associations, and consigned to in significance and contempt?

I cannot, sir, conceive that any considerations of political utility can be admitted, in justification of this abuse. The Divine prohibition, Swear not at all,' which must be allowed, even in its most restricted sense, to forbid the irreverent use of oaths, is a prohibition of universal obligation. It is not abrogated by the interests of extending commerce, or the most urgent requisitions of political or civil life. Amidst the changing forms of society, its authority is unimpaired; and while human laws may adapt themselves to the varying exigencies of the times, this precept will remain inflexible, to the latest period of the Christian world, an awful and impressive witness to the solemn nature of an oath.

But the efficiency of this sacred test, as an instrument of political utility, may very fairly be called in question. The superior efficacy of an oath, to that of a simple declaration, is derived from its superior impression on the mind; from its tendency to recal to memory those sublime religious sanctions by which moral obligation is most effectually enforced. But it is in But it is in the nature of habit, indefinitely to weaken this effect; and experience has proved, that by the prostitution of this sacred test to every trivial purpose, its moral influence is injured or destroyed. To what other cause are we to attribute the proverbial inefficiency of a customhouse oath; the distinction which generally prevails, between an oath taken in attestation of an indifferent fact before the collector of the customs, and a fact equally indifferent before the judge in a court of justice? I will not say, that it is to this cause, too, that we are exclusively to attribute the facility - with which agents are found, in periods of interrupted commerce, to execute illicit projects by systematic perjury and fraud; i will not venture to affirm, that it is to this cause

alone that we are to impute the conception of such projects in respectable classes of society, and their tacit encouragement by the governments of enlightened countries: but I have no hesitation in asserting, that it is impossible daily to witness its practical operation, without a conviction that it contributes most essentially to such results.

Impressed with a sincere respect for the distinguished character of our British merchants, I cannot be indifferent to the relaxation of those principles, from which its superiority is derived. It is with the deepest regret, therefore, that I see them exposed to the injurious influence of a vestige of barbarism so opposed to the spirit of the times. The practice is inconsistent with true philosophy, for it proceeds in opposition to the established laws of the human mind: it is inconsistent with a due regard to the moral welfare of society, for its tendency is to vitiate and ensnare: it is inconsistent with the better part of the manners and institutions of our country, and the principles of the religion we profess. Is it not also most inconsistent with those illustrious efforts, for the circulation of the Scriptures and other moral and religious objects, which have been vindicated among us with so much ability and zeal? It is some consolation, indeed, to discern in this very inconsistency, the germ of a principle which will exterminate the abuse. But shall we refuse to expel a malady injurious to the system, because it is probable that it may one day be outgrown? Is it nothing that, in the mean time, it is impairing the vigour of the constitution, and sowing the seeds of subsequent disease? And, above all, is it nothing to reflect that there is an inseparable connexion between national chastisement and national crime; and that every addition to our guilt forebodes, from the hands of an all-righteous Judge, a calamity in reserve?

I allow, indeed, with you, Mr. Editor, that "if the sanction of an oath is justifiably required any where, it is in the article of marriage." A deliberate appeal to the Almighty on the subject of this most solemn compact, certainly does not stand on exactly the same footing as a petty regulation of the Customs or Excise. If it be right that "a pound of tea cannot find its way to the consumer without passing, where oaths no less than seven have been administered," it is certainly not wrong that nearly the same number should be in some cases requisite before two human beings should be allowed to unite themselves indissolubly under the sanction of the most momentous, responsible, and irreversible of all earthly covenants. But, in either case, what good end is really gained by this repeated appeal to Heaven? Where the conscience is susceptible of moral or religious impression, one appeal is as binding as a thousand; and where it is not, no appeal can

be of much value; for plausible subterfuges will always be at hand to hide the enormity of a man's guilt from the scrutiny of his own bosom. A solemn assertion, fortified by a suitable punishment for detected falsehood, would, probably in almost every instance, be found as effectual in practice as an oath; reserving that most awful sanction for cases of extraordinary solemnity, of which the stipulations at the altar of marriage might justly be considered one. But to multiply oaths unnecessarily, especially where there is a strong temptation to violate them, and where public opinion is not greatly outraged by so doing, is to lay a trap for perjury; with something of the same injudicious policy which is so often the occasion of a guilty criminal's adding to his crimes by the utterance of a solemn falsehood as the preliminary to being tried "by the laws of God and his country."

A MERCHANT.

On the Corruption of Human Nature: a Charge delivered to the Clergy of the Archdeaconry of Ely, at a Visitation held in the Parish Church of St. Michael's, Cambridge, May 7, 1822: with an Appendix. By the Rev. J. H. BROWNE, A. M. Archdeacon of Ely, Rector of Cotgrave, and late Fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge. Published at the Request of the Clergy. 1822, pp. 122.

THE "corruption of human nature" is a subject so inexpressibly painful, that we should never wish again to read, write, or think of it, but for two very important considerations; namely, that it is a doctrine clearly revealed in Scripture, and that it is of indispensable necessity to be uni

versally known and acknowledged for the salvation of mankind. It would indeed be of the utmost consequence that it should be admitted and promulgated, were it only that, having been made a prominent topic of Divine revelation, it vindicates its own right to be considered of high importance to the human race. But when, in addition to this just presumption, we can actually trace its importance in the process of the application of the Gospel to the souls of men, we are the better prepared to answer those who proceed, with a triumphant cui bono? to argue against the doctrine, as being not only unscriptural and unfounded, but also wholly useless and often highly mischievous. In fact, it is a doctrine closely connected with repentance, with faith, with gratitude, and with

a holy life. Without a knowledge of the awful extent of the corruption of human nature, the most momentous disclosures of Christianity are of little value. If "the whole need not a physician," those who are but partially sick may be content with a remedy far short of that which the Bible reveals and prescribes. But if, on the contrary, mankind be indeed gone far, very far, from original righteousness; if we are all deeply guilty before God; if "there is no health in us;" then how important is the record of the Gospel! how profound should be our penitence! how implicit should be our trust in the Great Sacrifice of Calvary! how ardent our thanksgivings for so unspeakable a Gift! how lively our joy at our deliverance! and how self-denying and persevering our devotion to the service of our Almighty Deliverer!

But with the deepest sense of the importance of this doctrine, it is one which we never wish to see rudely handled as a subject of mere literary or intellectual contention. While it is too essential to be universally known to allow of its being buried in oblivion, or made only a topic of infrequent and transient notice; it is also too afflicting to be rendered a mere thesis for the display of subtle argument, or an apology for loud and angry warfare. The true way to discuss this doctrine is not as prize-fighters, but as Christians; not in order to foil an opponent, but to bring him to his knees; not to wedge by force a barren fact into the head, but to humble and mollify the obdurate heart. In the pulpit especially, the only safe course for the ministers of Christ, ordinarily speaking, is to propound matters of this kind-and indeed all other matters-simply as they are propounded in the Bible; to teach rather than to controvert; to prove their positions by that strongest of arguments," Thus saith the Lord," rather than by a lengthened process of ingenious demonstration. For ourselves, in re

gard to the leading articles of religion, we never wish to be told from the pulpit so much as that they have been made the subject of dispute. The "great mystery of god-' liness" is unfolded in our Bibles "without controversy:" it comes in an equally uncontroversial form in our Prayer-books. Why, then, when the Lessons, Epistle, and Gospel have plainly instructed us in "the truth as it is in Jesus;" and when on our bended knees we have humbly recognized all its leading positions, especially the doctrine more immediately under consideration; should we be summoned from the pulpit to go back to neutral ground, to begin with debating almost whether the God whom we have been professing to worship really exists, whether the book we have been reading as His is not a book of fables, and whether the sentiments which formed the basis of our confessions and prayers are not mere matters of gratuitous invention?

Still, we confess that there are times and places which demand something more than mere inculcation. The regular pastor, it is true, must ordinarily feel that the best way to settle disputed points is not to dispute about them, but to preach them just as he finds them stated in Scripture, and so to banish heterodoxy by instilling truth; and he is doubtless in the right. But while error puts on a shew of argument, there are proper occasions on which her claims should be argumentatively refuted, and there are persons to whose province it peculiarly falls to undertake the refutation. Our prelates, and others in high ecclesiastical stations, are especially called to this service. Bishop Horsley, who so urgently inculcated on his clergy the importance of what may be called simple pastoral preaching, himself rendered inestimable benefit to the church by devoting some of his own clerical Charges to points of important theological argument and discussion. The present Archdeacon of Ely

has acted somewhat similarly in the truly scriptural Charge before us. He does not, we are sure, wish the clergy of his archdeaconry to exhibit weekly before their rustic parishioners a regular argument, logically propounded and discussed, on the corruption of human nature;" but, knowing how essential a part this doctrine is of the whole scheme of Revelation, he is anxious that they should themselves be well grounded in it, and that all their ministrations should take that decided colour which such a doctrine, if true, ought undoubtedly to stamp upon them. It is grossly incorrect and uncharitable to assert, that persons who, like the Archdeacon of Ely, plead earnestly for the admission of this doctrine, wish to "blacken human nature," or to exhibit before men such a hopeless and melancholy picture, that all stimulus is taken away from the performance of every right and virtuous enterprize. They intend nothing like it: they mean only to describe man as God describes him; and even that not to discourage him in returning to the path of duty, but to lead him to the cross of the Saviour; and to teach him the necessity not only of zealous resolutions of amendment, but of praying earnestly for the forgiveness of his sins, and for the promised influences of the Holy Spirit to renew and sanctify his heart. If the admission of the doctrine of human corruption do not lead to these practical issues, it matters little what are a man's sentiments upon it. An intellectual credence, without any moral or spiritual effect resulting from it, is of no avail to salvation. This is our own humble view of the subject; and we doubt not it is the view also of the Venerable the Archdeacon of Ely, whose excellent Charge has led us into these remarks. He has proved ably and convincingly what is the doctrine of Scripture, and of our own church, upon the subject of the corruption of human nature; not, however, as

a solitary tenet, which men may or may not admit, with equal indifference as respects their general religious character, but as an essential part of the whole structure of Christian doctrine, and entering deeply into all the details of practical religion.

Mr. Archdeacon Browne commences his Charge with stating, what we believe is very true, though it argues either strange misconcep tion or stranger perverseness; namely, that some persons "are unwil ling to admit the deep, entire, and universal corruption of human nature, lest such an admission should entangle them in the difficulties of the Calvinistic scheme." This misconception is passing strange, when, as is notorious, some of the most zealous advocates for the one have been equally opposed to the other. The better informed class of theologians of all parties are beginning, we think, to be ashamed of this identification. The celebrated "Five Articles" of the Synod of Dort are entitled; . Of Divine Predestination; 2d, Of the Merits of Christ's Death; 3d, Of Man's Will in a State of Nature; 4th, Of the Manner of Conversion; and, 5th, Of the Certainty of Perseverance. There is not a word in them strictly on the question of the depravity of man. Yet these Articles, remarks Mr. Knight, the present Bishop of Llandaff's examining chaplain, in his "Considerations on Calvinism," lately published, are "the five points of Calvinism." Certainly if the corruption of human nature had been a part of exclusive Calvinism, such writers as Mr. Knight-who does not scruple to intimate, that "every person who is baptized [by the way, not a word is here said of a right reception of baptism] is received into favour and into covenant with God; and that all their sins, whether original or actual, are thus washedaway"-would not have failed to discover the identification. Our present author, however, is not very solicitous about this alleged neces

sary junction: he deprecates it indeed, and justly remarks, that every doctrine ought to be discussed upon its own merits; but even should the junction be urged and proved, he does not hesitate to avow, with Bishop Horsley, that supposing such doctrines as the entire corruption of man and justification solely by faith to be Calvinistic (which it cannot be admitted that in any just sense they are), still "a man may hold all the theological opinions of Calvin, hard and extravagant as some of them may seem, and yet be a sound member of the Church of England and Ireland; certainly a much sounder member than one who, loudly declaiming against those opinions (which, if they be errors, are not errors that affect the essence of our common faith), runs into all the nonsense, the impiety, the abominations [Horsley is not always over-courteous in his phrases] of the Arian, the Unitarian, and the Pelagian heresies, denying, in effect, the Lord who bought them." The more timid part of our readers will perhaps marvel at the intrepidity of Bishop Horsley's avowal, and of Mr. Browne in making it his own by quotation, and of the Christian Observer in giving the passage even at third hand. Horsley, however, was not singular in this opinion, as our readers may infer from the following declaration of Dean Potter, quoted by Mr. Browne from Dr. Wordsworth's "Ecclesiastical Biography."

"But now," says Dr. Potter, "you long to hear what is the issue of all my study and inquiry, what my resolution. Why, you may easily conjecture. Finding, upon this serious search, that all doubts are not clearly decided by Scripture; that in the ancient church, after the age of St. Augustine, who was presently contradicted by many Catholics, as you may see in the epistles of Prosper and Fulgentius to him upon that very occasion, they have been friendly debated, and never determined in any council; that, in our age, whole churches are here divided, either from one another, as the Lutherans from us, or amongst themselves, as the Romanists, amongst whom the Dominican

family is wholly for the contra-Remonstrants; that in all these churches some particular doctors vary in these opinions: out of all this I collect, for my part, that these points are lic verities, not essential to the faith, but no necessary Cathomerely matters of opinion, problematical, of inferior moment, wherein a man may err, or be ignorant, without danger to his soul; yet so still, that the glory of God's justice, mercy, truth, sincerity, and Divine grace be not any ways blemished, nor any good ascribed to man's corrupt will, nor any evil to God's decree of providence. If I can discover any corruption in myself, or any other, I should hate it with all my might; but pity, support, and love all that love the Lord Jesus, though they err in doubtful points; but never break charity, unless with him that obstinately errs in fundamentals, or is wilf lly factious." pp. 5, 6.

Having thus shewn that it is not inevitable that a person believing in the doctrine of human corruption should be a Calvinist; and that, even if he were so, this would not necessarily exclude him from the pale of the Church of England; Mr. Browne assumes, that "the doctrine of original sin or human depravity constitutes a cardinal doctrine of the Christian scheme," and proceeds to point out its "extent and universality." This last is, in truth, the main point for inquiry; for few professed Christians now deny the doctrine altogether. To say nothing at present, of recent writers, south of the Tweed, even Bishop Gleig himself, in his very singular Charge*, delivered at Bre

* The epithet "very singular" is not used offensively, but to avoid one of a harsher kind. But Bishop Gleig's divinity is truly very singular. This learned edi tor of Stackhouse's Bible teaches his clergy, in the Charge alluded to, that "Adam was not that being of transcendent perfections which in human systems he is commonly supposed to have been;" that the circumstance of the first pair being banished from the garden of Eden into a barren wilderness, where they had to work hard for their living, was quite sufficient in itself to deteriorate the human race; that thus situated "the education which they could give to their children must have been very imperfect;" that to this early neglect