guished by great originality and justness of sentiment, by acute argument, and a wide and critical acquaintance with Scripture and ecclesiastical antiquity.

The question, "Whether men are bound to repent of original sin?"— he might, perhaps, have answered by observing simply, (as he has incidentally noticed), that by the consent of those theologians who have attached most importance to it, original sin is remitted in baptism as to any punishment which might accrue from it; that, though it adheres to us, it is not penally imputed to us, and that what is innate and unavoidable is a misfortune, not a transgression, and, therefore, no proper subject for repentance.

Nor is the solidity of this answer shaken by the opinion of Augustine, that" all our life-time, we are bound to mourn for the inconveniences and evil consequences derived from original sin;❞—or by the determination of our church that "concupiscence," (which is allowed, on all hands, to be a necessary consequent of Adam's fall, and a mode in which the original corruption shows itself,)" partakes of the nature of sin."

It is, no doubt, a legitimate cause for concern, in those who either desire God's glory, or the happiness of their fellow-creatures, that they have no worthier sacrifice to render to the one than such imperfect services as only are in our power, and that the other are, (under the present state of things) exposed to so much misery which we can neither remove nor materially alleviate. And a knowledge of our fallen condition, as it must necessarily make us humble and cautious, so it may well serve to excite in us an aspiration after a better and happier existence,-the very glories of which, while we are banished from them, must make the heart sick with hope delayed.

If this, however, be called repentance, it is an improper use of the term, which is usually and correctly applied to such a sorrow as is excited by the commission of actions which we might have left undone, or by a neglect of such wise or virtuous deeds as have been in our power. It follows, therefore, that repentance, in its proper meaning, is not applicable to original sin.

It is very true, (though Taylor has, in vain and very needlessly, laboured to get rid of the supposed difficulty),

that whatever is displeasing to God and contrary to the purposes of his creation, is a sin; though, if it arises from causes over which we have no control, a merciful God will not impute it to us. And it is thus that " concupiscence," like every evil thought, is said by our church to "partake of the nature of sin," inasmuch as the overt act of an unclean desire is in itself offensive to the God of purity, though, unless we encourage or indulge in it, the God of mercy may overlook it in us, as a necessary consequence of our fallen condition; a monument of that wretchedness from which we are made free by Christ. But this will not put it into our power to repent of what we cannot help, though it may exalt our notions of God's goodness, as well as of our own daily dependance on his bounty and daily need of his forgiveness.

Still, however, the question remained, "if we cannot repent of original sin, why are we to be punished for it?" a difficulty which Taylor solved by cutting the knot at once, and denying that any man, for original sin alone, would be punished with damnation. A conclusion this was which all Arminians and some Calvinists would join him in maintaining, but in arriving at which his process was not a happy one.

The answer, apparently most obvious, and which, as I conceive, would have been most consistent with the generallanguage of inspiration, would have been, that, without extenuating the amount of human corruption, or the fatal consequences which, if things had been left to their natural course, must have been incurred by all Adam's posterity; it is plain from Scripture that, in point of fact, the world never was thus left to itself. Where iniquity abounded, grace did much more abound. The promise of a Redeemer was made as soon as our first parents had sinned, and before they had earned their name of parent; and the sacrifice of Christ is allowed, on all hands, to have had a retrospective as well as a prospective efficacy, which, in all those who were brought to a knowledge of him, either before or after his coming, was fruitful of grace to enable them to struggle against their innate corruption, and of merciful atonement to free them from the punishment of those stains which still adhered to their nature.

-

To the objection that this dispensation only applied to the converted and baptized, to those who had received the knowledge and badge of salvation, while infants unbaptized, and heathens, remained liable to God's wrath, and heirs of utter damnation,- he might have rejoined, that all such must be left to the uncovenanted mercies of a good and gracious Father; or he might have given, perhaps, a more plausible answer still, that the merits of Christ's death' and intercession may extend far beyond the limits of his visible church; that his grace may supply the unavoidable deficiencies of those who have not heard his name; and that many may be led by his Spirit, and saved by his blood, who have only known of God that "he is, and that he is the rewarder of them that diligently seek him." This is pretty nearly the account which is given by the bishop of Winchester, in his able commentary on the eighteenth article of our church; nor do I know any solution which can more satisfactorily reconcile the certainty and greatness of the natural corruption of man, and his consequent need of a Redeemer, with the fact that the name of this Redeemer is not yet made known to all, and the presumption that à just and merciful God will not treat the impotent as if they were wilfully rebellious.

Unfortunately, Taylor went to work by another process, and busied himself, first, in extenuating the greatness and evil consequences of Adam's fall; next in exalting the freewill and remaining powers of man; lastly, in denying that concupiscence could be in itself sinful unless it proceeded to a deliberate and cherished image, to which the soul reverted with pleasure.

His opinion as to the first of these points was the same with some of the schoolmen, who believed that Adam, as first created, was no better nor wiser than any of his descendants; but that, when he was placed in Paradise, a supernatural grace was given to him, which enabled him to please God; to resist temptation,—and, by the use of the appointed and sacramental means, to live for ever."

Accordingly, the effect of his fall was, when thus explained, no more than a return to his natural condition, and

his children lost nothing but the prospect of succeeding to certain valuable privileges which were theirs in reversion only, and were not inherent but superadded gifts, even in the instance of their first parent.

If he erred in the adoption of this doctrine, he certainly erred in good company, inasmuch as the same was maintained by Bull and by archbishop King. It is, however, a doctrine which can hardly stand the test of Scripture, which not only is silent as to any superadded qualifications conferred on Adam to enable him to keep the first covenant, but which, moreover, expressly tells us, that God created man upright. The question, however, is apparently of no practical importance, since at whatever time Adam received the perfections of his being, whether at or after his creation, the consequences of the loss of those perfections would be the same both to himself and his descendants.

Taylor, however, went on to deny that the depravation of man's nature, after the fall, was so total as had been generally apprehended; and to attack the conclusions of the Westminster divines, who maintained, not only that man was very far gone from original righteousness," but that he was altogether perverted, and incapable of any thing but evil.

66

He asserted, on the contrary, that, amid the deplorable ruin of the world, some fragments of the Divine image might yet be discovered; that not only freedom of will remained, but that, in some particular cases, the tendency of man was on the side of virtue. "A man cannot naturally hate God, if he knows any thing of him. A man naturally loves his parents; he naturally hates some sort of uncleanness. He naturally loves and preserves himself; and all those sins which are unnatural, are such which nature hates; and the law of nature commands all the great instances of virtue, and marks out all the great lines of justice."—" Here only our nature is defective. We do not naturally know, nor yet naturally love, those supernatural excellencies which are appointed and commanded by God, as the means of bringing us to a supernatural condition. That is, without God's grace, and the renovation of the Spirit, we cannot be saved."

Bull-Discourse on the first Covenant. Sermons, vol. iii. p. 1065. King on the Origin of Evil, chap. iv. sect. 8. p. 211. Ed. Cantab.

e Vol. ix. p. 41.

Here, too, it is probable, that most Arminians will agree that he had a juster view of human nature as it now exists, and pursued a more correct interpretation of some well-known passages of Scripture than his opponents. He has here, in fact, said no more than bishop Butler and the bishop of Winchester have both maintained in discussing the same intricate subject'.

The fact is, indeed, that, with the allowances which all these divines have made, the difference between their view of man's corruption, and that which is taken by the Calvinists, is not, as to any practical consequence, worth disputing. Both sides allow that man is so far fallen as to be unable, without grace, to rise to heaven or escape everlasting punishment; and Taylor, in particular, has, in many of his argumentative, and all his devotional passages, admitted in the humblest language, his vileness, his helplessness, his worthlessness. But, if the ruin be effectual, it signifies little whether it be total; and if man is, by nature, the heir of wrath, it is a question of very inferior importance, whether there may or may not be some scattered good qualities yet remaining about him, which may make a difference in his final lot, so far at least as a mitigation of punishment. Augustine himself never taught that Socrates and Marcus Aurelius were to be ranked in the same category of eternal suffering, with Simon Magus and Nero; but Augustine, nevertheless, like the Romish church, and the Calvinists, was peremptory in consigning them to some portion of everlasting misery, and, in fact, if it be allowed that no flesh can escape except through Christ, it seems absolutely necessary, if we would escape from these revolting consequences, to suppose, as has been already hinted, an extension of the merits of Christ's blood, and the help of his Holy Spirit, beyond the limits of the visible church, and the list of those who have heard the tidings of salvation.

This Taylor appears, from some expressions in his "further Explications," to have suspecteds. But he has not followed up this presumption to any length, and, in consequence, fluctuates between Augustine and Pelagius, too deeply

'Butler's Analogy, pp. 81 and 135. Tomline, Refut. Calv., pp. 2, 3, 4.

Vol. ix. pp. 91, 92, 93.