pardon consistent with general or public justice, does not and cannot render it consistent with distributive justice."

If these quotations seem meagre on a subject of such superlative importance, the fault is not ours; for it seems that this great cardinal doctrine of the system of grace was much neglected by the great New-Haven Lecturer. We read with amazement, in the Introduction to the last volume of his published works, "that the Lectures of Dr. Taylor on the Atonement were in so fragmentary and unfinished a state as to make it unadvisable to publish them." And we have had to gather his views as fairly as possible from the Lectures on Moral Government, on Justice, the Trinity, &c.

We find the following utterances on the subject of REGEN

ERATION:

John Taylor. —"Why must we be born again? [The Westminster Assembly.] Answer. Because we are born in sin; our nature in Adam is corrupted, and utterly indisposed, disabled, and made opposite to all that is spiritually good, and wholly inclined to all evil, and that continually. But upon these principles it cannot be our duty to be born again, and consequently not our fault if we are not, because we are utterly disabled to all spiritual good, and wholly inclined to all evil. Accordingly, it is common to find divines asserting, that we are born again by some uncertain, arbitrary, and irresistible workings of the Spirit of God, which operate upon some few, and not upon others. ... But regeneration, or being born again, born from above, or of the Spirit, is a Gospel doctrine; and it is as much every man's duty to be born again, as it is to be a good and virtuous man, or a true Christian. For, as I take it, to be born again, or of God, is no other than to attain those habits of virtue and religion, which give us the real character of the children of God. . . . In the very nature of things, we cannot be holy without our own choice and endeavor, and, lastly, because God hath endowed us with understanding, and furnished us with all proper means to enable us to gain a character of worth and excellence. . . . It is absolutely necessary that it (the intelligent being) learn to employ and exercise its powers suitably to the nature and ends of them; that it be created anew, that it put on the new nature of right action, of true holiness...

...

"However, that I may not seem to overlook the doctrine of the Spirit's assistance, I shall briefly observe, that although, when the Holy Ghost, or the gifts of the Spirit, are mentioned in the epistolary

part of the New Testament, most commonly thereby the extraordinary effusion and miraculous gifts peculiar to the apostolic age are intended; yet I make no doubt, the communication and influence of the Spirit of God in all ages, to assist our sincere endeavors after wisdom, and the habits of virtue, is a blessing spoken of, and promised in the Gospel, but never as supposing any natural corruption, or innate pravity of our minds. The influence of the Divine power is necessary to the production of the fruits of the earth, without which our industry, or any other cause, can have no effect. . . . In like manner, the aids of the Spirit of God, who can work upon our minds in ways and degrees beyond our knowledge, are perfectly consistent with our diligence, and are so far from supposing the previous inaptitude of our minds, . . . that our previous desire of the Spirit's assistance is expressly made the condition of our receiving that best of spiritual gifts."

Nathaniel W. Taylor.-"1. The Spirit of God is the author of the change in Regeneration. . . . The fact of Divine influence in the production of holiness in the heart of man, meets us as it were on almost every page of the sacred record. What the fact is, however, or what it involves in some respects, demands consideration. 2. The change in regeneration is the sinner's own act. 'Ye have purified your souls.' Could it be said in plainer terms, ye have done it? If the Bible tells us anything, if human language can say it, this book tells us that religion in the human heart consists in repenting of sin; in believing on the Lord Jesus Christ. It is breaking off our sins by righteousness; it is making a new heart and a new spirit; it is doing the will of God from the heart; it is ceasing to do evil, and learning to do well; it is amending, reforming our ways.... .. Does this language not describe mental action; the right exercises of the heart? Most undeniably. It ought then to settle this point finally and forBut this is not all. How careful are the sacred writers to show us the same fact, even when they describe this change in the strong language of metaphor - the language which is so commonly perverted. It is a creation; but it is being created unto good works. If there be a remaining doubt on this point, one text will remove it: 'That ye put off the old man, and that ye put on the new man, which after God is created in righteousness and true holiness.' It is a creation in righteousness and true holiness. And not only so, but Christians are said to put on the new man; i. e., to do the thing which is said to be created. The thing produced by the power of God is their own the act of putting on the new man.

ever.

act

...

"The sinner must take the attitude of an agent, the attitude of a

And the

doer. Something is to be done on the part of the sinner. thing, and the only thing to be done on his part, as a moral agent, is right moral action, and he must put himself directly to its performance. And be it remembered, that if God ever changes a sinner's heart, it will be, not when the sinner is trying to make God give him a new heart, but when he is trying to give his heart to God. . . . Do you say that the sinner has no power to change his heart? You contradict one of the facts. A new heart is the right exercise of moral powers. Without the power in the sinner, how can even God give him a new heart; how cause powers to act which do not exist? Or, if you say that God gives the power, still new power is not a new heart; is not a holy heart. . . . But you say, the sinner resists what God is now doing, and he will resist unless God does more. Yes, the sinner resists what God is now doing; and what is worse, he always will resist it in every future moment of his probation, if you preach and he believes that he must and will resist it. . . . Why then has God revealed the sinner's dependence on his Spirit? Preeminently I had almost said solely to prevent utter despair, and consequent inaction. If it were not true, that God by his Spirit can and may overcome the perverseness of the sinner's heart, what could the sinner hope for?"

JUSTIFICATION.

...

John Taylor.-"But my chief intention is to establish a double justification, or salvation: for which we have the clearest Scriptural evidence. However, at present, it shall suffice to observe, that there is a justification and salvation by faith alone, without the deeds of law, or any works of righteousness. Rom. 3: 28; Eph. 2: 8, 9, 10. And there is another justification, or salvation, which is not without works, but is the issue of a holy and obedient life. James 2: 24. 'By works a man is justified, and not by faith only.'. . . Now this difference of being justified without works, and being justified by works, is so essential, irreconcilable, that it necessarily constitutes two sorts of justification, or salvation. The first or fundamental justification. This has relation to the heathen state of us Gentile Christians; and consists in the remission of sins, and in our being admitted, upon our faith, into the kingdom and covenant of God; when, with regard to our Gentile state, we were obnoxious to wrath, and deserving of condemnation: this is of free grace, without works. . . . This I call the first justification or salvation, by which we are invested in all the present privileges of the gospel; and in reference to which we are said in Scripture to be elected, adopted, saved, justified, washed, sanctified, born again, born of God, &c. It cannot be full and final

justification, or that justification which gives an unalterable right to eternal life; because, in order to that, the Scriptures always, and positively and clearly, insist upon works, doing the will of God, or obedience. . . . Our full and final justification is of grace. But yet so of grace, that it will be given only to them that overcome the temptations of the world, and by patient continuance in well-doing seek for glory, honor, and immortality.

""Tis highly becoming the universal Father, to bestow benefits in a way which shall promote moral good; and here the Redeemer hath the noblest work to do, in exhibiting before the world the most illustrious virtue, as above all things pleasing to God, and the ground of all happiness. But the only way, that I can see, of being redeemed from imputed, imaginary guilt, is for the Judge to think (as he is in justice bound) that the supposed guilt is not mine, or that I am not guilty of a sin I never committed."

Nathaniel W. Taylor.—“It is sufficient to refer to the epistles of Paul, who so largely treats the subject, especially in his Epistle to the Romans, and that to the Galatians. The prominent design of the apostle is, to deny that any are justified by works of law, and to assert that some are justified by faith; or that disobedient subjects, (sinners,) and none others who believe, are justified. He thus with the most studious precision of language denies one and the self-same thing (actual justification) in connection with works of law, or with obedience to law, which he asserts in connection with faith without works. The word justification, when he asserts justification not to be by works of law, cannot be specifically justification according to the principles of distributive justice, or the personal deserts of the subject; for he asserts the self-same thing to be by faith without works, or without obedience to law; which of course cannot be according to the principles of distributive justice. . . . Nor could he employ it in other any way with truth, for he uses it in a common meaning in two cases, denying justification by works of law, and asserting justification by faith. If, therefore, he intends either more or less by justification in one case than in the other, then the meaning of his language properly interpreted cannot be true. The human mind is ever prone to view forensic justification, i. e., justification in which the full authority of law is recognized, as a strictly legal act; an act according to the mere principles of law; an act de merito. . . . Thus, in the Romish doctrine, the principle de merito is formally avowed. To what extent it has been made practical by the Romish hierarchy need not be said. Or if we examine closely the doctrine of the Reformation, which is

...

...

claimed to be so directly opposed to the principle of merit or to the strict principles of law, the doctrine of justification by faith only, what is it, as fully unfolded in its more prevalent form of the imputation of Christ's righteousness of what is called his active and passive obedience to the believer, and made his righteousness by a mystical union with Christ, so that it becomes as really his righteousness, as would be his own personal perfect obedience to law in heart and life, and as his invests him in every respect in which such obedience would invest him with a claim de merito — what is this but a claim to justification solely according to the principles of law, not only those of general, but also of distributive justice? But without dwelling on these or other reasons for so doing, I now proceed to confirm the answer already given to our leading inquiry, or to show that justification as the act of God in the relation of the Lawgiver and Judge of men is an authoritative act — making, causing, determining a disobedient subject of his law to stand relatively right in respect to its sanctions; not according to the principles of distributive justice, but according to the principles of general justice and of general benevolence."

So have we contrasted, in their theologies, John Taylor, D. D., of Norwich, England, and Nathaniel W. Taylor, D. D., of New Haven, Connecticut. We have done it by the amplest quotations from their own works, that they might speak for themselves. We have refrained, to a degree unusual in such an article as this, from comments or arguments of our own, that they might have the larger liberty, and without foreign coloring, of sketching their own doctrinal platforms. That we might not deal in little things to the neglect of the great points in theology, and so derogate from the importance of this topic and of the inferences naturally flowing from it, we have contrasted these two theologians only on the fundamental points in theology. We have presented in parallel their views on the canons of interpretation, on original sin, on total depravity, on the atonement, on regeneration, and on justification.

The extent of their harmony on these points is open and left to the judgment of the reader. After a careful study of the works of these two celebrated divines, we, for ourselves, confess to a great surprise in finding that they so substantially agree in their teachings. They hold their views generally on these points in common, and if we were to choose between their works for text-books, we should prefer those of the elder Tay