chin in 1819, admits,-what he had indeed admitted long before, in his other publications, that "we have not the same complete dominion over our passions and appetites that we might have had, if our first parents had not fallen;" nay, that our nature, as it is derived from our first parents, may be so depraved by their fall, as to render us more prone than we should otherwise have been to the commission of actual

guilt [sin]." This is something, to be sure, in the way of admission; but how inadequate it is to the declarations of Scripture, to the doctrines of our own church, and to the history of the human race, let our readers judge; or if they wish for an assistant in their researches, let them avail themselves of the clue furnished by the Archdeacon of Ely, in the Charge before us.

Mr. Browne speaks, both in a clause before quoted and elsewhere, of" original sin or human depravity," as if the two were synonimous, or nearly so: but this is not strictly the fact, and our author

of education and "inattention to the habits" of Cain when "very young," may be traced "that envy which excited him to murder his brother Abel;" and that "to the same source may be traced that general depravity of all ages which our church, by a phrase not well chosen, calls orignal or birth sin." Few members of the Scottish Episcopal Church, Bishop Gleig thinks, "admit this incomprehensible doctrine;" in consequence, we presume, of Scottish divines paying more attention than Southrens to "that great law of mental association" of which, continues Dr. Gleig, "in the university you must all have heard something, though some of you perhaps not much;" that wonderful law which, "after our first parents' apostacy produced their corruption," and by means of which, adds the Bishop, "I account to myself for that depravity which has been called original sin." We account for the matter very differently; but shall not inflict upon our readers a "refutation" of this "very singular" hypothesis, till we hear that some of them are in danger of adopting it. We are happy to know that more sound and orthodox opinions than these are extant, and are spreading, among our Northern Episcopalians.

himself does not, we conclude, mean really to identify the one with the other. Indeed, he expressly passes over the chief questions arising from the doctrine of "original sin*,” and takes his stand upon the actual experimental fact of "human depravity," which he describes as "entire and universal." It is on this ground that we meet him; and we should

"It is not my intention," remarks which was held by the most eminent our author, "to discuss the opinion divines during the first century after the Reformation relative to the imputation of Adam's sin to all his posterity; because all who held this opinion appear to have concurred in thinking that this guilt is cancelled in the ordinance of baptism." We were not aware that all who thought the one thought the other. Hooker and certainly thought both; and, what would Melancthon, as quoted by Mr. Browne, have been still more to our author's purpose, the Homily of Salvation speaks of "remission of our original sin in baptism." We would not by any means detract from the honour of this divinely appointed means of grace; but if the opinion in question is to be extended further than to mean, that baptism is a sign and a seal of this remission, or that this remission may in baptized persons take place at the time of their reception of that sacrament, what becomes of infants dying unbaptized, and what of believing adults unavoidably and against their wish, deprived of the benefits of this sacrament? We cannot for a moment harbour a doubt of the everlasting welfare of both these classes; either of whom we believe to be quite as certain of heaven as the baptized Christian. Our reformers recoiled from pronouncing an anathema on infants dying unbaptized. They asserted the eternal blessedness of those who have enjoyed this external ordinance before their early removal; but they express no alternative. It has been the opinion of many eminent divines, in default of direct scriptural information on the point, that in whatever sense the sin of the first Adam may be said to be universally imputed, in that sense it is universally expiated by the obedience unto death of the Second Adam; so that no human being, baptized or unbaptized, ever finally perishes for original sin who does not live to commit actual. But on topics of this sort we are not anxious either to form or to express any opinion, further than Scripture plainly "takes us by the hand."

proceed with him step by step, if our limits admitted, through the three, heads of proof or illustration which he brings forward on the question; namely, by an appeal to Scripture, an appeal to present experience, and an appeal to universal history. It is, however, only lightly that we can touch upon these topics.

The author prefaces his argument by the following explanatory remarks, which are of great importance to be remembered in all inquiries upon the subject of human depravity. The concluding sentence of the extract justly points out the real seat and character of the malady.

"But, before I proceed, I must endea Your, with as much brevity as I can, to obviate a misconception, which may possibly arise. In maintaining the total depravity of human nature, it is not to be understood that all mankind are as corrupt as they can be for self-interest, regard to character, the dread of human laws, and various other considerations, impose many and effective restraints. It is not asserted that they are all equally wicked-for these restraints exercise a more powerful control over some individuals than over others. It is not alleged that every individual brings with him into the world the elements of every vice which can deform and debase the human characterfor some vices are essentially destructive of each other, and cannot co-exist in the same person. On the other hand, it is not to be denied that even among untutored savages, you may often witness the attractive influence of the social affections: and amidst the refinements of civilized life you may observe with delight many amiable and ennobling qualities-such as extensive benevolence, inflexible integrity, unshaken fortitude, and exalted patriotism. The former, in the absence of higher motives, may be supposed to arise from instinctive feelings implanted in the breast of man for the wisest and most beneficent purposes; the latter frequently result from a combination of causes wholly unconnect ed with any reference to the will of God. Justice, generosity, and reciprocal kindness, contribute so much to the comfort and welfare of society, that they will com monly be held in estimation, and may even be practised to a considerable extent, from CHRIST. OBSERV. No. 255.

motives of pure selfishness, 'for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. By asserting therefore that man is totally depraved, I do not mean to insinuate that he is destitute of every thing that is excellent and praiseworthy in his

social capacity; but I would be understood to intimate my belief that he is by nature devoid of all spiritual desires and holy dispositions; that his heart is alienated from God; and that, till he be renewed by Divine grace, and till a new bias be communicated to his will and af

fections, his most splendid actions, how

ever admirable they may appear with regard to their outward form and substance, since they do not emanate from a right motive, are utterly valueless in the sight of God, and may be said to partake of the nature of sin."" pp. 9-11.

The Scripture proofs which Mr. Browne adduces, are chiefly those of a collateral kind; the more direct passages being familiarly known. He dwells particularly, and, in our view, quite convincingly, on those texts which shew an unambiguous and clearly defined opposition' between a state of nature and a state of grace; or, in other words, which inculcate the doctrine that the moral character of man, under the uncontrolled influence of his native dispositions, is fundamentally different from that of man transformed and renovated by the Spirit of Holiness. He points out the strong contrast spoken of in Scripture between the "flesh," and the "spirit;" between the "natural" or "carnal" man, and the "renewed" or "spiritual" man; and shews that all the principles of sin derive their origin from mere human nature, as transmitted from our first parents,-while, on the contrary, all the principles of holiness are of exotic growth, and owe their origin to the Spirit of God. The frequent exhortations in Scripture to deny ourselves, to take up our cross, and to crucify the flesh with its affections and lusts, prove that our natural propensities are at variance with the holy law and infinite purity of God. So also the shewn intellectual faculties are to be blinded since the Fall, as Ꮓ

both Testaments with a sun-beam), nor consequently of the necessity of some powerful, Divine energy, to bend, incline, and effectually draw man's will to such objects as it naturally resists and is averse to; not a word, I say, of this, or any thing like it; for these men used to explode and deny it all, as their modern offspring amongst us also do. And yet this passed for sound and good divinity in the church in St. Austin's time; and, within less than an hundred years since, in our church too; till Pelagianism, and Socinianism, Deism, Atheism, and a spirit of innovation, the root of all, and worse than all, broke in upon us, and, by false schemes and models countenanced and encouraged, have given quite a new face to things.' p. 35.

To the Charge is added an interesting and learned Appendix, relative to several points alluded to in the foregoing pages.

Appendix No. 1. consists of quotations from Bishops Hooper and Taylor, and the address prefixed to Jones's "Catholic Doctrine of a Trinity," chiefly on the subject of the spiritual ignorance of mankind, and their need of Divine illumination. Appendix No. 2. adduces a variety of passages on the subject of Free-will, from the formularies of our church; from the Confessions of several of the continental Protestant churches; and from the writings of Melancthon, Tindal, Taylor, and Hammond. Appendix No. III. is devoted to the discussion of the general applicability of the New Testament to the case of professed Christians. Mr. Browne cites from Pyle's paraphrase on the Romans a passage on this subject, which the present Bishop of Winchester has deemed worthy of insertion in his "Elements of Christian Theology," where the reader may refer to it (Vol. II. p. 304), as we do not wish to distil through our pages the poison of a system of interpretation which would render a large part of the Scriptures obsolete. If, how ever, any of our readers cannot conveniently make this reference, but

should chance to have at hand Mr. Belsham's four volumes of "Translation and Exposition of the Epistles of Paul the Apostle," lately published, they may turn to the third Preliminary Dissertation, where they will find the same partial system of interpretation laid down as the true canon for interpreting the New Testament. We do not mean to deny that the immediate case of the parties to whom St. Paul and the other Apostles wrote, is very necessary to be considered in the explication of Scripture; especially with reference to some terms which have been the occasion of warm controversies; but to carry the system to any thing like the extent for which the Socinians contend, and for which they are not a little fond of pleading the sanction of such names as Locke, and Pyle, and Dr. Taylor, and Archdeacon Paley, is little better than blotting out at least half of the New Testament, and abolishing its office of reproving, rebuking, correcting, or instructing our own generation, or indeed any generation but that which was contemporary with the inspired writers. Mr. Browne asks very justly and forcibly on this subject,

faith and works, of justification and sanc"What are the great essentials of tification, to be confounded with the dark and abstruse doctrines of election and reprobation, which the most enlightened theologians have, as it were, with one consent acknowledged to be of secondary and subordinate importance, when compared with the fundamentals of Christianity? Are the various texts of Scripture which point out the relative position of faith

and works in the Christian scheme, and the distinct offices of the First and Second Persons in the Holy Undivided Trinity; of the former, in the justification of the sinner,-of the latter, in his sanctification; are these to be applied only to nations and collective bodies of men converted from Gentilism or Judaism to the belief of the Gospel? Do they refer exclusively to men in the aggregate,

and not to individuals? If this be so, it must necessarily follow that a large part

of the New Testament is wholly inapplicable to the present times." p. xx. "I am led to conclude that an identity

of moral character has pervaded the whole human race ever since the Fall of Adam;

that the descriptions of man in a state of nature and in a state of grace respectively, which were applicable to him eighteen hundred years ago, are equally applicable to him now; and that, in general, whether we look to doctrines or to precepts, scarcely a passage can be pointed out in

the whole New Testament which does not, either directly or indirectly, either specifically or by analogy, concern us at this present time. This opinion, however, does not in the least degree militate against the necessity of being well versed in the history of the Jews, their various sects, their national customs, their popu lar prejudices, their prevailing errors, in order to gain an accurate and comprehensive view of the writings of the four Evangelists. So also, in the interpretation of the Epistles, it is essentially requisite that we should be acquainted with the general scope of each respectively, the particular occasion upon which it was written, the erroneous opinions which it was intended to combat, or the evil practices which it was intended to condemn :

these, and other collateral circumstances, will be borne in mind by the judicious expositor. Nevertheless, since there is, as has been before observed, a striking degree of uniformity in the general features which both sin and error assume in all ages of the world, we may safely infer, that whatever was written at the dictation of the Holy Spirit in the apostolic era, in reprehension of the one or in confutation of the other, will be strictly applicable, mutatis mutandis, to professing Christians in these days." pp. xxvii. xxviii. Appendix No. 4 is occupied with a list of contrasted texts, in parallel

Mr. Browne might unhappily have quoted some well-known names on this point. Dr. Paley himself, preaching before Bishop Law, ventured to affirm, speaking of those Scriptures that mention a new birth, regeneration, conversion, &c. that "they mean NOTHING,-NOthing, that is, to us; nothing to be found or sought for in the present circumstances of Christians." If this were true, why did not their Divine Author give us moderns an editio expurgata of his word? But Dr. Paley lived long enough to change his opinion on this point.

columns, on the "state of nature" and the "state of grace," followed by extracts containing the sentiments of Archbishop Sandys, and Bishops Latimer, Hooper, Jewel, Sanderson, and Wilkins, upon human corruption; and some excellent passages, from one of the tracts of the Society for promoting Christian Knowledge, entitled "Pastoral Advice in order to Confirma. tion."

The last article of the Appendix, No. 5, refers to the pages of our friend and contemporary the "Christian Remembrancer," into which were admitted, during the year 1821, some papers on original sin which Mr. Archdeacon Browne, in common we presume with every other orthodox churchman who happened to fall in with that work, considered to be of a very exceptionable and clearly unscriptural character. As we did not expose our readers to the bane, we shall not exhibit to them Mr. Browne's antidote; though him our deep regret that the conwe may be allowed to express with ductors of a publication, which appears, as he remarks, "to claim an exclusive patent of orthodoxy," should allow their correspondents to stain their pages with such passages as the one which we have, for the purpose of example and exposure, thrown into a note below*, and the evil

"The only things," remarks the writer in question, "which are natural to man kind, are such as hunger, thirst, impres sions upon the senses, liability to disease, pain, and the like. Let but the reader keep in mind this distinction, and he will easily perceive that, if 'sin' be said to be na tural to us, it must be only in some assumed and inferior sense, and that the ar guing from it in any other, causes much inaccuracy of Christian sentiment.

"Perhaps what leads most to error upon this subject, is the expression in our Catechism, stating that by nature we are born in sin.' Yet surely this by no means necessarily must be so explained as to imply any thing contrary to what is here affirmed. Our present state of being is doubtless the effect and consequence of