We feel that we are free:  if we were not free, conscience could not exist; for, if a man had not freedom of action, conscience could not intimate to him either its approbation or its disapprobation of his actions.

But—­how are we free? How is free-will reconcileable, either with the influence of motive upon will? or with the order of the universe, prescribed by the Deity? or, with his prescience?  For that, which his infinite mind prescribes or foresees, must be fixed.

[Sidenote:  Disputes on the Free-will of Man.]

This question soon engaged the attention of the Greek Philosophers:  some advocated the free-will of man; others denied it, and ascribed his actions to Fate or Destiny; a being or energy, which they were never able to define or describe.  Among the Jews, the Sadducees embraced the former opinion; the Pharisees, the latter.  Among the Mahometans, a like division took place between the followers of Omar, and those of Ali.

Unfortunately, the Christians engaged in these ungrateful speculations:  their disputes chiefly turned upon the effect, which motive, suggested by grace, or the divine favour, has upon will.  Does it necessitate? then, there is no free-will,—­no merit,—­no demerit.  Does it not necessitate? then, in the choice of good, man acts by his own power, and thus achieves a good of which God is not the author.

[Sidenote:  CHAP.  V. 1610-1617.]

The dispute was brought to an issue by Pelagius and his disciples.  They held, that man acts independently of divine grace, both in the choice and execution of good.  This independence was denied by St. Augustin, he asserted, that man co-operates with grace, yet, that grace begins, advances and brings to perfection every thing in man, which can be justly called good. St. Thomas of Aquin new-modelled the system of St. Augustin, and used new terms in describing it:  his subtile distinctions, in the opinion of many, considerably improved it.

Calvin aggravated the doctrine of St. Augustin.  He maintained,[017] that the everlasting condition of mankind in the future world, was determined from all eternity, by the unchangeable order of the Deity; and that this absolute determination of his will was the only source of happiness or misery to individuals.  Thus Calvin maintained, without any qualification, that God, from all eternity has doomed one part of mankind to everlasting happiness, the other to everlasting misery; and, was led to make this distinction, without regard to the merit or demerit of the object, and by no other reason or motive than his own pleasure.

Luther,[018] in opposition to Calvin, maintained, that the divine decrees respecting the salvation or misery of men, are founded upon a previous knowledge of their sentiments and characters; or, in other words, that God, foreseeing from all eternity the faith and virtue of some, and the incredulity or wickedness of others, has reserved eternal happiness for the former, and eternal misery for the latter.