tion is to follow that of his diocesan from page to page, commenting on those passages which appear to him to be erroneous, and as freely praising those which coincide with his own sentiments. This plan, though simple, and therefore in some respects easy, is yet both a fair and laborious one. To those who will patiently pursue it with the author, a complete view of the two systems in detail will at length be presented; and the effect of so minute an examination will probably be strong and lasting. The generality of readers would doubtless have preferred something more compact and perspicuous; and few, therefore, comparatively, will reap the benefit of Mr. Scott's labours. He has, however, at the conclusion of his preface, given a brief, but clear and comprehensive, sketch of the general argument pursued in each chapter of his work, by which the doctrines he has undertaken to support may be readily understood; and of this we shall avail ourselves in our subsequent observations. It cannot be expected that we should present our readers with any thing like an adequate view of the mass of valuable matter contained in these bulky volumes all that our limits will allow us to undertake, is to contrast the statements of the Bishop and Mr. Scott on the most important points at issue, and to offer some remarks on the evidence by which they are supported; more especially from Scripture, and from the liturgy, articles, and homilies of our church.

Original sin, free-will, and the operation of the Holy Spirit," naturally form the first subjects of discussion in this controversy. On these fundamental points, three statements are to be noticed, with reference to the "Refutation" and its present reply; viz. the Bishop of Lincoln's representation of the Calvinistic doctrines, his own opinions, and those of Mr. Scott. We have before observed, in our account of the "Refutation" itself, that the representation of what the Bishop calls the Cal

vinistic doctrine concerning the na ture and effects of the fall, is such as no Calvinist that ever lived would allow to be a just one. It exhibits, in fact, as in every other part of the Refutation, a caricature of the Calvinistic view of the subject; being equally at variance with common sense and experience, with Scripture, and with all that any reasonable-we had almost said, unreasonable-man, has written on that side of the question. Who ever maintained, except the imaginary Calvinists of the Bishop of Lincoln, that man is irrecoverably sunk in sin and wickedness; that all idea of right and wrong is utterly obliterated from the human mind, and every good affection towards man eradicated from the human heart; that the moral sense is annihilated; and that no acts of human virtue are recorded in profane history? Certainly there is nothing like this in the Bishop's quotations from the works of Calvin (the only writings of this description from which he has thought proper to make any extracts upon the subject); and we will venture to say, that there is nothing fairly resembling such opinions in any other authors with whom we are at all concerned. Yet this is the picture which is drawn, in "the Refutation," of the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin. The Bishop himself states, that he holds a middle course, upon this subject, between the extremes of Socinianism on the one hand, and of Calvinism on the other; maintaining, that though a considerable change took place in our first parents after the fall, and a propensity to evil and wickedness, universal in extent, and powerful in its effects, was thus transmitted to mankind; yet that this corruption was not entire, that every good affection towards God was not totally extinguished, but that there is some goodness naturally remaining in the heart of man, and that he is capable of himself of making some efforts towards piety and virtue. This is evidently the deliberate opinion of the Bishop; though,

with happy inconsistency, when pressed by the unaccomodating lan guage of our Articles, he is sometimes obliged to make concessions of a more extensive nature. Agreeably to his representation of the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin, the Bishop of Lincoln describes those whom he is opposing, whoever they may be, as asserting, that, in conse quence of the fall, the moral powers of man are so completely destroyed as to render him a mere passive machine in the hands of God; and that by the compulsory and irresistible influence of the Holy Spirit man is recovered to repentance, faith, and holy obedience, without any exercise of the un derstanding and will, or any effort which can properly be called his own. Equally without proof from the writings of Calvinists is this representation of their doctrine, as in the former instance; nor is it at all necessary to refute, what perhaps, except by a few ancient heretics, or modern enthusiasts, has never been maintained.

On the other hand, as far as we can understand the sentiments of the Bishop, he appears to think, that, notwithstanding the fall, man still possesses an independent natural power of exerting himself in acts of piety and virtue; that he can begin, and make some progress, in the work of his salvation; and that he is, at all events, by his own natural disposition, able to avail himself of that Divine assistance which is offered to all. Here, however, as in every other part of his work, the Bishop of Lincoln is inconsistent with himself, distinctly acknowledging, in more than one passage, "that man has not the disposition, and consequently not the ability, to do what in the sight of God is good, till he is influenced by the Spirit of God *.”

In opposition to this general view of the subject, but in perfect agreement, so far as it goes, with this latter acknowledgment, Mr. Scott endeavours to prove that original sin

* Refutation, p. 61. and pp. 53, 54.
+ Preface, p. 9.

is a total, not a partial, defect, derived from fallen Adam, of all that is spiritually good, or good in the sight of God; though not of all which is naturally good in respect of men :that man is indeed a free agent, in the fullest sense, being under no necessity, or external restraint, or compulsion, whatever; but that the evil dispositions and inclinations of the heart induce a slavery into the will*, rendering it incapable of choosing what the heart cannot love, even what is good in the sight of God, till liberated from this bondage by the special grace of God in Christ. In outward things, man chooses most freely; in evil things, he chooses most freely; and in things spiritually good, nothing hinders him from doing the same, but a total want of love to them. The special preventing grace of the Holy Spirit must therefore first produce this love, these desires, this willingness, before there can be any thing to co-operate with his further gracious influences.

This is the doctrine which Mr. Scott maintains in his observations on the first chapter of the Bishop of Lincoln's work, which, as we have just remarked, is in a great measure admitted to be true by the Bishop himself, and which we have no hesitation in saying, is, in the main, abundantly confirmed by Mr. Scott, by appeals to Scripture and to the authorised writings of the Church of England.

We have, in the course of our labours, so frequently had occasion to discuss this subject, and have so lately expressed our opinion upon it, that it cannot be necessary to repeat

* It is quite absurd to speak of this doc. trine as being exclusively Calvinistic; when it is well known that no wan contended the human will, and the total inability of more strongly for the absolute servitude of man to do any good action, or to bear any part in his own conversion, than Luther. See Mosheim's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. p. 330, and the Dean of Carlisle's Continuation of Mr. Milner's Church History, vol. v. p. 857, on Luther's Treatise de Servo Arbitrio.

it at much length. We must content ourselves with referring to the testimonies which have been so often brought forward from Scripture; more particularly from the early chapters of the book of Genesis, which speak of the original formation, and the subsequent fall and corruption of man; and of which, as of almost every other important passage bearing upon this subject, an able, and on the whole a just, exposition is given in Mr. Scott's Remarks. To these might be added very numerous quotations from the prayers in our Liturgy, the 9th and 10th Articles, and the Homilies on the Misery of Man, on the Nativity, and on Whitsunday, which may be found both in our own pages and in Mr. Scott's; and which we certainly regard as quite decisive of the general question between the Bishop of Lincoln, and those whom he has stigmatised as Calvinists. We cannot, however, omit to notice the very remarkable inadvertence, to say the least of it, of which the Bishop is convicted by Mr. Scott, in attributing to "modern Calvinists" the assertion, that " of our own nature we are without any spark of goodness in us," which is actually to be found in so many words in a well known passage in the first part of the Homily for Whitsunday. The calm and dignified manner in which Mr. Scott notices this important error is so highly to be commended, and yet so powerfully impressive in favour of his own argument, that we shall imitate his example, in forbearing to press it more strongly on the Right Reverend author. The passage, however, itself, is perfectly unanswerable, and we trust that it will have its due weight with his Lordship.

In following the course of Mr. Scott's remarks on this first chapter of the "Refutation," two points continually strike the attentive reader, as those on which the controversy chiefly turns the one is, as to the nature of the concurrence or co-operation of the grace of God with the

will of man in the work of his salvation; and the other, as to the manner in which Divine grace thus operates, and the degree of efficacy which is to be attributed to it. The Bishop of Lincoln uniformly writes, as if the Calvinists asserted that man has nothing whatever to do in this important concern; while he himself maintains, that God and man cooperate as distinct and independent agents, the grace of the one concurring with the natural disposition and free-will of the other, and each contributing its respective share in the work of salvation. The first part of this representation Mr. Scott utterly disclaims as applicable to himself and the great body of modern Calvinists, or evangelical clergymen, as they appear to be indifferently called; and declares, in opposition to the latter part of it, that the preventing grace of God must first incline the will, and bestow the disposition, to that which is spiritually good, before the Divine influence can co-operate with the human will in the progressive work of sanctification and redemption. This is one of the hinges of the important question under consideration; and it requires, we think, but little knowledge of Scripture, of the doctrines of our Church, and of experience in religion, to determine on which side the truth is to be found. The following brief argument will, perhaps, place this subject in a convincing point of view. The Bishop of Lincoln, in support of his own opinion, observes (p. 60), that "the words of the Latin copy of the Articles are dum volumus,'

while we will;' which still more clearly shew that the grace of God and the will of man act together at the same moment." To which Mr. Scott decisively, though shortly, replies *, by quoting the preceding part of the sentence in the 10th Article. "Gratiâ quæ per Christum est nos præveniente ut velimus, et cooperante dum volumus. Here the co-operation is most manifestly con

* Vol. i. pp. 120, 1.