PROFESSOR OF MATHEMATICS AND ASTRONOMY IN THE UNIVERSITY OF MISSISSIPPI. NEW YORK: PUBLISHED BY CARLTON & PHILLIPS. 200 MULBERRY STREET. 1854. CONTENTS Introduction. Of The Possibility Of A Theodicy. Section I. The failure of Plato and other ancient philosophers to construct a Theodicy, not a ground of despair. Section II. The failure of Leibnitz not a ground of despair. Section III. The system of the moral universe not purposely involved in obscurity to teach us a lesson of humility. Section IV. The littleness of the human mind a ground of hope. Section V. The construction of a Theodicy, not an attempt to solve mysteries, but to dissipate absurdities. Section VI. The spirit in which the following work has been prosecuted, and the relation of the author to other systems. Part I. The Existence Of Moral Evil, Or Sin, Consistent With The Holiness Of God. Chapter I. The Scheme Of Necessity Denies That Man Is Responsible For The Existence Of Sin. Section I. The attempts of Calvin and Luther to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the responsibility of man. Section II. The manner in which Hobbes, Collins, and others, endeavour to reconcile necessity with free and accountable agency. Section III. The sentiments of Descartes, Spinoza, and Malebranche, concerning the relation between liberty and necessity. Section IV. The views of Locke, Tucker, Hartley, Priestley, Helvetius, and Diderot, with respect to the relation between liberty and necessity. Section V. The manner in which Leibnitz endeavours to reconcile liberty and necessity. Section 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. Section VII. The sentiments of Hume, Brown, Comte, and Mill, in relation to the antagonism between liberty and necessity. Section VIII. The views of Kant and Sir William Hamilton in relation to the antagonism between liberty and necessity. Section IX. The notion of Lord Kames and Sir James Mackintosh on the same subject. Section X. The conclusion of Mœhler, Tholuck, and others, that all speculation on such a subject must be vain and fruitless. Section XI. The true conclusion from the foregoing review of opinions and arguments. Chapter II. The Scheme Of Necessity Makes God The Author Of Sin. Section I. The attempts of Calvin and other reformers to show that the system of necessity does not make God the author of sin. Section II. The attempt of Leibnitz to show that the scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin. Section III. The maxims adopted and employed by Edwards to show that the scheme of necessity does not make God the author of sin. Section IV. The attempts of Dr. Emmons and Dr. Chalmers to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the purity of God. Chapter III. Scheme Of Necessity Denies The Reality Of Moral Distinctions. Section I. The views of Spinoza in relation to the reality of moral distinctions. Section II. The attempt of Edwards to reconcile the scheme of necessity with the reality of moral distinctions. Section III. Of the proposition that "The essence of the virtue and vice of dispositions of the heart and acts of the will, lies not in their cause, but in their nature." Section 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. Section I. The scheme of necessity is...