nature which God gives them." In these remarks and in many that resemble them, we confess that we see nothing to censure. If the writer had asserted we could love God as we ought to do by our natural strength, his assertion would never have found its way into this Journal. But when he denies that by nature all men hate God, he speaks the language both of the Church and the Scripture; and his declaration and his proofs are not undeserving of attention. For many persons have been perplexed in their enquiries after truth, by their ignorance of the distinction for which N. R. contends. They read that man's nature is faulty and corrupt; that he cannot turn and prepare himself by his own natural strength and good works to faith and calling upon God, and that works done before the grace of Christ have the nature of sin. This is the doctrine of the Church of England, and too many of her children conceive that they are testifying their filial obedience, when they draw together every passage in which the Scripture speaks of the wickedness of man, and put them forward in support of the Thirty-nine Articles. And then should it happen, as undoubtedly it must, that such passages being descriptive of particular individuals or nations, contain stronger expressions than any that the Church has applied to the universal human race, the inference is that the Articles have underrated our misery, and ▷ must be understood to signify a great deal more than they say. The best method of counteracting this prevalent absurdity, is by observing and calling upon others to observe the distinction that has now been pointed out. It is not a new disco{very, but has been long understood and recognised. It is not a vain logical or scholastic nicety, but is of real and substantive importance in the great analogy of faith; and we cannot quit this portion of our extensive subject without thanking the

correspondent who has called our attention to it. But at the same time those thanks are not intended to imply approbation of every expression in his Essays, and in proceeding to notice his various opponents, we shall have occasion to dissent both from him and them.

Oxoniensis enters deepest into the merits of the Essayist, and with him therefore we shall begin. He tells us in the beginning of his first letter, p. 333, that the doctrines which he controverts may be reduced to these two propositions. ". That human nature, employing that term in its proper and strict sense, being that by which we are what we are by God's appointment,' is not, and cannot be opposite to God's will," or adverse to true religion,' or 'have implanted in it any seeds of evil.” 2. That whenever such characters are ascribed to human nature, the term is employed loosely, only a subordinate nature or habitual usage is in fact intended,' superinduced by bad examples, bad suggestions, &c.'" We were certainly somewhat surprised when our intelligent correspondent first informed us, that we had given circulation to such sentiments as these. But when he said in the next sentence, that the Essayist admitted the necessity of God's grace to support us against, temptation, and allowed also, that we are by the very terms of that nature, which God gives us since Adam's Fall, prone to sin, our surprise was not unmixed with a more disagreeable feeling. Oxoniensis had already assumed a magisterial tone, talked of crude hypothesis, complete incompetency, palpable misconception, and sundry other harsh sounding qualities; he had taken a part of a sentence, an awkward sentence we adarit, but still perfectly plan and intelligible, ɛand pronounced it and the whole essay incomprehensible and chaotics and then he proceeds to reduce it into form by rejecting exactly one half, The admissions of N. Be respecting

grace, &c. are put aside, because Oxoniensis thinks them inconsis. tent with other passages,' and obviously contradictory to the whole hypothesis. Is this a proper me. thod of reducing a rude and in digested mass' to regularity and order? Was not the critic bound to enquire whether the inconsistenwhich disturbed him were real or apparent? Ought he not to have hesitated before he gave the hard name of heresy to writings which confess the very doctrine which he asserts that they deny?

cies w

But to come to the propositions themslves. When N. R. asserts, that human nature is not, and cannot be opposite to God's will and true religion; the context and the whole argu, ment distinctly shew that he can only mean to say, that nature is not opposed, &c, to the extent for which some contend, or in the sense which he is combating. If he intended any thing else, it must be that men cannot sin at all; and even Oxoniensis has not charged him with so absurd a proposition. He denies that men naturally hate God; and who can prove that he is in the wrong? For our parts we are quite prepared to affirm, that such a proposition does not enlist him among either Pelagians or Socinians; and without defending the expression which he has used respecting seeds of evil,' we are unable to discover that his general sentiments are in

correct.

our Essayist abandons the orthodox doctrine of the Church. It is not necessary to dwell upon the opening of Oxoniensis's case, since it is the mere result of misapprehension-an honest and indignant and eloquent tirade against an imaginary deserter from our ranks. The letter which is appended to the present article will convince every one that it was not necessary to appeal to the Articles and the Liturgy, since their doctrine which they are cited to establish was never impugned. The more curious and important part of the controversy, is that which relates to the different significations of the word Nature, and of the texts in which that word occurs. N. R. appeals to Macknight and Bishop Butler in defence of that significa tion, which he has said, is often put upon the word. Oxoniensis adds Hammond and Grotius to the list: and Erasmus, Jeremy Taylor, and Whitby may bring up the rear.

The second proposition is col lected with greater fairness, al though by the words such characters' it may be supposed that N. R. attributes nothing worse to the subordinate nature of grossly wicked men, than opposing God or being adverse to religion, whereas in fact he speaks of them continually in much stronger and more appropriate language. Let us consider, however, whether Oxoniensis esta. blishes this part of his charge, viz. that by distinguishing between the real and acquired nature of man,

"By nature here is most likely to be meant what Galen calls quoic ETIXTNTOS, an acquisite nature, that is, customs and evil habits... By nature means not by birth and na tural extraction, or any original de-* rivation from Adam, in this place, for of this these Ephesians were no more guilty than every one else, and no more before their conversion than after; but by nature signifies ortws aλndos, so the Greek scholiast renders it, really, beyond opinion; plene and omnino, entirely or wholly, so the Syriac; and so St. Jerome affirms, that the ancients did expound it, and it is agreeable to the usage of the same phrase, Gal. iv. 8." Polemical Discourses, p. 723. In the English translation of Erasmus's paraphrase, appointed by Cranmer to be fixed up and read in our Churches, the same interpretation is given, "That death is eternal that is appointed to the wicked; whereunto we also were subject as much as others touching our own state and condition. We had addicted ourselves unto it of our free

choice, but it was not in our power to wind us again out of that most miserable servitude. See also Whitby on Ephesians ii. 3. who speaks precisely to the same effect, Now for our own parts we do not agree with these illustrious men, nor have we any doubt that the pas, sage upon which they comment alludes to Original Sin. The Church Catechism puts this plain and obvious interpretation upon the text, and we require no better authority for doing likewise. But will it follow that a writer who thinks differently is a heretic? May we not dispute the received meaning of a text without incurring the charge of Socinianism? Such liberty was granted in the best days of the Church; and without the slightest inclination to take advantage of it ourselves, we are not prepared to refuse it to others. Erasmus and Hammond, and Taylor and Whitby, and Butler are authorities to which the Pelagian is not wont to appeal. They err at times like other men; but their rank and estimation must be strangely altered, before it can be necessary to apologise for being found in their company.

Having mentioned the passage, Ephes. i. 3. we are reminded of our intention of reverting to a declaration of the Essayist, from which it would appear that he thinks that there is not sufficient authority for saying, that human nature is sinful. We have already observed, that the declaration is inconsistent with his own admissions, and that therefore the dispute between us is probably verbal. But to clear up misconceptions we will state our own view of the subject. In the words of Pearson we believe, that "the law of

There is a very remarkable exposition of this text in Nowell's Catechism under the title Baptism. M. De baptismo ergo primum die quid censeas? A. Quuni naTura filii iræ, idest alieni ab Ecclesià, quæ Dei familia est simus, baptismus veluti aditus nobis est per quem in eam admittimur, &c. &c. 30 otra chat to watch

Gods is the rule of the actions of men, and any aberration from that rule is sin: the law of God is pure, and whatsoever is contrary to that law is impure. Whatsoever, therefore, is done by mau, or is in man having any contrariety or opposition to the law of God, is sin. Every action, every word, every thought against the law is a sin of commission, as it is terminated in an ob.. ject dissonant from, and contrary to the prohibition of the law, or a negative precept. Every omission of a duty required of us is a sin, as being contrary to the commanding part of the law, or an affirmative precept. Every evil habit contract-" ed in the soul of man, by the action" committed against the law of God, is a sin constituting a man truly a sinner, even then when he sinneth not. Any corruption or inclination in the soul to do that which God forbiddeth and omit that which God commandeth, howsoever such corruption and evil inclination came into the soul, whether by an act of his own will, or by the act of the will of another is a sin, as being something dissonant and repugnant to the law of God." Pearson on the Creed, Article X.

Such is the declaration of this great divine; if it can be matched, it cannot be surpassed within the whole compass of English theology; and if disputants on both sides would consider it carefully, there might be some chance of terminating the controversy to which it relates. Human nature is sinful, not as Calvin teaches, by the imputation of Adam's sin, but because it is inclined to do that which God forbiddeth, and omit that which God commandeth. The facts are such as Jeremy Taylor would willingly admit, and if he had reasoned upon them with the accuracy of the logical Pearson, he might have avoided fell. Not that he can be justly those errors into which he too surely called a Socinian or a Pelagian, for he firmly believed in the indispen

4

sable necessity of an atonement; and loudly proclaimed the reality and the want both of preventing and co operating grace. By baptism children are made partakers of the Holy Ghost and of the grace of God; which I desire to be observed in opposition to the Pelagian heresy, who did suppose nature to be so perfect that the grace of God was not necessary, and that by nature alone they could go to heaven. Which because I affirm to be impossible, and that baptism is therefore necessary because nature is insufficient, and baptism is the great channel of grace; there ought to be no envious and ignorant load laid upon my doctrine as if it complied with the Pelagian, against which it is so essentially and so mainly opposed in the main difference of his doctrine." Polem. Discourses, p. 884.

The fact is, therefore, that Bishop Taylor lost his road by an anxiety to explore the bye-paths that were connected with it. The great Calvinistic stumbling-block, which he reached, but could not surmount, was the imputation of Adam's sin, to his posterity, by an soriginal covenant with his Maker; and rather than accept this, the monstrous fiction of his puritanical persecutors, Taylor denied that man derived any corruption from Adam. A lamentable instance of the indirect evil which arises from fanaticisin, and a warning to every one who is similarly tempted against >falling into the same pit. While N. R. admits, as he has done distinctly and repeatedly, that proneness and propensity to sin exist in us by our descent from Adam, he cannot fairly be accused of adopt ing Bishop Taylor's error. But we conceive that he has manifested an inclination to approach nearer to it than prudence will permit; and it is to that inclination that we attribute his expressions respecting the (seeds of sin, and the natural sinfulness of man. He may, however, 1. mean that there is no such seed of

G

"

sin or sinfulness in us, as will lead us necessarily into sin, and the first paragraph of his present let ter favours this supposition. If the supposition be correct, we have only to regret that he did not express his meaning with more pers spicuity.

Before we take leave of Jeremy Taylor, we have another remark to make upon a declaration of Oxoniensis. Reproaching the Essayist, for his inconsistency in admitting the neces sity of grace, he adds, "but a mod ment's reflection must shew that it is the original depravation of our natural powers alone which can render supernatural assistance thus indispensable." Oxoniensis is by this time aware that the position which he pronounces too plain to be disputed, was indignantly rejected by Taylor. He may also be glad to learn that Bishop Bull is of the same opinion as Jeremy Taylor. The church of God hath constantly be lieved and asserted that our first parents, besides the seeds of na tural virtue and religion sown in their minds in their very creation, and besides the natural innocence and rectitude wherein also they were endowed with certain gifts and powers supernatural, infused by the Spirit of God, and that in these gifts their perfection consistedi" Bull's Sermons, vol. iii. 291. Ca ei

The opinions of these celebrated men may or may not be correct; but at all events they prove that the doctrine is conceivable, and a writer who reflects upon the incompetency and want of informations of his adversary, ought not to have spoken as if he had never heard of their existence. The circumstance rather cuts against ourselves, because if grace implied depravity, N. R's. admission respecting grace must extend to depravity also. But this connection, as our great bishops have shewn, is perfectly untenable; and we have only mentioned the circumstances in order to shew our correspondent that he is