straint, or compulsion, as he did before, in choosing the evil and refusing the good." Vol, i. pp. 124-128.

Various other arguments and illustrations, relative to this fundamental doctrine, occur in the "Remarks" of Mr. Scott; to which, however, we can only generally refer. We regret, too, that we can do nothing more than strongly recommend to the consideration of our readers, his truly solid and judicious observations, in reply to the objections and misrepresentations of the Bishop of Lincoln, on the subject of "internal feelings," "experiences," and "religious distresses." They are, we think, amply sufficient to rescue those subjects from the mistatements and the abuse which they have undergone, and are admirably calcu lated to convey the most important instructions concerning them. Throughout his remarks on this first chapter of the "Refutation," Mr. Scott has also taken occasion to defend himself, and those of his clerical brethren, who are the objects of so much reproach as Calvinists, from the various charges, which are either more or less directly brought against them in that publication. But as these charges pervade every part of it, and are as frequently replied to, we shall reserve any notice of them to the conclusion of this article.

In proceeding to Mr. Scott's remarks on the second chapter of the Refutation, the subject of which is "Regeneration," we are stopt, as usual, in limine, by the characteristic inaccuracy of the Bishop of Lincoln, in representing the Calvinistic doctrine. He speaks of "instantaneous conversion," as one of the favourite tenets of modern Calvinists;" when it is well known, to all who are acquainted with the sentiments of religious sects among us, that this is a doctrine peculiarly avowed by the Arminian Methodists. It is remarkable, also, that those very religionists who speak the most of instantaneous conversion, decidedly oppose the doctrine of " indefectible grace;" which, according to the BiCHRIST, OBSERY. No. 126.

shop of Lincoln, is, under this head, the favourite associated tenet of modern Calvinists, though even in this, he does not accurately express their sentiments: so that, with whomsoever the truth lies, the two doctrines have no essential connection. We mention these, and other instances of the Bishop's imperfect knowledge of the subjects on which he has written with so much confidence, simply for the purpose of pointing out the degree of weight which ought to be attached to his statements. In a secular controversy, a very small part of this inaccuracy would be quite sufficient, in the estimation of all competent judges, to place such an assailant hors de combat. If the notice of these failures should tend to diminish his Lordship's authority in this contest, it is precisely the effect which they ought to produce. We agree with Mr. Scott, in considering Regeneration as, in some respects, the most important point in contest, between those who are called the evangelical clergy, and their opponents; not, however, because, as Mr. Scott appears to believe, the Calvinistic tenet of predestination is necessarily involved in the view which he has given of Regeneration; for we certainly think that this by no means follows; but on account of the important practical consequences which flow from the different opinions that are held on the doctrine in question.

The Bishop of Lincoln, as we had occasion to observe in noticing his Lordship's work, strenuously maintains that the word Regeneration, and other similar terms used in Scripture, are solely and exclusively applied to the one immediate effect of Baptism once administered, and are never used to express an operation on the human mind subsequent to the administration of that ordinance. To this opus operatum of Baptism, the Bishop attributes, in every instance, the most distinguished privileges and blessings of the Gospel*,

* Justification, as well as Regeneration, is frequently attributed by his Lordship to Bap. 3 B

and, by thus positively identifying Baptism with Regeneration, and quoting our Lord's solemn declaration to Nicodemus as solely referring to Baptism, tacitly excludes all who die unbaptised from the kingdom of heaven. Now, whatever view of this important, and in some respects difficult, subject is the right one, we are thoroughly convinced that the Bishop of Lincoln's is erroneous. It is contrary to the whole genius of Christianity, to express testimonies of Scripture, to the evidence of fact and experience, and to the doctrine of the Church of England.

We have already expressed our opinion, as to the very few passages in which the word “regeneration" occurs in the New Testament; and in addition to our own observations on that point, we beg leave to refer our readers to the able criticism on the texts in question in the postscript to the Preface to Dr. Doddridge's Sermons on Regeneration. That excellent writer, to whom the Bishop of Lincoln himself is fond of referring, admits, as every one must, who is acquainted with the phraseology of Christian antiquity, that the fathers, from about the middle of the second century, frequently, though by no means uniformly, use language which appears to authorise the conclusion that they consider. ed baptism and regeneration as sy nonimous terms. And under the circumstances of that early period of the Christian church, when the greater number of converts were adults, and sincere in their profession of repentance, faith, and obedience, nothing could be more natural than such an interchange of terms. Nor, considering the propensity of mankind to confound the letter and the spirit in every subject, is it at all wonderful, that in process of time, when infant baptism began to be

more generally prevalent; or to speak more correctly, when the baptism of adults became less frequent; that the sign should be substituted for the thing signified, and the baptised, in all cases, be considered as truly regenerate; especially as the same form of administration, and the same expressions in respect to the baptised person, would be likely to be used in the case of infants, which had been customary in the case of adults. But what does all this prove? The identity of Baptism and Regeneration? and that whatever is in Scripture predicated of those who are said to be born of the Spirit, and born of God, may be also predicated of every individual who is baptised? Can any thing be more illogical, or more inconsistent with the genius of Christianity; a religion not of forms but of realties, not of shadows but of substance, not of words but of things; than such reasonings as these? Besides this objection to the view of regeneration which the Bishop of Lincoln has so confidently supported, it is liable to the insuperable difficulty of proving too much, of asserting the very error which he charges upon his opponents, and of leading to consequences which we cannot but believe he would shrink from maintaining. For, in the first place, if the mere act of baptism really produces in every individual, all the effects which the Bishop of Lincoln, quoting many of the phrases in the New Testament which he admits to be synonimous with regeneration, asserts that it does, then are all, who are baptised, truly renewed in the spirit of their minds, accepted with God, and meet for the kingdom of heaven, which is mani. festly contrary to the fact; then, also, is the change which takes place in every baptised person as instantaneous, as the greatest fanatic whom his Lordship is opposing ever maintained, with respect to his view of regeneration. Again, if our Lord, in his discourse with Nicodemus, intended thus solemnly to declare, that except a man be baptised, he cannot

see, cannot enter into, the kingdom of God; then must the multitudes in all ages (for the primitive times of Christianity must by no means be excepted) who have lived and died unbaptised, whatever may have been their knowledge of Christian doctrines or their practice of Christian duties, be peremptorily excluded from heaven, and finally perish in their sins. Consequences these, as Mr. Scott justly observes, "more repugnant to all our ideas of the Divine inercy, than any thing, that either the most zealous opposers of Calvinism have charged upon that sy stem; or the most rigid and wild enthusiast, who disgraced the name of Calvinist, ever advanced on the subject."

Besides this, we should be glad to know from the Bishop of Lincoln, whether, in the opinions he has promulgated on this subject, he limits his view of the beneficial consequences of the mere act of baptism to the Church of England, or whether he extends it to all churches who baptise in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: and if he does not so extend it, what principles of distinction will he apply which shall determine what church can efficaciously baptise its members, and what church has not this privilege? Is it to be regarded as confined to established churches; or may it be enjoyed by all such dissenters from those churches as use the prescript form of baptism? We wish that the Bishop would afford us some light on these points: we should then be better able to appreciate the value of the system which he labours to establish.

The most decisive argument, how ever, against that view of regeneration which is common to the Bishop of Lincoln and many other writers, is to be derived from the numerous passages of Scripture relating to that subject, which it is altogether impossible to interpret as referring to the mere act of baptism. Of these Mr. Scott has given a very full and able exposition; and here his sound

and extensive scriptural knowledge is successfully displayed. The number of these passages is very considerable; and yet, out of the whole, two only, viz. John iii. 5. and Tit. iii. 3-7. and these not exclusively, have any direct allusion to baptism. All the rest, and these also when rightly interpreted, relate to an inward change wrought by the Spirit of God, the practical effects of which are variously expressed; and which are all, in principle, and actual experience, though in different degrees, essential to salvation. We shall notice a few of these passages with reference to the subject in question. In the first chapter of St. John's Gospel, ver. 11-13, those to whom the privilege is given of becoming the sons of God, in consequence of their receiving Christ, and believing in him, are said to be "born of God." Here, says Mr. Scott, it seems absolutely certain, that external baptism cannot be meant, since the most remote hint of that ordinance had not been previously given.-On the famous passage in the third chapter of this Gospel, Mr. Scott's observations are peculiarly convincing. The solemn introduction, he thinks, - can scarcely be referred to any thing so plain and simple, as that external Christian baptism which was not yet instituted. The exposition of our Lord's first declaration to Nicodemus, can only be understood as referring to regeneration by the Holy Spirit, of which the baptism by water was constituted the symbol. The explanation of his meaning, given by our Saviour in these words, " that which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit: marvel not that I said unto thee, ye must be born again," is only intelligible on the ground that a change of the radical principle in the heart of man is the grand object and effect of true regeneration: and the illustration borrowed from the wind, can only be interpreted with the same reference: to the administration of external baptism, it has manifestly no similitude or relation.