The view we take presents a glorious display of the divine justice for time as well as for eternity.

Fourthly, this view not only shows the justice and the mercy of God, separately considered, in the most advantageous light, but it exhibits the sublime harmony which subsists between them. It presents not, like Calvinism, a mercy limited by justice, and a justice limited by mercy; but it exhibits each in its absolute perfection, and in its agreement with the other: for, according to this view, the claim of mercy extends to all who may be saved, and that of justice to those who may choose to remain incorrigibly wicked. Hence, the claim of the one does not interfere with that of the other; nor can we conceive how either could be more gloriously displayed. We behold the infinite amplitude, as well as the ineffable, unclouded splendour of each divine perfection, without the least disturbance or collision between them. In the very act of punishment, the tender mercy of God, which is over all his works, concurs, and inflicts that suffering which is demanded by the good of the universe. The torment of the lost, is "the wrath of the Lamb." The glory of the redeemed, is the pity of the Judge. Hence, instead of that frightful conflict which the scheme of Calvinism presents, we behold a reconciliation and agreement among the divine attributes, worthy the great principle of order, and harmony, and beauty in the universe.

SECTION VL

The question submitted.

We must now take leave of the reader. We have honestly endeavoured to construct a Theodicy, or to vindicate the divine glory as manifested in the constitution and government of the moral world. We have endeavoured to reconcile the great fundamental doctrines of God and man with each other, as well as with the eternal principles of truth. It has likewise been our earnest aim, to evince the harmony of the divine attributes among themselves, as well as their agreement with the condition of the universe. In one word, we have aimed to repel the objections, and solve the difficulties which have been permitted to obscure the glory of the Divine Being; whether those difficulties and objections have seemed to proceed from the false

philosophy of his enemies, or the mistaken views and misguided zeal of his friends. How far we have succeeded in this attempt, no less arduous than laudable, it is not for us to determine. We shall, therefore, respectfully submit the determination of this point to the calm and impartial judgment of those who may possess both the desire and the capacity to think for

themselves.

NOTE.

In this work, beginning at page seventy, Dr. M'Cosh is accused of being on both sides of the great question respecting the freedom of the will, which has been so long debated between Arminians and Calvinists. In the fourth edition of his "Divine Government" he replies, in an appendix, that "it is much easier to assert than to prove this." I have not laboured to show his self-contradiction I have simply exhibited his statements on both sides of the question, and left the reader to determine whether the contradiction does not show itself.

Dr. M'Cosh says, "Mr. B. has made his use of some unguarded expressions used in the first edition of this work, but which had disappeared from the later British editions before the Theodicy was published; we do not think the statements now made are inconsistent," &c. Now does not this indirectly admit that the statements as before made by him were inconsistent?

But what are these "unguarded expressions?" Only two of the expres sions noticed by me have disappeared from the work of Dr. M. The one is the extract, on page seventy, concluding with the words of Coleridge: “It is the man that makes the motive, and not the motive the man." Now here, let it be remembered, the whole controversy is concerning the relation between motive and the will. Dr. M. says that Necessitarians have erred because they have been "afraid of making admissions to their opponents." He entertains no such fear. He boldly proceeds to adopt the pointed and well-known expression of one of the most distinguished of these opponents; an expression relating to the very point in controversy, and, if true, decisive of the whole question. Now who could, for one moment, have imagined that in adopting such language Dr. M. was merely putting forth "an unguarded expression?" If it were not his mature and deliberate opinion, I make bold to affirm that it ought to have been so ere it was given to the world.

The other position of the author, considered as an unguarded expression, will appear still more wonderful. It relates to the nature of liberty. In the first edition of his work Dr. M. adopted that notion of the freedom of the will which is maintained by President Edwards and other Calvinistic divines. It has been, indeed, called, by a distinguished Calvinist, the Calvinistic idea of moral liberty. (See page 69.) It is discussed at length in the first chapter My strictures were on the only American edition.

of this work. and in section fourteen of my "Examination of Edwards on the Will."

When I saw the same idea put forth by Dr. M'Cosh, I supposed that as he was a Calvinistic divine so he had adopted the Calvinistic idea and definition of free-will. I certainly did not imagine for an instant that such a position was merely "an unguarded expression" on his part. I should, indeed, just as 300n have supposed that his whole work, from beginning to end, was made up of" unguarded expressions." Nay, I should as soon have supposed that the same position in President Edwards, though so elaborately wrought out and explicitly laid down by him, was merely an " unguarded expression." Indeed, if we would write on these great themes at all, we should take care how we speak of moral liberty, the very thing in dispute. It will not do to speak in unguarded expressions; and if we adopt the stereotyped definition or idea of any particular school, we should not complain that it is supposed to be our real opinion.

It is a little remarkable, I think, that, although it is in this work that Dr. M. is accused of self-contradiction, he notices only certain passages in the examination aforesaid, and attempts no reply to my strictures upon his work. I still think he contradicts himself. Let the reader judge. "Mr. B." says he, "deals much more in the criticism of others than in the exposition of his own system." This is true, and especially in regard to his "Examination." For all that is necessary to establish "his own system" of free-will is to show that the scheme of his opponents is false. In other words, if it be shown that there is no power over the will by which its volitions are determined, then are we free. Hence, to batter down the scheme of necessity is to establish the doctrine of free-will.

"In such a subject as the freedom of the will," says Dr. M., "it is easy to start objections, but not so easy to evolve a doctrine free from all difficulties." Hence, even if Mr. B. has not evolved any system of his own, it is to be hoped he has committed no very great sin. It will be time, he thinks, to evolve a system when he can find one which shall be free from contradiction.

But I have, according to Dr. M., been singularly unfortunate in having landed myself in many difficulties, although I have evolved no doctrine of my

own.

Here is one of these many difficulties: "In order to support his theory, he is obliged to strip causation of its very peculiarities to make effect mean simply what is effected," &c. Now, if an effect does not mean what is effected, I should like to know what it does mean. Does it mean something that is not effected? If so, what becomes of Dr. M.'s great principle, that every effect must have a cause? "See this defective view noticed," says Dr. M., " in Art. III, p. 523." On turning to that article we find him saying: "There is something new implied in the very conception of effect-it is something effected, something which did not exist before, or put in a new state. ' What is it possible, after all, that an effect is something effected? in its very conception, something effected?

According to my scheme, says Dr. M., "there can be no guarantee, even in the power of God, against the very saints in glory falling away, or even-we use the language reluctantly-in the continuance of the Divine Excellence."

This objection has been a thousand times urged against the scheme of Arminians. It is repeatedly noticed in this volume. (See Part I, chap. vii, sec. 3; also Part I, chap. vi, sec. 7; and also Part II, chap. ii, sec. 4.) The bare restatement of this objection by Dr. M., who makes no allusion to my answers does not entitle it to further notice.

According to Dr. M., Mr. B. says: "We are conscious of action, and a thing which acts cannot be caused." Now here, Dr. M. has not only made his use of this unguarded expression; he has made the unguarded expression itself. It is not mine. It can nowhere be found in my works; for I have taken the utmost pains to guard against any and every such blundering expression of my views. It is true, and I admit, that "a thing which acts can be caused." The mind, for example, acts; and yet the mind is caused, vea, it is created by the power of the Almighty.

66

I have never doubted that "a thing which acts can be caused." But that is not the question; for that is, on all sides, conceded. "The question is," as I have said in my examination, (p. 121,) can the mind be efficien ly caused to act? Or, in other words, has an act of the will-not has the mind-not has the will itself-but has an act of the will an efficient cause? Is each act produced by a preceding act? That is the question which I have put, and put with emphasis, in order that my position might not be misunderstood. I have not only clearly, distinctly, and most emphatically put this precise question, but I have also accompanied its terms with an elaborate explanation of the precise sense in which they are used by me. But all this is overlooked, and other words are substituted in their place. All my arguments and illustrations are passed by, and I am made to father a proposition which I have not put forth, and which I utterly repudiate and reject as false.

Having done this, Dr. M. may well add, "There is an obvious mistake here, and indeed in his whole view of action and passion. Surely that which is acted on may itself have power of action." Surely, I repeat, it may. The mind, though acted on, not only may have, but it has, a power of action in itself. I know not what mistakes Dr. M. may have discovered in my "whole view of action and passion;" but I do know that the only mistake therein which he attempts to point out is one of his own creation. He convicts me of a gross blunder, not by quoting my own expressions, but simply by inventing an expression for me. He should be more guarded.

NOTE.-Some of my quotations from Dr. M'Cosh's work will be found in the fourth edition, in Article VII. of the Appendix.