90.
(The systems compared as to their tendency to promote morality in general.) I have hitherto made no objection to, no remark on, any one part of this Letter; for I object to the whole--not as Calvinism, but--as what Calvin would have recoiled from.

How was it that so good and shrewd a man as Andrew Fuller should not have seen, that the difference between a Calvinist and a Priestleyan Materialist-Necessitarian consists in this:--The former not only believes a will, but that it is equivalent to the 'ego ipse', to the actual self, in every moral agent; though he believes that in human nature it is an enslaved, because a corrupt, will.

In denying free will to the unregenerated he no more denies will, than in asserting the poor negroes in the West Indies to be slaves I deny them to be men.

Now the latter, the Priestleyan, uses the word will,--not for any real, distinct, correspondent power, but,--for the mere result and aggregate of fibres, motions, and sensations; in short, it is a mere generic term with him, just as when we say, the main current in a river.
Now by not adverting to this, and alas! misled by Jonathan Edwards's book, Fuller has hidden from himself and his readers the damnable nature of the doctrine--not of necessity (for that in its highest sense is identical with perfect freedom; they are definitions each of the other); but--of extraneous compulsion.

O! even this is not adequate to the monstrosity of the thought.