Footnotes1.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 commandmentsif 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 canat bottom haveno 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. 11758.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. 24676.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 thereductio 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, thisreductio ad absurdumis 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.SeeChapter III.145.CompareChap. 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.Seep. 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—amixture, and not anorganic compound, of the conflicting elements of the two systems.
Footnotes1.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 commandmentsif 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 canat bottom haveno 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. 11758.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. 24676.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 thereductio 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, thisreductio ad absurdumis 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.SeeChapter III.145.CompareChap. 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.Seep. 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—amixture, and not anorganic compound, of the conflicting elements of the two systems.
Footnotes1.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 commandmentsif 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 canat bottom haveno 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. 11758.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. 24676.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 thereductio 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, thisreductio ad absurdumis 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.SeeChapter III.145.CompareChap. 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.Seep. 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—amixture, and not anorganic compound, of the conflicting elements of the two systems.
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?”