of un-sectarian general education, but he believed it could only be efficiently carried out by the State. He remembered when the Lancasterian Schools were first established, and when their founder had got into difficulties, William Allen, a Quaker, introduced Joseph Fox, a Calvinistic Baptist, to him, in order that he (Mr. T.) might assist in inducing the Unitarians to join in getting Lancaster out of his position, and they both said at the time that they were convinced the Unitarians would heartily unite in the movement which was then in progress for the advancement of education, but he need not remind the meeting of the result."

We have given a somewhat extended quotation from the remarks of Mr. R. Taylor, as reported in the Inquirer, because it embodies a statement of several facts which we are not only convinced of our own knowledge are correct, but which are also, at the present time, especially worthy of the notice of those to whom we submit them. The fearlessness, plainness, and straightforwardness of this speech we highly approve. Here is no mincing of the matter so far; it is only by such expositions, and a determination to act in conformity with their natural dictates, and suggestions, that, we are persuaded, any real good can be done, or injury averted. We are sorry we cannot say as much for the latter portion of Mr. Taylor's observations, inasmuch as it appears to us a lame apology for the Bishop of Norwich. The Right Rev. Prelate must know what the tenets of Unitarians really are; if he does not, he can scarcely be qualified for the dignified post in his church which he has been called upon to fill; and if he does, he cannot, and ought not to be excused for classing Unitarians with Infidels and Jews. He knows that Unitarians are Christians, that they are believers in the Christian religion, and take their views of it from the Scriptures, according to what they regard as their true sense, in the same manner as other denominations of Christians; and yet, because they find themselves obliged to reject certain dogmas which others receive, he, as a minister of that religion, consents to class them with Jews and Infidels, who, he well knows too, are entirely opposed to Christianity! The Bishop may have shown himself liberal on a late occasion; he may have made a speech in favour of the Dissenters' Chapels Bill; but, because he has done us an

act of justice once (and at this moment we do not recollect any other instance), are we to permit him to act unjustly towards us on all future occasions, without one word of remonstrance or rebuke? We, therefore, most ardently and sincerely hope that the resolution agreed to at the late meeting of the Association, will not be suffered to drop, or to be "made a dead letter;" but that the Committee will take it into their serious consideration, and, in whatever mode they may deem most advisable, act upon its suggestions with promptness and zeal. We will not venture to doubt that such will be the case on the present occasion, confiding in the characters of those who constitute the Committee, and believing they will not allow themselves to suffer by a comparison with those able and energetic men in the earlier days of Unitarianism, whose places they have been called upon to occupy.

There is one other point connected with this topic, generally overlooked by the speakers at the Anniversary, which has struck us as worthy of notice; and that is the conduct of the chairman, Lord John Russell, who never appears to have interfered with one word of remonstrance or explanation in reference to the Bishop's language. He had himself just before remarked that the principles on which the Institution was founded "had remained unaltered in every essential particular for the space of forty years," (one of those principles being the use of the Bible without note or comment), and yet allows the Right Rev. Prelate to go on unchecked, with his comment and gloss, when appealing to what is taught in the Society's Schools, namely, "that there is one Saviour, on whose merits alone we trust,-that we are justified by faiththat we are sanctified by the Holy Spirit," &c. &c. And again, when attempting to defend the Society for its reception of Unitarians into its Schools, the Bishop says, "Will the Unitarians be more shocked at the doctrine of the divinity of our Saviour, by seeing in the lessons of your Society, how beautifully the human and divine character is intermingled together?" &c. As the Bishop doubtless means something added to the words of Scripture in these lessons; and as anything of this kind is a direct contravention of the principle on which the Society was originally founded, the statement surely required some notice or explanation from the Chairman, but none was

offered. What are we to conclude from this, as well as from the conduct of his Lordship in respect to the repeated applications of Mr. Armstrong, as detailed in that gentleman's speech above given, or again, from his suggesting to Mr. Taylor the propriety of his refraining from speaking at the Exeter-hall meeting? We have formed our own conclusion, but we now merely submit the question to the consideration of our readers.

THOUGHTS ON THE DOCTRINE OF ORIGINAL SIN.*

LETTER II.

I HAVE thus endeavoured to show that God hath made man right; by which I mean not merely that he made Adam right, but that human nature at present, such as we find it in ourselves and observe in our fellow mortals around us, is what our Creator intended it to be-an admirable combination of powers and capacities well adapted to the present condition of man, and imposing on him moral responsibilities proportioned to their excellence and value. They are precisely what Infinite wisdom has perceived to be best fitted to accomplish the ends of his creation. What are these ends?-Evidently that he should be the instrument of promoting the welfare of his brethren,-that he should be useful and happy here, and cultivate those moral habits and dispositions which may render him capable of greater happiness hereafter. We do not say that he brings into the world with him any moral character whatever; he is not born holy and good, any more than he is born sinful; but his original frame, and the condition in which Providence has placed him, are such as to render this life a scene of education and discipline, well fitted to promote the growth of all those dispositions and feelings which are suitable to an heir of God and a candidate for Heaven. If unhappily the result is different, it is not our nature that is to blame, but our own wilful neglect and abuse of the powers with which we have been endowed.

This is a subject on which no small portion of confusion and error has prevailed, leading in many cases, as there is too much reason to believe, to very pernicious practical consequences. But if the views we have endeavoured to explain be well-founded, the sinner will no longer be able to plead in his excuse, that he was created with a nature capable of nothing better, and the way will be opened for more direct and impressive appeals to his conscience and his heart. He will be made to perceive that he is by nature just as liable to sin as Adam was before him, and no more so. The causes, too, of this liability are the same; namely, those very principles which are the greatest marks of favour from a wise and good

* A Reprint of a Tract, published by W. TURNER, Jun., M.A.

Creator, and which demand our most grateful returns; a gratitude displayed not merely in the outward language of thanksgiving, but in the most careful attention so to guide and use these gifts as to -promote the purposes for which they were bestowed.

It is my present object to examine somewhat more particularly the grounds upon which the erroneous notions so generally received are commonly built, in order to show that they have no real foundation either in reason or in Scripture. And in doing this, while zealous not merely to support the truth, but to expose error,-in order to guard against any sentiments or feelings inconsistent with Christian charity, let us carefully avoid all reference to the character or proceedings of those who have espoused the error ;-unless it be for the purpose of acknowledging, which I now do with equal sincerity and pleasure, that many, perhaps most of them, are far from having actually adopted the pernicious practical conclusions which appear to me to be fairly deducible from it, and into which I am fully persuaded that some have been unhappily betrayed.

When we are examining the opinions of others, it seems to be the fairest way to state them in the terms in which they are usually expressed by those who maintain them; especially if there be any formal statement existing, which is commonly received, recognised, and appealed to, as of standard authority. In this light I believe the exposition of the doctrine of Original Sin, contained in what is called the Assembly's Catechism, is still generally acknowledged.

"Our first parents," we are told in this formulary, "being left to the freedom of their own will, through the temptation of Satan transgressed the commandment of God in eating the forbidden fruit, and thereby fell from the state of innocency wherein they were created. The covenant being made with Adam as a public person, not for himself only, but for his posterity, all mankind descending from him by ordinary generation, sinned in him, and fell with him in that first transgression. The sinfulness of that state whereinto man fell, consisteth in the guilt of Adam's first sin, the want of that righteousness wherein he was created, and the corruption of his nature, whereby he is utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to, all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually ;-which is commonly called Original Sin, and from which do proceed all actual transgressions. Original Sin is conveyed from our first parents to their posterity by natural generation, so as all that proceed from them in that way are conceived and born in sin. The fall brought upon mankind the loss of communion with God, his displeasure and curse, so that we are by nature children of wrath, bond slaves to Satan, and justly liable to all punishments in this world and that which is to come."

When we are called upon to receive as articles of faith such propositions as these, the first impulse is to compare them, not with Scripture, but with experience;-with the history of mankind, with our own observation of human character and human life. Nor let it be supposed that we are not fully authorized and enabled to make this comparison, and to form our judgment of the doctrine accordingly. We are endowed with moral faculties which enable us to perceive

the distinction between right and wrong;-it is by the exercise of these faculties, and in no other way, that we are led to acknowledge our own obligation to obey a certain law, to recognise the justice and equity of that law, and to compare our conduct and that of others with its requisitions. Nay, we are both authorized and required to apply the same principle as a standard to what we behold of the moral government of God himself;-it is thus, and thus only that we can be convinced that the Judge of all the earth must do right, and that all His appointments are just and good. This, at least, must be admitted; for were it otherwise,-(as some, it is true, have actually contended)—if our moral and rational powers were all utterly depraved and corrupted by "the fall," so as to be naturally incapable of perceiving what was just and true, it would be to as little purpose to call upon us to form any judgment or opinion about the matter, as to call upon a blind man to judge of colours.

Whatever, then, we may think of this or of any other method of accounting for the supposed fact, let us look around us, let us look within, and ask ourselves the plain question, is it true, I do not say that all men, but that any man, is "wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually"? Undoubtedly there are many vicious and profligate characters in the world; and we should look in vain even for one of whom it could be said in the language applied to our blessed Lord, that in him the Father was always well-pleased. But have we ever seen, heard or read of any person so thoroughly depraved and abandoned, as to warrant us in saying that in the whole course of his life he never once did a good action, never once said or imagined anything which was dictated by an affectionate disposition to serve his brethren, and was consequently at no period and from no individual of his fellow-creatures the object of any other sentiment than that of unmitigated dislike and hatred? It would be only to such a being that we could fairly apply the description of this orthodox creed, but I will venture to say that no such monster ever appeared to blacken the history of mankind. If it were possible that all the members of any community deserved such a character as this, it would soon cease to exist;-for all the relations of life would quickly be dissolved, the ties which bind men together in society would be broken asunder, and the scattered fragments would rapidly disappear and perish.

If our experience thus leads us to question the existence of a single human being thoroughly abandoned, without one redeeming quality, much more does call upon us to affirm of very many of our fellow-creatures, that (in the midst, undoubtedly, of multiplied imperfections and sins), a large portion of their lives has been spent in a manner which has made them the objects of general esteem, and has attracted the approbation and love of those who have the best means of knowing them. This much may even be said of not a few who, according to the principles of this system, must be classed among the unregenerate; as having had no means of attaining the knowledge of religious truth—or, knowing, have doubted or even rejected it.

In all states of society, and in every period of human history,