regeneration of theology." The leading principle of this philoso- phy, in ail its phases, is Monism, the denial of all real {Juaiism hr- tween God and man. If man is only the modus existendi of God, then of course there is an end of all questions about sin and grace. Sin can only be imperfect development, and man's activity being only a form of the agency of God, there is no place for wliat the Church means by grace. All resolves itself into the Hegelian dictum, " What God does I do, and what I do God does." " Der menschliche Wille eine Wirkung-sform des ffottlichen Willons .... ist."i
The change introduced by the new philosophy was pervading. Even those who did not adopt it in its anti-christian or anti-theistic results, had all their modes of thought and expression modified by its influence. The views thus induced, of the nature of God, of his relation to the world, of the nature or constitution of man, of the person of Christ, and of the method of redemption, were so diverse from those previously adopted, that the new theology, whether designated as mystic or speculative, has few points of con- tact with the systems previously adopted. Its whole nomenclature is changed, so that the productions of the writers of this class can- not be understood without some previous training. Of course it is out of the question to class these theologians, who differ greatly among themselves, under the old categories. To say that they were Pelagian, Semi-Pelagian, Tridentine, Lutheran, Reformed, or Arminian, would be absurd. Schleiermacher, Ulhnann, Nitzsch, Twesten, Martensen, Lange, Liebner, Dorner, Sclioeberlein, De- litzsch, and many others, are believers in the divine origin of Chris- tianity ; and are able, learned, and zealous in the support of the truth as they apprehend it ; and yet, in their theological discus- sions, their whole mode of thinking, and their metliod of present- ing the doctrines of Scripture, are so controlled by their philosophy, that to a great degree, and to a degree much greater in some cases than in others, their writings have the aspect of philosophical dis- quisitions, and not of exhibitions of Scriptural doctrines.^ With these writers as a class, all questions concerning grace, are merged into the more comprehensive questions of the nature of God, his
1 bee Hase's Dofjmatik, § 177, 3d edit. Leipzig, 1842, p. 305.
2 It is characteristic of these writers, however, that some of their productions are simpie and Biblical, while others are in the hijihest degree nn-Btical and obscure. Lange's Com- mentanes, for example, are for the most part intelligible enough, but his Philosopkische Dogmatik none but a German, native or naturalized, can understand. It would be difficult to name a book more replete with sound Scriptural doctrine, clearly stated, than Delitzsch's Commenlar zum Brief e an die Bebraer, with its archeological and doctrinal Excursus on sac- rifices and the atonement, and 3'et at other timet* he writes likes a Cabalist.
732 PART m. ch. XIV. — vocation.
relation to the world, the person of Christ, and the way in which his life becomes the life of his people. In many cases, indeed, the person, and the special work of the Spirit, are altogether ignored. We are redeemed because the divine and human are united in Christ, and we derive from Him, through the Church and the sac- raments, the power of this divine-human life.
All the topics connected with the great doctrines of sin and grace have been frequently and earnestly debated by the theolog- ical writers of our own country. But into these debates no new questions have entered. The principles involved in these contro- versies are the same as those involved in the earlier conflicts in the Church. Even the system of Dr. Emmons, which has most ap- pearance of originality, is the doctrine of a continued creation pushed to its legitimate consequences, combined with certain incon- gruous elements derived from other sources. With Dr. Emmons God is the only cause ; second causes (so called), whether material or mental, have no efficiency. God creates everything at every moment ; all volitions or mental states, as well as all things exter- nal. He denied all substance out of God; identity consists in a sameness and continuity of phenomena or effects connected by the will or constitution of God. The moral and religious convic- tions of this distinguished man were too strong to allow him to draw the legitimate conclusions from his theory of divine efficiency. He therefore maintained that men's volitions are free, although created by God ; and that they are morally good or evil, determin- ing character and involving responsibility, although they are the acts of God, or the product of his creative power. This is very different from the Cliurch doctrine of original or concreated right- eousness, and of infused grace. The Bible does indeed teach that God created man in his own image in knowledge, righteousness, and true holiness. But this holiness was a permanent state of mind ; the character of a person, a suppositum, or individual sub- sistence ; and not the character of an act wliich is good or bad ac- cording to the motives by which it is determined. If God creates holy acts, He is a Holy Being, but the acts have no moral charac- ter apart from their efficient cause or author. Faith and repent- ance are due to the power of God, they are his gifts ; but they are truly our acts, and not God's. They are his gifts, because it is under his gracious influence we are induced to repent and believe. There can be no moral character pertaining to an act which does not belong to the agent.
^
•t o ,