willing to accept the logical results of their own. hypothesis, and notwithstanding those results, unwilling to abandon it, have long and vainly struggled to explain the existence of evil, and to find out some basis, consistent with the mystic hypothesis, on which duty and responsibility might be made to

rest.

17. There is no part of the history of opinions more curious or remarkable, than the celebrated and protracted controversy, to which these attempts have given rise; and which, under various names, Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Molinist, Arminian, Jansenist, Socinian, Rationalist, Universalist, so long divided, and still divides, the Christian world. This vast dispute, which seems, at first sight, a hopelessly inextricable wilderness of metaphysical subtleties, admits of being looked at from three distinct points of view, seen from which it assumes a certain degree of order, and becomes capable of being comprehended and understood.

18. In its first aspect, it is a controversy as to the origin of human action between those thorough and consistent adherents of the mystic hypothesis who explain all the phenomena of the universe, and human action among the rest, as immediate results of God's volitions, and those various sects of Semimystics, who, following the philosophers, have gradually more and more introduced into the theory of the universe, and of human nature as a part of it, in place of God's volitions, fixed, uniform, natural laws, and the spontaneity of man as one of those laws. Thus, one party, in logical conformity to the mystic

hypothesis, holding God to be the sole source and only efficient cause of all action, and regarding man as a mere puppet, peremptorily deny that man possesses any freedom of will, or, properly speaking, any will at all, for the very idea of will implies freedom. In place of spontaneity they substitute fate, predestination, fore-ordination, or what Leibnitz called preëstablished harmony. It is not man who acts, but God who acts by him, and in him.

The theologians who maintained this view, made it the foundation of the celebrated doctrine of man's inability, the doctrine, that is, that man, in himself, is totally incapable of any good act, any good he may do being regarded as the act of God working in him, they denied the existence or possibility of any such thing as human merit, and represented good works as of no avail whatever towards pleasing or propitiating God or rather so far as man alone is concerned, they held good works. to be non-existent, and impossible; they taught the doctrine of salvation by grace alone, meaning by grace, special, undeserved favor extended to an elect few.* The

* Such was the doctrine of St. Austin, St. Thomas Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Knox, Arnauld, Pascal, and of many other celebrated theologians. This doctrine was embodied in all the early Protestant symbols, and became, in fact, the basis of the reformation, the great point of controversy between the early Protestants and the Church of Rome. It is little wonderful, that, after the first burst of the reformation was over, the Catholics began to regain their lost ground, and came near extinguishing the Protestant religion. From the turn the controversy took, the Catholics had not only superstition, tradition, authority, and custom on their side, but common sense, and common humanity also. The doctrine of salvation by grace alone still remains, verbally, the orthodox creed of most of the Protestant churches. But the spirit long ago departed.

slightest regard to consistency would have required them to admit, what, however, they strenuously rejected, that, if there be no such thing as human merit, then human demerit is equally a chimera; and the notions of duty, responsibility, and punishment quite as unfounded as that of reward.

19. Perceiving that the pure mystic hypothesis is totally inconsistent with man's moral nature, the Semi-mystics attempted to escape, or rather to cover up, this inconsistency, by gradually introducing into their theological creeds the philosophical idea of the spontaneity of man. They began with maintaining, that, although the human will be quite incapable of producing any good act without the prompting, exciting, coöperating efficacy of divine grace, yet still the performance of a good act does imply a certain spontaneous effort on the part of man. Having once admitted the idea of this spontaneity, as a necessary foundation on which to rest duty, merit, and demerit, they have been compelled, for the same reasons, more and more to bring it forward, as the sole origin of human action; till, so far as relates to human action, they have substantially abandoned, though they may still verbally retain, the mystic hypothesis, exalting works till they have annihilated grace. They have thus succeeded in making their theology consistent with moral sentiment; but they have so succeeded only by rejecting the very fundamental proposition of theology; so that, in point of consistency, they have as little to boast as their opponents.*

* The pure mystic hypothesis, notwithstanding its total inconsistency with human nature, is so short a cut to the explanation of

20. The second and third aspects of this great theological controversy have a very intimate relation to the first, and to each other. They embrace the questions of the moral characters respectively of God and of man. But as men necessarily make God after their own image, the moral character which they ascribe to God is necessarily dependent upon their ideas of the moral character of man. Hence the second and third aspects of this controversy do but present the dispute respecting the origin, nature, or law, of moral dis

all things, and so well suited to excite and gratify the sentiment of admiration, that it has always been a great favorite with cloistered and closet theorists. Hence those pantheistic systems, ancient and modern, Oriental and Occidental, constantly reproduced under slight changes of expression, which confound God and nature, and reduce every thing to unity and infinity. Nothing, say the mystics, exists absolutely but God.. It follows that all apparent existences are but manifestations of God, God under special forms. This appears to be substantially the doctrine of Schelling, at present patronized by the king of Prussia and by the conservative politicians and orthodox theologians of his dominions.

But even into closets and cloisters philosophical ideas will creep. From the united idea of God and nature, if the absolute existence of nature be expunged, why not also the absolute existence of God? Pushing the subjective doctrine to extremes, these pantheistic theorists arrive at the conclusion, that nothing exists absolutely, that both God and nature are but conceptive emanations from the intelligent, conscious I. Such, in substance, appears to be the doctrine of Fichte, carried out by Hegel, and at present so popular with the liberal party of Germany. The doctrine of Schelling, as it reduces the individual almost or quite to nothing, is naturally patronized by kings. The other doctrine, which makes the individual every thing, is naturally more agreeable to subjects. Such is the political condition of Germany, that its thinkers are obliged to discuss the most important practical questions under vague, mystic, abstract, almost unintelligible forms. It is childish for those not subject to the same necessity, to affect the same disguise, which none can wear without danger of deing others, if not themselves.

tinctions, transferred from morals to theology; and we may arrange the whole body of the disputants into three great schools, according to the theory of morals which they respectively adopt.

21. The partisans of the selfish theory of morals, among whom must be reckoned most of those who deny the freedom of the human will, framing their image of God in consistence to that theory, taught that God created man solely to promote his own. pleasure and glory. Having made man for that purpose, God expects and demands its fulfilment. It is men's duty to satisfy that expectation, to comply with that demand. Such as do not fulfil and comply, become, in consequence, chargeable with demerit, the proper objects of God's wrath commonly disguised under the epithet of justice; and deserve, and will receive, on account of their disobedience and rebellion, misery here and eternal damnation hereafter.

Such was the foundation upon which these doctors attempted to rest the idea of duty, responsibility, and punishment. But they still rejected the notion of merit, or reward. For as man's utmost efforts cannot go beyond the fulfilment of his bare duty, which requires that every thought, word, and deed should be devoted to God's glory and pleasure, therefore, even in perfect obedience there can be no such thing as merit; and if God choose to confer any benefits, here or hereafter, upon any number of men, large or small, it is not a right of theirs; it is not a reward; but free grace and pure gratuity, demanding of the favored the most devout gratitude.