PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPL

New-York:

PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PHILLIPS,

200 MULBERRY-STREET.

1854.

Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the year 1853, by

CARLTON & PHILLIPS,

in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New-York.

Contents.

INTRODUCTION.

OF THE POSSIBILITY OF A THEODICY

9

§ I. The failure of Plato, and other ancient philosophers, to construct a

theodicy, not a ground of despair................................

11

§ II. The failure of Leibnitz not a ground of despair..............

18

15

§ III.-The system of the moral universe not purposely involved in obscurity

to teach us a lesson of humility......

19

§ IV. The littleness of the human mind a ground of hope...............

§ V. The construction of a theodicy not an attempt to solve mysteries, but to

dissipate absurdities...

24

§ VI.-The spirit in which the following work has been prosecuted, and the

relation of the author to other systems.......

25

PART I.

THE EXISTENCE OF MORAL EVIL, OR SIN, CONSISTENT WITH THE HOLI-

NESS OF GOD...............

31

CHAPTER L-THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY DENIES THAT MAN IS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE

EXISTENCE OF SIN......

33

§ L-The attempts of Calvin and Luther to reconcile the scheme of necessity

with the responsibility of man.....

34

§ II-The manner in which Hobbes, Collins, and others, endeavour to reconcile

necessity with free and accountable agency...

41

§ III.-The sentiments of Descartes, Spinoza, and Malebranche, concerning the

relation between liberty and necessity.......

45

§ IV. The views of Locke, Tucker, Hartley, Priestley, Helvetius, and Diderot,

with respect to the relation between liberty and necessity......

50

§ V. The manner in which Leibnitz endeavours to reconcile liberty and neces-

sity.......

54

§ VI.-The attempt of Edwards to establish free and accountable agency on the

basis of necessity-The views of the younger Edwards, Day, Chalmers, Dick,

D'Aubigne, Hill, Shaw, and M'Cosh, concerning the agreement of liberty

and necessity..

61

§ VII. The sentiments of Hume, Brown, Comte, and Mill, in relation to the

antagonism between liberty and necessity............

72

§ VIII. The views of Kant and Sir William Hamilton in relation to the

antagonism between liberty and necessity.......

78

..........................................

..................

§ IX.-The notion of Lord Kames and Sir James Mackintosh on the same

subject...........

.....PAGE 81

§ X.-The conclusion of Moehler, Tholuck, and others, that all speculation on

such a subject must be vain and fruitless.......

§ XI. The true conclusion from the foregoing review of opinions and argu-

ments

CHAPTER II.-THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY MAKES GOD THE AUTHOR OF SIN...........

§ I. The attempts of Calvin and other reformers to show that their system of

necessity does not make God the author of sin...................

§ II.-The attempt of Leibnitz to show that the scheme of necessity does not

make God the author of sin...........

§ III. The maxims adopted and employed by Edwards to show that the

scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin..........................................

83

§ IV. The attempts of Dr. Emmons and Dr. Chalmers to reconcile the scheme

of necessity with the purity of God...............

110

CHAPTER III. THE SCHEME OF NECESSITY DENIES THE REALITY OF MORAL DISTINC-

TIONS.....................

113

§ I. The views of Spinoza, in relation to the reality of moral distinctions....... 113

§ II.-The attempt of Edwards to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the

reality of moral distinctions................................

114

§ III. Of the proposition that "The essence of the virtue and vice of dispo-

sitions of the heart and acts of the will lies not in their cause, but in their

nature"..

§ IV. The scheme of necessity seems to be inconsistent with the reality of

moral distinctions, not because we confound natural and moral necessity,

but because it is really inconsistent therewith....

CHAPTER IV.--THE MORAL WORLD NOT CONSTITUTED ACCORDING TO THE SCHEME OF

NECESSITY............

§ I.-The scheme of necessity is based on a false psychology..........

§ II. The scheme of necessity is directed against a false issue..

§ III.-The scheme of necessity is supported by false logic............

§ IV. The scheme of necessity is fortified by false conceptions...........

126

129

132

132

142

149

154

160

§ V. The scheme of necessity is recommended by false analogies..

§ VI. The scheme of necessity is rendered plausible by a false phraseology...... 162

§ VII. The scheme of necessity originates in a false method, and terminates

in a false religion..................................

164

CHAPTER V. THE RELATION BETWEEN THE HUMAN WILL AND THE DIVINE AGENCY..... 166

§ I.-General view of the relation between the divine and the human power.... 166

§ II-The Pelagian platform, or view of the relation between the divine and

the human power........................................

171

§ III. The Augustinian platform, or view of the relation between the divine

agency and the human.............................................

176

§ IV. The views of those who, in later times, have symbolized with Augustine... 178

§ V. The danger of mistaking distorted for exalted views of the divine

sovereignty......

180