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.
7 Dick's Theology.
8 Bondage of the Will, sec. xxvi.
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 OEuvres de Spinoza, tome ii, 350.
16 Introduction to the |OEuvres 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.
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.
39 The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii.
43 The Divine Government, Physical and Moral, b. iii, ch. i, sec. ii.
44 Hume's Works, Liberty and Necessity.
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.
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 Moehler'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 Moehler's Symbolism.
71 Theodicee, p.85.
72 Id., p.264.
73 Theodicee, 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 Theodicee, 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.
95 Dr. Woods.
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.
104 President Edwards's Works, vol. ii, p.16.
105 Id., vol. v, pp.10, 11.
106 Id., vol. iv, p.82.
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.
119 Id., p.78.
120 Id., p.79.
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 Conformite 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.
140 Essais de Theodicee.
141 Cudworth's Intellectual System.
142 Starkie on Evidence.
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 Pensees, I. Partie, art. iv, sec. vii.
156 Old and New Theology.
157 Examination of Edwards on the Will.
158 Theology, vol. i, p.358.
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.
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.
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.
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 Theodicee, Abrege de la Controverse.
223 Abrege 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.