30 



intention) by showing the consequences to which they lead, when logically 

 carried out. Berkeley held that the only realities are Mind and Ideas, the 

 former being the vehicle of the latter. Hume saw no necessity for the 

 vehicle, considering that Ideas do not require such ; and between his theory 

 and that of Mr. Spencer it is not easy to see any difference. Berkeley 

 imagined that his theory gave the death-blow to materialism, as, indeed, the 

 denial of the existence of Matter would, at first sight, appear to do. Yet 

 here we have Mr. Spencer, the prince of materialists, actually carrying 

 Berkeley's views to an extreme never contemplated by their propounder. 



Mr. Ground has done good service in pointing out the distinction between 

 the metaphysical and the theological doctrines respecting the human will. 

 As in the one, so in the other, there are various shades of opinion, the theo- 

 logians believing that their views are in accordance with the Scriptures, 

 while the metaphysicians consider theirs to be such as Reason discovers. 

 The various views prevalent among theologians divide conveniently into 

 three primary ones: 1, that of the Pelagians, who deny that the descendants 

 of Adam and Eve are born with a nature prone to sin, and who, conse- 

 quently, look upon all mankind as morally free, requiring no spiritual aid to 

 counteract the allurements of " the world, the flesh, and the devil ; " 2, that 

 of those who believe that all are born with the taint of original sin, and 

 without moral freedom until divine grace confers it upon them by restoring 

 them to that "image of God" which was lost to man through the Fall ; and 

 that, when they are thus restored, they are free either to yield themselves to 

 the divine influence or resist it, as their will may determine ; and, 3, that of 

 those who, agreeing with the last-mentioned class in denying moral freedom 

 to those unaided by grace, yet differ with them as to the effect of grace on 

 the minds of those to whom it has once been imparted. Instead of holding 

 that men are free to accept or reject spiritual influences, they believe that 

 grace, once given, is irresistible, and that they to whom it is imparted, 

 although still subject to sins and imperfections, will never be allowed to fall 

 away finally and be lost. And inasmuch as the world, and even the Chris- 

 tian Church, contains many who show no symptoms of that improvement of 

 character which is a mark of divine grace, it is almost a necessary corollary 

 from this third division ef doctrine that grace is not offered to all, and that 

 many are left in that helpless and enslaved state from which nothing that 

 they can do will save them. And such, accordingly, is the view adopted by 

 most of those who hold grace to be irresistible. 



The question, Which of these three theological views is the most conform- 

 able to Scripture, is one of pure theology, and it would, as I conceive, be out 

 of place to discuss it in these pages. It is more to the point to observe that 

 that they all belong to a region quite apart from the metaphysical question. 

 The most strenuous asserter of Free Will in the theological sense, the 

 Pelagian, might, without inconsistency (however untruly), deny it with Mr. 

 Spencer in the metaphysical sense. All that the Pelagian cares to assert is 

 that all men are born free from original sin, and do not require divine aid to 



