Chapter XCVII: Section VI: The question submitted

We must now take leave of the reader. We have honestly endeavoured to construct a Theodicy, or to vindicate the divine glory as manifested in the constitution and government of the moral world. We have endeavoured to reconcile the great fundamental doctrines of God and man with each other, as well as with the eternal principles of truth. It has likewise been our earnest aim, to evince the harmony of the divine attributes among themselves, as well as their agreement with the condition of the universe. In one word, we have aimed to repel the objections, and solve the difficulties which have been permitted to obscure the glory of the Divine Being; whether those difficulties and objections have seemed to proceed from the false philosophy of his enemies, or the mistaken views and misguided zeal of his friends. How far we have succeeded in this attempt, no less arduous than laudable, it is not for us to determine. We shall, therefore, respectfully submit the determination of this point to the calm and impartial judgment of those who may possess both the desire and the capacity to think for themselves.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES

1 Johnson’s Works, vol. iv, p. 286.

2 Institutes, b. ii, c. iii.

3 Scott’s Luther and Ref., vol. i, pp. 70, 71.

4 Institutes, b. i, c. xv.

5 Ibid., b. ii, c. ii.

6 Ibid.

7 Dick’s Theology.

8 Bondage of the Will, sec. xxvi.

9 Ibid.

10 Progress of Ethical Philosophy, note O. Indeed, this distinction
appears quite as clearly in the writings of Augustine, as it does in
those of Luther, or Calvin, or Hobbes. He repeatedly places our
liberty and ability in this, that we can “keep the commandments _if
we will_,” which is obviously a mere freedom from external
co-action. See Part ii, ch. iv, sec. 2.

11 Literary Remains, p. 65.

12 Ethique, premiere partie, prop. xxvi.

13 Ibid., prop. xxxiv.

14 Ethique, Des Passions, prop. ii and Scholium.

15 Œuvres de Spinoza, tome ii, 350.

16 Introduction to the “Œuvres de Spinoza,” by M. Saisset.

17 Book ii, chapters 21, 27.

18 Disquisitions and Introduction, p. 5.

19 Helvetius on the Mind, p. 44.

20 Mr. Stewart says: “Dr. Hartley was, I believe, one of the first (if
not the first) who denied that our consciousness is in favour of our
free-agency.”—_Stewart’s Works_, vol. v, Appendix. This is evidently
a mistake. In the above passage, Leibnitz, with even more point than
Hartley, denies that our consciousness is in favour of free-agency.

21 Essais de Theodicee, p. 99.

22 “Hobbes defines a free-agent,” says Stewart, “to be ‘he that can do
if he will, and forbear if he will.’ The same definition has been
adopted by Leibnitz, by Collins, by Gravezende, by Edwards, by
Bonnet, and by all later necessitarians.” The truth is, as we have
seen, that instead of adopting, Leibnitz has very clearly refuted,
the definition of Hobbes. Mr. Harris, in his work entitled “The
Primeval Man,” has also fallen into the error of ascribing this
definition of liberty to Leibnitz. Surely, these very learned
authors must have forgotten, that Leibnitz wrote a reply to Hobbes,
in which he expressly combats his views of liberty.

23 Essais de Theodicee, pp. 5, 6.

24 Id., p. 8.

25 Inquiry, part ii, sec. viii.

26 Day’s Examination of Edwards on the Will, sec. v, pp. 80, 81.

27 Inquiry, part iv, sec. 9.

28 Ibid.

29 Ibid., sec. 7.

30 Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, part iii, chap. i.

31 Lectures on Theology, by the late Rev. John Dick, D. D.

32 Dissertation, p. 41.

33 Dick’s Lectures, vol. ii, p. 157.

34 History of the Reformation, b. v.

35 Hill’s Divinity, ch. ix, sec. iii.

36 The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. iii.

37 Id., b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii.

38 Ibid.

39 The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii.

40 Ibid.

41 Ibid.

42 Ibid.

43 The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii.

44 Hume’s Works, Liberty and Necessity.

45 Bacon.

46 Of Liberty and Necessity.

47 Although Mr. Hume gives precisely the same definition of liberty as
that advanced by Hobbes, Locke, and Edwards, he had the sagacity to
perceive that this related not to the freedom of the will, but only
of the body. Hence he says, “In short, if motives are not under our
power or direction, which is confessedly the fact, we can _at bottom
have_ NO LIBERTY.” We are not at all surprised, therefore, at the
reception which Hume gave to the great work of President Edwards, as
set forth in the following statement of Dr. Chalmers, concerning the
appendix to the “Inquiry.” “The history of this appendix,” says he,
“is curious. It has only been subjoined to the later editions of his
work, and did not accompany the first impression of it. Several
copies of this impression found their way into this country, and
created a prodigious sensation among the members of a school then in
all its glory. I mean the metaphysical school of our northern
metropolis, whereof Hume, and Smith, and Lord Kames, and several
others among the more conspicuous infidels and semi-infidels of that
day, were the most distinguished members. They triumphed in the book
of Edwards, as that which set a conclusive seal on their
principles,” &c.—_Institutes of Theology_, vol. ii, ch. ii.

48 Of Liberty and Necessity.

49 Ibid.

50 Mill’s Logic, pp. 522, 523.

51 Mill’s Logic, book ii, chap. v, sec. 4.

52 Metaphysics of Ethics.

53 Knapp’s Theology, p. 520.

54 Reid’s Works, note, p. 611.

55 Id., p. 599, note.

56 Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 275.

57 Mœhler’s Symbolism, p. 117

58 Novum Organum, book i, aph. 69.

59 Institutes, book i, chap. xviii.

60 Institutes, book i, chap. xvi.

61 Id., book ii, chap. iv.

62 Id., book i, chap. xviii.

63 Id., book iii, chap. xxiii.

64 Id., book iii, chap. xxiii, sec. 4, 7.

65 Institutes, book i, chap. xiv, sec. 16.

66 Theodice, p. 365.

67 Institutes, book i, chap. xiv.

68 Institutes, book iii, ch. xxiii.

69 Id., book i, ch. xviii.

70 See Mœhler’s Symbolism.

71 Théodicée, p. 85.

72 Id., p. 264.

73 Théodicée, pp. 89, 90.

74 Progress of Ethical Philosophy, p. 114.

75 Inquiry, p. 246

76 Inquiry, part iv, sec. ix.

77 Letter vii.

78 Inquiry, part iv, sec. ix.

79 Edwards’s Works, vol. vii, p. 406.

80 Théodicée, p. 327.

81 Howe’s Works, p. 1142.

82 On the Will, part iv, sec. ix.

83 Emmons’s Works, vol. iv, p. 372.

84 Ibid., p. 388.

85 Ibid., p. 327.

86 Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, chap. iii.

87 Emphatically as this conclusion is stated by Spinoza, and harshly as
it is thrust by him against the moral sense of the reader, he could
not himself find a perfect rest therein. Nothing can impart this to
the reflective and inquiring mind but truth. Hence, even Spinoza
finds himself constrained to speak of the duty of love to God, and
so forth; all of which, according to his own conclusion, is
irrelative nonsense.

88 Original Sin, part ii, chap. i, sec. i.

89 Original Sin, part ii, ch. i, sec. i.

90 Inquiry, part iv, sec. i.

91 They are accustomed to boast, that no man ever excelled Edwards in
the _reductio ad absurdum_. But we believe no one has produced a
more striking illustration of his ability in the use of this weapon,
than that which we have just adduced. For if we contend, that every
act is to be judged according to its own nature, whether it be good
or evil, he will demonstrate, that we render virtue impossible, and
exclude it entirely from the world. On the other hand, if we shift
our position, and contend that no act is to be judged according to
its own nature, but according to the goodness or badness of its
origin or cause, he will also reduce this position, diametrically
opposite though it be to the former, to precisely the same
absurdity; namely, that it excludes all virtue out of the world, and
banishes it from the universality of things! Surely, this _reductio
ad absurdum_ is a most formidable weapon in his hands; since he
wields it with such destructive fury against the most opposite
principles, and seems himself scarcely less exposed than others to
its force.

92 Inquiry, part iv, sec. x.

93 Religious Affections, part iii, sec. ii.

94 Ibid.

95 Dr. Woods.

96 Ibid.

97 Inquiry of President Edwards, part iv, sec. 1.

98 Institutes of Theology, part iii, chap. i.

99 President Edwards.

100 Dr. Chalmers.

101 Psychology, p. 247.

102 History of Ancient Philosophy, vol. iii, p. 555.

103 Ibid.

104 President Edwards’s Works, vol. ii, p. 16.

105 Id., vol. v, pp. 10, 11.

106 Id., vol. iv, p. 82.

107 Ibid.

108 Inquiry, p. 17.

109 Inquiry, part i, sec. iii.

110 Id., part i, sec. iv.

111 Inquiry, pp. 54, 55.

112 Inquiry, p. 55.

113 Id., p. 50.

114 Inquiry, p. 54.

115 Id., p. 55.

116 Inquiry, p. 77.

117 Ibid.

118 Ibid.

119 Id., p. 78.

120 Id., p. 79.

121 Théodicée.

122 Inquiry, p. 277.

123 Id., pp. 50, 51.

124 Remarks upon Collins’s Philosophical Inquiry.

125 Inquiry, p. 198.

126 Edwards’s Inquiry, p. 178.

127 See Examination of Edwards on the Will.

128 Discours de la Conformité de la Foi avec la Raison.

129 See Examination of Edwards on the Will, sec. ix.

130 President Day on the Will, p. 160.

131 Inquiry, p. 203.

132 Dissertation, p. 181.

133 Inquiry of Edwards, p. 222.

134 Edwards’s Inquiry, p. 222.

135 A different view of the Pelagian doctrine on this point is given by
Wiggers, and yet we suppose that both authors are in the right. The
truth seems to me, that Pelagius, as usually happens to those who
take one-sided views of the truth, has asserted contradictory
positions.

136 The way of Life, chap. iii, sec. ii.

137 Knapp’s Theology, vol. ii, p. 471. Note by the translator.

138 Institutes, b. iii, ch. xxiv.

139 Ibid.

140 Essais de Théodicée.

141 Cudworth’s Intellectual System.

142 Starkie on Evidence.

143 Théodicée.

144 See Chapter III.

145 Compare Chap. III.

146 Intellectual System, vol. ii, p. 328.

147 Id., vol. ii, p. 149.

148 Cudworth’s Intellectual System, vol. ii, p. 338.

149 Dwight’s Sermons, vol. i, pp. 254-412. Dick’s Lec., p. 248.

150 Witherspoon, as quoted in “New and Old Theology,” issued by the
Presbyterian Board of Publication.

151 D’Aubigne’s History of the Reformation, book xiii.

152 Old and New Theology, p. 38.

153 The writer here speaks from personal experience.

154 Old and New Theology, p. 40.

155 Pensées, I. Partie, art. iv, sec. vii.

156 Old and New Theology.

157 Examination of Edwards on the Will.

158 Theology, vol. i, p. 358.

159 Ibid.

160 Butler’s Analogy, part i, chap. ii.

161 Robert Hall, a profound admirer of Howe, has pronounced his attempt
to reconcile the sincerity of God with the universal offer of
salvation, to be one of his great master-pieces of thought and
reasoning.

162 Hagenbach’s History of Doctrines, vol. ii, p. 259.

163 Institutes, book iii, chap. xxiv, sec. xvii.

164 Institutes, book iii, chap. xxiv, sec. xvi.

165 Id., sec. xiii.

166 We do not intend to investigate the subject of a limited atonement
in the present work, because it is merely a metaphysical off-shoot
from the doctrine of election and reprobation, and must stand or
fall with the parent trunk. The strength of this we purpose to try
in a subsequent chapter.

167 Lectures on Theology, vol. i, p. 458.

168 Lectures on Theology, p. 458.

169 Edwards’s Works, vol. ii, p. 548.

170 Edwards on Original Sin, part iv, chap. iii, p. 543.

171 Encheir., c. 46, 47. See also remarks by the American editor and
translator.

172 See p. 284.

173 If God, out of the abundance of his compassion, imputes the sins of
parents only to the third or fourth generation, how has it happened
that Adam’s transgression is imputed to all his posterity, and
punished throughout all generations? Is there any consistency, or
harmony, in such views respecting the government of the world?

174 Wiggers’s Presentation, note by translator, p. 285.

175 Edwards on Original Sin, part iv, ch. iii.

176 Institutes, book ii, ch. i.

177 Divine Attributes.

178 Sermon on Original Sin.

179 Original Sin, part i, ch. ii.

180 Original Sin, part i, ch. ii.

181 Exposition of the Thirty-nine Articles, article ix.

182 Ibid.

183 Edwards on Original Sin, part iv, ch. iii.

184 See Knapp’s Theology, vol. ii, art. ix, sec. 76; also Wiggers’s
Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism, chap. xix, p. 268.

185 Harmonie de la Raison et de la Religion.

186 Ibid., Almeyda.

187 Wiggers’s Presentation of Augustinism and Pelagianism, chap. iv.

188 Sermon on Compassion.

189 Butler’s Analogy, part i, chap. iii.

190 Analogy, chap. v.

191 Id., chap. v, p. 178.

192 Part i, chap. vi.

193 Part i, chap. ii.

194 This language of Bacon is applied by him to the empirical and
rational faculties of the human mind.

195 Butler’s Analogy, part ii, chap. v.

196 Analogy.

197 Ibid.

198 Letter on the Duration of Future Punishment, pp. 19, 20.

199 Letter, &c., pp. 15-18.

200 Robert Hall supposes that Edwards must have found it in Owen. He
might have found it in a hundred earlier writers.

201 Wiggers’s Presentation, p. 210—Note by Translator.

202 Wiggers’s Presentation, p. 210—Note by Trans.

203 Freedom of the Will, p. 38.

204 Letter, pp. 21, 22.

205 Jeremy Bentham.

206 On one point we fully concur with Mr. Foster, (see Letter, p. 27:)
“As to religious teachers, if this tremendous doctrine be true,
surely it ought to be almost continually proclaimed as with the
blast of a trumpet, inculcated and reiterated, with ardent passion,
in every possible form of terrible illustration; no remission of the
alarm to thoughtless spirits.”

But if it be so incumbent on religious teachers, who believe this
awful tenet, thus to proclaim it to a perishing world, is it not
equally incumbent on them not to speak on such a subject at all
until they have taken the utmost pains to form a correct opinion
concerning it? If the man who merely proclaims this doctrine in the
usual quiet way of preachers, while he sees his fellow-men perishing
around, is guilty of criminal neglect, what shall we say of the
religious teacher who, without having devoted much time to the
investigation of the subject, exerts his powers and his influence to
persuade his fellow-men that it is all a delusion, and that the idea
of endless misery is utterly inconsistent with the goodness of God?
How many feeble outcries and warnings of those who are so terribly
rebuked by Mr. Foster, may be silenced and forever laid to rest by
his eloquent declamation against the doctrine in question, and how
many souls may be thereby betrayed and led on to their own eternal
ruin! Yet, wonderful as it may seem, Mr. Foster tells us that his
opinion on this awful subject has not been the result of “a
protracted inquiry.” In the very letter from which we have so
frequently quoted, he says: “I have perhaps been too content to let
an opinion (or impression) admitted in early life dispense with
protracted inquiry and various reading.” Now, is this the way in
which a question of this kind should be decided,—a question which
involves the eternal destiny of millions of human beings? Is it to
be decided, not by protracted inquiry, but under the influence of an
“impression admitted in early life?”

207 Surely a very singular doctrine to be found in a prophecy.

208 Institutes, book iii, ch. xxi.

209 Ibid.

210 Wiggers, ch. xvi.

211 Wiggers’s Presentation, ch. xvi.

212 Institutes, book iii, ch. xxi.

213 Hill’s Divinity, p. 525.

214 Id., p. 526.

215 Hill’s Divinity, p. 562.

216 Institutes of Theology.

217 Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, ch. vii.

218 Institutes of Theology, vol. ii, ch. vii.

219 Whewell’s History of the Inductive Sciences, vol. i.

220 Intellectual System, vol. ii, p. 349.

221 Théodicée, Abrégé de la Controverse.

222 Ibid.

223 Abrégé de la Controverse.

224 Reflexions sur le Livre de Hobbes.

225 Analogy, part i, chap. vii.

226 Remarques sur Le Livre de M. King, sec. xvi.

227 Origin of Evil, vol. ii, ch. v, sec. v.

228 Dictionary, Article Paulicians.

229 It is not exactly just to rank Hall among the Arminians. His scheme
of doctrine, if scheme it may be called, is, like that of so many
others, a heterogeneous mixture of Calvinism and Arminianism—a
_mixture_, and not an _organic compound_, of the conflicting
elements of the two systems.