language of a recent article in the Edinburgh Review, "resolve mainly into a sheer abuse of words," and I shall use my feeble efforts to shew briefly, that the views of its author savour much more strongly of "unsoundness and delusion," than those which he combats.

The first topic adverted to by the reviewer in question is that of human depravity, which he calls "the starting point of all evangelical preaching." I admit that it is; for it is necessary to point out the nature of the disease, before we

Christianity, taken in this view, contains a humiliating estimate of the moral condition of man as being radically corrupt—the doctrine of redemption from that condition by the merit and sufferings of Christ-the doctrine of a divine influence being necessary to transform the character of the human mind, in order to prepare it for a higher station in the universe-and a grand moral peculiarity by which it insists on humility, penitence, and a separation from the spirits and habits of the world." This is unquestionably one of the best outlines of that mode of understanding Christianity, to which has been given the distinctive epithet evangelical; "and which," the talented essayist well says, "is not, to say the least, more discriminatively designated among the scoffing part of the wits, critics, and theologians of the day, by the terms fanatical, calvinistical, methodistical." The observations, however, of the Edinburgh reviewer are chiefly confined to the topics of human depravity, regeneration, and faith and works. To these points therefore I must limit my remarks upon his article.

2 Vid. article vii, in the Edinburgh Review, No, cxxx, published January, 1837,

can describe the suitableness of the only remedy; but I should like to know where, amongst the ministers of the establishment, the supporter of this doctrine is to be found, who declares himself to have ceased to be "partaker" thereof? Let those preachers belonging to our church be pointed out-for to them the reviewer's observations confessedly refer who say that "the depravity they so ingenuously confess is the depravity of all mankind-except themselves!" Nay rather, do they not universally deplore the imperfections of their religious state, and are they not willing to confess, in the language of their own liturgy, that they are "miserable sinners," trusting only in the righteousness of Christ, while they rejoice with trembling at their consciousness of hostility to the remains of sin in themselves? But the writer of the article in question has totally mistaken the evangelical meaning of the term depravity. He refers it only to visible immorality, and conceives those to be hypocrites who profess themselves depraved, without "the direct consciousness of specific, definite sins." He speaks also in terms of contempt, of “ some silly creature impressed with the necessity of seeing

3 Vid. note p. 430 of the Review.

his 'lost and perishing state by nature."" That silliness is however rather the object of pity, which cannot distinguish between holiness and virtue, nor see that the depravity of the human mind arises from having lost the original image of its God, whence it disobeys the first and great command. It seems never once to have entered the reviewer's thoughts that it is possible to be virtuous, as some heathens were, without being holy, though it is impossible to be holy, without being virtuous. Let him read the ninth article of our church which speaks of original sin as "the fault and corruption of our nature," whereby "the flesh lusteth always contrary to the Spirit," with the annexed declaration that "in every person born into the world it deserveth God's wrath and damnation;" and then let him ask himself whether those who have subscribed thereto, can consistently teach any other doctrine?

The depravity of the human heart results from the absence of holiness, as darkness results from the absence of light; and the remedy is its restoration by Christ, partial here and perfect hereafter, when all the evils of our earthly night shall fly before the full glory of the celestial and eternal day. This present state of darkness

conceals from us Him who is all light; but it

4

has no entity, or God would be the creator of it, which he is not, since it is only the consequence of the just withdrawal of his presence from the rebel man. It cannot be said to have being, or the conclusion is inevitable, that it must derive its being from the first Being, which would make God the author of evil. But we are dark, because the Lord has departed and left the sinner to himself, to shew the creature who presumed to be "as God,"

4 I do not design by this observation to deny, as some have done, the positive sinfulness of man. Our state is one of privation of light; God the Sun of our spiritual day has left the sinner, and darkness is the result. But there are two things in a privation first, the mere absence of the benefit removed, as of light when there is darkness-next the effect, which in addition to the mere privation, includes the contrary form. This is called by the old divines privatio malè disponens; as sickness, besides the mere absence of health, includes "the humours abounding." Depravity therefore includes both a privation of the beauty of original righteousness, and also an evil disposition and proneness to all manner of positive evil, infecting the souls of fallen men. This followed from the withdrawal of God, when our first parents dared to believe the lie "ye shall be as gods” -but he cannot be said to be the positive author of evil. These observations may perhaps throw a gleam across the obscurity in which this subject is involved; but the difficulties surrounding the origin of evil will remain for the trial of our faith, till we "see light in God's light," in a state of glory incapable even of the semblance of a shadow.

his entire dependence upon him. And how benighted human nature acts when Providence loosens his restrictive rein, is most forcibly described by St. Paul in the first chapter of the epistle to the Romans, where he enumerates the sins of the Gentiles. Darkness is the image scripture has selected to convey an adequate idea of man's carnal state; and though reason may enable him to feel his way to a certain extent, in the narrow circle of things temporal, yet his notions are limited to this defective sense, his ideas of sin are confined to the perception of tangible circumstances around him, nor can he see the beauty of holiness and how it contains all the loveliness of virtue, till God calls him "out of darkness into his marvellous light." Hence the constant queries as to what may be said to be sin? Certain overt acts are mentioned, and we are asked "is there wickedness in these?" All this arises from misapprehension of the subject; from mistaking the sensitiveness of natural conscience, the existence of which no one denies, for the discriminating power of the mind enlightened by grace; from not appreciating the character of the whole law of God, and our inability to obey it according to the perfect will

5 John i, 5; Acts xxvi, 18; 1 Pet. ii, 9; Col. i, 13.