the inquirer, consists to a great degree in this, that as so as one boundary is attained, immediately another, fro the darkness of a still greater distance, emerges as it wer and invites us on to renewed exertions. We admit th this very peculiarity passes with us for an irrefragab proof of the indestructibility of the spirit of man; and i an especial manner do we feel that the present life, we it deprived of this reflection of the infinite, would be to u worthless and exceedingly insipid."

The will of man we hold to be, in its sphere, as free a the divine will. There is however, this difference: th human will can determine to do wrong, which is no possible to the divine will. Having shown that freedor is so essential to man, we are not at liberty to declare other than a good. Yet it appears that only by the posses sion of this freedom, arises the possibility of evil; and w are met by the paradox of evil issuing from good.

Yet turn which way we will, unless we retreat entirel outside the lines of Christian doctrine, a conflict with thi paradox is inevitable. We well know that the logica man can prove our position absurd, and that it lies oper to all the shafts of the man of wit. Be it so; we ar content to reiterate the fact, if our Theism be sound, some where evil issued out of good; and by the fact we are bound to abide. Meantime, all the cannonade of logic and shafts of wit can only make it "so much the worse for the facts." We do not indeed make freedom the ground of sin; but without it sin would be impossible. Indeed, as the act of the will seems the most intimately personal act of man, and as the point of willing is the point of sinning, or of obedience, we shall in many res pects gain the most correct view of sin, and of holiness, from this stand-point of the will. Equally well does it serve us as a point from which to contemplate the themes of redemption and reconciliation.

Sin is a voluntary transgression of a good law. This definition covers of course any voluntary failure to keep the law; for a good law demands obedience, and a voluntary refusal to render it, is a voluntary transgression. Thus God's will as embodied in a righteous law comes in conflict with man's will.

The great question of human reconciliation and salva

tion becomes then a question of will,-the will of God and the will of man. To a degree, they are now at dissonance, man's will not being conformed to God's, in many instances. We must however avoid saying that man's will always acts in opposition to God's will, for that is far from the truth. When they are brought into complete concord, then will man be saved, because from his godly or godlike will shall proceed godly works.

Some seem to teach that men are saved when their sins

are forgiven, but this is an error. Ætna is not quenched when its eruption has ceased, and the latest track of lava is covered with green vineyards and smiling fields; the fire is smouldering in its vitals still. So, though all past sins may be forgiven, if the will to evil, which determined them, is still slumbering in the bosom, the man is not saved.

It follows also, that it is absurd to say that men are saved by good works; for the will is the engine which drives the whole train of works. If the train is going in the wrong direction, the evil is to be met by reversing the engine, and the cars will follow; yet while they follow, no one but a novice thinks them to be the cause of the new action. From what is man saved? From sin; and sin is evil work produced by evil will. It is nonsense to say that good works are the cause of man's being saved from evil works. It is like affirming that a man's seeing causes the removal of his blindness. He will see when the blindness is healed; he will be saved, when the evil will is changed, on the clarified sight will come vision; from the righteous will shall proceed holiness and salvation.

Now the seat of sin being thus in the will of man, which determines for evil rather than good, even Omnipotence (be it spoken reverently,) cannot save him, as man, in any other way than by bringing that will to change. In this we perceive something of that force with which God has clothed this creature formed in his image. Omnipotence has formed this curious lock, and given man the key; that key alone can lock or unlock it. It is in the power of Him who made it, to crush it in pieces, or with force to drive back its bolts, destroying its mechanism; but only man can turn the key. The will must remain forever free. To force it to good, is to destroy it, and to make good no VOL. XII. 6

good. To constrain it to evil, as in the present theory eternal misery,-to condemn it to eternal hatred of G is to destroy it and make evil no sin.

The philosophy of Christ's mission may also be plac in a strong and clear point of view, by collating it w these radical facts, that the evil is the discord of two wi and the remedy is in bringing one into harmony with other. We have seen the futility of attempting to ma use of man's good works to do this; it is palpable that attempt to accomplish it by any imputation of Chris righteousness is equally vain. For man's will is in conf with God's. If Christ died to make God tolerant of, pleased with, man's perverse will, he died to break annul every righteous law in the universe, to raze walls of justice, and blot the pages of truth. Christ's de is effective only as it tends to open the way of divine l to the human will, or aid its work when it has found acc there. Until that is changed, to "sprinkle o'er the bu ing throne, and change that wrath to grace," is only moderate the force of God's aversion to sin-to mitig the repulsion of his nature against wrong; in one wo to break his will; which, were it possible, would be a aster of sad import even to those seemingly favored by It would be relaxing the law of gravitation to save a si ing ship, leaving the loosened waves to bubble over in suffocating foam.

We are then brought to the consideration of anoth question. If the matter stand thus between the div and human wills, how can God bring men into harmo with himself; and of what avail is his purpose to subo all things unto himself? Let us recall to mind, here, t freedom of the will does by no means require that it sho be insensible to motives. It is only requisite that no n tive should have power to determine its decisions by fa necessity. "Our views do not require us to affirm t man decides without a reason, simply in order to wil So close indeed is the general connection between the m tions of desire, and the acts of the will, and between decisions of reason, and the determinations of the w that we found it a delicate task to separate them. upholding the freedom of the will, we argue for no rep sive or savage independence, but for a noble freedom.

which a righteous will shall agree with the purest desires, and the highest reason. The answer to the question now before us, brings us to unfold the central principle of all God's revelations to man. It is not as a being of infinite force, able to crush man into conformity, that He addresses himself to this purpose. To do this, would destroy him as man, and undo the work which he accomplished in his creation. He reveals himself in another form. It is by his love, that he addresses this alienated will, and draws it into harmony with his own. To unwind a perplexed cocoon of silk, the strength of a giant is not so useful as the pliant fingers, and gentle assiduity, of a girl. The giant could rend the frail web in a moment, but only gentle patience can preserve its integrity, and yet reduce it to complete order. Equally might Almighty power destroy man as a spider's web. Infinite love, and grace, and patience, alone can bring him entire into the eternal order; and the potency of these is consistent with our views of will. How exactly do these views accord with the mission of Christ, who accepts, as just, the beautiful delineation of the prophet: " He shall not strive nor cry; neither shall any man hear his voice in the streets. bruised reed shall he not break, and smoking flax shall he not quench, till he send forth judgment unto victory." Man under any degree of darkness is not wholly insensible to these divine influences. The more he yields to them, the more potent their influence upon him.

A

Let us attend to several additional considerations. Let us consider that sin, the highest evil, can only result from the abuse of the highest good, freedom, reason and light; and that the sense of this fact deepens every where man's sense of "the exceeding sinfulness of sin;" that where these do not exist sin cannot be, that where they do exist sin has always so many foes. Sin cannot then have an undivided empire. It cannot exclude its opposites and live; while, on the other hand, holiness can subsist without any opposite. In one word, sin is a state of conflict, and always implies the existence of its opposite, while holiness is a state of peace.

Let us consider that since evil sprang somehow from good, it is not self existent, but is a parasitical growth. It has no power on its side, but subsists by a perversion of

powers; else could no man be saved as an entire man, fo be saved would imply the destruction of that part of radical nature which existed only for, or by, evil.

Let us consider, that moral evil sensibly produces man a state of internal war; that man denominates t reason highest, and those desires best, which oppose it and that its results war against itself. Thus we find human nature a perpetual reaction against it, even of will, as Paul expresses in Rom. vii. 21; and this reacti principle is God's superscription on man, declaring right in him.

Bringing all these considerations together, and collati them with the divine purpose, we cannot doubt that "E will be vanquished in manly conflict." Such is clear the conclusion to which the author of the work mention at the head of this article arrives. It is a work which w can most heartily commend to all who wish for more lig on this subject. It has the singular merit of profundi joined with precise and intelligible statements. author has no will to becloud his subject with mysteri His faith in the final issue is, we think, evident from su passages as the following:

"The highest end after which creation strives is the se subsistent developing of moral natures. Evil should not rendered impossible, but it should be vanquished in man conflict. Constrained uniformity, and limitation of power cannot in the least be reconciled with the highest view of divine governor; and in the circumstance that God impar to the creature a freedom which can manifest itself in opp sition to Him, as well as in harmony and love, seems to 1 the evidence not only of the highest power, but also of th divine love and self denial. Yet the influence and impor ance which belong to the evil actually springing from th striving against God, are both finite and circumscribed Good only, as participant of the divine nature, is indestru tible and eternal." p. 163. Or again, "The consciou and personal being is only as it were raised to the state individuality, in order that at the end he may, by the fre self-subsistent direction of his own spirit, bring himself s to harmonize with the whole,-as, before creation in th peaceful depths of eternity, all powers were as but On power. Then will God be all and in all, when every crea