plain doctrine of God's holy and blessed word. We need not attempt to analyze this work, as its size, and the intrinsic importance of the subject of which it treats, will suggest to all who see this notice the importance of procuring and reading it for themselves. We have seldom read an argument upon any theological subject with which we have been so entirely pleased. Let every family wishing to preserve the purity and simplicity of the Christian faith free from the admixture of a vain philosophy, immediately procure this little volume, and keep it constantly at hand.

3. A General History of the World, briefly sketched, upon Scriptural Principles. By the Rev. C. Barth, D. D. 12mo., pp. 374. New-York: Lane & Tippett. THE following, from the editor's preface, will give the reader a correct view of the character and importance of this work:-" This work is a brief universal history, sketched upon Scriptural principles. It was written by the Rev. Dr. Barth, of Wirtemburg, in the German language, and translated into English by Rev. R. F. Walker, A. M., for the use of the Religious Tract Society of London. By that institution the work has been extensively circulated in Great Britain, and even published in other languages.

"The want of such a book has been felt in this country, and we take pleasure in offering to the public a carefully revised edition.

"It is designed to serve two important purposes connected with the reading and study of history. 1. It will answer for beginners, as a useful introduction to more detailed and voluminous works. 2. It will scarcely be found less valuable as a summary of historical events, to which the extensive reader of history may resort for a review of his studies, and for a well-digested analysis of the leading events which have transpired in our world.

"The importance of historical knowledge is universally admitted, and the time has come when we may reasonably expect it to be more extensively cultivated among sabbath-school scholars and teachers. To contribute to this end is the special object of the present issue, while it will be found equally valuable for every other appropriate use."

4. Incidental Benefits of Denominational Divisions; an Argument for Christian Union. By B. P. AYDELOTT, D. D. 18mo., pp. 135. Cincinnati: 1846. THIS is a work for the times. A portion of its title would seem to promise "an argument" against "Christian union;" but the scope of the author, as the whole title-page taken together intimates, is directly the reverse. The author admits the differences of the church to be in themselves evils, but maintains that there are great incidental and providential advantages resulting from them. In this we fully agree with him. And we also agree with him in maintaining, that, under existing circumstances, the amalgamation of the evangelical churches would not be safe or desirable. This object is wholly disclaimed by the Evangelical Alliance, and constitutes no part of the object of the great movement in favor of union now in progress. The distinction made by our author between "denominational division and denominational difference" is an important one.

He says, "By the former is intended not merely a separation in the church, but such a separation as leads multitudes to seek their own peculiar denominational interests mainly, if not entirely, instead of keeping an eye single to the glory of God in the advancement of the Redeemer's kingdom.

"By denominational difference we understand all that distinguishes from each other the various denominations professing the same essential truths of the gospel. While the spirit of division is always wrong, attachment to denominational differences is not necessarily so, because it may be entertained consistently with the exercise of the most enlarged charity."

In view of this distinction and definition, would not the title of the book be more in harmony with the scope of the author's argument if it were, instead of "incidental benefits of denominational division," &c., incidental benefits of denominational differ