CHAP. XIII.] CLARKE AND SPINOZA. 209 



Quest, 3. Required the relation of natural evils to evils of 

 imperfection and evils compensated with greater good. 



Weflnd - y-0, 



Therefore, Natural evils are either consequences of evils of imper- 

 fection which are not compensated with greater good, or they are not 

 consequences of evils of imperfection at all. 



Quest. 4. In what relation do those natural evils which are 

 not moral evils stand to absolute evils and the consequences of 

 moral evils ? 



Ify (1 - z) = .?, we find, after elimination, 



Therefore, Natural evils, ichich are not moral evils, are either abso- 

 lute evils, which are the consequences of moral evils, or they are not 

 absolute evils at all. 



The following conclusions have been deduced in a similar 

 manner. The subject of each conclusion will show of what par- 

 ticular things a description was required, and the predicate will 

 show what elements it was designed to involve : 



Absolute evils, which are not consequences of moral evils, are 

 moral and not natural evils. 



Absolute evils which are not moral evils are natural evils, which 

 are the consequences of moral evils. 



Natural evils which are not consequences of moral evils are not 

 absolute evils. 



Lastly, let us seek a description of evils which are not abso- 

 lute, expressed in terms of natural and moral evils. 



We obtain as the final equation, 



i-*-=y* + jjy(i-*) + Jo-y)* + (i-y)(i-*)- 



The direct interpretation of this equation is a necessary truth, 

 but the reverse interpretation is remarkable. Evils which are both 



p 



